Had Germany not invaded Belgium in WW1, would the UK get directly involved in the war and how?

[AtomicWaffles]

A question that's always been on my mind in regards to World War 1 is: What would have happened if Germany never invaded Belgium and instead of trying to go with the Schlieffen plan, they instead simply dug-in along the French border and focused the vast majority of their forces on breaking Russia? Of course, one of the biggest impacts irl of Germany invading Belgium was the triggering of the Treaty of London's British guarantee of Belgian neutrality and independence, which brought both the British army and more importantly (thanks to the blockade they would set up) the British Navy into the war. Unfortunately I don't really know enough about British politics and Anglo-German diplomatic relations of the period to really get a good idea of what would happen if Germany hadn't invaded Belgium. Considering the Entente Cordiale and the Dreadnought Race I'd suspect the British might still give indirect support to the French in the form of financing and weapons, but at the same time the French and British had been fighting for nearly a 1000 years before the Entente Cordiale so I'm sure it wasn't exactly a rock-solid thing and more importantly the British also were no friends of the Russians considering the Great Game and the fears of Russian invasion of India. So, to anyone here, especially those who know a great deal about Western European politics and especially British politics of - would the UK have gotten directly involved in World War I had Germany not invaded Belgium, and if so how? And if not, to what extent, if any, would the British get indirectly involved and how?

Considering the impact the UK had on the war, these are extremely important questions that need to be answered before a solid conclusion can be reached on the outcome of the war. If the British do still get directly involved in the war even if it's a little later, I can totally see Germany still losing pretty much the same way they did in our timeline - the blockades lead to attrition and eventually famine of the German empire, as even if the Germans broke Russia like in IRL, the combined British-French forces would have a much easier time defending the western front considering how much smaller it'd be. If not however, the Germans almost certainly win the war considering just how awful the Russian army was in hindsight and how the superior German navy would be able to easily overpower the French navy where even if Germany can't break through the Western front, they could blockade the French into submission. Of course at the same time, if the British are fervently indirectly supporting the French, they might also still attempt trade with the French regardless of a German blockade which could leave France with a method of getting around the blockade, and might even inflame hostilities to the point the sinking of British shipping would cause the UK would join the war. There's a lot of possibilities here that hinge entirely on if and how the UK joins the war, so getting a good idea of that would be integral to finding out just how this universe may end up.

 

[PolishMagnet]

I think they would probably join, since they will have concerns about strong Germany, but it could be avoided.

Britain would likely join over accusations of violating Belgian neutrality when some action happens near the border, or when a ship is sunk.

 

[Lalli]

Yes, if Britain just can find some good justificaiton. Britain didn't like idea about Germany dominating Europe.

 

[Garrison]

Probably they would join later, since without invading Belgium the German advance is going to face even more bottlenecks than OTL so I imagine the French can easily hold them off even without the BEF to plug any gaps. Of course if they join later than OTL Britain may be less willing to simply conform to French demands, so I am guessing a good chance the British Generals get more say in when and where they commit their armies, hopefully meaning more time to train them, develop tactics and build up adequate supplies of the right sort of artillery shells.

 

[AtomicWaffles]

Probably they would join later, since without invading Belgium the German advance is going to face even more bottlenecks than OTL so I imagine the French can easily hold them off even without the BEF to plug any gaps. Of course if they join later than OTL Britain may be less willing to simply conform to French demands, so I am guessing a good chance the British Generals get more say in when and where they commit their armies, hopefully meaning more time to train them, develop tactics and build up adequate supplies of the right sort of artillery shells.

Specifically I'm envisioning a world where instead of trying to invade France and carry out the objectives of the Schlieffen plan, Germany takes a defensive action on the front with France and commits most of its army to breaking Russia instead, so I doubt there'd be any German advance here. However that is a good point that if the British joined later they'd probably have a greater choice of where and how to fight the war, and I could even envision an attempted naval invasion of Northern Germany considering some of the raids that took place there.

That being said the question still remains: how would the UK get involved in such a war without the cassus belli of Belgium?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

IMHO, Yes, But.

YES - for the reasons given by @Lalli and others. Indeed the Royal Navy had been sent to wartime positions before the fighting began anywhere. And, according to posters in other threads, the British Army had sent liason officers to France to make arrangements for the deployment and support of the BEF ditto. Though there was an IF it was sent still i think.

BUT - because there would i think have been a delay before a British DOW. Mostly because of opposition within the Liberal cabinet. IMHO barring an obvious excuse like the German invasion of Belgium, Asquith might have had difficulty getting a majority of his party to back the DOW.

Of course the Conservatives would have been eager to call for an election to produce a majority fir them -and War. That might have got the Liberals to agree to the DOW eventually, at a cost of losing more cabinet members than OTL.

