What if Edward Grey had died before WWI?

[Tibi088]

If there is any blame dished out for the UK in regards of the outbreak of WWI and especially them getting involved its usually laid on Sir Edward Grey.

To test this out lets remove him from the picture: let him have a tragic accident for example in the january of 1914. He dies immediately.

Who would replace him? What would be the effect? Would they even know of the commitments he made towards the french and would they decide to honour them? Would they be more open about them towards pairlaiment and if yes what would be the effects?

 

[Aghasverov]

If there is any blame dished out for the UK in regards of the outbreak of WWI and especially them getting involved its usually laid on Sir Edward Grey.

To test this out lets remove him from the picture: let him have a tragic accident for example in the january of 1914. He dies immediately.

Who would replace him? What would be the effect? Would they even know of the commitments he made towards the french and would they decide to honour them? Would they be more open about them towards pairlaiment and if yes what would be the effects?

Good thread. Too many people ignore the role that this man played in July and August 1914...

 

[Mikey]

I'm pretty favorably inclined towards Grey, actually. He made an honest effort to avoid the war, even if it was unsuccessful. At least if we're talking about the July Crisis rather than the larger scope of Grey's career.

One issue is that if he's only out of commission in January, there's not a lot of time for a successor to really establish himself, and it's likely that Grey's general strategies would be continued.

 

[Tibi088]

I'm pretty favorably inclined towards Grey, actually. He made an honest effort to avoid the war, even if it was unsuccessful. At least if we're talking about the July Crisis rather than the larger scope of Grey's career.

One issue is that if he's only out of commission in January, there's not a lot of time for a successor to really establish himself, and it's likely that Grey's general strategies would be continued.

Im not a fan of his - IIRC he threatened with resignation if the commitments he had no right to make on his own to the french were not respected. Pairlaiment also had no idea how far he has commited to the french.

As for his death: it doesnt necesserily need to be january 1914 - I just dont want any major changes - less time between his death and Sarajevo the less people will start arguing on the butterflies that should result from his absence in other regards than WWI while it also gives a bit - perhaps not enough - time for his successor to establish himself.

However Im not so well wersed in english inside politics that i could have a guess at who would be his successor.

 

[matzeskatze]

This could be one of the underrated breaks prior to WWI.
As I understand it, in the beginning of 1914 the British and Russians were engaged in naval talks that the Germans got wind of.

As they then asked about them, Grey outright lied that there were no talks but the Germans knew, because of a spy in the Russian embassy.

It can be positioned that the Germans and von Hollweg lost trust in the British and more so Grey and as a result the July Crisis was worse then the prior ones.

 

[raharris1973]

Grey was in his Cabinet role from 1905 to 1916.

Asquith was PM from 1908-1916.

While Grey may have been a pernicious influence over the long-haul, if we can consider early 20th century British PMs to be true chief executives and heads of governments like mid-20th century and modern British PMs, I don't know how Asquith avoids responsibility for letting Grey do his whole thing and allowing himself and the whole country to get dragged along. It would be like Chamberlain or Churchill saying "oops, it was all Halifax's fault" or "it's was all Tony Eden's fault".

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Apparently most of the Foreign Office was really francophile (its a class thing) and wanted Britain in the war to support France, no matter what. Also, Gray, Asquith, and Haldane were on the "imperialist" wing of the Liberal Party and were close when the Liberals came to power, it was how Grey got the position of Foreign Minister in the first place. In 1906, the leading (relative) isolationist, Campbell-Bannerman, became PM but there was a move to oust him immediately. Asquith got the Treasury, Haldane War, and Grey the Foreign Office. When Asquith became PM in 1908, Lloyd George replaced him at the Treasury and became the leading figure on the Liberal left after Campbell-Bannerman's death, and was the leading skeptic in the cabinet of going to war with Germany, though he relented.

So likely Gray is replaced by another imperialist and there is no change. The only left wing figures I can think of who might replace Gray are Morley and Lloyd George, with Morley having a bigger effect. If Lloyd George is moved someone has to become Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lloyd George is embroiled in scandal, so I don't see this happening at all. More likely is Haldane or Churchill, more likely Haldane, and they are both pro-intervention, though there styles are different enough to produce butterflies. Haldane was part of a developing Anglo-German detente so if you want a plausible POD for a different British course, that is your best bet.

