Neutral Britain in WWI's post-war relations with victorious Germany

[SeanB]

This map is based on the premise that Germany adopts an East First policy prior to World War I, so that when the war breaks out, they adopt a mostly defensive stance in the west against France, while focusing on knocking Russia out of the war first.

France, failing to make any progress in it's assaults on the German line at Alsace-Lorraine, sees it's chance for revenge slipping. Unwilling to let the opportunity they've been waiting on for over 40 years slip past them so easily, France decides to attempt to invade Germany through Belgium.

This shocking violation of Belgian Neutrality and the atrocities committed against the Germanic Belgians by French troops shocks people in both Britain and the United States. Pro-French war hawks in parliament are thus unable to provide a convincing case for the UK's entrance into the war. Britain thus remains neutral throughout the Great War.

With Britain clearly not intending to choose a side within the conflict, Italy honors it's commitment to it's allies and declares war on France, Russia and Serbia. Romania and Bulgaria both join the Central Powers here. After they and A-H defeat Serbia in 1915, Bulgaria decides to declare war upon Greece, defeating them with reluctant Romanian aid.

Russia surrenders in 1917, Lenin is sent to Russia as in OTL in hopes of destabilizing the country. Russia falls to Communism and Civil War, and Russia finally signs a Brest-Litovsk-like agreement in early 1918.

Germany finally turns its eastern forces west now, and completely drives an exhausted France from Belgium, pushing them all the way to the gates of Paris. With over half of their army in mutiny and their capital nearly in enemy hands, France capitulates and asks Germany for it's terms of surrender. Germany is not kind.

France is humiliated and forced to give up all of it's colonies except Algeria and it's Caribbean islands. Austria-Hungary, though on the victorious side, is on the verge of collapse due to increasingly strong nationalist sentiments within it's minority populations, as well as Hungary. Finally reaching it's head in 1927, when the renegotiation's on the status of the Dual Monarchy broke down. Hungary formally declares it's independence, taking much of the Balkans with it.

In 1929 a plebiscite on the status of Austria is held, and the people overwhelming vote to join with Germany. The Anchluss happens three months later. There is no Great Depression in this timeline, and Germany is quite the economic and industrial powerhouse (No blockade in WWI).

My question is...what would this Germany's relations with Britain likely be? World in 1930.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Ignoring the basic flaws with the POD, its unlikely that French Guiana will be given to the Germans since the US wouldn't permit it. The British would certainly step in to prevent the dismemberment of the French Empire to such a large degree. Better to keep the weakened French in their colonies than permit the victorious Germans from spreading all about the place.

The position of that of Britain in a victorious Germany 1930s would be that of a virtual cold war with the Germans. The British are probably supporting the French economically to some degree, if not initial loans in the late teens and 1920s.

I think its highly unlikely that the Bulgarians would have been able to attacked Greece without some complaint or direct threat from the British. They would still worry about the possibility of any Bulgarian port on the Aegean being used by either Russia or, particularly now, the Germans.

Its more than likely that Germans would move to create Europe, or at least their portion, into a economic zone that would exclude British manufacturers. There would be a repeat of Napoleon's 'Continental System', tho probably much tighter. In response the British will raise tariffs against German imports thru out the Empire and one could see a more economically unified British Empire emerge.

Italy really is too far from ever agreeing with the Triple Alliance that speculation of it honoring its part of the bargain is just as likely as there being tulips on the far side of the Moon.

 

[SeanB]

About Italy, think about it reasonably. What other choice do they have? Without Britain, they probably believe that France/Russia are not going to be able to win, especially once Germany starts to gain the upper hand. At that point, they would be left with two choices...either stay neutral and get nothing, or honor their alliance with the Central Powers and gain territory at France's expense. It's not a difficult choice, really.

And, I imagine your jab about the flaws in the POD refers to the East First policy. I imagined it being developed in the early 1900s, around the time of the Russo-Japanese war.

Edit: Also, I started to just leave French Guiana French, but I wanted to hear people's opinion on it. I've often heard that the US wouldn't allow for such a thing, but I can't seem to understand why. I mean, it's just one colonial state taking a colony from another, right?

