WI: Britain sits out WW1?
- Thread starter Emperor Palpatine
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
Yeah, there is that...
The thing is, the BEF was not that significant in 1914, time and distance is still working against the Germans in the autumn of 1914, the French are quite capable of achieving a Miracle on the Marne if the Germans are that much more extended in Belgium and northwestern France, the Russians will get it together at some point, the Austrians are just as ramshackle as they were historically, and the German Navy can't do much outside the North Sea, and whatever they do inside the North Sea is going to be of significant concern to the British.
Considering that the French held their ground even through the worst of 1917, and the BEF needed until 1915-1916 to get the Kitchener's army and mobilization forces into place, the idea the French will fold immediately seems off-base, and the longer the Germans are occupying Belgium and northeastern France, the more "brutal" they will be perceived to be, the potential of the conflict growing as it did is not unlikely.
Basically, the British can't really stand off in splendid isolation; this is the era of steam, not sailing ships, and air power is on the horizon...
Best,
The thing is, the BEF was not that significant in 1914, time and distance is still working against the Germans in the autumn of 1914, the French are quite capable of achieving a Miracle on the Marne if the Germans are that much more extended in Belgium and northwestern France, the Russians will get it together at some point, the Austrians are just as ramshackle as they were historically, and the German Navy can't do much outside the North Sea, and whatever they do inside the North Sea is going to be of significant concern to the British.
Considering that the French held their ground even through the worst of 1917, and the BEF needed until 1915-1916 to get the Kitchener's army and mobilization forces into place, the idea the French will fold immediately seems off-base, and the longer the Germans are occupying Belgium and northeastern France, the more "brutal" they will be perceived to be, the potential of the conflict growing as it did is not unlikely.
Basically, the British can't really stand off in splendid isolation; this is the era of steam, not sailing ships, and air power is on the horizon...
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
No, but they weren't exactly all listening to Mozart and
No, but they weren't exactly all listening to Mozart and reading Goethe, either...
They weren't any better or worse than the other European powers in Africa ( ask the Herreros) and they certainly didn't show their genteel side in China under the welt marshal ... The German occupations of Belgian, French, and Russian territories in 1914-18, although not rising to the level of atrocity as in 1939-45, has their share of brutality, and their idea of a treaty to end the war - on either front - was hardly mild. Brest-Litovsk certainly ws not.
Unrestricted submarine warfare was a fairly "frightful" change from the status quo, as well.
Best,
No, but they weren't exactly all listening to Mozart and reading Goethe, either...
They weren't any better or worse than the other European powers in Africa ( ask the Herreros) and they certainly didn't show their genteel side in China under the welt marshal ... The German occupations of Belgian, French, and Russian territories in 1914-18, although not rising to the level of atrocity as in 1939-45, has their share of brutality, and their idea of a treaty to end the war - on either front - was hardly mild. Brest-Litovsk certainly ws not.
Unrestricted submarine warfare was a fairly "frightful" change from the status quo, as well.
Best,
Tovarich
Banned
Yep, indeed!
And on the other side of the coin, when Jeremy Paxman did his documentary last year pointing out that the German attrocities against 'plucky little Belgium' were real, I still thought "I bet that doesn't get re-broadcast to the DRC by the BBC World Service!"
As for my own country's humanitarian record at this time......oh dear
There isn't going to be a definitive answer to this one guys; all the butterflies are the size of that moth-thingy from Godzilla movies.
Besides, why should 'Splendid Isolation' leave the UK unchanged?
Maybe if the British Proletariat hadn't been so thoroughly decimated by WWI, there could've been Marxist revolution in the UK?
All bets are off here.
Tovarich
Banned
Dunno about that; exit polls are suggesting Greece is coming out well on top of Germany there! (Go Syriza!)
RodentRevolution
Banned
Not really as the key requirement for a successful revolution is at least some aid from the organised armed forces of the State. The British officer class is in fact more decimated than the working class in OTL and yet no working class revolution occurs even with the examples of such abroad.
A lot depends of how quickly a Germany victory occurs as T F Smith is mot wrong in posting a Miracle on the Marne™ happening as the Schliffen Plan was quite frankly unworkable even before the introduction of the BEF into the equation. The Germans simply needed 8 more army corps than there was road space for.
Logistic factors were always going to impact heavily against a quick victory.
That said the grandiose designs of the Mitteleuropa brigade really arose because of the severe depression the leadership went into when they realised that in fact they were not winning this one.
