Germany does not invade Belguim in 1914. What does Britain do?

[Athelstane]

If Belgium isn't attacked and the British start off neutral, yet want to support their friends, what scope is there for "acts short of war"? I'm thinking of things like:

[1] Declaring a trade embargo on Germany
[2] Declaring the Channel and southern North Sea to be a total exclusion zone (presumably they'd escort some convoys through to France, Belgium and the Netherlands
[3] Just declaring a blockade and telling anyone who complains to either shut up (Central Powers) or that Britain/France will buy their trade goods instead (the US)
[4] Making a deal with Belgium to send troops in to "guarantee her independence", which would produce a direct threat to northern Germany (I think this is a non-starter for that very reason but it might work if it were expressly limited to the Channel ports)

The naval ones are essentially acts of war against Germany, but the whole point here is that Germany needs to avoid war with Britain and therefore can't retaliate.

I think [2] and [3] (at least if it is a blockade of naval vessels) are almost guaranteed. I think most commenters here seem to think so, too.

An embargo is more of a "Phase 2" response - though it is possible that Asquith might find some way to restrict shipments of critical materials or goods to Germany or Austria "de facto."

Sending in troops would be a harder sell in London once the decision has been made to stay neutral - and it would, in any event, require Belgian approval.

 

[MichaelWest]

In a Germany doesn't invade Belgium scenario, there is a period of of time for politics of about 3 weeks. Britain could push for a conference, people could agree to stop at Belgrade (or NOT). What would really be awkward if people agree on stop at Belgrade and the Austrians couldn't occupy Belgrade!!!

Regardless
1) It would probably take a couple of weeks for Germany to rail first and maybe first and second army east. No into Russia German offensive is going to happen before the 20th of August.
2) OTL the Russians didn't invade East Prussia before the 17th, in this situation they can wait longer.
3) Does Conrad deploy the Austrian armies forward or back against Russia? (does he know about the German change of plans). OTL the Austrians invaded Poland August 20th. Of course here they don't have to worry about the Russians invading east Prussia so they could wait.
3) Awkwardly the Austrians lose OTL the battle of Cer August 19th thru 24th, so any stop at Belgrade talk ends then and the war has to continue.

Basically the Eastern Front will engage on or about the 20th of August, but maybe a week later. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the French to attack before then either, best to coordinate with the Russians. That gives them 3 weeks to get the British to agree to them moving through Belgium (east of the Meuse).

The Austrians have miffed on their invasion of Serbia, so both sides really have no choice to continue fighting after then.

So the French attack Metz and fail, The Germans meet the Russians on the frontier and the Germans win. The Austrians meet the Russians on the frontier and lose, but can't really exploit the situation as in OTL. The Serbians are doing fine.

At that point the French are going to push the British on allowing them to cross Belgium (and to press the British to at least declare war on Germany for the extra political pressure).

The optimists see a last chance for a negotiated settlement as A-H bogs down and fails, the false start in the East further humiliates A-H but shows Germany is not going to be an easy target with France crashing upon the rocks or blinking as Russia falters. And the pessimists see the war going full steam ahead as the gloves are off. Does Britain pursue peace or pile in to hopefully tip the balance and see the Entente prevail?

 

[MichaelWest]

If the Sublime Porte no longer has to factor British belligerency (at least in the short term) into its equation, the odds for Turkish entry into the war surely would increase, all things being equal. No other great power posed so a great a danger to the Ottoman Empire, let alone on so many fronts.

Of course, in a timeline where Souchon no longer has to worry as much about the British Mediterranean Fleet, it's a little less certain how quickly he's ordered to run to Constantinople.

My first thought is that Germany reinforces the Austrian fleet and seeks to disrupt French shipping and communications with North Africa, accepting Ottoman friendly neutrality as enough, perhaps crafting a way to interdict ships via belligerent Bulgaria. That may give Britain some close calls but an incident at sea might be dicey to propel a war with otherwise reasonable Germany. If the Ottomans can stop shipping to Russia that is great but I think it takes the Ottomans joining the war openly, wait until 1915 and Britain may be too far from grabbing a way into war and the Germans can better plan a naval offensive in the Black Sea beyond torpedo boats, mines and aviation?

 

[MichaelWest]

Every square inch of Belgian territory is neutral, or its not. I don't think the Germans ever assumed the French would operate north of the Meuse, but I do think they'd concluded that the Ardennes was enough that the whole French army could get in on the attack, making a defense stance (and an eastern German offensive) utterly foolish, given the proximity of the Ruhr to the Belgian Ardennes.