 

[Lord Insane]

And, I imagine your jab about the flaws in the POD refers to the East First policy. I imagined it being developed in the early 1900s, around the time of the Russo-Japanese war.

No, going by David S Poepoe's positions in previous threads of a similar subject to this, I'd rather guess it is the 'British neutrality' thing: he seems to considers it something that would have happened, regardless of the circumstances. At least, given no change in German-British relations prior to 1914.

As for French Guiana... there was that matter that the Monroe Doctrine had been expanded to include colonial transfers as well as new colonies, so the US wouldn't accept it.

And on the Italy matter, there were voices in favour of joining the Alliance- considering that they had been offered territorial adjustment from the Austrians, and would gain (part of) their claims upon the French if they participated on the winning Central Powers side, and that here those same Central Powers look like they are winning... I certainly wouldn't call it about as likely as there being tulips on the moon- now, honouring its commitments right from the start, before the war even properly began, that would be something else.

EDIT: One would also point out that the Ottomans have shrunk on that map, something which was not particularily likely- they certainly wouldn't have allowed the Saudis to step out of line that much again, and in this timeline, the 'Arab Revolt' would be even more dead in the water without British support, added to the fact that the Ottomans have one less front to fight on, that being the one in the region apparently lost.

 

[Vault-Scope]

Nope, they wouldn´t take that much French colonies, unless France had occupied parts of Germany and comitted large-scale atrocities there.

 

[Looseheadprop]

Italy really is too far from ever agreeing with the Triple Alliance that speculation of it honoring its part of the bargain is just as likely as there being tulips on the far side of the Moon.

I think the thing you are forgetting here is that Italy in 1914 was a very anglophilic nation. the king and the aristocracy and much of the business class were decidedly in favour of the English. This was a large factor in the Italian betrayal of its alliance with the Germans, it did not want to go to war with Great Britain.

In this case Britain is not in the war so the Italians have little objections to attacking france. There are fewer practical objections to war with britain neutral and the main moral objection is removed as well. Germany vs France and russia is an easier looking battler than the triple entente

The same goes for Romania, it entered the war largely because it's king was an anglophile

 

[fhaessig]

Unfortunately, PoD is ASB.

1) UK would fight against any power dominating continental europe. Balance of Power and all that. Ignoring that means reversing centuries of consistent english/british/Uk policies.

2) French would never even give appearence of moving against Belgium. OTL, on the eve of war, they retreated all their troops 20 km from the Belgium border, to avoid any incident which could have given a pretext to the Germans. Changing THAT... Let's see. I don't see any way short of a successfull Boulanger coup, folowd by decades of junta rule, with a mad general ending on top in 1914 ( and he has to avoid getting purged by his collegues when he gives the order )...

In total, I would put it as ASB level

 

[SeanB]

Unfortunately, PoD is ASB.

1) UK would fight against any power dominating continental europe. Balance of Power and all that. Ignoring that means reversing centuries of consistent english/british/Uk policies.

2) French would never even give appearence of moving against Belgium. OTL, on the eve of war, they retreated all their troops 20 km from the Belgium border, to avoid any incident which could have given a pretext to the Germans. Changing THAT... Let's see. I don't see any way short of a successfull Boulanger coup, folowd by decades of junta rule, with a mad general ending on top in 1914 ( and he has to avoid getting purged by his collegues when he gives the order )...

In total, I would put it as ASB level

I think you're greatly underestimating the level of "vengeance-crazy" that France was, in WWI. If they tried and exhausted all of their other options, I don't think they would be "morally above" forcing their way through Belgium.

 

[General Zod]

Unfortunately, PoD is ASB.

1) UK would fight against any power dominating continental europe. Balance of Power and all that. Ignoring that means reversing centuries of consistent english/british/Uk policies.

2) French would never even give appearence of moving against Belgium. OTL, on the eve of war, they retreated all their troops 20 km from the Belgium border, to avoid any incident which could have given a pretext to the Germans. Changing THAT... Let's see. I don't see any way short of a successfull Boulanger coup, folowd by decades of junta rule, with a mad general ending on top in 1914 ( and he has to avoid getting purged by his collegues when he gives the order )...

