Later intervention by UK into WW1 - different scenario

[IanBertram]

Revised scenario

OK - a slightly revised version.

1. War breaks out as OTL with German invasion of Belgium and into France.
2. Asquith wants to send army as per OTL but Liberal Party split as are Tories.
3. Election called for early September by Asquith but outcome indecisive yet again (like the two in 1910).
4. Liberals and Tories both split into two factions based on support for war. Tories depend on Unionist support. Liberals need Irish. Bigger block of Labour and ILP seats compared to 1910. No clear winner, but Tories (ignoring split) have largest number of seats so Bonar Law becomes PM.
5. In practice combination of split over war and dependence on Unionist/Irish Parliamentary Party means no clear policy on anything. Bonar Law however declares intention not to proceed with Home Rule or Suffrage Bills, deciding that this gives him best shot at forming a government. All hell breaks loose at home.
6. Germans almost take Paris. French govt retreats to Bordeaux but French Army holds on by skin of its teeth. Germans control much of Channel coast as far as but not including Cherbourg peninsula, which is cut off with units of French army dug in.
7. Germans begin to blockade Channel. Attempt to detain British vessel heading for Cherbourg. Royal Navy intervenes leading to exchange of fire. De facto state of war.
8. Royal Navy retakes control of channel and North Sea, German fleet bottled up as OTL.
9. Possible landing in Antwerp? (I seem to remember this as being considered) Possible landings on Cherbourg peninsula? BEF in any case moves to support French around Paris.
10. Empire forces from India land in S of France December 1914 with permission of French Government.
11. Stalemate develops as OTL – trench warfare etc, but deeper into France.
12. Turks attempt to seize Suez Canal – Lawrence etc as OTL?
13. Easter 1916 – German support for Irish rising on much larger scale. Some troops but mainly weapons. Dublin Cork, Wexford Waterford Galway Donegal all rise up. German forces (4-500?) land in Galway. Brutal repression of uprising. German forces quickly surrender – poorly armed and no support.
14. Russia 1917 as OTL
15. Allied counter attack pushes into Germany but Eastern provinces fall to Soviet style revolution in 1919. Germany falls apart into blocs based on pre unification states.
16. No US involvement.
17. War fizzles out 1920 with Truce. All sides exhausted
18. Alt Versaille in 1921. Different Europe to OTL results but no clear dominant country, although no united Germany.
19. I'm still working on implications for Britain. There will need to be another election and I suspect it would in these circumstance be a minority Labour Government but more Nationalists too, perhaps in Scotland too.

For the purposes of the TL I'm developing I need a protracted WW1 rather than a shortened one, on top of dissent back in UK/Ireland. I would also like to keep the Allied intervention in Russia - although if there is revolution in Germany too that may be less likely.

 

[matzeskatze]

7) Still the same problem. The Germans knew that the Kaiserliche Marine in the Chanel will most likely mean British entry. But you have build another problem. Why the hell would the British DoW Germany if they, the Germans, would legaly be right? That would not get the population behind a DoW if the hinted internal unrest is there.

13) is still the same problem. Regardless of size, the British controll the Chanel, but the Germans are fat and happy waltzing into Ireland? Nope, again how do they get there, and subs are bad for transport...

15 - 18) Again, that is unlikely. The Entente is worse of here, France taken even more, Britain still in the troes of civil unrest and no USA entry? And still it is the Germans that get the revolutionary uprisings when they are doing better then OTL? Imo a French tap out is more likely in late 1917 or early 1918.
Even if they hang on, I do not think that the German situation would detoriate faster then the Entente on. The CP seems to retain Italy as an entry port for trade. So they will be better of in that regard then OTL. On the other hand, France and Britian will seem weaker, so likely less credit will be given / be at a worse rate. So they are likely to run out of money without the USA entry.
And together with 14) it will mean that the Germans can roll up the French and British in 1918 while they have likely, on French urging, thrown themself into a series of costly offensives that sapped men and morale.

again 18) least likely. As Versailles was only possible because the Entente had the big stick (USA) in its camp. Without them, they would be unable to force that thing on Germany. Read to above reasons.