Moltke wasn't a great general, but he wasn't a gullible fool either. He understood perfectly well that the British weren't going to allow him to violate one inch of Belgian territory, but that they would take the opposite view for the French. That's what alliances and loyalty are all about. So Moltke, being a Prussian general type choses between all in or all out and picks all in, in classic Prussian fashion.

The French bled for 4 years without accomplishing anything of note on the offensive, so the only actual issue is whether British interference against the French ignites French anger at Britain or not, who then become the excuse for French failure.

And I also plan for that, allowing 1st and Second Army and all the Cavalry to be shifted to the East, leaving one Army to guard the region behind southern Belgium and Luxembourg, I cannot justify moving a third Army east until it is certain France will abide by Belgian neutrality.

If the British cannot agree to go to war in these circumstances then I think the French might feel the "necessity" of violating that tiny slice of Belgium. I am on the fence as to if they do it, but I accept Moltke is planning for it and a lot of troops will be committed to the possibility. What I do believe is that the French 5th Army is going to hit that general axis thinking it is the weak German center, assuming the troops deployed are poised to and will transit Belgium, by the time the invasion fails to occur Joffre is committed and has no reason to even worry about the flanking move, rather he now wonders how many more German troops thicken the lines along the A-L border and beyond. What other weak point(s) might Joffre try to use to break into German lines if the 5th is hanging up upon its equal? He committed scant enough forces to engage the expected German wheel so I am not seeing him gaining much strength, rather being better able to replace his losses, a thing I fear his mind set uses to push for harder offensive zeal to prevail gloriously.

And in the end France will not win, technically defeated, she cannot be forced to do much since far less of her territory is lost, but she stands alone once Russia breaks, that should fuel a very independent France, perhaps reactionary and ever more committed to her defense. I can see more open acrimony, not that it wasn't rather bad by the 1930s OTL. Overall I see this France cleanly broken from her Great Power aspirations, she will retreat behind her wall, her populace sick of war.

 

[Athelstane]

My first thought is that Germany reinforces the Austrian fleet and seeks to disrupt French shipping and communications with North Africa, accepting Ottoman friendly neutrality as enough, perhaps crafting a way to interdict ships via belligerent Bulgaria. That may give Britain some close calls but an incident at sea might be dicey to propel a war with otherwise reasonable Germany. If the Ottomans can stop shipping to Russia that is great but I think it takes the Ottomans joining the war openly, wait until 1915 and Britain may be too far from grabbing a way into war and the Germans can better plan a naval offensive in the Black Sea beyond torpedo boats, mines and aviation?

Couldn't rule that possibility out. Of course, once Souchon goes up the Adriatic, he ain't coming back out. It's far too easy for the French to seal off the straits of Otranto.

But an "East-first" strategy may dictate even more strongly gaining every possible advantage over Russia, to seal it off. If the Turks go to war, they can divert even more forces to the Caucasus front, since they do not have to worry about the British - and to meet that threat, those are troops the Russians can no longer send to Poland or the Carpathians.

The greater danger for a divergence here is that, with the Brits on the sidelines, Souchon is given more freedom to raid French communications with Algeria before heading off to the Dardanelles. The risk is that he puts his task force in greater danger of being eliminated.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Russia is potentially helped in a neutral Britain scenario in two ways.

The first is that Turkey doesn't stay neutral. In that case much of the Caucasus army is added to the Russian armies on the Eastern Front.

The second is that the war material that went into supporting British military operations will go somewhere, and that somewhere may well be Russia. But they would have to invest in upgrading getting this version of "lend lease" to the front, which OTL was a big issue.

Another thought is what happens to the German Far Eastern squadron if Japan stays neutral too. Does it try to attack Vladivostok? Stay where it is? Provide a diplomatic incident?

 

[MichaelWest]

Couldn't rule that possibility out. Of course, once Souchon goes up the Adriatic, he ain't coming back out. It's far too easy for the French to seal off the straits of Otranto.

But an "East-first" strategy may dictate even more strongly gaining every possible advantage over Russia, to seal it off. If the Turks go to war, they can divert even more forces to the Caucasus front, since they do not have to worry about the British - and to meet that threat, those are troops the Russians can no longer send to Poland or the Carpathians.

The greater danger for a divergence here is that, with the Brits on the sidelines, Souchon is given more freedom to raid French communications with Algeria before heading off to the Dardanelles. The risk is that he puts his task force in greater danger of being eliminated.

With Italy friendly neutral and France diverting some of its navy to the Atlantic is sealing the Adriatic as easy? I think it is risky to be trapped inside that corner but we might see a daring dash or some diversion to leave us possibilities, but if the Ottomans sit on the sidelines like most others then Germany only has this bottle for its ships, for ill or better.

