No German invasion of Belgium = Neutral Britain in WWI?

[miketr]

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

If the nation in question never goes to war in the first place then winning the war or not is moot.

The circumstances of how a nation goes to war, the level of support for the war in popular and political terms, the timing all role into effecting how a nation fights a war. IE you can't figure how how to win till you know the base conditions.

Michael

 

[Aley]

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

It was not caused by military defeats, and the "Order of the number 1."

 

[Tallil2long]

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

Because by then, the Russian Army and society had been fatally stressed. Let them begin the war better equipped, and Germany has big problems.

 

[Glenn239]

If the nation in question never goes to war in the first place then winning the war or not is moot.

If the neutrality of Belgium is the go/stop decision point, then the latitude of Britain to remain neutral ends the moment Germany decides to invade Belgium. If that moment happens to be after the fall of Russia, then more likely as not it could mean the end of the British Empire, to contest a German invasion of Belgium with Eastern Europe already 'in the bag' for Germany.

The circumstances of how a nation goes to war, the level of support for the war in popular and political terms, the timing all role into effecting how a nation fights a war. IE you can't figure how how to win till you know the base conditions.

The first fundamental questions are what our the interests involved and what are the chances of winning under various strategies. Domestic coalition building and propaganda talking points are down the list a ways.

Michael[/QUOTE]

 

[Glenn239]

It was not caused by military defeats, and the "Order of the number 1."

If Britain were to be neutral, then Russia collapses faster because there is no BEF tying down large numbers of German troops. If Britain sells Russia equipment, then Britain is pouring money down the drain, money that it might need later.

 

[Tallil2long]

If Britain were to be neutral, then Russia collapses faster because there is no BEF tying down large numbers of German troops. If Britain sells Russia equipment, then Britain is pouring money down the drain, money that it might need later.

If Britain remained neutral, I doubt very much that it would have anything to fear from Germany, at least militarily. Until Britain entered the war against Germany, I'm unaware that any serious German belligerent intentions existed towards her.

I'd be willing to listen if anyone can provide any, of course.

 

[Glenn239]

If Britain remained neutral, I doubt very much that it would have anything to fear from Germany, at least militarily.

Prior to the defeat of Russia that is correct. After the defeat of Russia, Germany's options would open up and Britain's would narrow, and Britain would have a great deal indeed to fear from Germany.

This goes back to fundamental Germany strategy - which was to isolate and defeat individual members of the Entente before moving on to the next one. British neutrality on the basis of Belgium would play into that strategy by isolating Russia so that Germany could then defeat her.

Until Britain entered the war against Germany, I'm unaware that any serious German belligerent intentions existed towards her.

If Britain is neutral than Germany shall defeat Russia - maybe in 1916, or perhaps Russia switches sides (allies with Germany after denouncing its alliance with France).

After Russia drops out of the war, either France asks for terms from Germany (and we understand that these terms are not going to be as lenient as Germany would have granted in 1914), or France fights on.

If France surrenders, then Britain is in danger of seeing France going over to Germany after the war, (because no viable alternative policy alternative exists). If France does not surrender, then Germany and Austria will come at France straight through Belgium.

 

[BooNZ]

Prior to the defeat of Russia that is correct. After the defeat of Russia, Germany's options would open up and Britain's would narrow, and Britain would have a great deal indeed to fear from Germany.

Britain still has the world's strongest economy, most powerful navy and a global empire. The whole pre-war naval race thing was a desperate attempt by Germany to be noticed by Britain.

Before the war Germany also had a thing for colonies...

This goes back to fundamental Germany strategy - which was to isolate and defeat individual members of the Entente before moving on to the next one. British neutrality on the basis of Belgium would play into that strategy by isolating Russia so that Germany could then defeat her.

In reality, what alternative 'strategies' are there? A drunk in a bar fight would probably figure out the same cunning plan.

If Britain is neutral than Germany shall defeat Russia - maybe in 1916, or perhaps Russia switches sides (allies with Germany after denouncing its alliance with France).

I don't see Russia changing sides, but timing would be reasonable. Any longer and France would collapse first.

After Russia drops out of the war, either France asks for terms from Germany (and we understand that these terms are not going to be as lenient as Germany would have granted in 1914), or France fights on.

Terms, definitely terms. Italy might also become interested in a piece of France if Russia and Britain are out of the frame.

If France surrenders, then Britain is in danger of seeing France going over to Germany after the war, (because no viable alternative policy alternative exists). If France does not surrender, then Germany and Austria will come at France straight through Belgium.

A more likely scenario is Britain and Germany start dating

 

[Xgentis]

Britain do no want a single European power to dominate Europe. And if Germany defeat France and Russia it will dominate Europe something Britain does not want.

 

[Glenn239]

Britain still has the world's strongest economy, most powerful navy and a global empire. The whole pre-war naval race thing was a desperate attempt by Germany to be noticed by Britain.

Britain would still have formidable naval resources, certainly, and could maintain its naval lead for decades to come. But in terms of the European order, it would be Germany that would be in the driver's seat calling the political shots.

In reality, what alternative 'strategies' are there? A drunk in a bar fight would probably figure out the same cunning plan.

Localisation, like the Germans suggested.

I don't see Russia changing sides, but timing would be reasonable. .

The Russians are going to hang around for their own inevitable defeat after Britain stabs them in the back? I think not. I think the Russians pull the British aside and say, You fools, what you done? You force us to abandon France and ally with Germany.

Terms, definitely terms. Italy might also become interested in a piece of France if Russia and Britain are out of the frame.