As to other pols, Gray's actual replacement in late 1916 was Arthur Balfour, but he was a Tory, though good friends with Asquith and was sitting on Cabinet committees at the time. Politically this is impossible. The only other candidate would be John Simon, who would definitely be an non-interventionist but is probably too junior. If you want a non-interventionist in the position, I think Morley would have been picked instead of Simon, with an imperialist taking Morley's India portfolio to maintain balance.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Churchill would have been the most likely to have flatly stated to the Germans that the British were going all-in if they invaded Belgium, which actually would have made the invasion less likely than Gray's ambiguity. But he would have pressed for British involvement even without an invasion of Belgium.

 

[tallthinkev]

...

While Grey may have been a pernicious influence over the long-haul, if we can consider early 20th century British PMs to be true chief executives and heads of governments like mid-20th century and modern British PMs, I don't know how Asquith avoids responsibility for letting Grey do his whole thing and allowing himself and the whole country to get dragged along...

Communication time and length, plus Grey thinking he was right all time. 25 years later the time to report back to 'HQ' was a couple of hours, in 1914 could well be the next day

 

[raharris1973]

Apparently most of the Foreign Office was really francophile (its a class thing)

What kind of class thing? France was a republic run by politicians of multiple classes. Germany had a growing working class party but an aristocratic executive and bureaucracy under a monarch with real powers. Was it a "culture" thing?

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Grey was in his Cabinet role from 1905 to 1916.

Asquith was PM from 1908-1916.

While Grey may have been a pernicious influence over the long-haul, if we can consider early 20th century British PMs to be true chief executives and heads of governments like mid-20th century and modern British PMs, I don't know how Asquith avoids responsibility for letting Grey do his whole thing and allowing himself and the whole country to get dragged along. It would be like Chamberlain or Churchill saying "oops, it was all Halifax's fault" or "it's was all Tony Eden's fault".

The thing was Grey, who had no ambitions to be PM himself, had engineered Asquith's succession as leader of the Liberal Party after Campbell-Bannerman. He could exceed his authority because Asquith owed him. He was if you like Asquith's Peter Mandelson, Ed Balls, Dominic Cummings. Chamberlain or Churchill didn't owe Halifax or Eden the same way.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

The thing was Grey, who had no ambitions to be PM himself, had engineered Asquith's succession as leader of the Liberal Party after Campbell-Bannerman. He could exceed his authority because Asquith owed him. He was if you like Asquith's Peter Mandelson, Ed Balls, Dominic Cummings. Chamberlain or Churchill didn't owe Halifax or Eden the same way.

Or perhaps, given his age and seniority, his Airey Neave or Willie Whitelaw. But you get the idea.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Im not a fan of his - IIRC he threatened with resignation if the commitments he had no right to make on his own to the french were not respected. Pairlaiment also had no idea how far he has commited to the french.

As for his death: it doesnt necesserily need to be january 1914 - I just dont want any major changes - less time between his death and Sarajevo the less people will start arguing on the butterflies that should result from his absence in other regards than WWI while it also gives a bit - perhaps not enough - time for his successor to establish himself.

However Im not so well wersed in english inside politics that i could have a guess at who would be his successor.

If Grey dropped dead, probably Lord Crewe who Duff Cooper always maintained would have made a much better fist of it. A very rational actor and not so Francophile that the German Foreign Office would write him off as "will declare war on Germany at first pretext". More likely to clearly and unambiguously set out the British position.
OTOH, if Cabinet became aware of the extent to which Grey had exceeded his authority and he had to go, there are three other possible options. If they felt that he had leaned too far towards France or even suspected that he had been bought by the French, Lord Haldane who was educated in Germany and understood German politics might be seen as a necessary corrective. Secondly, if he was merely felt to have been not up to his job, I can see the Liberals safe pair of hands, Reginald McKenna, being offered the role. Thirdly, if the concern was the extent to which he had exceeded his authority and not kept the rest of the Cabinet informed,there is also the possibility of promoting a rising junior who was not yet a big beast in his own right and who would be more collegiate and less assertive. I am guessing the most likely options in that eventuality are Walter Runciman and Herbert Samuel.

