Question about UK losing WW1

[Mikestone8]

I remember reading in "An Ocean Apart" by Dimbleby & Reynolds about the Anglo-American Alliance, that a British informant was quoted as saying that if the Germans had not initiated unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1916, which provided the casus belli for the US to enter WWI on the Allied side, the British would have had to seek an armistice with the Central Powers by Autumn 1916. And the speculation I read in an article in I believe the Sydney Morning Herald when I was living in Australia was that if Germany had won WWI, the UK and France would have had to give Germany quite a few colonies, mostly in Africa but some in the Pacific.

Are you sure he didn't say (or mean) 1917?

I've heard such quotes, but always in relation to the latter year. Also, the ones I recall related to France rarther than Britain, but I haven't read the book you cite so can't comment on that.

 

[wietze]

Except that the US would no longer have been supplying Entente forces.

By 1917, Britain had run out of collateral to provide security for further loans - which she needed in order to purchase from the US. She could have gone on doing so only if she could obtain unsecured loans - something the US refused as long as it remained neutral.

There is also the question of what sanctions America might have been imposing in retaliation for British blacklists and other measured interfering with American trade - quite a serious possibility by the end of 1916.

And not only that, britain used these loans to finance the french war effort, no more cash and that collapses too.

Also to consider is when will the us government advice the banks no longer to accept british collateral? if all this changes hands it also has to be sold or something, and it will flood the market, causing its value to plummet.
My guess would be that by the time that 80% of the collateral has been used up the banks will become rather careful. And in otl the us govt almost advised to stopped giving loans to the uk. So with a little different attitude this might happen at the point where they considered it in otl.

I agree, if there is no unlimited U-boat war and no zimmerman telegram things between the us and uk might degrade to the point that they demand access to continental european markets (both CP and neutral, as the uk was blockading neutral netherlands too) and until that is granted the will blacklist.

 

[DoomBunny]

If the US didn't get in WW1 and somehow the CP manage to win, would it be possible for America to tell thr UK to hand over Canada or even invade to settle the debt?

That would leave them more out of pocket, give them a vast expanse of unhappy territory and annoy a power that, whilst dampened by defeat, would still be strong.

At most, I see the US seizing British assets, but a full blown invasion of Canada (and it would require that, with or without British consent) would be too much trouble for the reward.

 

[BlondieBC]

No US entry and CP victory is practically guaranteed, by June of 1917 the allies would be out of collateral and the US would not grant unsecured loans

Without these loans they cannot import US raw materials and their war production drops by 25-33%, discounting any morale effects the Germans will have more men and they less, not counting the forces they have to use to replace the missing Americans holding the Front

The Spring Offensive is probably stopped, but it goes farther and the Germans end up with enough reserves to stop any counter offensive well short of the border

Agreed.

A German victory in the West is impossible after about mid-1917, the best they can hope for is a negotiated peace where they might keep Luxembourg but otherwise return to pre-war borders. They might score well in the East if Brest-Litovsk holds, but Germany is going to be a social nightmare for at least a year or two. The US will still profit immensely as the world rebuild but Germany may well have her cake and eat it too, especially once the Ukraine food production capacity resumes. Plus, without Byelorussia, the Baltic states, or the Ukraine, the USSR is going to experience either defeat at the hands of the Whites or be seriously stuck for food production and heavy industry (a third to half of each was in the Ukraine if memory serves).

No, the Germans will get more in the west. It is the east where the gains are more vulnerable. Without the USA in the war, either the whites or reds are likely to go for peace earlier in the east. The earlier terms offered by CP were much softer. Likely not much more than the ground lost. Basically some type of German dominated Poland and Duchy of the Baltic.

The west will be much better. With the 25-33% drop in material available (more in some critical areas) and a weaker blockade (both no USA warships and USA working to get around blockade), the war is a clear German advantage. The Entente will start noticeably underperforming OTL by early Summer 1917, and continue for the rest of the war. There are lots of details to deal with if you write a TL, but the breaks go the way of the CP. France will be out of the war before A-H, and this will pretty much end the war.

 

[BlondieBC]

Omg guys I wasn't asking how could Germany win WW1 and I wasn't asking if the CP could win, there's already a bunch of threads about that. I was just wondering if the US would annex Canada to settle the debt if the UK lost.

