What if the UK was more selfish in WW1?

King Thomas

Banned
What happens if the UK gets involved in WW1 on France's side, but only in a Naval/Air capacity? And does to France what the US did to us in WW2;forces France to pay in hard currency for the supplies and for blockading Germany under threat of pulling out of the war otherwise, bleeds France dry and in the end makes it sign over many of it's colonies to us?
 
Germans take Paris in August or September 1914, and the war ends.

You can't compare the relationship between Britain and France - formally allied in the Triple Entente - in 1914 with the situation between the USA and UK in 1940. The USA and UK were not allies, the US was not obligated to protect the UK, and as such there were existing laws already on the books that prevented the US from doing anything more at that time.

Besides, the UK never turned over any colonies to the US - at most the UK agreed to give the US long term rent free leases to establish US bases. Incidentally, increasing western hemispheric defense was not exactly contrary to UK's national interest at the time. Furthermore, the US quickly change the laws from cash on hand to credit to giving military and industrial supplies away free.
 
Germany beats France within months, Russia collapses by the end of 1916 and Britain is stuck with German bases in the channel

In short a suboptimal situation for Britain
 
The UK couldn't allow France to fall, as has been said it would put Germany with bases right in its face.

France not falling was central to everything the British Army did for the entire war.
 
The UK had a tiny number of troops in France in 1914 and their absence doesn't decide any of the battles, the outcome was predetermined by logistics before any of the shots were fired.
 
Worst possible world, all the negatives of a German victory but with Britain looking weak, moronic and hostile to the new masters of Europe. Britain would be much better off joining the war on the German side or staying strictly neutral than doing that.
 
The UK had a tiny number of troops in France in 1914 and their absence doesn't decide any of the battles, the outcome was predetermined by logistics before any of the shots were fired.
Fair point Snake, though without the BEF France takes marginally higher (maybe 5%) casualties in the Battle of the Frontiers and subsequent withdrawal, front lines are maybe 5km deeper into France on average

1915 and 1916 it will matter a bit, especially when financial factors start kicking in, without free UK loans the French economy is kicked in the nads
 
Fair point Snake, though without the BEF France takes marginally higher (maybe 5%) casualties in the Battle of the Frontiers and subsequent withdrawal, front lines are maybe 5km deeper into France on average

1915 and 1916 it will matter a bit, especially when financial factors start kicking in, without free UK loans the French economy is kicked in the nads

Without UK loans and UK factory production the French economy is more than kicked in the nads, one of them has been crushed, with North-Eastern France gone they're doomed in a industrial war of attrition. It would be like Germany without the Rhineland or Italy without the Po Valley. Massif Central villages can produce food and farmers who can fight bravely and die for France but they can't produce artillery shells.
 
After the initial invasion how vital were British troops on the western front? Perhaps as a compromise between the original post and what others have said the British Expeditionary Force is sent out and then reinforced but takes a mostly defensive stance, whilst Britain concentrates navaly and on the Middle East and Africa? They could argue that it plays best to respective nations strengths, the UK with the size of the Royal Navy and history of naval descents and France with its population base and the size of their army. Couple that with continued British financial support, and supplies of materiel, although perhaps on not so generous terms since Britain is being more 'selfish', and I think it might work.
 
First of all defensive stances can be pretty expensive in trench warfare, look at the French at Verdun, separately that was what happened in OTL. Britain carried 95% of the burden outside the Western Front being the main supporter of Italy, Serbia and the conflict against the Ottomans was almost entirely a British and Russian affair.
 
After the initial invasion how vital were British troops on the western front? Perhaps as a compromise between the original post and what others have said the British Expeditionary Force is sent out and then reinfoced but takes a mostly defensive stance, whilst Britain concentrates navaly and on the Middle East and Africa? They could argue that it plays best to rspective nations strengths, the UK with the size of the Royal Navy and history of naval descents and France with its population base and the size of their army. Couple that with continued British financial support and supplies of materiel and I think it might work.

Could that lead to earlier issues in the French Army though? If you assume OTL naval action or even double it the French Army is still taking massive losses that might lead to a break down in the alliance. I think it would have ramifications with the French politicians as well.
 