 

[GrahamB]

Not sure if there'd be a significant difference if Grey is removed early in the year.
Britain's entry into the First World War was assured by the German invasion of Belgium (a violation of the 1839 London Treaty, of which Germany was a signatory) rather than the relations between the UK and French foreign offices. Until Belgium was invaded I recall there being a very strong feeling in London to wait a bit and see what happened before deciding if anything needed to be done beyond maintaining a 'robust' neutrality.

That said, a (very quick) check online implies Grey's 'great sin' was not being more explicit to the German ambassador that Britain would intervene in Europe if Germany started crossing borders. If whoever replaces Grey makes it very clear to the Germans early in July that Belgium's neutrality must be respected in a future conflict with France, it might convince the Germans to change plans (apologies for the overuse of emphasis). OTL the notice wasn't made until the 31st, when it was too late to have any effect because the Germans were already mustered on the border.

At the very least, the removal of Grey might result in a number of changes to the 'secret treaties' made during the war, like the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Bonus: a nice, concise summary concerning Belgium - https://scottmanning.com/content/belgiums-neutrality-was-more-than-a-scrap-of-paper

 

[NoMommsen]

...
More likely is Haldane or Churchill, more likely Haldane, and they are both pro-intervention,
...

Almost as often as I've read this I've asked for some source if not proving then at least somehow evidencing this claim.
In that respect I'm still waiting.

However, Haldane was at that time - beginning 1914 - already kinda 'spent force'. In 1912 he was moved to the post of Lord Chancellor though protocollary the secong highest - in truth the highest as the only higher Lord Steward is only appointed for the day of coronation - office the british crown has to offer aside from his right to preside the meetings of the House of Lords a rather powerless position.
IOTL Asquith 'used' Haldane to help him with running of the War Ministry after Seely's demission inthe follow-up of the Curragh-incident and Asquith taking this hat also but is was nothing 'official'. Officially making him Foreign Secrtary would have been (in regards the british 'unwritten' constitution) a deminishing of him Haldane. ... and therefore without utter necessity - like a war what wasn't in the rope at the named moment - veery improbable. It would have caused quite an uproar of the political class.
Halifax being considered PM in May 1940 was with GB being dep down in an actual shooting war.

I once asked a similar question as the OP of this thread.
Names thrown in back then were

Reginal McKenna (kinda leading the lot proposed)​

and​

Runciman​

With Samuel he would have the same ... disadvantage in common : age and seniority of service.

Then what about the somewhat less younger Lewis Harcourt ? With his then service as Secretary for the Colonies some ... practice in foreign affairs might be present. ... kinda 'counterweight' to Lloyd George.
Or also drving the 'seniority clock' somewhat up : in Januray 1914 ... why not letting Seely switch to Foreign Affairs ?

... making (pic your choice of probability) someonelse Secretary for war and ... perhaps ... handle the Curragh-incident ... differently (esp. its aftermaths in making the Army a spent force in upholding order/fighting possible protestant ... protesters in case of some unrest in the province of Ulster ?).

​

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Apparently most of the Foreign Office was really francophile (its a class thing) and wanted Britain in the war to support France, no matter what. Also, Gray, Asquith, and Haldane were on the "imperialist" wing of the Liberal Party and were close when the Liberals came to power, it was how Grey got the position of Foreign Minister in the first place. In 1906, the leading (relative) isolationist, Campbell-Bannerman, became PM but there was a move to oust him immediately. Asquith got the Treasury, Haldane War, and Grey the Foreign Office. When Asquith became PM in 1908, Lloyd George replaced him at the Treasury and became the leading figure on the Liberal left after Campbell-Bannerman's death, and was the leading skeptic in the cabinet of going to war with Germany, though he relented.

