What if private negotiations between George V and Wilhelm resulted in Germany respecting Belgian neutrality in attacking France?

[Qaa]

I've wondered how WW1 would go if the UK stayed out physically out of it, if materially supporting France. Suppose that King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm have some private discussion at some point in 1914 and the rest of the year goes as OTL until the end of July when the Kaiser vetoes any plans that involve German forces passing through Belgium. Germany and France do still go to war, but the UK lacks a casus belli.
What happens after?

 

[Cymry-Korean]

I've wondered how WW1 would go if the UK stayed out physically out of it, if materially supporting France. Suppose that King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm have some private discussion at some point in 1914 and the rest of the year goes as OTL until the end of July when the Kaiser vetoes any plans that involve German forces passing through Belgium. Germany and France do still go to war, but the UK lacks a casus belli.
What happens after?

Germany loses any reasonable chance of knocking out France early and Britain eventually comes in anyway not wanting to see a German hegemon.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Germany loses any reasonable chance of knocking out France early and Britain eventually comes in anyway not wanting to see a German hegemon.

Yeah, honestly it costs Germany a great deal and gains them very little. The UK is still, probably, going to be drawn in and this whole thing probably tips off the French of when and where the (now easier to handle) attack is coming.

 

[Seandineen]

could this lead for British support for Karl I compromise peace in 1916?

 

[Bountifulauto82]

I've wondered how WW1 would go if the UK stayed out physically out of it, if materially supporting France. Suppose that King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm have some private discussion at some point in 1914 and the rest of the year goes as OTL until the end of July when the Kaiser vetoes any plans that involve German forces passing through Belgium. Germany and France do still go to war, but the UK lacks a casus belli.
What happens after?

Britain did not solely declare war on Germany because of Belgium. They had been wanting an excuse to fight Germany for a while, Belgium was just the justification they used.

 

[Chris Nation]

Britain did not solely declare war on Germany because of Belgium. They had been wanting an excuse to fight Germany for a while, Belgium was just the justification they used.

That's just not true. Britain in 1914 is certainly not itching for a fight. The vast majority of the (Liberal) cabinet were opposed to war, right up until the German invasion of Belgium.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

I've wondered how WW1 would go if the UK stayed out physically out of it, if materially supporting France. Suppose that King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm have some private discussion at some point in 1914 and the rest of the year goes as OTL until the end of July when the Kaiser vetoes any plans that involve German forces passing through Belgium. Germany and France do still go to war, but the UK lacks a casus belli.
What happens after?

George V and Kaiser Wilhelm were not close.
Following the death of Edward VII (who had carved out a role for himself as some foreign policy mastermind, not entirely to the government's liking), the government were determined that future monarchs were much more restrained. I imagine George would have only engaged with the Kaiser on any meaningful level if it was at the request of the UK government.
Contrary to popular belief, its probably worthwhile highlighting that the Kaiser was not some all powerful absolute monarch either, I am not sure he had the final say on whether to invade Belgium or not and irrespective of what conversation he had with George V, doesn't mean his generals would do as he recommended.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Contrary to popular belief, its probably worthwhile highlighting that the Kaiser was not some all powerful absolute monarch either, I am not sure he had the final say on whether to invade Belgium or not and irrespective of what conversation he had with George V, doesn't mean his generals would do as he recommended.

The Kaiser was commander-in-chief of the Army. He had authority to give orders. He deferred to the Army professionals regarding operational orders, but he didn't have to. If Wilhelm insisted that the Army do something its leaders didn't want to do... I think he wins. And there is no way the Army does something Wilhelm doesn't want.

(Note: the Army must answer to someone, or the country is a military dictatorship. If not the Kaiser, then the Chancellor - who is appointed by the Kaiser and serves at his pleasure.)

 

[The Gunslinger]

Yeah, honestly it costs Germany a great deal and gains them very little. The UK is still, probably, going to be drawn in and this whole thing probably tips off the French of when and where the (now easier to handle) attack is coming.

It gains them a ton. Access to the global market alone is worth the early gains in France.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

It gains them a ton. Access to the global market alone is worth the early gains in France.

I don't think avoiding Belgium will keep the UK out of the war.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I don't think avoiding Belgium will keep the UK out of the war.

It might, a lot depends on what happens in the opening months of the conflict. But either way, a very different argument from gaining very little. Even three months makes a big difference when they start to realize the war might last a while.

 

[Fletch]

Britain did not solely declare war on Germany because of Belgium. They had been wanting an excuse to fight Germany for a while, Belgium was just the justification they used.