No.

Debt secured by other assets.

If USA wanted to take Canada in WW1 era, we could. We have to mobilize and arm, but it is a matter of will not ability.

 

[Alex1guy]

Omg guys I wasn't asking how could Germany win WW1 and I wasn't asking if the CP could win, there's already a bunch of threads about that. I was just wondering if the US would annex Canada to settle the debt if the UK lost.

Britain didn't own Canada. It was a self governing Dominion. It's like asking if the US could annex Mexico from Spain.

 

[BlondieBC]

I remember reading in "An Ocean Apart" by Dimbleby & Reynolds about the Anglo-American Alliance, that a British informant was quoted as saying that if the Germans had not initiated unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1916, which provided the casus belli for the US to enter WWI on the Allied side, the British would have had to seek an armistice with the Central Powers by Autumn 1916. And the speculation I read in an article in I believe the Sydney Morning Herald when I was living in Australia was that if Germany had won WWI, the UK and France would have had to give Germany quite a few colonies, mostly in Africa but some in the Pacific.

All powers would have been wise to seek peace in 1916. I doubt the UK would in the scenario listed. Also, look at dates of USW resumption, seems like January 1917 is closer to the date it was decided to resume, so I doubt this quote.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

The thing with the UK is that it's very hard for them to lose WW1, since it would require a naval defeat.

However, I doubt the US would ask for Canada, even if the UK couldn't repay their debts.

 

[Mikestone8]

The Spring Offensive is probably stopped, but it goes farther and the Germans end up with enough reserves to stop any counter offensive well short of the border

How much further can it go and still be stopped?

If the BEF retreats any further, it loses the railway junctions at Amiens and Hazebrouck, effectively paralysing the rail system which brings its supplies. So any further retreat is apt to quickly turn into a rout - and with the railway lines through Amiens unusable, there is nowhere to retreat except into the sea.

Similarly for the French. They can't retreat much further than OTL without uncovering Paris, which is their biggest manufacturing region and the principal source of supply for their armies.

If the US is in the war, there is at least in theory (I'm not so sure about in practice) the option of falling back behind the Loire and hanging on there until the AEF can turn the tide; but this thread seems to assume that America has stayed out. So it looks to me as if the Allies being driven even slightly further back probably means "game over", at least in the Continental war.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

How much further can it go and still be stopped?

If the BEF retreats any further, it loses the railway junctions at Amiens and Hazebrouck, effectively paralysing the rail system which brings its supplies. So any further retreat is apt to quickly turn into a rout - and with the railway lines through Amiens unusable, there is nowhere to retreat except into the sea.

Similarly for the French. They can't retreat much further than OTL without uncovering Paris, which is their biggest manufacturing region and the principal source of supply for their armies.

If the US is in the war, there is at least in theory (I'm not so sure about in practice) the option of falling back behind the Loire and hanging on there until the AEF can turn the tide; but this thread seems to assume that America has stayed out. So it looks to me as if the Allies being driven even slightly further back probably means "game over", at least in the Continental war.

I said probably, I wasn't sure it could be stopped, but I was not sure it would be a war winner

 

[Grey Wolf]

The thing with the UK is that it's very hard for them to lose WW1, since it would require a naval defeat.

However, I doubt the US would ask for Canada, even if the UK couldn't repay their debts.

If the US was in the mood to ask for anywhere it would probably be Bermuda, Barbados, the Bahamas.....colonies beginning with B in fact!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[BlondieBC]

How much further can it go and still be stopped?

If the BEF retreats any further, it loses the railway junctions at Amiens and Hazebrouck, effectively paralysing the rail system which brings its supplies. So any further retreat is apt to quickly turn into a rout - and with the railway lines through Amiens unusable, there is nowhere to retreat except into the sea.

Similarly for the French. They can't retreat much further than OTL without uncovering Paris, which is their biggest manufacturing region and the principal source of supply for their armies.

It was a thread a half year back and with slightly different POD, but it largely agree with you there. Once Amiens and Hazebrouck fall, the Entente is split in half. The bulk of the English fall back to Calais, and form a perimeter. Likely it can be supplied, since the UK will be willing to commit the fleet to keep the see lanes open and the Germans will be running short on logistics.