 

[Deimos]

9) Invading Antwerp or landing on Cherbourg peninsula is not a good option. Antwerp is likely well-defended and the Cherbourg peninsula is hampered by the port capacity.

How do the French actually hold out in such a pocket? Ammunition, fodder and food should be scarce after a few weeks at best.

12) Turks had no Gallipoli and did not have to fight Britain in Mesopotamia at this point, to just assume everything goes for Lawrence as IOTL would be foolhardy.

14) Russia canot be exempted through a butterfly net. What about the southern front, for example. Did Romania stay neutral? If so, then it necessitates different deployments of troops for the Russians.

15) Seems like pure handwaving. How do they do that? Wonder weapons, massively exploited breakthroughs? How did the frontlines move in the meantime?


Overall, the TL seems to neglect the importance of French port capacity and rail system. How can the French still import stuff (in even greater quantity than IOTL because they lost even more industry) with less ports available and the transport hub of Paris likely threatened by artillery or aerial bombardment? How do they feed the refugees from the territory the Germans conquered or are threatening to conquer?

 

[ppaul16]

How long could the French government hold power in this scenario?

When the war began the French government would be using nationalism under the flag of getting revenge for 1871, returning Alsace-Lorraine, etc.

However with starving refugees and Paris being bombarded the right wing leaders who initiated the war would quickly lose support. If the German government used any common sense in their strategy they should see that its possible to get a settlement on the western front and not drag the UK and other nations into war and then concentrate on the eastern front.

 

[matzeskatze]

How long France can hang on, Imo, depends on how they press the war. When they are "forced" to continuos attack to reclaim "sacred French soil" then I forsee them being spent in 17.
If not then maybe until sometime in 18 but too much depends on the British situation, as they would finance and produce a good amount of the supplies the Entente would need.

 

[IanBertram]

In the Channel - it doesn't matter if a particular German action is in theory legal. If the British Government is looking for a pretext they will use it. Germany firing on a Royal Navy ship offers a pretty good one. Germany can't avoid the Channel entirely if they want to control the coastline of occupied territory and if they want to keep an eye on what Britain is doing.

Ireland - I've already made clear that the German forces are only a token, coming in on the same ships that bring in the arms, so talk of an invasion fleet is misdirected. It's also clear that they quickly surrender.

An Allied counterattack in 1919 is difficult but not impossible. Granted without the USA the Allies would be harder pressed, but this is why the war has dragged on and why in the end it's a truce with all parties worn out. It isn't France on its own by then. Britain is only a few weeks later in declaring war in the ATL than in OTL. That delays lets the Germans get a bit closer to Paris, but aerial bombardment in 1914 isn't going to be much of a factor. OTL the Germans got to about 40 miles or so from Paris and then retreated. Even if they held that line artillery bombardment of the city wouldn't be an issue.

Looking again, there is nothing in the POD (A riot in Tonypandy, S Wales in 1911) or subsequent events in Britain to affect Germany's decision on unrestricted submarine warfare, so it is quite likely that this would go ahead. Similarly, there is nothing that affects the Eastern front, Romania or anywhere else so they would progress more or less as OTL. Writing this is hard enough without introducing multiple POD!

Revolution in Germany. For speed, here's Wikipedia:

The German Revolution or November Revolution (German: Novemberrevolution) was the politically driven civil conflict in the German Empire at the end of the First World War, which resulted in the replacement of Germany's imperial government with a republic. The revolutionary period lasted from November 1918 until the establishment in August 1919 of a republic (which later became known as the Weimar Republic).


Nothing like that happened in France. Mutinies took place yes, but triggered I think by exhaustion, disillusionment with Army Command and related front line factors. Social revolution on the scale of what happened in Germany - no.

 

[matzeskatze]

Britain: The British are in a state of turmoil. How much is not said. But I imagine that it is serious enough to hinder them seriously. So they may not seak a war at that moment. And a RN ship engaging in help of an ilegal action against a HSF vessel is not something that would line the populous up behind the gov Imo.
Next you have the demage from the unrest, ie. in the industry, where they would have more problems to get the supplies flowing. Couple that with damaged trust in the British system, that will sap the economic power out of the British.

Ireland: How do you get the supplies and troops to Ireland. At that moment the RN would controle the Chanel. So that way is out and other ways are longer and much more dangerous.