Ah, the Relugas Compact - named after Grey's fishing cottage. It actually fell apart because C-B refused to be moved upstairs to the House of Lord's as demanded by the trio. Asquith knew the Liberal Government would collapse immediately if he did not join, and he would bear the guilt, so gave in pretty quickly, as did Grey IIRC. The sticking point was a post for Haldane, a old bete-noire for C-B, but one was finally agreed upon.

Everyone knew that Asquith was the heir apparent, and C-B was expected to step down as PM after a short while. Sadly, because he actually turned out to be a better PM than his critics, including the Relugas Compact, thought he would be, C-B died in Downing Street in 1908 a short while after resigning on grounds of ill-health. IIRC the death of his beloved wife was believed to have broker his heart. He had some successes, but his one notable failure was the House of Lord's, which h left for Asquith & Lloyd George to neuter. As Edward VII was travelling incognito as the Duke of Lancaster (i.e. you all know who I am) Asquith had to kiss hands in a hotel in Biarritz, the first & only time a PM has accepted office outside the UK.

Many of the upper-classes were pro-French, following the example of Edward VII, who much preferred the theatre, dancing girls, casinos and other delights of Paris to the military parades in Berlin. His efforts to smooth the path for the Entente Cordiale were in part driven by his poor relations with his nephew Wilhelm II, especially after the latter's treatment of Empress Victoria - the former Princess Royal & Edward's elder sister - upon the death of Frederick III. It is a step too far to claim Edward VII drove foreign policy, but he made sure that the relationship with France was repaired to allow the politicians to move on. Interestingly Edward VII nearly died when in conversation with a young (English-born) female member of the German aristocracy while on an ill-fated official visit to Berlin. Wonder how that would have played out if he had! Read Robert Massie's Dreadnought for the story of the train, tight-fitting uniform & the military band awaiting the arrival of the royal train in Berlin, among other stories of the relationship between uncle & nephew.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Haldane had German ancestry, and while there is no evidence that it ever affected his judgement, as the war came nearer it would soon prove impossible to give him a meaningful post with the anti-German outcry that claimed Prince Louis of Battenberg at the Admiralty.

Indeed, it was his German roots that in part saw Haldane selected for an embassy to Germany to seek ways of cooling the Anglo-German naval arms race, although that proved unsuccessful. Probably his biggest impact was the army reforms of 1906-08 including the formation of the Territorial Army.

 

[yulzari]

What kind of class thing? France was a republic run by politicians of multiple classes. Germany had a growing working class party but an aristocratic executive and bureaucracy under a monarch with real powers. Was it a "culture" thing?

If one looks at the dining out activities pre WW1 the upper social end were eating French but the lesser were increasingly choosing popular German establishments. The 'common people' were still in the pie and chips stage long before their grandchildren opted for a Chinese or Indian. Or in another way, the owner had French food from his cook, the manager went to a French restaurant, the foreman and clerks to a German one and the grubby proles to the chippie around the corner.

 

[Tibi088]

Not sure if there'd be a significant difference if Grey is removed early in the year.
Britain's entry into the First World War was assured by the German invasion of Belgium (a violation of the 1839 London Treaty, of which Germany was a signatory) rather than the relations between the UK and French foreign offices. Until Belgium was invaded I recall there being a very strong feeling in London to wait a bit and see what happened before deciding if anything needed to be done beyond maintaining a 'robust' neutrality.

That said, a (very quick) check online implies Grey's 'great sin' was not being more explicit to the German ambassador that Britain would intervene in Europe if Germany started crossing borders. If whoever replaces Grey makes it very clear to the Germans early in July that Belgium's neutrality must be respected in a future conflict with France, it might convince the Germans to change plans (apologies for the overuse of emphasis). OTL the notice wasn't made until the 31st, when it was too late to have any effect because the Germans were already mustered on the border.

At the very least, the removal of Grey might result in a number of changes to the 'secret treaties' made during the war, like the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Bonus: a nice, concise summary concerning Belgium - https://scottmanning.com/content/belgiums-neutrality-was-more-than-a-scrap-of-paper

As I said I m very interested but not qualified to comment on british politics. However I feel I can comment on international relations and effects:

1. Germany:
Germany in 1914 had taken it as granted that the UK would be in a war against them. That was one of the main reason they could easily disregard Belgian neutrality: why care about british concerns there if London would be in against us anyway? When there was the sligthest of doubt - meaning it seemed that the british might stay neutral against all previous estimations in Berlin the Kaiser actually stopped the execution of the Schlieffen plan and the invasion for nearly a day and ordered Champagne. It was only commenced after it was ascerteined that iwt was a misunderstanding.

