No German invasion of Belgium = Neutral Britain in WWI?

[BooNZ]

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

The warships would be German - to seize or sink the aforementioned merchantmen.

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.

The Lend-lease did not include a door-to-door delivery service i.e. the US generally limited escorts to their side of the Atlantic until officially at war.

In context, a neutral Royal Navy would not be escorting shipping through a war zone.

 

[BooNZ]

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.

The Royal Navy would make the English Channel off limits - neutral or not.

Germans turn East recently discussed https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=310307

 

[miketr]

I think they would pressure Germany to agree to not shell French towns and cities but I do wonder if they would actively prevent German ships from transiting the channel. I am aware of the pre-war Promise UK made towards France but the details of implementation would be key.

In any event the Germans raiders would attack French flagged shipping.

I wonder if the suggested idea of neutrality in the colonies would occur if the UK isn't in the war.

Michael

 

[Garrison]

The warships would be German - to seize or sink the aforementioned merchantmen.



The Lend-lease did not include a door-to-door delivery service i.e. the US generally limited escorts to their side of the Atlantic until officially at war.

In context, a neutral Royal Navy would not be escorting shipping through a war zone.

Why not? The 'neutral' USN had not trouble doing so in WWII or getting into actual fighting as with the USS Kearny.

 

[lucaswillen05]

The Royal Navy would make the English Channel off limits - neutral or not.

Germans turn East recently discussed https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=310307

Possibly though that could draw Britain into war with Germany later on.

Alternatively Germany decides to defend in the east as planned and r5edeploys the forces originally intended for the Schllieffen Plan and repeats he Franco Prussian War plan. IOTL Germany pretty much smashed the French attempt at an offensive and would probably do the same here after which they could exploit their victory by pouring huge reserve forces they now have since they did't invade Belgium.

If the Germans can get to Paris or otherwise force a French surrender they can continue their original war plan agains Russia. Without the BEF and RN the Germans have the best chance hough it might take a few months possibly going into 1915. After that they beat Russia into the ground as IOTL and dictate a Brest Litovsk style peace to them and France as well.

Britain is now in big trouble facing a German dominated continent with no European Allies.

 

[Xgentis]

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.

A great power with colonial ambition to not have a navy is stupid.

 

[MattII]

The warships would be German - to seize or sink the aforementioned merchantmen.

At which point the Germans get the war they were desperately trying to avoid.

The Lend-lease did not include a door-to-door delivery service i.e. the US generally limited escorts to their side of the Atlantic until officially at war.

And? That just means that Russia goes into debt to Britain a bit sooner

In context, a neutral Royal Navy would not be escorting shipping through a war zone.

But the Barents Sea wouldn't be a war-zone, not if the Germans didn't send ship there, which since only British ships would be using the area...

A great power with colonial ambition to not have a navy is stupid.

Wasting resources on a force that will be outnumbered and outgunned regardless of how much is thrown at it is also stupid, the question is, which is more stupid.

 

[BooNZ]

Why not? The 'neutral' USN had not trouble doing so in WWII or getting into actual fighting as with the USS Kearny.

Really? You don't think perhaps those hundreds of convoys not protected by the US Navy were more representative than isolated incidents?

That the incident with USS Kearny was cited in WW2 by Germany as a casus belli in its declaration of war, demonstrates the it was not [yet] routine and also not accepted behaviour for a neutral power.

At which point the Germans get the war they were desperately trying to avoid.

And? That just means that Russia goes into debt to Britain a bit sooner

No, it means the Royal Navy would not be escorting arms shipments into areas that are clearly subject to military actions.

The extent and limitation of the US delivery service during Land Lease is outlined below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Patrol

But the Barents Sea wouldn't be a war-zone, not if the Germans didn't send ship there, which since only British ships would be using the area...

British ships would have no reason to be in the Barents Sea except to arm an enemy combatant. Those responsible for the deployment of British ships into a war zone would need to explain the loss of any such ships to the British public - more so than the Germans in those circumstances.

Wasting resources on a force that will be outnumbered and outgunned regardless of how much is thrown at it is also stupid, the question is, which is more stupid.

Agreed

 

[MattII]

British ships would have no reason to be in the Barents Sea except to arm an enemy combatant. Those responsible for the deployment of British ships into a war zone would need to explain the loss of any such ships to the British public - more so than the Germans in those circumstances.