Could that lead to earlier issues in the French Army though? If you assume OTL naval action or even double it the French Army is still taking massive losses that might lead to a break down in the alliance. I think it would have ramifications with the French politicians as well.
As I understand things even when the French army mutinied they were still willing to hold the line and fight defensively, just not go over the top and actively attack the Germans. Could this lead to a stalemate and it being won by who can keep going the longest? As for political considerations as long as it had been generally previously agreed when the Entente came about and the British are still see doing something in other theatres I think it should be okay, although post war it could be interesting.


First of all defensive stances can be pretty expensive in trench warfare, look at the French at Verdun, separately that was what happened in OTL. Britain carried 95% of the burden outside the Western Front being the main supporter of Italy, Serbia and the conflict against the Ottomans was almost entirely a British and Russian affair.
True. I was just wondering how the Middle East campaign and the Macedonian front might of been affected if a large percentage of the troops and resources used on the western front in our timeline had been sent there instead. Could the Ottoman Empire be forced out of the war earlier - and open the Dardanelles, would Bulgaria be so keen to jump in if Serbia is being reinforced before it falls?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What happens if the UK gets involved in WW1 on France's side, but only in a Naval/Air capacity? And does to France what the US did to us in WW2;forces France to pay in hard currency for the supplies and for blockading Germany under threat of pulling out of the war otherwise, bleeds France dry and in the end makes it sign over many of it's colonies to us?

I am taking this initially the BEF stays in the UK. The short answer is the CP win, probably in 1916, but it could be 1917.

Longer Answer: The BEF is about one army missing in 1914. Without the BEF into the gap at the Marne, the Germans likely hold the Marne. It is possible France pulls out forces from other locations and perform roughly the same as OTL. So Germany is somewhere between OTL lines and the Marne. It makes a lot of sense for France to abandon attacking into A-L, but this was a emotionally important decision, so it is hard to call. Germany halts due to logistics.

We then get to the race to the sea, baring the French lines collapse. France will have trouble getting enough forces to block Germany advance. IOTL, Ypres was a hard fought battle. Without the UK there and much lighter amounts of French forces trying to hold the GAP, the Germans do much better. The Germans might get as far as the Somme. Calais likely falls. Harcourt and Amiens are largely a given. Again, Germany has horrible logistics.

Nothing about this save A-H from Conrad, so the east is doing badly, and by May 1915, Germany will have to turn east. It likely sends more forces east, quicker than OTL.

So the question becomes, can Germany push from the Somme or Marne and take Paris between roughly December 1914 and April 1915. They likely try to and fail.

Now to what does the BEF do? Until the Ottomans enter the war, there are not a lot of good places to land. One can't rule out landing in Albania, but I don't think this is likely. If the Ottomans still enter the war roughly on time, then the Gallipoli type operation is likely. Or Gallipoli and Alexandrette. The Ottomans are hit harder and faster than OTL, but the attacks likely stall after making a good beachhead.

You call argue either way on Italy entering the war. If Italy does not enter, it becomes a very short war (1915 win for CP is possible). But let's assume about OTL entry date. This front should be much like OTL for 1915.

Falkenhayn will want to hit west, but will be force to go east. He will have more forces available. It goes as good or better than OTL. It also does not stop in August, but goes on until the heavy snows. The Germans likely make 150-200 miles farther east (4 or so more months advancing). Russia is in bad shape.

In 1916, you can write a lot of different TL based on assumptions and the details I have skipped over. Falkenhayn likely breaks France's will to fight this year, and we see peace talks sometime in 1917.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
First of all defensive stances can be pretty expensive in trench warfare, look at the French at Verdun, separately that was what happened in OTL. Britain carried 95% of the burden outside the Western Front being the main supporter of Italy, Serbia and the conflict against the Ottomans was almost entirely a British and Russian affair.

There is no way your 95% is right. Italy was a major factor, and while Italy got 2 billion in loan, there is no way it gets to the 95% level. The UK may have is not 95% of the fighting against the Ottomans, the Russians fought hard too. The UK was not 95% of Saloniki. The only location it is over 95% is Basra, Sinai, and maybe East Africa. Gallipoli was not 95% UK. Africa west of the Rift Valley was not 95% UK. Pacific was not 95% UK.
 
