Germany Victorious!

I acknowledge the point. However I would on my turn remark that the unsrestricted submarine warfare Lusitania affair helped create an anti-German mood in the USA, but the Zimmerman telegram was necessary to precipitate it into war. Hence, Germany ought to do something equally stupid and serious to move neutral Britain in war against her.

And for this same reason, LordInsane, I cannot believe a later British entry in the war is a given by any means if Germany leaves Belgium alone; it may well happen, if Germany does something stupid, but this cannot be assumed as a given. Stupidity like unrestricted submarine warfare or the Zimmerman telegram came because Germany felt time was running against her because of the blockade. ITL this is not the case, and if anything, France and Russia are more likely to do something stupid (such as the aforementioned French invasion of Belgium), as time is running against them with this WWI setup.

You can't compare a neutral Britain in the ATL with a neutral US in OTL. Britain has pressing concerns on the continent and world-wide interests. The US has a long history of hostility towards foreign relations - Washington's comments for instance - and very little interaction with Europe at the time. As such, while it might not occur, the trip-wire to trigger British enty into the conflict is markedly lower than that for the US. Especially if it looks like one of Britain's prime rules will be broken of one state with an overwhelming domination of the continent. Doubly so when that state has a recent history of hostility towards Britain.




I utterly fail to see why Britain ought to feel threatened in any way by Germany sending the HSF to link with the Italian, A-H (and possibly Ottoman) fleets and then fight France in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic from Italian ports when there's a declared state of war between Germany and France. If the HSF were sent in the English Channel, sure, that would likely be seen as threatening and would remark well among the acts of stupidity mentioned above, but I really can't believe that some Germanophobe British politicians could ever sell a naval battle between France and the Central Powers in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic as an hostile act against Britain to the British Parliament and public. If HSF is used against France far from the Home Isles, it does not look so threatening to Britain.

However battles in either the Bay of Biscay are not far from Britain while the Med is a major line of communications and trade for Britain. [Until Germany started the naval race and prompted Fisher's reforms the Med Fleet was larger and a more prestigious command than the Home Fleet]. Also as said above, if the Germans are logistically capable of such an operation, which would be difficult admitedly, it would be seen as both a threat to what was left of the balance of power in Europe and a reminder of the problem posed by the German fleet. [Given that was publically designed for use against Britain!] You need to understand how much of a concern the HSF was for Britain as it was directed against vital British interests.

One trigger that very likely would prompt British entry into the conflict would be if France was clearly losing and it was suggested that as part of any peace Germany would gain basing rights for its fleet at French colonial ports or the transfer of the same, depending on exactly where they were. If there was a suggestion that say Germany would gain Brest itself as a base then very few on even the most anti-war Liberal and Labour parties would oppose joining the conflict to prevent that.

Steve
 

General Zod

Banned
Guys

A few ideas and suggestions.

Welcome. :)

a) A French attack through Belgium has been discussed before. Its highly risky at least without some prior agreement with Britain to turn a blind eye, which could well cause political problems in Britain. However if, as they almost certainly would, Germany attacks in Poland then its a lot more likely. With France suffering ruinous losses and making no measurable progress against the A-L fortifications and Russia probably calling for aid - the reverse of OTL situation, then the French might be desperate enough to try something like that. Especially if they thought, rightly or wrongly, that Britain had hinted they would turn a blind eye or that Britain was too tied up in a crisis in Ireland possibly.

Good points.


b) Not sure about either Italy or Turkey. In TTL its much more favourable for both of them to side with the central powers. Britain will probably, in such an unstable situation, still seek to neutralise the ships being built for Turkey. However what will the Goeben, at least if that or a similar ship is in the Med, do under those circumstances. Even with Italy still neutral and with no British fleet pressurising it, the Germans have far more potential. Presuming a Britain still worried about German influence and its fleet, it would seek to try and keep the Ottomans neutral but OTL Enhva Pasha seemed to have been determined to get Turkey into the conflict on the German side.

True. That's also why I see a CP Turkey rather more likely than neutrality. Like Italy, they have rather more to gain from gangbanging the Entente powers than from staying neutral, and a favourable opportunity to get revenge on an hereditary enemy without too much risk by seding with a powerful alliance.

