No German invasion of Belgium = Neutral Britain in WWI?

[Ellie]

I've always doubted the plausibility of this equation. Even if the Germans didn't invade Belgium, wouldn't the British have joined later, given the fact that this war was not just on a continental European scale, but a colonial one as well?

 

[Glenn239]

As Grey related in Twenty Five Years, if Britain was going to fight, it had to with all its strength right at the start.

The idea of Britain remaining neutral should Germany not invade Belgium would be playing straight into Germany's hand. Generally, Germany was attempting to isolate and overcome one enemy at a time while the British were trying to pile as many enemies onto Germany at once as possible. If Britain allowed its neutrality to be determined by Belgium, then Britain was slitting its own throat, because Germany would use Belgium as a shield to defeat Russia and Serbia, and lay control of Eastern Europe from the Urals to the Straights of the Dardenelles. Then, when it was good and ready, it would take down France by coming straight through Belgium - and if Britain wanted to send its little 6-division BEF to oppose 250 Austro-German divisions, then so be it.

 

[MattII]

Remaining 'neutral' doesn't necessarily mean remaining completely out of the situation. Remember the US remained neutral, yet it did so while also obviously being in favour of the Entente.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Remaining 'neutral' doesn't necessarily mean remaining completely out of the situation. Remember the US remained neutral, yet it did so while also obviously being in favour of the Entente.

Yes But if Germany stood defensive in the West (which OTL suggests would work fairly well) Britain would clearly be more sympathetic to France and even Russia than Germany.

However Britain would NOT set up a Blockade

 

[MattII]

However, they could (and probably would) export weapons to Russia.

 

[miketr]

For UK entry at any point the question is, 'what is the Casus Belli?'

IE what does Germany / CP do that is such an affront that the UK HAS to declare war? Before Germany went into Belgium the British Cabinet was getting ready to scatter to their country homes; Edward Grey might have WANTED to get the UK into the war but he needed something to work with. The two alliance blocks going to war were not enough by themselves; IMO.

Maybe Germany can provide the excuse that Grey needed but it wouldn't be right away.

I expect that UK would be pro France and Russia even in neutrality.

Michael

 

[Glenn239]

However, they could (and probably would) export weapons to Russia.

Which Germany would put up with while defeating Russia, then throw in Britain's face afterwards.

 

[Glenn239]

For UK entry at any point the question is, 'what is the Casus Belli?'

The point of war is to win it, so the question is not, "why are we fighting?", it's, "can we win if we do?"

If Britain remains neutral and Russia is defeated, it would probably be madness for Britain to then declare war on Germany.

 

[miketr]

The point of war is to win it, so the question is not, "why are we fighting?", it's, "can we win if we do?"

If Britain remains neutral and Russia is defeated, it would probably be madness for Britain to then declare war on Germany.

If you have an absolute monarch, dictatorship or the like then they can go to war for any or no reason what so ever. Outside of that for a state to go to war a consensus must form among the decision makers to go to war. In 1914 for the UK that means a majority of the cabinet at least has to agree followed by a majority in parliament. IE Why Are We Fighting does matter a great deal, especially with respect to timing.

Michael

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The point of war is to win it, so the question is not, "why are we fighting?", it's, "can we win if we do?"

If Britain remains neutral and Russia is defeated, it would probably be madness for Britain to then declare war on Germany.

In the context of a total war this is correct. If the leaders still think in terms of the 'limited war' as was common in the 19th Century then other outcomes are possible. ie: Britian can isolate and seize the German colonies fairly quickly. For Germany the economic losses of a protracted war of more than six months may exceed the value of the colonies. Combine that with the inability of the High Seas Fleet to operate outside the Baltic and North Sea & you have a impending political disaster for a aggresive German government. Britain might be able to wring a favorable peace position at that point.

There are a few other questions for this situation...