In total, I would put it as ASB level

No, sorry but it is Entente Britain that is ASB. 19th-20th century British public and parliament are not robots enthusiastically going to war in a knee-jerk reflex every time some hawk in the government cries balance of power. Real-world politics are not Risiko. They need a clear casus belli to put British blood and money on the line, besides theoretical unbalances of power. If Germany plays smart for a time, forsakes Schliffen, goes East, and let France and Russia declare war first (fully feasible without PS), Britain has no casus belli whatsoever against Germany. Berlin here is going to war when it's attacked by revanchist aggressors and expansionist protectors of nations which harbor terrorist assassins. It's France and Russia who are the breakers of the peace.

Morevoer, when the first elan attacks of France in A-L become a bloody failure, it is perfectly in their mind set to try and sidestep the obstacle by invading Belgium, since they are dead-set to reconquer A-L and get revenge on Germany by whatever means. Belgium shall resist French invaders any bit as forcefully as they did German ones OTL (not to mention the fact they were fairly pro-CP until the invasion), loudly calling for aid according to the 1839 treaty to London and Berlin. The French invaders have no reason to be any less ruthless than OTL Germans, so ITTL it is the French rape of Belgium, raped nuns and all that, and France is the bully of Europe, breaking the peace and long-standing treaties and invading peaceful neutrals. The sympathy of neutrals, including US and UK, shall be for Germany, the peaceful giant roused to action to protect allies and neutrals against the barbarous Napoleonic and Cossack hordes.

Moreover, UK has a specific strong strategic interest (and casus belli) to protect Belgium against anyone, be it France and Germany, who violates its neutrality first. As a matter of fact, ITTL France that is invading Belgium again, as it did under Louis XIV and Napoleon, and UK went to war in both occasions. In the mind of the British public, it is bully France, the old hereditary enemy, putting the Napoleon cap on all over again. Avoid post-WWII hindsight here.

The Entente Cordiale and the realignment against Germany was still a very shaky halfhearted thing by 1914, only Belgium cemented it into stone. If not for the naval race and terrible diplomatic bungling by the Kaiser it would not have happened at all and UK would have allied with Germany sometime in 1890-1910 (there were serious mutual attempts at a German-British detente as late as 1912-13). Until a few years ago France was the hereditary enemy and Russia the feared strategic rival. If Germany goes east and France invades Belgium in the minds of the vast majority of the British public it will be Louis XIV or Napoleon bully France raping the Low Countries and making yet another attempt to dominate Europe all over again. Sure, there might be a few Germanophobe hawks in the British elite but they will meet an impassable wll of scorn and ridicule in the Parliament and the public if they dare propose siding with France and Russia over callous BoP concerns. Think Churchill at Munich, only worse. Britain will at the very least stay neutral throughout the war.

Heck, there is a realistic chance that a strong anti-French reversal in the British public opinion and Parliament will bring a pro-CP government to power and a British DoW against France. The plots of some Germanophobe ministers to hatch a flimsly casus belli against Germany won't go absolutely anywhere in this political atmosphere.

As it concerns Italy, without UK in the Entente, they have no real strategic or diplomatic reason to defect that side. Their allies are being attacked, so the terms of the defensive Triple Alliance are much more stringent. Moreover, Italy has a long-standing strategic and colonial rivalry with France and claims against France (Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia, Djibouti) are only slightly less important to Italy than the ones against A-H. The CPs look if not stronger, certainly not weaker than the Dual Entente, and rather stronger with Italy on their side. This war shall be made all the easier by the fact that it's done to the side of old allies, so there is familiarity among staffs and all kinds of standing protocols. The course of Italy is clear: they can look good in the eyes of the world by being true to their word and coming to aid of their old allies against aggressors and protectors of terrorists, they can satisfy a lot of claims, expand their colonial empire, and cut a strategic rival to size. This war is about France. A-H, if any, will be the job for another generation.

Italy joins the CPs a few days after France and Russia declare war. UK and USA either stay neutral or join the CPs later.

 

[SeanB]

I've updated the map. I corrected the Ottoman Empire, as it was mostly in it's smaller size due to my laziness...I just erased the modern ME borders and colored them Ottoman green. I know, shame on me. I gave French Guiana back to France, and made the situation in China more...interesting.