Agreed. I am uncertain Germany was thinking so grand but I agree they certainly must have understood the value of the Ottomans hitting Russia from below and sealing the Straights. For simplicity I often leave the OE out of it if the UK stands neutral, likewise Italy, otherwise I think we open such greater possibilities for Germany that it ends in a sulk for the pro-Entente folks. Although interesting to spin out into the Germany-wank, a tighter and closer war leaves us more debate on the historical progress or lack thereof in the places I think most people like to debate, the Western Front and the war against Russia. Having the UK go neutral is enough to badly hurt France and Russia for me.

Now a wavering UK early on should lure the CP into a better naval war against France, it might give the UK its casus belli, but I would love to think out this naval war rather than only having Jutland and the North Sea be our naval play. To me it is exploring historically possible alternatives and paths rather than strictly replaying OTL that gives these discussions such fun. As glorious as it was for Souchon to make his break, to let him fight and better to let Austria fight her navy is exciting "what-if".

 

[MichaelWest]

Russia is potentially helped in a neutral Britain scenario in two ways.

The first is that Turkey doesn't stay neutral. In that case much of the Caucasus army is added to the Russian armies on the Eastern Front.

The second is that the war material that went into supporting British military operations will go somewhere, and that somewhere may well be Russia. But they would have to invest in upgrading getting this version of "lend lease" to the front, which OTL was a big issue.

Another thought is what happens to the German Far Eastern squadron if Japan stays neutral too. Does it try to attack Vladivostok? Stay where it is? Provide a diplomatic incident?

In fairness to Russia I think more cargo from Britain is a boon but the problems she had were also in her interior distribution. And the question is if her morale sinks faster here with greater early losses than the ability to build more units. I use three German Armies plus OTL A-H forces in the East, and I think Germany can muster a fourth as quickly as Russia can get another fielded, the more complete loss of the 1st and 2nd Armies for Russia may be enough to offset whatever Russia can scrape up and Germany gets to utilize what she otherwise sent to the Ottomans. Draw, or tip the scales?

I think Russia is forced to buy from the UK in gold, something she has, but bleeding wealth may be another straw too many for this camel. But I will accept that an unoccupied France has greater industrial production, needs less imports or credit and could short-circuit the British profits from the war. After all, France heavily supplied American units OTL, here they are at least as self-sufficient and productive. What I need to find is France's ammunition manufacturing, if anything was a bottleneck that might be her Achilles heel yet.

If we have Japan sidelined then I think Germany can freely raid shipping to Vladivostok but was it as important a supply line as it became in WWII? Or would Germany raid the French, trying to cut Indochina from Europe? This is another fascinating naval war that sadly got cut short.

 

[sloreck]

In 1914 British production of armaments, particularly infantry items and artillery, which is where the Russians have the greatest need, is in need of ramping up. There simply won't be much excess inventory to send to Russia, whatever is not needed for whatever expansions of their military the British feel necessary will be headed to France. The other issue is actually getting this equipment to the Russians - assuming the Straits are closed either by Ottoman action or Germans operating of Bulgaira, the only way supplies get to Russia is via Murmansk/Archangel. This was the basic rationale behind Gallipoli to open the Straits to supply Russia. For obvious reasons the Baltic route is closed. Given the issues of winter conditions, the limits of these two ports, and the limited railway connections, even under the best of circumstances the ability of the British to supply Russia is limited.

In terms of Vladivostok, the connection to the rest of Russia is quite limited, the single track Trans-Siberian RR. The port capacity is limited. For the UK to send anything to Russia that way means shipping to to Canada, railing across Canada and then again by sea, or by sea via the Panama Canal. Either way is an extremely long trip. Bottom line, for at least 6 months if not longer the UK won't have much to send the Russians and getting it to the Russians is going to be an exercise.

In the Pacific, especially if Japan is not in, and it is unlikely they would be with Britain neutral, Germany can keep the Asiatic Squadron in the Pacific, using Tsingtao and the Marianas to either hit Vladivostok or proceed against French Indochina.

 

[Aphrodite]

The British either go all in and declare war or they go all out and declare neutrality

The suggested half measures would do more harm than good for Britain. They would be enough to antagonize Germany and not enough to satisfy France and Russia

Either way, the victor would turn on britain

 

[MichaelWest]

The British either go all in and declare war or they go all out and declare neutrality

The suggested half measures would do more harm than good for Britain. They would be enough to antagonize Germany and not enough to satisfy France and Russia

Either way, the victor would turn on britain

So you do not believe in a hostile neutral Britain? No BEF and no chasing down the HSF, but open to lending, equipping, sanctioning the CPs, and other measures to aid France/Russia will not e enough or not even done?