The French have a tough problem. In theory they might hold at the Somme, which is about where the German logistics will run out. But without the USA in the war, it is unclear they have enough to hold the line. We likely look the bulk of the forces holding the line to Paris with a very, very weak French flank near the sea. Nothing special about the Somme, the Germans will run out of steam somewhere and the French will form a line within 10's of miles of the Somme.

Then we get into the more difficult question of who has, how many regiments in reserve. This is where the debate can get a bit more murky, since a lot depends on how good each side decisions are between early April 1917 and Spring 1918 (or whenever the big German attack occurs).

 

[Mikestone8]

It was a thread a half year back and with slightly different POD, but it largely agree with you there. Once Amiens and Hazebrouck fall, the Entente is split in half. The bulk of the English fall back to Calais, and form a perimeter. Likely it can be supplied, since the UK will be willing to commit the fleet to keep the see lanes open and the Germans will be running short on logistics.

It can be supplied all right but the trouble is that all or most of it will be within range of German artillery. No doubt there'll be a breathing space while thir guns are brought forward, but after that the "perimeter" is liable to become a slaughterhouse.

Also, how much of the BEF can get to it? The units up around Ypres certainly can, but those further south are going to have quite a task reaching Calais with the railway system paralysed - which means a lot of them will be running short of ammunition.

The French have a tough problem. In theory they might hold at the Somme, which is about where the German logistics will run out. But without the USA in the war, it is unclear they have enough to hold the line. We likely look the bulk of the forces holding the line to Paris with a very, very weak French flank near the sea. Nothing special about the Somme, the Germans will run out of steam somewhere and the French will form a line within 10's of miles of the Somme.

Will anything much be happening on the Somme?

My guess is that the German attacks in the French sector will be pretty much where they were OTL, but with the BEF largely if not entirely out of the game, they can hit the French with much greater force. And they need only progress slightly further than OTL to sever the rail links between Paris (the main industrial region and source of supplies) and the French armies to the east of it. Add to that the fact that the victory in the British sector will have led to the capture of the coal mines at Bruay (which supplied 70% of the fuel for the munitions factories round Paris) and France would seem to be in rather deep doo doo. They have of course plenty of space in which to fall back southwards, but doing so means not only abandoning Paris, but also the lines along the Franco-German border, which of course greatly improves German logistics. All in all, veree ungood.

 

[cpip]

I'm having a bit of trouble with finding this: what assets were the British mortgaging in the first years of the war for the loans from American banks? Was it merely British deposits in American banks, or was there anything more concrete?

Anyone who can even point me at a chapter on the subject or what have you... I'm curious what the banks would be seizing.

 

[Mikestone8]

Also, how much of the BEF can get to it? The units up around Ypres certainly can,

Whoops! I may be wrong even on that.

A belated examination of the map shows that a German army at Hazebrouck would actually be nearer to Calais than would a British one at Ypres - and much nearer than a British one at say Arras.

So if the Germans break through there, it could give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Race to the Sea".

 

[Petike]

Not to sound harsh, but this premise sounds like yet another example of the Pendulum Fallacy.

And why on Earth would the UK force Canada to give up its sovereignty anyway ? Sure, the UK still had some say in its affairs, but Canada had been a self-governing dominion since the 1860s.

 

[BlondieBC]

Whoops! I may be wrong even on that.

A belated examination of the map shows that a German army at Hazebrouck would actually be nearer to Calais than would a British one at Ypres - and much nearer than a British one at say Arras.

So if the Germans break through there, it could give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Race to the Sea".

Yes, a good German success here means they make some of the Channel coastline.

I'm having a bit of trouble with finding this: what assets were the British mortgaging in the first years of the war for the loans from American banks? Was it merely British deposits in American banks, or was there anything more concrete?

Anyone who can even point me at a chapter on the subject or what have you... I'm curious what the banks would be seizing.

It is buried in the details in WW1. I will go threw what the UK did, which is common for many of the countries involved. Brief TL from memory, so don't get too worked up on dates which may be off a bit and some broad brush strokes.