If the British stay out, no blockade at home, much less suffering among potential socialist voters produces less need for huge gains to justify the war. Much heavier than expected military casualties will most likely result in the recognition of a negotiated settlement rather than trying to pursue absolute victory especially with more neutrals Britian, Italy, Romania possibly the Ottomans among others sitting vulture like on the fence.
With up to 80% more exploitation, authoritarianism, potential ethnic cleansing and other pleasant business.
Tovarich
Banned
Well, yes and no.
I think you are quite correct that a successful revolution needs a bulk of armed troops onside, but that isn't the same as The ArmyTM.
I mean, the Bolshevik Revolution only succeeded because of the Military/Naval Soviets, but that was hardly official Russian Imperial Army planning!
However, I must concede that it can be said that avoiding the WWI meat-grinder altogether makes a UK Revolution even less likely than OTL, simply because there are not going to be a couple of million pissed-off proles heavily armed to the teeth
But I still stick by my central point that getting a definitive answer here is impossible.
The butterflies are so huge that we cannot scientifically state what would have happened any more than we can scientifically predict the future.
(Which is why I feel that on this topic that Niall Ferguson is not so much an Historian as a Narcissist!)
RodentRevolution
Banned
Oh The Pity of proving that statistically the German Empire won the War? Yeah must be galling for them to realise they did not notice that and gave in.
While I agree with you that providing a definitive answer is impossible...hell we cannot actually provide a truly definitive answer to what actually happened and we know it did...we can rank some possibilities higher than others.
The fun comes in arguing over how probable each is
Tovarich
Banned
Damn right it is!The fun comes in arguing over how probable each is
I notice you're a very new member, and I sincerely hope you'll be sticking around!
I'm already sure you are an asset to the Boards.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Damn right it is!
I notice you're a very new member, and I sincerely hope you'll be sticking around!
I'm already sure you are an asset to the Boards.
thanks
So one thought occurs and already I am straining my mental limits.
In WWI OTL Germany had focused on building a battle fleet designed to present 'risk' to the RN. What it lacked were cruisers, an oversight which was to be shown up quickly when the British swept up most of the pieces of the German overseas stations by 1915. Add in that the Japanese took the chance to jump in based on their Alliance with Britain and the German Pacific never stood a chance.
However I am wondering if anyone knows what was the state of the Russian and French Pacific forces?
Without Britain in would Japan come in and without Japan does the Russo-French Alliance have the combat power to finish off the Germans in the Far East or not?
As was the hunger blockade, Unrestricted submarine warfare was the response to that.
Your bias is shown very clearly.
Its as always in this kind of threads hard to tell which Germany wins in the end? The Authorian one or the one with the biggest Social Democratic movement in the world. But because history went a different route, the second one is always forgotten.
So its always Blood, Gore and more Blood for Khorne. After all we are speaking about Germans.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Haha Operation Sea mammal
Bring it.
Actually it would be nice for a change for the HSF not to turn tail and run away as fast as it can at the first sight of the Grand Fleet while finding a great deal of religion and praying for night.
And I suppose that with all those occupied shipyards and enslaved workers they could always build another one to replace the one the British had just sunk......
Back to the OPs question...only with the benefit of hindsight do I say that I wish Britain and therefore probably by extension France had stayed out of it.
I would be quite happy for Britain to have stayed out of it and make loads of money supplied ammunition, guns bombs ships planes etc to whom ever needed it.
However there was a lot of issues in Europe and something else would have dragged Britain and France into that sorry mess.
LordKalvert
Banned
Let's go through this:
1) The British are not the significantly large in 1914 but they are a much greater percentage of the critical right wing. The Marne is nearly won or lost a dozen times by both sides. Without the British in, the possibility that the Germans end the war are much greater (the French can still pull an upset)
But the Germans are pretty extended and an end of the offensive is likely but with Germany in an even better position
2) The German Navy will be wrecking havoc on France and the Germans are going to be getting a lot of supplies in from overseas. The blockade doesn't really start to pinch Germany until 1916 but even in 1914 the Germans will find the supplies quite useful. France is gong to have a real hard time raising loans to pay for anything
3) The situation in the East will remain critical until the Russians run out of ammunition around the time of Gorlice Tarnow. At this point, Austria position will be restored
4) The Italians are never going to join the French and the Russians. Instead they are at some point- certainly after Gorlice Tarnow- join the Germans. Depends on when the Germans make a good enough offer coupled with how badly the war is going for the Franco-Russians
5) Bulgaria will join the war much earlier and the Serbs will be wiped out. Their will be no Salonika front
6) Japan may attack Russia. It will be largely a sideshow as the most that the Japanese can do is push Russia behind Lake Baikal where the Russians blow the bridges and tunnels. It will cut off the only supply line for the Russians
7) By 1915 at the latest the war will be won by the Germans. French morale is likely to collapse with the retreat of the Russian Army and sue for peace
8) The Peace terms will be harsh and they will cost Britain dearly. The Germans will remove the French threat once and for all- the fortresses, heavy artillery and Navy will be turned over to the Germans and a huge indemnity plus permanent occupation of the Northern coast is likely.