Although I think that fear exists, how does the victor punish neutral Britain? Russia pre-war was the more dangerous enemy since she actually could threaten India or China and likely could disrupt British alliances and interests. France is a dependent if she loses and even victorious is barely her peer. Germany is chatted up as the gravest of threats and I outside of some total victory assume the argument is she cuts the UK off from trade with Europe, rebuilds her fleet to equal the RN and begins pushing lonely Britain around in places like Mesopotamia, China and so forth. Or is the thinking that Germany now builds itself to sweep the RN, invade Albion and vanquish the English so the sun only shines upon herself?

 

[AJE]

This depends on exactly how well the CP does. If Germany goes on an offensive in the east with its forces, then the French and Russian armies will be battered, depending on what exactly Germany tries to do, but they'll hold without looking like either of those countries is going to collapse anytime soon. Britain in this case will likely be happy to maintain neutrality and help out France and Russia in ways that don't involve them declaring war, thinking that it's likely that the CP will fall at some point with their aid to the French and Russians. If France and Russia start to lose at some point, then Britain might start to look at more serious measures but it may be too late at that point.

If, however, the CP does very well, then Britain will start to panic and there's a good chance they may declare war after a few months, or even a few weeks. The best possible case for the CP would be Germany adopting Schlieffen's plans involving a counter-attack against the French- these have nothing to do with what is commonly known as the Schlieffen Plan (I'm sure BooNZ has already mentioned this by now). If Joffre carried out his OTL plans and Germany carried out the strategy properly they would have wiped out 3 French armies, and probably forced France out of the war by mid-1915 unless Britain intervened. In that case the British would probably panic immediately when they learn of the French disaster and desperately find some kind of casus belli but by then it might already be too late. I'm not quite sure what Britain would do and whether it would be enough.

 

[Wickedultimate]

I wouldn't be surprised if this one had been done before, with with an excellent ongoing thread on the Germans doing and East First strategy in 1914, I think what exactly Britain does in that event should get its own thread.

So what does Britain do if there is no German invasion of Belgium? Do they declare war on Germany anyway?

Some relevant points of consideration are the ongoing Irish crisis, the fact that two cabinet ministers resigned over the decision to go to war OTL even with the invasion of Belguim, and the fact that Britain had a minority Liberal government whose re-election prospects were not good. A new election would have had to have been held by January 1916 at the latest. Of course the Liberal leadership could have formed a coalition with the Tories, which happened OTL in mid 1915 anyway.

Also if the British stay out of the war do they deliver the two battleships to Turkey?

I'm asking a different but similar question to yours. What would the germans do if they didn't invade Belgium and Luxembourg? Well I believe Germany would invade Switzerland instead. And if the germans push deep enough into Switzerland we could see another front with the Italians. Germany would also threaten Milan and Genoa so Italy would have to redeploy an army or 2 to defend their homeland. And with less troops on the Austrian border, Austria Hungary could capture Venice.

 

[NoMommsen]

...
Well I believe Germany would invade Switzerland instead.
...

Why for heavens sake should Germany do this ??

 

[Athelstane]

Well I believe Germany would invade Switzerland instead.

The general staff never seriously considered that, because the terrain and infrastructure wouldn't support a major offensive, and because Switzerland doesn't provide a path to any strategically valuable objectives. Belgium does.

 

[Athelstane]

Agreed. I am uncertain Germany was thinking so grand but I agree they certainly must have understood the value of the Ottomans hitting Russia from below and sealing the Straights. For simplicity I often leave the OE out of it if the UK stands neutral, likewise Italy, otherwise I think we open such greater possibilities for Germany that it ends in a sulk for the pro-Entente folks. Although interesting to spin out into the Germany-wank, a tighter and closer war leaves us more debate on the historical progress or lack thereof in the places I think most people like to debate, the Western Front and the war against Russia. Having the UK go neutral is enough to badly hurt France and Russia for me.

Ottoman belligerency does start to make the war rather wankish for the Germans. But that's going to be the case with British neutrality no matter what. France and Russia simply cannot defeat Germany and Austria-Hungary.

But again: If Enver Pasha was able manhandle the Empire into war even *with* British belligerency, the logic for joining the German cause would be even more powerful if Britain is taken off the table. So long as the British remain neutral, they no longer have to worry about strategic threats to Palestine, Southern Mesopatamia, or....hell, anywhere else on the Ottoman littoral. All they really have to worry about is the Caucasus.