1) August 1914 - War starts with little long term planning for economy by anyone. All major leaders expect quick win. You settle debts in gold which is shipped on merchant ships all the time. In today's terms, it would not be uncommon for a ship to have 3 billion in gold aboard.

2) Winter 1914 - People realize war will be long and very expensive. We see the UK going off gold convertibility for domestic users. They go to paper script or what we now call cash. Lots of domestic bond issues. Gold outflow is an issue. Transport is issue since ships with gold being sunk or risk of sunk. Solution is needed so we can buy things (UK) in USA.

So we then make all UK citizens (maybe English and Scotland only) give title to all stock, real estate, factories, business, or other high value items in USA to government for bond (not paper script). UK then uses these as mortgage to USA banks at large discount. So say you are Duke of London who own a gold mine in California, big chunk of Standard Oil, and some vacation homes. All these are now owned by the Crown and you have a bond paying about 5% that comes due in a decade or two.

3) Now what would happen in ATL with UK losing, is that the bank would just sell the assets on the open market to payoff the loans. What happened IOTL is these loans were repaid by UK. I am not sure if you get your gold mine or vacation home back.

And this also gets to a large part of why WW1 broke the UK economic might. The USA spent 4 billion USD in the ACW, much borrowed from UK investors. The USA paid interest on these debts by basically sending food and raw materials to the UK. Other countries had similar items. (Ok, this is the net transaction). Once WW1 is over, the UK has to pay for these items, and has trouble finding enough imports to pay for all these imports.

 

[BlondieBC]

It can be supplied all right but the trouble is that all or most of it will be within range of German artillery. No doubt there'll be a breathing space while thir guns are brought forward, but after that the "perimeter" is liable to become a slaughterhouse.

Also, how much of the BEF can get to it? The units up around Ypres certainly can, but those further south are going to have quite a task reaching Calais with the railway system paralysed - which means a lot of them will be running short of ammunition.

Yes, it will be another Gallipoli only with UK defending not attacking. But we will see good use of older UK ships (predreads) and monitors which I believe will make it expensive both ways. IMO, the UK is most likely to seek peace at this point, at least if it can't break out in a few months.

Now much of BEF depends on how the battle unfolds. The Germans will break out somewhere, and it will be more a twist of fate on who makes it to Calais versus holding the Somme line. Now I had to look at something like this for my TL where the Germans got to Dunkirk. IMO, the UK will pull forces from other locations to defended. So we will see things like the UK retreating back across the Sinai, destroying the RR, and moving some troops to Europe from Palestine. Pull out of Saloniki. Fall back to Basra.

Will anything much be happening on the Somme?

My guess is that the German attacks in the French sector will be pretty much where they were OTL, but with the BEF largely if not entirely out of the game, they can hit the French with much greater force. And they need only progress slightly further than OTL to sever the rail links between Paris (the main industrial region and source of supplies) and the French armies to the east of it. Add to that the fact that the victory in the British sector will have led to the capture of the coal mines at Bruay (which supplied 70% of the fuel for the munitions factories round Paris) and France would seem to be in rather deep doo doo. They have of course plenty of space in which to fall back southwards, but doing so means not only abandoning Paris, but also the lines along the Franco-German border, which of course greatly improves German logistics. All in all, veree ungood.

Well the German offensive will need a pause. So who win depends on the TL. If the Germans have enough supplies and reserve regiments, then yes, they go for Paris. No real other logical target. IMO, if Paris falls, the war is over. But also remember Germany is tired. A-H is in bad shape. I really see a negotiate peace here.

It is a lot different from my TL where A-H is in better shape and the Ottomans are in much, much better shape. The UK can get good terms if it sells out the French. Germany is too tired to build a navy to take London (another 5 years of war or more). London has not lost any land, and actually gained colonies. London can prevent France from giving colonies to Germany. London can't keep Germany from keeping Belgium or France, so a lot comes down to how the negotiations go. It can be anything from a Korean type ending where Germany just keeps what it sits on, to a complicated deal with lots of colonial swaps. I lean towards German getting some colonies back and the Belgium Congo for some time of concession to the UK on Belgium. And France being shafted by the Germans and English.