Secondly, the War might not have been so popular in Britain and especially Ireland. The "Rape of Belgium" (especially of Belgian Nuns) was a rallying cry for recruitment in Ireland. Would the Irish Parliamentary Party have backed it so whole heartedly if it were seen in Ireland as a cynical excuse to defeat an economic rival? Would Labour in Britain.

These sentiments wouldn’t prevent the DOW but could affect how the war developed.

 

[marathag]

Germany takes a defensive action on the front with France and commits most of its army to breaking Russia instead, so I doubt there'd be any German advance here.

The French attack in the South with Alsace and Lorraine could have turned into a Cannae writ large, had Crown Prince Rupprecht not been in charge of only the 6th Army, but larger forces meant to draw in the Plan 17 attacking forces, and then destroying them totally

 

[Post]

I think you'd have to replace the entire German high command (of the past 40 years, and probably a few times) for this to happen. The entire German military mindset was to deal out a decisive blow to their enemies, because they figured with enemies at the east and west they'd lose a war of attrition.

That being said, in hindsight it probably would be a better strategy. The longer they can avoid the UK joining the war, the better it is for them.

 

[Garrison]

I think you'd have to replace the entire German high command (of the past 40 years, and probably a few times) for this to happen. The entire German military mindset was to deal out a decisive blow to their enemies, because they figured with enemies at the east and west they'd lose a war of attrition.

That being said, in hindsight it probably would be a better strategy. The longer they can avoid the UK joining the war, the better it is for them.

This sort of the crux of the problem. OTL the Germans expected the war to be over before the British could decisively intervene, adopting a strategy that offers the opportunity for Britain to build up its army and for a naval blockade to bite seems to go against their entire philosophy. They have the same dilemma in WWI as WWII, they can't leave a hostile and powerful France at their back while they turn east. What the German really needed to do was avoid the diplomatic ineptitude that made Britain, France and Russia willing to work together, but that probably means a pre 1900 POD.

 

[kham_coc]

Yes.
My personal favourite is Churchill issuing some illegal commands to the RN.
The Conservatives forcing the issue works too. The only real question is if Ireland can kick off before that happens.
Of course one of the Conservative reasons for war was precisely to avoid home rule.

 

[AtomicWaffles]

I think you'd have to replace the entire German high command (of the past 40 years, and probably a few times) for this to happen. The entire German military mindset was to deal out a decisive blow to their enemies, because they figured with enemies at the east and west they'd lose a war of attrition.

That being said, in hindsight it probably would be a better strategy. The longer they can avoid the UK joining the war, the better it is for them.

I disagree with this assertion heavily, as we know for a fact there was much debate on what the grand strategy of Germany was in our own timeline. Schlieffen himself did not believe an invasion through the low countries would work until the Russo-Japanese war showed just how awful the Russian army was and that the Germans could leave a much smaller army on Eastern front, and even then he still believed such a blow might not be successful. Moltke himself also had doubts that the idea of attacking through the low countries would work, and made many alterations to Schlieffen's plan in order to get it into a state where he thought it'd be successful. It is entirely possible in an alternate timeline that Moltke or someone else who becomes Chief of Staff that, upon seeing the difficulties of the plan, scraps it altogether and instead looks elsewhere for strategies. Considering that in our timeline, once the western front came to a screeching halt the plan shifted to instead focusing on Russia and trying to defeat it in detail instead so those troops could then be freed up to commit to France, it's not hard to see how that could be the alternative plan they adopt from the get-go had they cancelled the Schlieffen plan altogether.

 

[Belisarius II]

The French attack in the South with Alsace and Lorraine could have turned into a Cannae writ large, had Crown Prince Rupprecht not been in charge of only the 6th Army, but larger forces meant to draw in the Plan 17 attacking forces, and then destroying them totally

There would always be a chance of that. However, in this situation the Germans only have the 4th,5th, 6th, and 7th Armies in the West, and the front is narrower. The French could probable be quick enough to fall back to the fortress line. In the OTL when the French thought they were in danger of being flanked, by the German move into the Ardennes they were quick to pull back and build reserves to extend the front. I really don't know how likely it would be for the French to be so obliging to just keep trying to push forward headless of loses, while their flanks collapsed.

 

[Riain]

Britian has a lot of rub points that could escalate into a DoW, the OTL brush with the Goben is an example of this. As the weeks progress I have little doubt that Britain maintaining a watching brief over Germany on the high seas will throw up situations where British forces confront German forces. The difference between TTL and OTL is while the PoD is smaller than the invasion of Belgium it will be a direct action against Britain, her colonies or ships.