 

[David S Poepoe]

And on the Italy matter, there were voices in favour of joining the Alliance- considering that they had been offered territorial adjustment from the Austrians, and would gain (part of) their claims upon the French if they participated on the winning Central Powers side, and that here those same Central Powers look like they are winning... I certainly wouldn't call it about as likely as there being tulips on the moon- now, honouring its commitments right from the start, before the war even properly began, that would be something else.

Considering that there was no love lost between Vienna and Rome during most of the years leading up to the Great War and that Franz-Josef wasn't going to allow any parcels of Austrian territory be lost during his reign, I consider it doubtful that any reconciliation will occur by 1914. The Germans can not dictate anything to the Austrians, who certainly were not listening to nor keeping Berlin aware of what they were doing.

I've always thought that the King Humbert I was more pro-German than his son and successor Victor Emanuel. Also, with the Triple Alliance being a defensive agreement there still isn't any casual reason that the Italians have to enter the war - with or without British involvement. I could see an argument that the British would enter the war should Italy become involved since it would threaten the balance of power on the continent and would prove to be a direct threat to British interests in the Mediterranean.

 

[Imperator Frank]

why did the germans lose part of kamerun to britain?
And what happened to the victorious ottoman?

 

[SeanB]

Considering that there was no love lost between Vienna and Rome during most of the years leading up to the Great War and that Franz-Josef wasn't going to allow any parcels of Austrian territory be lost during his reign, I consider it doubtful that any reconciliation will occur by 1914. The Germans can not dictate anything to the Austrians, who certainly were not listening to nor keeping Berlin aware of what they were doing.

I've always thought that the King Humbert I was more pro-German than his son and successor Victor Emanuel. Also, with the Triple Alliance being a defensive agreement there still isn't any casual reason that the Italians have to enter the war - with or without British involvement. I could see an argument that the British would enter the war should Italy become involved since it would threaten the balance of power on the continent and would prove to be a direct threat to British interests in the Mediterranean.

If France ATTACKED Germany, then it would trigger the defensive agreement. And Britain is *NOT* going to join on the side of a Belgium-raping French aggressor...there is absolutely no Casus Belli for such a thing. I think you are exaggerating the extent of British hypocrisy.

 

[Lord Insane]

that Franz-Josef wasn't going to allow any parcels of Austrian territory be lost during his reign,

There is the issue that apparently there was enough confusion on that matter that some, generally quite well-informed and knowledgeable, members of this board have mentioned that the Austrians did, under German pressure, promise the Italians territorial adjustment in their favour.
Then again, it is hard to know exactly what people really thought in those days, rather then what they said and wrote...

And if the British did enter the war because the Italians joined on the side of the Alliance, they wouldn't have thought it through entirely, IMO. It would have made Entente victory harder, and Central Powers victory easier, but it would also have meant, and this should have been obvious to any self-respecting observer of things in those days, that Italy would have been practically assured to enter the next war on the other side, and that they would certainly not be a willing member of a post-war German hegemony. It would pose a direct threat to British interests in the Mediterranean, but only for the extent that the Italians and Germans remain allies (which might well have been about as long as it takes for a peace treaty to be written and adopted), and to be honest, I can't see Germany nor Italy as being stupid enough to deliberately provoke Britain while being involved in a major war, if Britain is not already on the other side, or some major, major military gain can be thought to be gained from it (Bypassing the French defences via Belgium, etc).

 

[SeanB]

why did the germans lose part of kamerun to britain?
And what happened to the victorious ottoman?

I fixed the Ottomans in my update, and...heh, good spot. I forget to correct that when I was making my map. I'll fix Kamerun now.

Edit: Okay, map is updated.

 

[General Zod]

There is NO British strategic interest in the Mediterranean threatened if Italy enters a defensive war on the side of her allies according to a 40-y.o. pact. There would only be one if Suez or the Straits would be directly threatened. This would require the Ottomans joining the Dual Entente and the CP occupying Constantinople, or the CP violating the neutrality fo the Suez Canal, which is ASB. If anything, the only possible threat to such interests may come if the Russians defeat the Truks and get too close to the Straits. And again Britain has no casus belli against the alliance whatsoever if France declares war on Germany and invades Belgium and Italy declares war on France according to her alliance. On the contrary, Britain has a clear casus belli against France according to the Treaty of 1839.