Its far more in Italy's interests to side with the Germans but they do want those lands from Austria.

They want them, but it's not the unreasoning rabid urge that France has for A-L. France has plenty of stuff Italy wants, too, almost with the same intensity. The only way to gain some of the stuff Italy wants is to enter the way and with this strategic setup Italy has much more to gain and less to risk from siding with her old allies. The Austrian claims can wait for the next favourable opportunity.

The other factor to consider was that only 3 years before Italy and Turkey were at war and there might be enough bad feeling that one deciding would prompt the other to go the opposite way.

This may be true (really only as it concerns Turkey, to Italians there is not going to be any bad blood whatsoever, Trukey largely went off Italy's radar the moment the peace was signed, to them fighting the Ottomans was only incidental to getting their coveted Libya prize). But then again, Russia is the hereditary enemy of Turkey, while Italy has been an occasional scuffle. Who re you goign to hate more, the guy that has been bullying you for years or the guy with whom you had an occasional fistfight an hour ago ?

c) Can't see Germany, even with Italy on its side, doing much to seriously blockage France for two reasons. It has a large battle fleet but relatively little and short-ranged supporting forces. Hence a mission around Britain would mean leaving the ships involved with very little protection from subs or light forces. Also in the Atlantic they have no bases to use while if they go to a friendly Italy they are a long way from home if something goes wrong.

Well, this is true. Germany's High Command may or may not have the balls to send the HSF in the somewhat risky mission in the Atlantic to reach Italy. If they do not, the HSF stays rotting and useless in Kiel for the duration of the war and it simply shows how building it was abysmally stupid in the first place. If they do, I suppose they might lose some units at the most from French subs, but then again, this is the only way the HSF can be put to some good use in the first place, so losing some units is better than have them useless. I rather doubt the French could destroy the whole HSF or inflict it really severe losses this way, however. Rationally, they stand to gain rather more from sending the HSf to the Mediterranean the moment Italy declares war. On the other hand, even assuming they suffer some losses, once they reach the Italian ports, they are almost as good as Kiel, any supply can be easily shipped by rail. Their window of relative vulnerability is limited to the first transfer. Once they can base in Naples or La Spezia or Taranto they are as good as home.

Furthermore if Britain is neutral it, like the US until it joined the war, would emphasise neutral shipping rights. It would want to trade with both sets of combatants, along with affected neutrals such as the Scandinavians and Belgium/Netherlands. Furthermore with the largest merchant marine in the world much of this trade would be in British hulls. Neither side would wish to lose that trade with the outside world or antagonise the most important neutral so unlikely to be much of a trade war.

This is also very true, a true blockade of France is not going to be feasible unless the UK and/or the USA are CP-friendly neutrals. However, the CP can still use their pooled navies in the Mediterranean to ruin France's day by cutting communication between France and her colonial empire. Besides allowing Italian and German troops to swallow French colonies one piece at a time, it stops France from moving colonial troops to the French fronts. Since France's worst problem in this war shall be her relatively limited manpower pool against the Italo-German combination, this is going to harm them significantly.

d) Presuming Russia comes under pressure from a German offensive and possibly a Turkish threat in the Caucasus region it will suffer. However it will do relatively better on the defensive than trying to attack. Also if the German/Austrian forces start advancing into western Russia proper they both the supply lines favour the defending Russians more and there will, at least in the short term, be an upsurge in Russian patriotism. Furthermore the Ottomans had a less than distinguished record in the Caucasus's so probably will not pose too great a threat there. I would expect in a long war they will very likely still go down to defeat, especially without British support. However its not going to be easy to the Germans without major mistakes by either or both allies.

Very true. OTOH, one must not neglect the possibility as well that Romania and/or Sweden can see the writing on the wall and decide they want their preferred slices of the Russian pie. You are right that this is not going to be an easy (months) affair, it's going to take some years to bring France and Russia on their knees. However, without major mistakes by the CPs, they have very little hope.

As such the central powers are almost certain to win without a major boost to the allies but its likely to take at least until 1916 and be pretty damned costly in blood and money for both sides.