I hate this theory. It is principally put about by apologists of the Central Powers who ignore the internal political situation in Britain at the time and wish to minimise the absolute German war guilt for British entry. (I am not saying that is the case with yourself)

The Government nearly fell over the declaration of war in OTL. As it stood, four Cabinet members resigned over the declaration alongside a Junior minister. David Lloyd-George came within an ace of resigning himself over the declaration. Without the invasion of Belgium, there is a strong possibility that he would have gone forcing a leadership crisis in the country with the government possibly collapsing.

I cannot see Asquith allowing this situation to arise.

Bear in mind, even without the justifiable reason of the invasion of Belgium, the declaration of war on France was also a justifiable reason. Again, pointing to German war guilt.

As for the "excuse to fight Germany". That is just rubbish. There was a fear of Germany. Since the Battle of Trafalgar, the Royal Navy controlled the trade routes of the world, maintaining the Pax Britannica. The Germans decided it would be a good idea to challenge the supremacy of the Royal Navy, not only putting the trade routes at risk but the United Kingdom itself, forcing a naval arms race.

The risk could have been avoided if Germany maintained itself as a land power rather than acting in a way which would alarm the British government.

Leaving all this aside, the principal priority inside the UK until very late on was not in Serbia, but in Ireland. Had Germany not invaded, we could easily have seen Irish Home Rule within the UK. We could even have seen a Civil War inside the UK over Ireland. It was only postponed due to the Great War after all.

There is little doubt that Britain could have been dragged in eventually if the war lasted. I will point out though that the British were not dragged in during the war of 1870.

German aggression in Naval terms forced a reaction. German aggression in declaring war on France made things possible. German aggression in invading Belgium made it inevitable. As such, I agree likely, but far from inevitable.

Edit: And as has been mentioned, the King was not where the power lay in the UK. The Government were. The Germans would need to negotiate with the British Government, not the King. A few decades later, a King who challenged the Government found out what happens when he tried.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

If for any reason Germany decides to let Belgium off the hook, I can't see them going on an offensive in the West. Instead, they would switch to Russia First.

 

[Derek Jackson]

If for any reason Germany decides to let Belgium off the hook, I can't see them going on an offensive in the West. Instead, they would switch to Russia First.

Absolutely.

 

[Catsmate]

I don't think avoiding Belgium will keep the UK out of the war.

This. They'd find another excuse.

 

[HelloThere]

This. They'd find another excuse.

You're saying that as if violating a treaty isn't a legitimate reason to enter a war against the violating country.

 

[Fletch]

This. They'd find another excuse.

No matter how many times you say it does not make it any more true.

How would the British government have held together in the event Belgium was not the reason (not excuse) given four members reigned as was and some of the biggest names nearly did? It's a literal conspiracy theory to say it was an excuse.

British entry was only justified due to the invasion of Belgium. Also, why didn't Britain intervene in 1870 if entry was inevitable? Life isn't a game of Hearts of Iron.

 

[Catsmate]

You're saying that as if violating a treaty isn't a legitimate reason to enter a war against the violating country.

No. I'm pointing out that entering the war suited the UK's perceived strategic interests and if not "plucky little Belgium" some other casus belli would have been found. The threat to the UK from Germany controlling the French coast perhaps, as a prelude to invasion.

 

[Red_Neptune]

The Kaiser was commander-in-chief of the Army. He had authority to give orders. He deferred to the Army professionals regarding operational orders, but he didn't have to. If Wilhelm insisted that the Army do something its leaders didn't want to do... I think he wins. And there is no way the Army does something Wilhelm doesn't want.

(Note: the Army must answer to someone, or the country is a military dictatorship. If not the Kaiser, then the Chancellor - who is appointed by the Kaiser and serves at his pleasure.)

1) The Kaiser was by no means on the same page as the Army, in fact quarrelling with Moltke Jr. over the idea of a two-front war. Also consider that it wasn't just the Army that was in support of war -- even the officially radical Social Democratic Party voted 96-14 in support of the war & justified it as a defensive war. Him "insisting" that the Army follow what he does is essentially political suicide; the country in large did not hate the idea of the war, and it's not like the Kaiser was particularly well-liked such that people saw him as a source of trustworthy authority.

2) Germany was a military dictatorship by 1916 at the latest, with the Army intervening in civilian affairs and German politics well before the war (see, for instance, the German Navy League formed in 1898 and the German Army League formed in 1902). Wilhelm certainly lacked the power to be much more than a ceremonial monarch for the bulk of the war (despite the Army controlling things!), even if Anglo-American propaganda (which phrased the war as a "fight against tyranny") pinned the blame on him.

 

[I want to learn]

My understanding is that even though there was a lot of contention over the British entry to WW1, and some people in power really weren’t interested, there were also a lot of people who really were interested joining a war against Germany. For instance, I think the timeline came within a hair’s breadth of Churchill ordering Milne’s battlecruisers to attack Goeben, on his own authority, prior to formal declaration of war.