What does this mean? If there is a brtish Foreign Ministers who is more pen then Grey and openly acknowledges that Brittain will be in the ring against Germany because of the commitments they made to France (putting aside that there was no chance whatsoever of London openly accepting and supporting such assurances as Grey have in secret given to the French) than nothing will change. Germany will simply know for sure what he already assumed.

If however the new foreign minister is less francophile either because of his sympathies or because he is more open with his government and is forced to be so the germans may change their calculations. See already mentioned OTL episode: there likely wont be only one warplane for germany in 1914. Whats more if a british foreign minister declares that if Germany does respect the neutrality of Belgium Brittain will stay neutral (at least for now) seeing OTL's episode im sure that Germany would have choosen to respect Belgian neutrality.

But Im also sure that unless the british fundamentally change their foreign relations to a pro german line - very unlikely - Germany would still be willing to risk a confrontation in 1914 - before Russia becomes too strong.

2. France:
Here too there is only a change if the new british foreign minister decides not to give the same assurances to France as were given OTL by Grey - very likely IMO. France would be much more reluctant in ensuring Russia of their support in a case of general war if they are not sure of british support in the west. And here that would be the case. Knowing Poincaré I think he would still go forward and decide to support Russia but I have some doubts.

Conclusion:
So even if there is a less francophile Foreign Minister in London IMO the war is still likely to happen in 1914 - though somewhat less likely than OTL. But it could interestng results as Germany is likely to decide on an east first strategy if he hopes that London can be kept out of the conflict that way.

 

[BooNZ]

Grey was in his Cabinet role from 1905 to 1916.

Asquith was PM from 1908-1916.

While Grey may have been a pernicious influence over the long-haul, if we can consider early 20th century British PMs to be true chief executives and heads of governments like mid-20th century and modern British PMs, I don't know how Asquith avoids responsibility for letting Grey do his whole thing and allowing himself and the whole country to get dragged along. It would be like Chamberlain or Churchill saying "oops, it was all Halifax's fault" or "it's was all Tony Eden's fault".

From my reading Asquith was motivated by two overriding priorities, the survival of the Liberal government and the survival of the deeply fractured Liberal party. As head of the government, he was mindful of not intervening on factional issues within the party, so oversight was very light. It's difficult to determine what the other priorities of Asquith were, but I believe his ongoing support of Grey was due to their friendship and a genuine shared desire for peace.

...
More likely is Haldane or Churchill, more likely Haldane, and they are both pro-intervention, though there styles are different enough to produce butterflies.
...

Almost as often as I've read this I've asked for some source if not proving then at least somehow evidencing this claim.
In that respect I'm still waiting.

Yes please. As best as I can understand, due to his portfolio commitments and the company he kept relating thereto, Haldane is instantly labelled an honorary hawk. I believe intervention-curious is a better brand for he and Asquith.

Churchill would have been the most likely to have flatly stated to the Germans that the British were going all-in if they invaded Belgium, which actually would have made the invasion less likely than Gray's ambiguity. But he would have pressed for British involvement even without an invasion of Belgium.

Churchill had even less influence in the British Liberal Cabinet and would have been the only voice openly supporting intervention. Any threat to resign would have been met with a flood of stationary to facilitate the suggestion. OTL he was in back door discussions with the conservatives in case the Liberal government decided to remain on the sidelines, after a substantial German breach of Belgium neutrality. I daresay Gray's ambiguity would be replaced by Churchill providing certainty by confirming to the Germans Britain would enter the war in all circumstances - a deception many forum members still find compelling.

If Grey dropped dead, probably Lord Crewe who Duff Cooper always maintained would have made a much better fist of it.

For a moment I thought you were referring to Eyre Crowe - I was almost triggered