Oh, I very much agree on this. However, the cost in blood and money will be somewhat minor since the war is going to last less (and there won't be the blockade of Central Europe): Russia is most likely going to collapse in 1916, early 1917 at the very latest, and France simply can't stand almost the whole manpower of the Triple Alliance (minus whatever may be necessary as an occupation force in ex-Russian territories) thrown against her for long. The war itself is going to be any as bloody and expensive while it lasts as OTL, since military technology and tactics won't change, but it's going to spare Europe at least one year in comparison.
 
Another problem with the Belgium option is that Belgium was not unfriendly towards Germany at the start of the war.

If France attacked them then they would fight France.
It is even possible they they'd ask for assistance from Germany.
Thus the S plan would have a very good chance to succeed as the Germans would not only not be fighting the Belgiums but instead have them fighting along side.

GB might not enter the war with this happening regardless of the nod nod wink wink with the French as Belgium is a co belligerent with Germany against France and had asked for their assistance.
 

General Zod

Banned
As such, while it might not occur, the trip-wire to trigger British enty into the conflict is markedly lower than that for the US. Especially if it looks like one of Britain's prime rules will be broken of one state with an overwhelming domination of the continent. Doubly so when that state has a recent history of hostility towards Britain.

This is true. OTOH, the threshold is going not to be so lower that whatever farfetched flimsy excuse Germanophobe members of the British ruling elite mgiht concoct would be good as a casus belli, nor the mere fact that France and Russia would be losing the war would. It needs to be something that directly and obviously threatens British strategic interests in some way (not just the mere tilting of the balance of powers), especially after British journalists saw trench warfare carnage in all its glory and share the knowledge home. German invasion of Belgium would indeed be one worthy casus belli, as it would German battleships operating close to the Home Isles or harassing British commerce or the CPs making threatening moves towards Suez. But Britain is not going to enter the war just because Germany is winning it or France is losing it.


However battles in either the Bay of Biscay are not far from Britain while the Med is a major line of communications and trade for Britain. [Until Germany started the naval race and prompted Fisher's reforms the Med Fleet was larger and a more prestigious command than the Home Fleet]. Also as said above, if the Germans are logistically capable of such an operation, which would be difficult admitedly, it would be seen as both a threat to what was left of the balance of power in Europe and a reminder of the problem posed by the German fleet. [Given that was publically designed for use against Britain!] You need to understand how much of a concern the HSF was for Britain as it was directed against vital British interests.

As I said above, the mere fact that there is a general war in Europe means the balance of power is most likely going to be readjusted somewhat radically at its end, unless there is a tie. The British public has already contemplated and accepted it when they decided to stay neutral (and without Belgium, they would have). As for the HSF, actually the fact that the Germans show significant restraint by sending it to base on the other side of the continent and fight France from there makes it look much less threatening to British national security. For one, it shows the HSF to have a real obvious scope beyond threatening Britain and for second, it shows Germany can fight a naval war against her real enemies without threatening vital British interests. To make an analogy, if you feel somewhat threatened because your less-than-friendly neighbor has bought a rifle, are you not going to feel relieved, when he uses it to hunt deers regularly and goes to hunt far from your home ??

One trigger that very likely would prompt British entry into the conflict would be if France was clearly losing and it was suggested that as part of any peace Germany would gain basing rights for its fleet at French colonial ports or the transfer of the same, depending on exactly where they were. If there was a suggestion that say Germany would gain Brest itself as a base then very few on even the most anti-war Liberal and Labour parties would oppose joining the conflict to prevent that.

Oh, this is very true, but then again, since ITTL we assume that Germany has the political insight not to invade Belgium because it realizes it would be too threatening to Britain, I think we can also assume as most likely they are not going to do anything so blatantly provocative (as it would be claiming Brest) during the war. Anyway, if anything, I expect Russia to collapse and surrender before France, and after that, the strategic equation is so unbalanced that France is going to lose soon anyway, even if UK would join at the moment (CP Italy ensures that). I expect British politicians to realize it (a British entry at that stage would be futile, after France collapses, Britain would soon be forced to a white peace anyway).