Actually, at the time Archangelsk was a pretty big export port (timber mostly), so it's actually possible for ships to be there on non-military business (inasmuch as trade with an enemy can be considered non-military), so again, the Germans are left with a choice, either let the ships pass, or risk angering the British.

 

[BooNZ]

Actually, at the time Archangelsk was a pretty big export port (timber mostly), so it's actually possible for ships to be there on non-military business (inasmuch as trade with an enemy can be considered non-military), so again, the Germans are left with a choice, either let the ships pass, or risk angering the British.

At the time it was a modest regional port that was unable to operate in winter. I guess it still qualifies as 'pretty big'.

In any case, I doubt the Germans would be letting any arms shipments pass freely to Archangelsk. For the British or anyone to expect otherwise would be pretty unrealistic.

 

[Aley]

If Germany throws its entire fleet in the Gulf of Finland, it can shoot St. Petersburg, and with it will fly into the tube about a third of Russian military industry. So all.
"- Who are you? - I Death. - So what? - So all."

 

[BooNZ]

If Germany throws its entire fleet in the Gulf of Finland, it can shoot St. Petersburg, and with it will fly into the tube about a third of Russian military industry. So all.
"- Who are you? - I Death. - So what? - So all."

Russia had a comprehensive set of sea forts on the approaches to Petrograd and the Russians usually made good use of sea mines.

Operation Albion might be brought forward if the German Navy had nothing better to do.

 

[Aley]

Russia had a comprehensive set of sea forts on the approaches to Petrograd and the Russians usually made good use of sea mines.

Operation Albion might be brought forward if the German Navy had nothing better to do.

By the beginning of the war, two batteries, one with 8-inch guns and the other with a 6-inch. Against dreadnoughts? Ha.
Minefields unprotected fleet and shore batteries quickly trawl.

 

[BooNZ]

By the beginning of the war, two batteries, one with 8-inch guns and the other with a 6-inch. Against dreadnoughts? Ha.
Minefields unprotected fleet and shore batteries quickly trawl.

Yeah-nah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnaya_Gorka_fort

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Actually, at the time Archangelsk was a pretty big export port (timber mostly), so it's actually possible for ships to be there on non-military business (inasmuch as trade with an enemy can be considered non-military), so again, the Germans are left with a choice, either let the ships pass, or risk angering the British.

Don't forget "cruiser rules" - they basically allow the searching of ships (of neutral parties) and confiscating (part) of the cargo or taking away the whole ship under certain conditions.

Germayn could (and would) send cruisers to teh Barentss ea to intercept the shipping of supplies - GB would (at least initially) NOT form escorted convoys (they did so OTL only in 1917/18 IIRC)

THE Channel itself would be off limits to German ships (UK promised to keep the French coast clear) All Germany could do is try a distant blockade.

Overall I assume that a Russia fisrt would lead to a German success in the war - even if Britain joins later - As long as Britain is out of the war the additional French production is not making up for Brritains neutrality - France was short on men OTL and not so on materiel - - without Blockade the GErmany could also import like France did OTL.

Stopping Russia with 2/3rds of the Army + Austrias Army might take away enough fighting power of Russia to enable a negotiated peace early - if not I don't see a better performace of Russia.

On the Western Friont Germany likely can hold off French attacks - which will be costly. Even if Britain joins (later) the damage to the French army will be done.

Italy also might not join - or at least not as soon as OTL.

 

[Aley]

Yeah-nah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnaya_Gorka_fort

Fort then went into operation, but it stood in the gun 6 or 8-inch.

 

[Glenn239]

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

I think this overrates the formalities and underrating the important stuff - how to win.

 

[Glenn239]

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.

Any outcome was theoretically possible. But any outcome where Britain dictated the terms of peace and Germany did not got less and less likely the more continental Powers Britain allowed Germany to "pick off" one by one.

 

[Glenn239]

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

The Russian army was better equipped in 1917 than ever, and it collapsed.

 

[zoomar]

The absolute best exploration of this scenario is "Grey Tide in the East" by Andrew Heller. I don't think anyone can do much better, even though he does go a bit off course in his depiction of the High Seas Fleet blockading French Atlantic and Mediterranean ports while the RN sort of sits and watches. Not sure the HSF was really built with that role in mind.