Likewise, the Germans still have every incentive to bring the Turks into the war. They need the straits sealed to Entente supply and trade, and they need every possible front opened against the Russians.

 

[Aphrodite]

So you do not believe in a hostile neutral Britain? No BEF and no chasing down the HSF, but open to lending, equipping, sanctioning the CPs, and other measures to aid France/Russia will not e enough or not even done?

Although I think that fear exists, how does the victor punish neutral Britain? Russia pre-war was the more dangerous enemy since she actually could threaten India or China and likely could disrupt British alliances and interests. France is a dependent if she loses and even victorious is barely her peer. Germany is chatted up as the gravest of threats and I outside of some total victory assume the argument is she cuts the UK off from trade with Europe, rebuilds her fleet to equal the RN and begins pushing lonely Britain around in places like Mesopotamia, China and so forth. Or is the thinking that Germany now builds itself to sweep the RN, invade Albion and vanquish the English so the sun only shines upon herself?

If Britain doesn't stand by France against Germany, would France ever trust British diplomacy again? Any future confrontation would leave France wondering if Britain wouldn't turn tail and run like she did the last time. With Germany defeated, the Franco-Russian alliance would return to its pre-Entente anti-British nature. The French and Russians were already outbuilding the British at sea and with no Germany to deal with, they can afford far more at sea. They are also likely to get the German and Austrian navies as reparations. Italy would side with the duo as the British would be unable to keep the French army out of Rome. British hegemony is over

War is awful for Britain. Britain had gained the most from the Napoleonic settlement and the balance of Europe into two camps. That being disrupted can only harm Britain. Her choice is how to limit the damage.

A German victory, makes the Germans the masters of the Channel coast and able to outbuid the British at sea. A Franco-Russian alliance aimed at Britain would be devestating.

Only by allying with France can Britain hope to whether the storm. After victory, France would need help against the Russians and Italy would be naked. An Anglo-French-Japanese-Italian alliance against Russia is possible and really the only solution

 

[Anchises]

If Britain doesn't stand by France against Germany, would France ever trust British diplomacy again? Any future confrontation would leave France wondering if Britain wouldn't turn tail and run like she did the last time. With Germany defeated, the Franco-Russian alliance would return to its pre-Entente anti-British nature. The French and Russians were already outbuilding the British at sea and with no Germany to deal with, they can afford far more at sea. They are also likely to get the German and Austrian navies as reparations. Italy would side with the duo as the British would be unable to keep the French army out of Rome. British hegemony is over

War is awful for Britain. Britain had gained the most from the Napoleonic settlement and the balance of Europe into two camps. That being disrupted can only harm Britain. Her choice is how to limit the damage.

A German victory, makes the Germans the masters of the Channel coast and able to outbuid the British at sea. A Franco-Russian alliance aimed at Britain would be devestating.

Only by allying with France can Britain hope to whether the storm. After victory, France would need help against the Russians and Italy would be naked. An Anglo-French-Japanese-Italian alliance against Russia is possible and really the only solution

From a 1914s perspective that simply isn't true.

With the feared Russian steamroller and the formidable French army there was a realistic possibility that Russia-France and the CPs exhaust each other.

So a benevolent neutrality towards France and Russia might seem like a good solution. How was Great Britain supposed to know at the time that a CP victory is nearly certain without British intervention?

I think it is likely that Britain might intervene once it becomes obvious that either Russia or France is in dire straits.

 

[marathag]

I think it is likely that Britain might intervene once it becomes obvious that either Russia or France is in dire straits.

Russia?
Not a chance. They didn't intervene in 1905, and were happy to see them cut down a notch or two

And with France trying their best to get Plan 17 to work while the Germans are on the defensive, and not in Belgium?

Unless the Germans do unrestricted U-boats against Neutral shipping( that includes the UK), why would they want to?

 

[Aphrodite]

From a 1914s perspective that simply isn't true.

With the feared Russian steamroller and the formidable French army there was a realistic possibility that Russia-France and the CPs exhaust each other.

So a benevolent neutrality towards France and Russia might seem like a good solution. How was Great Britain supposed to know at the time that a CP victory is nearly certain without British intervention?

I think it is likely that Britain might intervene once it becomes obvious that either Russia or France is in dire straits.

Possible but unlikely. Not too many European wars had ended in a stalemate lately. Most likely one side wins.

On the other hand, if there is a stalemate on the continent- what prevents Europe from making peace at the expense of Britain? If they are going to settle on status quo, why not status quo plus we split the British Empire?