9) The Austrians aren't getting much and certainly not a Hapsburg Prince on the throne of Poland
10) Germany will be the hegemonic power on the continent with all that entails- control over the fleets of the continent being one of them. There is no way that Britain (whom no one will ever make a deal with) can compete in a Naval Arms race with the Germans after the war. The British Empire is doomed
1) The British are not the significantly large in 1914 but they are a much greater percentage of the critical right wing. The Marne is nearly won or lost a dozen times by both sides. Without the British in, the possibility that the Germans end the war are much greater (the French can still pull an upset)
But the Germans are pretty extended and an end of the offensive is likely but with Germany in an even better position
2) The German Navy will be wrecking havoc on France and the Germans are going to be getting a lot of supplies in from overseas. The blockade doesn't really start to pinch Germany until 1916 but even in 1914 the Germans will find the supplies quite useful. France is gong to have a real hard time raising loans to pay for anything
3) The situation in the East will remain critical until the Russians run out of ammunition around the time of Gorlice Tarnow. At this point, Austria position will be restored
4) The Italians are never going to join the French and the Russians. Instead they are at some point- certainly after Gorlice Tarnow- join the Germans. Depends on when the Germans make a good enough offer coupled with how badly the war is going for the Franco-Russians
5) Bulgaria will join the war much earlier and the Serbs will be wiped out. Their will be no Salonika front
6) Japan may attack Russia. It will be largely a sideshow as the most that the Japanese can do is push Russia behind Lake Baikal where the Russians blow the bridges and tunnels. It will cut off the only supply line for the Russians
7) By 1915 at the latest the war will be won by the Germans. French morale is likely to collapse with the retreat of the Russian Army and sue for peace
8) The Peace terms will be harsh and they will cost Britain dearly. The Germans will remove the French threat once and for all- the fortresses, heavy artillery and Navy will be turned over to the Germans and a huge indemnity plus permanent occupation of the Northern coast is likely.
9) The Austrians aren't getting much and certainly not a Hapsburg Prince on the throne of Poland
10) Germany will be the hegemonic power on the continent with all that entails- control over the fleets of the continent being one of them. There is no way that Britain (whom no one will ever make a deal with) can compete in a Naval Arms race with the Germans after the war. The British Empire is doomed
RodentRevolution
Banned
Just because they are out to get you
You realise in a way your paranoia is showing a bit
Part of the problem with your response is that you are assuming that the Germans are doing the nasty stuff...in a timeline with a high probability that Serbia is either under the Austrians or the Hungarians or split between them...there really are other culprits.
Now of course it is true that the resort to unrestricted submarine warfare was a reaction to the Massive German Mismanagement of Available Food Resources and the British Blockade which really was not helping and did exacerbate things.
However the blockade was not new, in fact it is part and parcel of the naval strategy everyone predicted the British adopting if they went to war with...well anyone.
Germany also blockaded Russia and once the Ottomans came in on their side it really began to bite and of course Russian mismanagement of their resources had a lot to do with their eventual collapse as an active combatant.
I actually believe that the submarine campaign was more an act of desperation than evidence of innate savagery but you need be very careful about the use of German right wing rhetoric when arguing that Germany is more than right wing rhetoric (regardless of nationality).
As was the hunger blockade, Unrestricted submarine warfare was the response to that.
Your bias is shown very clearly.
Its as always in this kind of threads hard to tell which Germany wins in the end? The Authorian one or the one with the biggest Social Democratic movement in the world. But because history went a different route, the second one is always forgotten.
So its always Blood, Gore and more Blood for Khorne. After all we are speaking about Germans.
You realise in a way your paranoia is showing a bit
Part of the problem with your response is that you are assuming that the Germans are doing the nasty stuff...in a timeline with a high probability that Serbia is either under the Austrians or the Hungarians or split between them...there really are other culprits.
Now of course it is true that the resort to unrestricted submarine warfare was a reaction to the Massive German Mismanagement of Available Food Resources and the British Blockade which really was not helping and did exacerbate things.