Germany DID make pressure on A-H to cede Trento and Trieste to Italy to secure the Italian intervention on their side. A-H eventually agreed, but it came after months of dragging their feets so Italy had already lost heart and focused on parallel negotations with Entente Britain. Had Germany be more convincing and persuaded/bullied A-H to concede earlier, italy would have entered the war on the side of the alliance even against the Triple ENtente. But the picture is competely different in this PoD: first, Russia attacked A-H and France attacked Germany so the terms of the defensive alliance are binding. Second, Britain was the only member of the OTL Entente that Italy was politically/diplomatically close to or feared to fight. Without her, Italy has plenty of reasons of her own, just as good as against A-H, to fight France and has been actually preparing to fight such a wat with Germany for 40 years. Third, while Italy was hostile to France and A-H (and a reluctant ally to the latter), it was very friendly to Germany and Britain alike. With Britain neutral, a clear casus belli, and plenty of claims against France, Italy has no reason not to stand to the side of her old ally. A-H handing over some of her own stuff isn't even remotely necessary.

 

[stevep]

HSB

In answer to your initial question while I doubt that Britain would join the war as David suggests under those circumstances, I think he is correct that a cold war type situation is likely between Britain and Germany. This presumes that German losses and possibly social changes as a result don't change the stance of the German political leadership, which could occur. However even in that case Germany would at least appear so dominant that Britain would seek to build up a counter-alliance. If Germany continues the naval race by 1930 there are going to be some huge navies, especially if the US still goes through with something like their 1916 programme. Not sure how long such a race could be supported by the various economies, especially Germany if you get something like the L-H military government. That would probably generate a hell of a lot of conflict in the dominated territories that both Britain and Russia, whether conservative or communist, would give indirect aid to.

Not sure if the event of a German victory in WWI how likely a Soviet success in Russia is. The Germans let Lenin travel to Russia to distablish the Russian government but for that same reason will not want a Bolshevik government in Moscow when their effective border is right next door. Especially not if a predominatly military/conservative government in Germany is seeking both to control a large empire in eastern Europe and possibly resisting social change inside Germany itself. This could lead to a lot of conflict and, provided the victorious Germany is not too weakened socially, it will have too much strength for a extreme left wing government in Moscow.

If there is a strongly reactionary Germany then the various powers opposing them will probably tend to the left. May be socialist or more generally liberal but hostiliy towards German domination will be echoed by political sentiment in the various countries I suspect.

A couple of questions on your scenario:
a) Given the situation I don't see Greece allied to the Franco-Russian alliance so any Bulgarian attack will be totally separate from the wider conflict.

b) Rumanian was strongly anti-Austrian because of the dispute over Translyvannia. It was only its king, from the Hohenzollern dynasty was understandable pro-German. After his death in 1916 the country finally joined the allies. It may join the central powers in this scenario but would still be a tough call.

c) I'm not sure that Germany would seek and gain such large extra-European colonies. Or if they did they would be able to hold them on top of everything else.

However some interesting ideas. I think you need to decide what social changes and interactions occur in the major powers before people can discuss what actually occurs in the interaction between the various powers. If the German empire survives then there will be a counter-bloc of some form established against its domination. What its members are and the exact nature of the relationship will depend on those details and many other personal factors probably.

Steve

 

[Kriegdämmerung]

Why does your map have a super-Montenegro?

Likewise, shouldn't the states of what look-like Georgia and Armenia (irony), be Ottoman puppets, not German ones?

 

[SeanB]

HSB

In answer to your initial question while I doubt that Britain would join the war as David suggests under those circumstances, I think he is correct that a cold war type situation is likely between Britain and Germany. This presumes that German losses and possibly social changes as a result don't change the stance of the German political leadership, which could occur. However even in that case Germany would at least appear so dominant that Britain would seek to build up a counter-alliance. If Germany continues the naval race by 1930 there are going to be some huge navies, especially if the US still goes through with something like their 1916 programme. Not sure how long such a race could be supported by the various economies, especially Germany if you get something like the L-H military government. That would probably generate a hell of a lot of conflict in the dominated territories that both Britain and Russia, whether conservative or communist, would give indirect aid to.