If Britain is neutral I would anticipate Rumania, Bulgaria, Italy, Japan and the Ottoman Empire all jumping in to take a piece of something in alliance with Germany.

A more likely scenario is Britain and Germany start dating

You know how in 1939 Germany respected Belgium in order to finish Poland, then came straight at France through Belgium in 1940 after Poland was done? Same thing.

 

[PhoenicianLegacy]

Did Germany really try to annex Belgium in WWI?

 

[Xgentis]

Did Germany really try to annex Belgium in WWI?

They could take piece of it and puppetize the rest. They would want access to Antwerp as well.

 

[BooNZ]

Britain would still have formidable naval resources, certainly, and could maintain its naval lead for decades to come. But in terms of the European order, it would be Germany that would be in the driver's seat calling the political shots.

So Britain would have nothing to "fear" as such.

Localisation, like the Germans suggested.

Sorry - I don't understand

The Russians are going to hang around for their own inevitable defeat after Britain stabs them in the back? I think not. I think the Russians pull the British aside and say, You fools, what you done? You force us to abandon France and ally with Germany.

A re-alignment after hostilities is entirely plausible, but I couldn't see them "changing sides". Being 'forced' to ally with the only real military threat to Russia cannot be a bad thing for Russia.

If Britain is neutral I would anticipate Rumania, Bulgaria, Italy, Japan and the Ottoman Empire all jumping in to take a piece of something in alliance with Germany.

Italy would be the only one relevant to France.

You know how in 1939 Germany respected Belgium in order to finish Poland, then came straight at France through Belgium in 1940 after Poland was done? Same thing.

Yeah - 1939 Poland is just like 1914 Imperial Russia.

 

[miketr]

Did Germany really try to annex Belgium in WWI?

They debated doing so at high levels.

They setup a military government to administer Belgium as part of the occupation.

Michael

 

[Tallil2long]

Prior to the defeat of Russia that is correct. After the defeat of Russia, Germany's options would open up and Britain's would narrow, and Britain would have a great deal indeed to fear from Germany.

This goes back to fundamental Germany strategy - which was to isolate and defeat individual members of the Entente before moving on to the next one. British neutrality on the basis of Belgium would play into that strategy by isolating Russia so that Germany could then defeat her.


If Britain is neutral than Germany shall defeat Russia - maybe in 1916, or perhaps Russia switches sides (allies with Germany after denouncing its alliance with France).


If France surrenders, then Britain is in danger of seeing France going over to Germany after the war, (because no viable alternative policy alternative exists). If France does not surrender, then Germany and Austria will come at France straight through Belgium.

But if Britain stayed neutral, where is the basis for serious German hostility towards her? She effectively would have removed herself from the ranks of the Entente, so German intent to "isolate and defeat individual members of the Entente" would not apply.

We seem to be assuming that, because IOTL Germany and Britain fought each other, a sort of inevitable hostility existed between them, regardless of circumstances. I submit this need not have been so.
After Russia drops out of the war, either France asks for terms from Germany (and we understand that these terms are not going to be as lenient as Germany would have granted in 1914), or France fights on.

 

[Tallil2long]

Did Germany really try to annex Belgium in WWI?

The assumption seems to be that they would have, though I have seen no justification for it.

 

[Tallil2long]

They debated doing so at high levels.

They setup a military government to administer Belgium as part of the occupation.

Michael

"Debated", of course, being far different from "resolved". And administering a nation during wartime (to sustain the supply lines of one's forces) does not imply annexation after the war.

 

[Tallil2long]

Britain do no want a single European power to dominate Europe. And if Germany defeat France and Russia it will dominate Europe something Britain does not want.

Again, military leaders in France, Russia AND Germany reckoned that the balance of power was passing ( and likely had already passed) to the Franco-Russian Entente. The Schleiffen Plan was less a blueprint for conquest than a desperate attempt to defeat one opponent swiftly and so avoid inevitable two-front defeat. I VERY seriously doubt whether any British leaders considered German victory likely, even were Britain to remain neutral.

I believe that what Britain did was to abandon the anti-hegemonic policy because they believed Franco-Russian Entente hegemony to be inevitable, and better to be on the winning side than to be on the sidelines.

 

[miketr]

"Debated", of course, being far different from "resolved". And administering a nation during wartime (to sustain the supply lines of one's forces) does not imply annexation after the war.

That Belgium wasn't going to end up with anything like its prewar borders or government was 'resolved'. Details were still being debated.

The General Government was how the Germans administered Belgium during WW1, it was legal and by itself wasn't a stepping stone to annexation or dismemberment of Belgium. Some of the things the General Government did though pointed to that the Germans were getting ready to break up Belgium along ethnic lines.

What exactly might have happened to Belgium wouldn't be hashed out till peace talks.

Michael

 

[BooNZ]

That Belgium wasn't going to end up with anything like its prewar borders or government was 'resolved'. Details were still being debated.

The General Government was how the Germans administered Belgium during WW1, it was legal and by itself wasn't a stepping stone to annexation or dismemberment of Belgium. Some of the things the General Government did though pointed to that the Germans were getting ready to break up Belgium along ethnic lines.

What exactly might have happened to Belgium wouldn't be hashed out till peace talks.

Michael

I understood the proposition was that Germany does not invade Belgium and Britain remains neutral, which implies that Russia bars the brunt of German attentions and likely Russia drops out earlier than OTL.

In those circumstances, without Britain, France is unlikely to last much longer and I doubt the Germans feel compelled to charge through Belgium. As an independent neutral power, I cannot see how peace talks would involve the fate of Belgium.

Britain also strongly opposed control of any Channel ports falling into German hands.