As for the colonies, hmm, Germany is going to claim French Central Africa, whatever pieces of French West Africa they deem worthwhile enough, maybe Morocco and/or Indochina (if Japan has not joined the war against the Entente, which is a rather likely possibility). Italy is going to claim Tunisia, Dijbouti, maybe pieces of Algeria or Chad. Nothing of these transfers looks like a serious threat to British vital interests.
 
Last edited:
As for the colonies, hmm, Germany is going to claim French Central Africa, whatever pieces of French West Africa they deem worthwhile enough, maybe Morocco and/or Indochina (if Japan has not joined the war against the Entente, which is a rather likely possibility). Italy is going to claim Tunisia, Dijbouti, maybe pieces of Algeria or Chad. Nothing of these transfers looks like a serious threat to British vital interests.

Agree that Germany and Italy are going to take slices out of the French colonial empire in Africa, but am less sure that Japan would go after Indo China. My view is that she would take advantage of the Russian collapse and go after Siberia.
 

General Zod

Banned
Agree that Germany and Italy are going to take slices out of the French colonial empire in Africa, but am less sure that Japan would go after Indo China. My view is that she would take advantage of the Russian collapse and go after Siberia.

Oh, this is absolutely going to happen and the Japanese are going to feast on Siberian goodness first and foremost, as soon as they sense Russian weakness. IMO, they might or might not go after Indochina, too. This happens before they conceived and actualized their big plan of expansion into the whole of China and South East Asia, so Indochina is not so high in their schedule as it will become later. Japanese eyes are still mostly fixed on Manchuria, Northern China, and Eastern Siberia.

OTOH, Germany, too, is mostly focused on carving an empire out of the Russian one first, getting some prime colonial land out of the French colonial empire in Africa second. Asian colonies most likely register low in their scale of claims and war aims. Italy likewise aims for a colonial empire in Africa first and foremost (and the Middle East, but since here Turkey is an ally and Britain is neutral, those aspirations are put back in the drawer).

Nonetheless IMO Indochina is still rather too valuable for the CPs to let it stay in French hands, so one out of these three CP powers, Germany, Japan, and Italy, is going to claim it in the peace deal, whichever cares to claim it most loudly,I would guess.
 
Nonetheless IMO Indochina is still rather too valuable for the CPs to let it stay in French hands, so one out of these three CP powers, Germany, Japan, and Italy, is going to claim it in the peace deal, whichever cares to claim it most loudly,I would guess.

How about the Germans letting the Italians have it in return for giving up claims to Ottoman and A-H territory? Alternatively it could become an A-H colony. I have a feeling that the Japanese would be told to get lost over it. After all they are also allies of perfidious Albion.
 

General Zod

Banned
How about the Germans letting the Italians have it in return for giving up claims to Ottoman and A-H territory?

Well, this might be a good bargain and I suppose it would be the most likely outcome for Indochina in the peace deal. Of course, Itlay may be persuaded to give up claims for good in Ottoman territory, as they are colonial. As it concerns A-H ones, I doubt they could be ever persuaded to give up them entirely, as they are irredentistic, but I suppose Italy could be easily persuaded, with abundant French booty, to give them the same "potential" status that Germany itself would have on Austria. In other words, the claim exists, but it is not actively pursued, only affirmed in principle. It is only pursued if A-H collapses on tis own and/or Germany and Italy agree to partition it.

Alternatively it could become an A-H colony.

Possibly if A-H manifests a strong interest in colonies after the war, but less likely since A-H never did before, differently from Germany and Italy. If they do, it would be a worthy compensation that would not impinge so much on German and Italian strategic interests in Eastern Europe and Africa.

I have a feeling that the Japanese would be told to get lost over it. After all they are also allies of perfidious Albion.

True. But it also depends on the amount of the Japanese war effort against Russia and how much it makes things easier for the European CPs. It's the same issue as with other potential minor European Allies of the CPs.

A war where Romania, Sweden, and/or Japan join the Alliance early is one where the Big Four (Germany, A-H, Italy, Turkey) have to expend a significantly reduced amount of blood and money to crush Russia. Or for that matter, Belgium, Netherlands, and Spain vs. France. And therefore the Great Powers are likely willing to be more generous with claims of the minors that do not impinge on their own vital strategic interests. If they join the war just before the collapse of either Entente power, they won't be so generous.
 
Top