 

[Belisarius II]

Britian has a lot of rub points that could escalate into a DoW, the OTL brush with the Goben is an example of this. As the weeks progress I have little doubt that Britain maintaining a watching brief over Germany on the high seas will throw up situations where British forces confront German forces. The difference between TTL and OTL is while the PoD is smaller than the invasion of Belgium it will be a direct action against Britain, her colonies or ships.

Without the Invasion of Belgium Britian doesn't declare war on August 4, so the Goeben & Breslau go west, refuel in Spain, and head back to Germany. The 2 British built battleships go to Turkey, and the 3rd goes to Chile. If Turkey does attack Russia in November, and attacks Iran as in the OTL that could trigger British intervention. If Turkey stays neutral the Allies can better supply Russia via the straights, and Russia can still sell grain, which would greatly strengthen their economy.

 

[Riain]

Without the Invasion of Belgium Britian doesn't declare war on August 4, so the Goeben & Breslau go west, refuel in Spain, and head back to Germany. The 2 British built battleships go to Turkey, and the 3rd goes to Chile. If Turkey does attack Russia in November, and attacks Iran as in the OTL that could trigger British intervention. If Turkey stays neutral the Allies can better supply Russia via the straights, and Russia can still sell grain, which would greatly strengthen their economy.

They don't try to stay in the Med to scare off French shipping from Algeria?

What about the East Asia sqn, it might pay a visit to French Indochina in the absence of a British DoW. Similarly the HSF might send a few cruisers into the Channel or French Atlantic coast given they don't have to worry about the RN.

 

[Belisarius II]

They don't try to stay in the Med to scare off French shipping from Algeria?

What about the East Asia sqn, it might pay a visit to French Indochina in the absence of a British DoW. Similarly the HSF might send a few cruisers into the Channel or French Atlantic coast given they don't have to worry about the RN.

No, staying in the Western Mediterranean wouldn't have been possible. By the Anglo-French agreements most the French Fleet was in the Western Med, they would've hunted down and destroyed the Goeben, and they had no base to operate from. The German East Asia squadron couldn't go to French Indochina because they were at war with France. The HSF couldn't enter the Channel without provoking the British. German ships couldn't operate on the French Atlantic Coast because they had no bases to support them, and the French could easily block the entrance to the Channel to German cruisers. As in the OTL all the Germans could do in the Atlantic is run U-Boats, and some auxiliary cruisers as raiders, not major fleet units

 

[Riain]

No, staying in the Western Mediterranean wouldn't have been possible. By the Anglo-French agreements most the French Fleet was in the Western Med, they would've hunted down and destroyed the Goeben, and they had no base to operate from. The German East Asia squadron couldn't go to French Indochina because they were at war with France. The HSF couldn't enter the Channel without provoking the British. German ships couldn't operate on the French Atlantic Coast because they had no bases to support them, and the French could easily block the entrance to the Channel to German cruisers. As in the OTL all the Germans could do in the Atlantic is run U-Boats, and some auxiliary cruisers as raiders, not major fleet units

By 'visit' Indochina, I mean shoot it up.

You raise a interesting point about the Goben not being able to stay in the Med and the HSF not being able to enter the Channel because of the Anglo-French naval agreement and fear of provoking Britain. At what point does this become intolerable for Germany? When does it become counter-productive, not taking opportunities hoping Britain will stay out but Britain still joins?

 

[Belisarius II]

By 'visit' Indochina, I mean shoot it up.

You raise a interesting point about the Goben not being able to stay in the Med and the HSF not being able to enter the Channel because of the Anglo-French naval agreement and fear of provoking Britain. At what point does this become intolerable for Germany? When does it become counter-productive, not taking opportunities hoping Britain will stay out but Britain still joins?

Well, the reason it wasn't a good idea to try to attack French Indo-China was the presence of Allied warships, including Japanese capital ships. That's why they detached a single cruiser as a raider that went to the Indian Ocean, while the rest of the squadron made for the coast of South America. They hoped the squadron could enter the Atlantic, and try to get back to Germany. Not being able to enter the Channel was a minor limitation compared to the strategic disaster of the RN entering the conflict. With Britain neutral Germany could still trade on the world's oceans, and import food, nitrates, chemicals, oil, and industrial products from the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Tibi088]

Just a question - does geography make an attack through Switzerland instead of Belgium completely unpractical? How would the brits react to that?

 

[pompejus]

Just a question - does geography make an attack through Switzerland instead of Belgium completely unpractical?

It is not as impractical as people often claim it is. The parts bordering Germany and France are the lowest parts of Switserland. Mind you, that does not make it practical. Just not as unpractical as people think it is. Belgium was a better choice. At best the highest parts of Belgium are comparable to the lowest parts of Switserland. Especialy since I doubt Britain would care which neutral nation you invaded, Belgium or Swotserland. Both would be a good reason for a casus Belli.