In OTL the Entente in 1917 was mostly out of colateral. Here it will likely be the same. Less for the Co-combatants but also less from the money market.
And as you have not told on Italy, I still posit, that it is neutral and an entry port for CP trade. That will change the position of the CP vs. the Entente. Not to mention that the French will likely be more aggressive to reclaim lost ground and secure Paris as a vital industrial and transportational hub. That will most likely sap men and moral out of the French.

As for the Revolution and Mutinies, the Revolution was brocken loose aas all was lost. Not before, see the Offensive action in 1918, that taxed the Entente severly. On the other hand, the French could contain the Mutinies because the USA was in and promised new meat for the grinder. Not to mention ressources and moral support to regain the blow of the Russian bowout.

 

[Deimos]

[...]
An Allied counterattack in 1919 is difficult but not impossible. Granted without the USA the Allies would be harder pressed, but this is why the war has dragged on and why in the end it's a truce with all parties worn out. It isn't France on its own by then. Britain is only a few weeks later in declaring war in the ATL than in OTL. That delays lets the Germans get a bit closer to Paris, but aerial bombardment in 1914 isn't going to be much of a factor. OTL the Germans got to about 40 miles or so from Paris and then retreated. Even if they held that line artillery bombardment of the city wouldn't be an issue.

Looking again, there is nothing in the POD (A riot in Tonypandy, S Wales in 1911) or subsequent events in Britain to affect Germany's decision on unrestricted submarine warfare, so it is quite likely that this would go ahead. Similarly, there is nothing that affects the Eastern front, Romania or anywhere else so they would progress more or less as OTL. Writing this is hard enough without introducing multiple POD! [...]

The Germans holding half of the Channel and Paris being near the frontline has massive butterflies concerning the other eventual members of the Entente of OTL.
Even if Austria-Hungary still experiences OTL casualties and defeats, there is no guarantee that Italy would join (something that does not happen ITTL and is a massive gamechanger in itself). Smaller countries usually join wars when they are certain to be on the winning side. That prospect is not so rosy for the Entente ITTL. To just assume everything goes OTL when it is convenient defeats the very purpose of serious AH itself.

That the Entente will eventually win and occupy German territory needs some preparation and setup, you cannot simply go from the Germans occuyping massive amounts of French land in 1914 compare to OTL to Entente forces victorious in 1919 without an explanation of the intermediate years.

[...]Revolution in Germany. For speed, here's Wikipedia:

The German Revolution or November Revolution (German: Novemberrevolution) was the politically driven civil conflict in the German Empire at the end of the First World War, which resulted in the replacement of Germany's imperial government with a republic. The revolutionary period lasted from November 1918 until the establishment in August 1919 of a republic (which later became known as the Weimar Republic).


Nothing like that happened in France. Mutinies took place yes, but triggered I think by exhaustion, disillusionment with Army Command and related front line factors. Social revolution on the scale of what happened in Germany - no.

You seem to assume that all the refugees and the unrest they create, plus all the Frenchmen the Germans capture along with the territory do not make an impact.
The German political situation was also exacerbated by bad industrial management. ITTL, Hindenburg and Luddendorf might not rise to the prominence they received IOTL.
With Italy a neutral, the Germans can also import food and export some wares to pay for it. That, including the French land they can use for farming makes their situation comparatively better than IOTL, while the French situation is much worse.

 

[IanBertram]

Who says Italy is neutral? I haven't. This isn't a finished timeline, it's a possible scenario of a particular stage, that I raised in order to explore some possibilities. If you want to know the context it's given and you can read it to get the backstory. Making assumptions that don't stem from that TL or that contradict what has been written so far is pointless.

 

[IanBertram]

You also need to think about what is different from OTL. If - as I suggest - the Germans are stopped at the furthest point they reached in OTL, without then retreating, that isn't a huge extra area of France nor will those extra few miles suddenly generate huge numbers of refugees over and above what actually happened. It isn't going to make a huge difference to the damage to French infrastructure over what actually happened. The land captured by the Germans in France wasn't used for farming - it was continually shelled by one side or another and the support trenches went back for miles. Adding a few extra miles isn't going to make that sort of difference.