There is no way your 95% is right. Italy was a major factor, and while Italy got 2 billion in loan, there is no way it gets to the 95% level. The UK may have is not 95% of the fighting against the Ottomans, the Russians fought hard too. The UK was not 95% of Saloniki. The only location it is over 95% is Basra, Sinai, and maybe East Africa. Gallipoli was not 95% UK. Africa west of the Rift Valley was not 95% UK. Pacific was not 95% UK.

I would also read UK as British Empire forces (it's more accurate). Gallipoli was a joint op with the French. Taking wiki's figures, 86% British Empire by manpower, but it does ignore the British supplied naval support and logistics.
 
[...]You can't compare the relationship between Britain and France - formally allied in the Triple Entente[...]
The UK and France were not formally allied in the entente cordiale, and most certainly not in the Triple Entente.

The "entente cordiale" was a treaty between the UK and France which regulated their respective spheres of influence in Africa and in some minor parts in the Pacific and North America. They do not incorporate a defensive alliance in any way and do not obligate the UK to send a BEF to France. Grey himself had stated this obvious fact numerous times during the July Crisis.

There was an informal agreement/understanding (that is never formalised treaties like the entente cordiale) that the UK's RN would guard the French Channel Coast in exchange for the French Navy securing the British possessions in the Mediterranean.

It was common consensus that if the UK had an obligation it would only be a moral one. Initially this moral obligation was found to be restricted to the protection of the French Channel coast by the cabinet. The sending of the BEF was only accepted by the politicians after the German invasion of Belgium. The military planners (and some politicians) envisioned a BEF right from the beginning, but that was not a formal alliance. A formal alliance before the outbreak of WW1 was politically quite unfeasible to accomplish in Britain.

The connections between the UK and Russia were even more tentative.

The only formal alliance within the so-called Triple Entente was between France and Russia.

That said: As long as Germany invades Belgium I foud it very difficult to see how the British would not send the BEF.

Kind regards,
G.
 
The only way your going to keep British troops off the continent is if Germany stays out of Belgium.
Putting that side France might last until 1916 without the British but without the new army that Kitchener helped create the French are going to be defeated at Verdun.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I would also read UK as British Empire forces (it's more accurate). Gallipoli was a joint op with the French. Taking wiki's figures, 86% British Empire by manpower, but it does ignore the British supplied naval support and logistics.

86% < 95%.

No way Med was 95% UK ships, just start looking at the list of French ships on station in the med. And I did read the UK as the British Empire. I did a TL where I looked at force deployments on a month by month level for the first 3 years of the war for each theater. You don't see 95% British Empire forces very often in any theater, and the ones that you do tend to be regimental to division size deployments.




I think he meant between France and Britain, Britain did 95% of supporting others.

While this may be true on loans by France and Britain, it is not true for the war. The USA gave out Billions of loans to allies after the USA entered the war.

And I am not so sure it is even true for France and the UK, but I don't have the French loan figures handy.
 
The UK and France were not formally allied in the entente cordiale, and most certainly not in the Triple Entente.

The "entente cordiale" was a treaty between the UK and France which regulated their respective spheres of influence in Africa and in some minor parts in the Pacific and North America. They do not incorporate a defensive alliance in any way and do not obligate the UK to send a BEF to France. Grey himself had stated this obvious fact numerous times during the July Crisis.

There was an informal agreement/understanding (that is never formalised treaties like the entente cordiale) that the UK's RN would guard the French Channel Coast in exchange for the French Navy securing the British possessions in the Mediterranean.

It was common consensus that if the UK had an obligation it would only be a moral one. Initially this moral obligation was found to be restricted to the protection of the French Channel coast by the cabinet. The sending of the BEF was only accepted by the politicians after the German invasion of Belgium. The military planners (and some politicians) envisioned a BEF right from the beginning, but that was not a formal alliance. A formal alliance before the outbreak of WW1 was politically quite unfeasible to accomplish in Britain.

The connections between the UK and Russia were even more tentative.

The only formal alliance within the so-called Triple Entente was between France and Russia.

That said: As long as Germany invades Belgium I foud it very difficult to see how the British would not send the BEF.

Kind regards,
G.

Also the war was sold to the British people and Parliament as a crusade to save 'gallant little Belgium'. Not sending troops to at least do something to save or liberate Belgium would have been politically unacceptable.
 
Top