However the blockade was not new, in fact it is part and parcel of the naval strategy everyone predicted the British adopting if they went to war with...well anyone.
Germany also blockaded Russia and once the Ottomans came in on their side it really began to bite and of course Russian mismanagement of their resources had a lot to do with their eventual collapse as an active combatant.
I actually believe that the submarine campaign was more an act of desperation than evidence of innate savagery but you need be very careful about the use of German right wing rhetoric when arguing that Germany is more than right wing rhetoric (regardless of nationality).
LordKalvert
Banned
There are a lot of people here who interpret things with hope and make things unfold the way they would like them to unfold. Unfortunately, they are like you here, unable to put forth any coherent argument in favor of their views.
The myth that Britain could survive German hegemony on the continent is one of the most cherished here. It has no basis in reality and the people who put it forth never can defend it. Certainly, the British government was under no such delusion
What would have happened if Britain stayed out?
The war would've lasted a couple of years, with the Germans coming out on top by a variable margin. Germany would've taken some territory, established some puppets, and set up an economic and trade sphere where she was advantaged. It wouldn't have been all that nice, but no less nice than Britain's colonial empire, and probably vastly less complete in its dominance of, and effect on, the populations involved. Germany's share of world trade and manufacturing would've comfortably passed Britain's (it was already headed that way). Britain wouldn't be Top Dog anymore.
And that very last sentence is the reason that Britain entered the war. Period. Full stop.
It certainly wasn't because Evil Germany's plans and behavior were unspeakably awful. Let's run down the supposed list: invasion, conquering and occupying others, annexing land, setting up puppets states, exploiting others economically, creating favorable trading deals for oneself, shooting people to instill fear of the regime, probably justifying a lot of this with racial superiority claptrap.
The British Empire did every single one of these things, herself, widely and often. The outrage against Germany's actions ("Poor little Belgium!") was nothing more than a fair bit of hypocrisy mixed with a vast amount of propaganda intended to whip up war sentiment.
In fact, since wealthy, highly-organized, technologically advanced European polities would be very much harder to keep down and comprehensively dominate, it is most likely that Germany would have set her yoke much lighter than Britain's was in, say, Africa, India, Burma, etc.
In Eastern Europe, it would have been no heavier than Tsarist Russia's or the Soviet Union's.
If Britain stayed out of the war and Germany won? Not great, but not particularly bad, either. Quite arguably better than how things went OTL.
The war would've lasted a couple of years, with the Germans coming out on top by a variable margin. Germany would've taken some territory, established some puppets, and set up an economic and trade sphere where she was advantaged. It wouldn't have been all that nice, but no less nice than Britain's colonial empire, and probably vastly less complete in its dominance of, and effect on, the populations involved. Germany's share of world trade and manufacturing would've comfortably passed Britain's (it was already headed that way). Britain wouldn't be Top Dog anymore.
And that very last sentence is the reason that Britain entered the war. Period. Full stop.
It certainly wasn't because Evil Germany's plans and behavior were unspeakably awful. Let's run down the supposed list: invasion, conquering and occupying others, annexing land, setting up puppets states, exploiting others economically, creating favorable trading deals for oneself, shooting people to instill fear of the regime, probably justifying a lot of this with racial superiority claptrap.
The British Empire did every single one of these things, herself, widely and often. The outrage against Germany's actions ("Poor little Belgium!") was nothing more than a fair bit of hypocrisy mixed with a vast amount of propaganda intended to whip up war sentiment.
In fact, since wealthy, highly-organized, technologically advanced European polities would be very much harder to keep down and comprehensively dominate, it is most likely that Germany would have set her yoke much lighter than Britain's was in, say, Africa, India, Burma, etc.
In Eastern Europe, it would have been no heavier than Tsarist Russia's or the Soviet Union's.
If Britain stayed out of the war and Germany won? Not great, but not particularly bad, either. Quite arguably better than how things went OTL.
RodentRevolution
Banned
So why did not Britain go to war with America? We have numerous discussions of more than enough flash points and yet by this stage America had long since overtaken Britain in wealth and productivity and was a rising naval power with far more serious long term naval capacity than Germany and the money to pay for it.
You need to find something more in the mindset to explain British fear of Germany's rise which even in August 1914 was not set in stone.
Now a lot of commentators have raised the point that there is more than one factor drawing Britain in and it might be hard to stay out but that is utterly different from the idea that one factor alone, jealousy, was the motive for war.