What if Britain had not intervened in August 1914?

Britain's decision to fight Germany in August 1914 was by no means an ineviatble one. In the end the Cabinet favoured war rather than peace after Lloyd George threw his weight behind those advocating war. But, it was a close call. Let's say he decided otherwise and that , as a result, Britain is left without an effective goverment for the whole of August and that, consequently, the BEF has remained at home. What do think would have happened in Europe during this time and do you think that Britain would still intervene?
 
Are you opening - yet another - discussion upon this subject or are you planning to post an Alternative Timeline? If the first, then you should take advantage of the search engine that has been provided on this site. If the latter please post it.
 
Are you opening - yet another - discussion upon this subject or are you planning to post an Alternative Timeline? If the first, then you should take advantage of the search engine that has been provided on this site. If the latter please post it.

Let's have a discussion that takes an alternate view on this matter then. And, as they say, "Chill out, man."
 
Britain's decision to fight Germany in August 1914 was by no means an ineviatble one. In the end the Cabinet favoured war rather than peace after Lloyd George threw his weight behind those advocating war. But, it was a close call. Let's say he decided otherwise and that , as a result, Britain is left without an effective goverment for the whole of August and that, consequently, the BEF has remained at home. What do think would have happened in Europe during this time and do you think that Britain would still intervene?

Britain would enter the war 1 year later under a Conservative government after the election I would think.
Irish home rule would have all so been passed (posponed because of the war in OTL) which could have saw war in Ulster.
 
Britain would enter the war 1 year later under a Conservative government after the election I would think.
Irish home rule would have all so been passed (posponed because of the war in OTL) which could have saw war in Ulster.
...And severe unrest in Ulster might (indeed, is likely to) preclude entering the War, thus bringing us back to the first point.
 
...And severe unrest in Ulster might (indeed, is likely to) preclude entering the War, thus bringing us back to the first point.

Thats what I was thinking after my poct.
We may well be to occupied in Ulster to get involved.
I wonder if the Conservative government would overturn home rule?
 
"The Lost Prince"

In a British play "The Lost Prince" it stated that all the leaders of the British, Germany and Russian monarchy were staying at Sandringham when the initial assassination occured. In the play they were not informed about the assassination and left to go home.
I do not know whether this event happened but assuming it did and they were informed.
Could they have stopped the cascade of events/alliances that lead to the war and instead left it to the Austrians as a local matter
 
In 1914 there was quite a lot of popular enthusiasm in the UK for the war (unlike in 1939). It was assumed then that it would be a traditional war of manoeuvre and that the troops "would all be home by Christmas" (victorious, of course).

If the UK delayed entering the war for a year, surely the public realisation of the reality of the conflict as a bloody stalemate would cause support for the war to fall away?
 
In a British play "The Lost Prince" it stated that all the leaders of the British, Germany and Russian monarchy were staying at Sandringham when the initial assassination occured. In the play they were not informed about the assassination and left to go home.
I do not know whether this event happened but assuming it did and they were informed.
Could they have stopped the cascade of events/alliances that lead to the war and instead left it to the Austrians as a local matter

Not at all true. The Tsar and the Kaiser were not in Britain at the time of the assassination. The Willy-Nicky letters between Wilhelm and Nicholas do demonstrate how mistaken both were in what they could accomplish. Policy and alliances were set by their governments and they were, in a few instances, purposefully kept out of the decision making.

Does this play you mention have to deal with George V's youngest son Prince John? There was a British production that aired on Masterpiece Theater within the last two years and it was interesting.
 
In 1914 there was quite a lot of popular enthusiasm in the UK for the war (unlike in 1939). It was assumed then that it would be a traditional war of manoeuvre and that the troops "would all be home by Christmas" (victorious, of course).

If the UK delayed entering the war for a year, surely the public realisation of the reality of the conflict as a bloody stalemate would cause support for the war to fall away?

Tony

That is logical but from what I have seen the US was very gung-ho when they joined the conflict and that was after 3 years on bloody conflict. [I'm referring to the general soldiers who seem to have been eager to get involved once the US joined the war not the political and military leadership who were a lot less eager.

I think some knowledge of the conflict would have reduced the mad euphuism but how much of the details of the conflict would have reached the British public accurately. I suspect high casualty rates would be less of a determent than the horrendous conditions at the front and the sheer futility of the lack of progress for years on end.

The other factor would be under what circumstances Britain joined the war. If its a cold decision that entry is necessary for balance of power then motivation would be less. If something like the attack on Belgium, say reports of the massacres of Armenians, or possibly German attacks on unarmed merchant shipping then you would see people more determined to get involved and 'sort them out'.

Steve
 
Top