Would Londons financial power still provide a advantage over Germany on a short term basis, 2-3 years? That is would either have a clear global economic advantage after six months of war? Would Germanys business leaders be howling in pain over their situation and prospects? While the man in the street might no notice much the Krupp family would be throwing fits over the prospect of a profit loss in the coming year. The large and important cargo shipping industry would see the situation as catastrophic before six months ran out.

 

[Derek Jackson]

And of course screwing things up for Russia has historically been something Britain rather liked.

 

[MattII]

Which Germany would put up with while defeating Russia, then throw in Britain's face afterwards.

Maybe, but if the Russians are properly equipped I'm sure the Germans won't have an easy time.

 

[BooNZ]

However, they could (and probably would) export weapons to Russia.

How exactly would the UK export weapons to Russia? ASB express service?

 

[MattII]

Via Murmansk and Archangelsk. At the most the Germans can protest, since they obviously don't want a war with Britain.

 

[BooNZ]

Via Murmansk and Archangelsk. At the most the Germans can protest, since they obviously don't want a war with Britain.

My understanding was those ports and rail links were not up to much (then) and Russia struggled to process the supplies provided by their allies. That was one of the selling points for Gallipoli (i.e. to open a viable supply route to Russia)

Actually, the most the Germans could do was sink/capture every ship that enters the Barents Sea. The UK would likely make the channel and approaches to GB off limits, but a Royal navy escort for war material into the middle of a war zone is beyond the scope of any nation with a pretension of neutrality.

If UK was anything like neutral, Russia would have got even less supplies than OTL.

 

[MattII]

Firstly Archangelsk was a pretty well-connected port. Secondly, since the Germans have held off hitting the French where they're most vulnerable because of the fear of bringing Britain in, then they're not going to go out of their way to piss off the British. As for being neutral, if you're not actually at war with someone, you're neutral, regardless of whether or not you're supplying their enemies.

 

[BooNZ]

Firstly Archangelsk was a pretty well-connected port. Secondly, since the Germans have held off hitting the French where they're most vulnerable because of the fear of bringing Britain in, then they're not going to go out of their way to piss off the British. As for being neutral, if you're not actually at war with someone, you're neutral, regardless of whether or not you're supplying their enemies.

Archangelsk was the best port available, but working at full capacity for most of the war - therefore an increase in war supplies is not likely.

There is an ever so subtle difference between the occupation of Belgium with treaty protection and strategic ports on the Channel vs the legitimate use of warships in the Barents Sea (or similar).

The only reason any vessel would be in the Barents Sea would be to feed a Russian war machine. It would be very difficult for the UK to justify the presence of the neutral Royal Navy those Northern reaches.

 

[MattII]

Archangelsk was the best port available, but working at full capacity for most of the war - therefore an increase in war supplies is not likely.

Fair enough.

There is an ever so subtle difference between the occupation of Belgium with treaty protection and strategic ports on the Channel vs the legitimate use of warships in the Barents Sea (or similar).

Who said anything about warships? We're talking running supplies remember, so not much more than merchantmen are going to be up there.

The only reason any vessel would be in the Barents Sea would be to feed a Russian war machine. It would be very difficult for the UK to justify the presence of the neutral Royal Navy those Northern reaches.

War didn't exist de jure between Nazi Germany and the US until December 11 1941, regardless of the fact that Lend-Lease had been signed some months before.

 

[lucaswillen05]

German Imperial navy runs rampent through the channel and the Mediterranean. As long as they are careful not to attack Briish interests.

If the Germans don't do the Schlieffen Plan what do they do? One option would be o attack along the Franco German border in a re-run of the Franco Prussian War. Alternativel the Germans release the formations not now required for the Western Front deployig them against Russia, qquite possibly with decisive effects winning WW1 o the Eastern Front a year or two earlier and then either turning everything against France or doing a deal.

 

[MattII]

I consider any attack on the mutual border unlikely, since that was the reason the Schlieffen Plan was developed in the first place. Mind you, if the Kaiser had made the decision to build up the army at the expense of the navy (challenging Britain to a Battleship race was a stupid idea anyway), then it might be possible.