Why should a delayed entry into the war by Britain make any difference to the standing of Hindenburg or anyone else? That is not related to the POD - it is a new POD in its own right.

 

[Deimos]

You also need to think about what is different from OTL. If - as I suggest - the Germans are stopped at the furthest point they reached in OTL, without then retreating, that isn't a huge extra area of France nor will those extra few miles suddenly generate huge numbers of refugees over and above what actually happened. It isn't going to make a huge difference to the damage to French infrastructure over what actually happened. The land captured by the Germans in France wasn't used for farming - it was continually shelled by one side or another and the support trenches went back for miles. Adding a few extra miles isn't going to make that sort of difference.

Why should a delayed entry into the war by Britain make any difference to the standing of Hindenburg or anyone else? That is not related to the POD - it is a new POD in its own right.

Your TL posits that the German advance goes as far the Cherbourg peninsula which is quite far from the orginal frontlines of OTL WW1.

Now consider that the Germans have to secure the hinterland to guarantee supplies and defend against flank and rear attacks and you get a lot of territory along with a lot of possible refugees and captured French civilians.
Even if the Germans are forced from that frontline, the best natural defense would then be along the Seine - that still gives Germany half the Channel ports and the countryside behind them.
Point 6) of your TL has the Germans nearly capture Paris, don't you think many Parisians would flee in that scenario? Also, do you really believe that every metre of French or Belgian soil captured by Germany was no man's land IOTL?

If Paris, along with its war industry is so close to the frontlines, then France can perhaps be knocked out with one effective offensive from the German perspective. That means a Western Strategy will seem far more promising than the Eastern Strategy. As a result it seems reasonable to assume that the heroes of East Prussia would receive less focus.

If Italy is in the war, but the US is not going to join, how do you address the bankruptcy the Entente would have faced in 1917 IOTL? Without unsecured loans from the US, the Entente cannot keep up with production and has to remain on the defensive. How can they make successful offensives in 1919 with these factors?

 

[matzeskatze]

-- snip --
Role of Italy - I ignored Italy for simplicity, but I think it may stay neutral, although seizing parts of the Adriatic Coast in the general confusion wouldn't be unlikely either.

Have I missed anything?

So what is it? Do they stay neutral or what?

Also keeping WWI more or less on track after the whole British shebang you describe is hard because they would have many problems to pull together the response of OTL. You then pile problems on top with the non entry of the USA. How do you suppose the British / Commonwealth stemms this burden? And magicaly appearing troops from India are not a solution. They would have to be shipped to Europe, equiped and supplied and all that. And that with a worse Entente position then OTL.
To top that, with the possible non entry of Italy, the Med is a bloodier place then OTL. The Austrians were not a big navy, but still. And U-Boots will reap a bloody harvest there.

 

[LordKalvert]

In the Channel - it doesn't matter if a particular German action is in theory legal. If the British Government is looking for a pretext they will use it. Germany firing on a Royal Navy ship offers a pretty good one. Germany can't avoid the Channel entirely if they want to control the coastline of occupied territory and if they want to keep an eye on what Britain is doing.

Certainly, if the British government is looking for a pretext for war, some incident can be found. But why is it seeking an excuse for war? The British haven't intervened so far because they are hopelessly divided and entangled in domestic problems. If the British weren't divided, they would have intervened much earlier over Belgium. Thay are going to have to find a cause that truly turns public opinion like USW and the Zimmerman Telegram does to the Americans. The Germans are unlikely to provide such a pretext

To get a late British intervention, a clear win for the interventionists in the election is needed

 

[IanBertram]

I think I would argue that, given the splits in both parties over the issue of war with Germany, if things are finely balanced, the pro grouping will be looking for any excuse to shift things in their favour. So, it wouldn't be so much the Government, as an element of it seeking to push Britain into the conflict.