Not sure if the event of a German victory in WWI how likely a Soviet success in Russia is. The Germans let Lenin travel to Russia to distablish the Russian government but for that same reason will not want a Bolshevik government in Moscow when their effective border is right next door. Especially not if a predominatly military/conservative government in Germany is seeking both to control a large empire in eastern Europe and possibly resisting social change inside Germany itself. This could lead to a lot of conflict and, provided the victorious Germany is not too weakened socially, it will have too much strength for a extreme left wing government in Moscow.

If there is a strongly reactionary Germany then the various powers opposing them will probably tend to the left. May be socialist or more generally liberal but hostiliy towards German domination will be echoed by political sentiment in the various countries I suspect.

A couple of questions on your scenario:
a) Given the situation I don't see Greece allied to the Franco-Russian alliance so any Bulgarian attack will be totally separate from the wider conflict.

b) Rumanian was strongly anti-Austrian because of the dispute over Translyvannia. It was only its king, from the Hohenzollern dynasty was understandable pro-German. After his death in 1916 the country finally joined the allies. It may join the central powers in this scenario but would still be a tough call.

c) I'm not sure that Germany would seek and gain such large extra-European colonies. Or if they did they would be able to hold them on top of everything else.

However some interesting ideas. I think you need to decide what social changes and interactions occur in the major powers before people can discuss what actually occurs in the interaction between the various powers. If the German empire survives then there will be a counter-bloc of some form established against its domination. What its members are and the exact nature of the relationship will depend on those details and many other personal factors probably.

Steve

Thank you for your analysis, Steve.

I'll respond to your questions by number, as you asked them.

A) Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Bulgaria simply takes advantage of the atmosphere of war that has descended upon Europe to attack Greece and secure their claims and interests there. Germany likely did not involve itself in that mini-war.

B) True, and by 1916 the outcome of the war in the east should be looking clear. I believe Romania would join the Central Powers in order to grab what it can from the crumbling Russia, since obviously joining the other side would be nearly suicidal in this instance.

C) Hrmmm...Well, think about what was forced upon Germany after the war in OTL. Germany lost ALL of it's colonies, as well as much of it's mainland territory as well. Here, Germany is leaving France Algeria and it's American colonies, and is taking relatively less mainland territory than was taken from it IOTL. Though the French economy is not able to recover like Germany's is, so the indemnities are likely to cripple them for years.

As for being able to hold it, Germany should be able to pull it off if done properly. Remember, there was no naval blockade ITTL to wreck Germany's economy, so, while no doubt tired of the war, it wouldn't be nearly as socially or economically exhausted as in OTL 1918. Therefore, it should be able to successfully hold down most of it's new Empire with relative ease. Hell, the Africans would probably welcome them, as the Jerries would probably treat them better than the French. Speaking of France, it might have faced a blockade of it's country by Germany, as it's navy I believe was no match for the HSF on it's own. I'm not sure if the British would have allowed Germany to blockade France like that though.

D) Hrm, social changes, eh? Well, though there was no blockade, there would have still been millions of casualties on both sides. I imagine Germany by the end of the war in 1918 would be very much tired of fighting. It's people would likely not be very receptive of renewing the war with Russia, even a Communist Russia, so soon after finally ending the conflict. The soldiers would be eager to return home, and they would need those who chose to stay on to cement their new holdings.

In the end, they may decide to quietly ignore the Soviets until they begin causing trouble in their satellites.

Eagerly awaiting your response.

 

[see]

To ensure British neutrality, have the Germans have enough sense sign the British-proposed Anglo-German naval accord in 1912, which binds the UK to neutrality in a war where Germany "cannot be said to be the aggressor". The cause of that sense is presumably the same as the sense that had them choose an East First plan.

Colonially, the British will object to so much going to Germany, and the British are still masters of the oceans. To make it a bit easier to swallow, I'd parcel out some chunks to the Italians (Tunisia, French Somaliland, northern Chad, Niger, French Guinea), Belgians (chunks of Equatorial Africa bordering the Belgian Congo, maybe French Guiana and other French Caribbean posessions), and (Austro-)Hungarians (Senegal, Mauritania).

There will be an Anglo-German Cold War as an inevitable result of the German victory, especially as victorious Germany will seek naval parity or supremacy vis-a-vis the UK.