Another option would be for the German action to be a mistake, again exploited by the pro-war faction

However, I've been plotting out the timeline in more detail and I think I need to rethink things slightly. Any election will cause a disruption in foreign policy. I can't imagine any government calling one right on top of an outbreak of war. I seem to have three options:-

• Asquith loses a critical vote and tells the King he can't go on in government and suggests he calls in Bonar Law. I'm not sure of the Constitutional position on that, especially on top of events in Europe etc.
• Rethink the timing and shift the election back a bit, perhaps before Sarajevo or just after or a bit later around the time of Grey's attempts to call an International Conference. (24th July). It would be interesting, to say the least, if the election took place while all the mobilisation was going on.
• Put the election and change of Government right on top of OTL declaration of war.

 

[LordKalvert]

I think I would argue that, given the splits in both parties over the issue of war with Germany, if things are finely balanced, the pro grouping will be looking for any excuse to shift things in their favour. So, it wouldn't be so much the Government, as an element of it seeking to push Britain into the conflict.

Another option would be for the German action to be a mistake, again exploited by the pro-war faction

However, I've been plotting out the timeline in more detail and I think I need to rethink things slightly. Any election will cause a disruption in foreign policy. I can't imagine any government calling one right on top of an outbreak of war. I seem to have three options:-

• Asquith loses a critical vote and tells the King he can't go on in government and suggests he calls in Bonar Law. I'm not sure of the Constitutional position on that, especially on top of events in Europe etc.
• Rethink the timing and shift the election back a bit, perhaps before Sarajevo or just after or a bit later around the time of Grey's attempts to call an International Conference. (24th July). It would be interesting, to say the least, if the election took place while all the mobilisation was going on.
• Put the election and change of Government right on top of OTL declaration of war.

That's an interesting one- if the July crises takes place during a previous called election. Given the divisions within the parties over war, there's little doubt that the British would have their hands tied until after the election

No one was expecting serious complications over Sarajevo until the Austrian ultimatum, so, yes, the British could easily have called elections over Ireland say

 

[IanBertram]

Using this as the basis

http://www.greatwar.co.uk/timeline/ww1-events-1914.htm

I'm now working on a more detailed time line, which will appear in teh TL thread in due course. Despite some of the comments above I will not be making changes elsewhere, unless I'm satisfied they stem from the POD or the consequent events. So far the primary changes have been internal (if you include Ireland) and to a degree in the attitudes of other countries to Britain. So Germany will be even more convinced that Britain will stay out than it was in OTL and Italy will probably prevaricate a bit more. Given that the ATL already has two extra regiments in the UK and another on the way, I also think it possible that any BEF, while delayed, would build up quicker than OTL.

I'm still toying with the idea of Bonar Law sending Caribbean regiments into Ireland. It's just possbible, given the attitudes to the Irish of many on the British right at the time. It would throw a real spanner in the works in Ireland too, because the IRA and its precursors are themselves pretty right wing. They were instrumental for example in breaking up the various worker takeovers in Ireland such as the Limerick Soviet in 1919

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=limerick+soviet&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=w_lOVvGTGImqa_HTsjg

 

[IanBertram]

Legality of blockade

It was claimed above that seizing a neutral vessel going into Cherbourg would be legal under International Law. However that doesn't appear to be the case. The Declaration of London 1909, which attempted to codify these things, says

BLOCKADE IN TIME OF WAR
Article 1. A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy.

As it happens both Britain and Germany ignored the declaration so the point is moot, but interesting nevertheless.

Full text here:

https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm

 

[matzeskatze]

Afaik the Declaration of London was not ratified in OTL. So that would be moot.

But what does that have to play in this scenario? A ship (whatever nationality) is carrying contraband into a port of the contrahend. That Imo is all that is needed to inspect and then size it.

 

[IanBertram]

In the scenario I laid out, Cherbourg was not controlled or occupied by Germany, so it could not be blockaded within the terms of the 1909 Declaration. That was the convention before 1909 anyway. The Declaration was simply intended to provide a codification. As I have already said, Britain and Germany ignored it, but at the time of the events I set out, that hadn't happened. So, when Germany seized a neutral ship heading into Cherbourg in the scenario I posted, that was in breach of International Law. It couldn't be enforced, but it would provide, if Britain chose to use it, a casus belli.

 

[matzeskatze]

Whoa, there is the problem. France still contolles Cherbourg and so Germany is legaly right to blockade it and search ships approaching. And if the ship in question carries contraband, again, they are legaly entiteld to size it for prize court, Afaik.