WI: Britain sits out WW1?

[Tallil2long]

Your ideas are pretty far out from reality. What you assume would happen goes even beyond what the German plan in the Septemberprogramm stated. None of which includes your suggested 'occupation of all of Northern France' or 'seizure of the French fleet' (which how are they doing this again? The Fleet would scuttle itself or mutiny and sail to Britain before they let that happen, it would be a point of national pride). They planned to bankrupt France through a massive 10 billion Reichsmarks indemnity, not wantonly stealing everything that wasn't nailed down (which would be impractical).

Since this hypothetical necessarily involves no invasion of Belgium they can't add those plans from the Septemberprogamm either. Not to mention they are going to have to militarily prop up their puppet states in Eastern Europe during this time.

In short your ideas are pretty beyond what even the Germans envisioned, and assume 100% German success in all their post war endeavors. Which is just unlikely, leading your conclusion to be pretty flawed.

However, as an indication of what the British feared might happen, it might be pretty close. This is the country that went into absolute ecstasies of fear over a naval race that the Germans could never even come close to winning, after all.

 

[LordKalvert]

Your ideas are pretty far out from reality. What you assume would happen goes even beyond what the German plan in the Septemberprogramm stated. None of which includes your suggested 'occupation of all of Northern France' or 'seizure of the French fleet' (which how are they doing this again? The Fleet would scuttle itself or mutiny and sail to Britain before they let that happen, it would be a point of national pride). They planned to bankrupt France through a massive 10 billion Reichsmarks indemnity, not wantonly stealing everything that wasn't nailed down (which would be impractical).

Since this hypothetical necessarily involves no invasion of Belgium they can't add those plans from the Septemberprogamm either. Not to mention they are going to have to militarily prop up their puppet states in Eastern Europe during this time.

In short your ideas are pretty beyond what even the Germans envisioned, and assume 100% German success in all their post war endeavors. Which is just unlikely, leading your conclusion to be pretty flawed.

Your really clueless about the way Europe works. Once the French army is beaten and France is at Germany's mercy, they will be doing Germany's biding- they would have little choice.

They're not going to be able to keep their army in the field, their artillery or their fortresses. Nor are they keeping the fleet

But hey, you know, the British government wasn't under your delusions which is why they fought

 

[LordKalvert]

And we all know how well that worked out for Napolean. Not to mention that shutting Britain out from European trade won't destroy their economic base, it will hurt of course, but a certain other important country can still flip Germany the bird and trade with whomever it damn well pleases, including Britain. And why would Germany shut down trade exactly?

Of course- Napoleon never conquered the continent and lived in a day without railroads. Trade was a minor part of the economy and Britain could barely hang on (lose Trafalgar and its over). But seriously, how do you think something like the Crimean campaign or the Pennisular War would go in the days of rail when you can move troops faster by land than by sea

Yep, America and the countries outside of Europe will still trade with Britain. Charge them an arm and a leg but without access to the continents markets, British industry is going to be hurting pretty hard

Haha, oh wait, you're serious. Where is this magic German fleet coming from. Germany will be in the middle of recovering from the war, and trying to hold down a vast amount of territory, while also propping up their allies. To do this it must maintain its army, and given the MASSIVE gap between British and German shipbuilding capacity there is no way Germany can maintain European hegemony while also conducting a heightened naval race with Britain. OTL Britain was well ahead in the dreadnaught race without facing a major opponent (the OTL naval "race" was a publicity stunt to get more funding for the Navy not a true race.)

Truly delusional- why don't you think for one minute. Who "won" the naval race? Britain? Nope- the Germans dropped out to build up their army. Without the huge expense of maintaining an army to fight France and Russia, they'll have more than enough money to bury Britain. Not to mention all the indemnities they would be collecting

And the idea that France and Russia will simply surrender their fleets, or that Italy and Austria will sail their fleets past British positions to help Germany invade the British Isles is absurd.

No your absurd for missing the obvious- the Germans could march their armies into Paris or Moscow at their leisure once the French and Russian armies are defeated. Who do you think they are going to make peace with?
What good is Britain to them?

Finally, remember this mythical fleet have crews and officers. Britain has both, Germany does not.

Oh please, the Germans have plenty of well trained crews and sailors. You seem to forget that the merchant marine in Germany is quite large and that most of the men on these ships did nothing but pass coal and powder

Most likely at some point, but it's also likely Germany grows too confident and challenges a certain other nation, or that a further war between the two powers draws in a certain other power the same way Germany did OTL.

So your only hope is that the Americans somehow get mad at the Germans and bail out Britain- so much for Britian being safe and beyond the Germans

Of course Belgian independance wasn't the only reason, but that doesn't point to the likelyhood of Germany pulling off Sealion either.

Belgian wasn't any part of the reason- it was an excuse to rally the public. Survival of the Empire was the issue

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Your really clueless about the way Europe works. Once the French army is beaten and France is at Germany's mercy, they will be doing Germany's biding- they would have little choice.

Uh, not exactly, guerilla warfare comes to mind for one thing. Also where is Germany getting the resources to totally occupy France, swathes of Eastern Europe, and potentially a very large new African Empire?

How is the Reichstag going to take all this? How will politics at home change? How is the German economy going to react to potential post-war hiccups? What happens if they have to bail out Austria?

Your schemes require infinite German resources, which don't exist.

They're not going to be able to keep their army in the field, their artillery or their fortresses. Nor are they keeping the fleet

How again are the Germans seizing this fleet? You keep saying that but not providing an answer.

But hey, you know, the British government wasn't under your delusions which is why they fought

Nice to see you can have an argument without resorting to insulting your opponents intelligence But really, can you provide evidence, historical antecedent, or anything beyond your own opinion which backs up your views?

 

[CalBear]

I would strongly recommend that folks in this thread stop personalizing the debate and get back to facts and away from "you statements".

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Your really clueless about the way Europe works. Once the French army is beaten and France is at Germany's mercy, they will be doing Germany's biding- they would have little choice.

Right, but Britain is still controlling the oceans. Germany can claim all the French colonies it wants, but that won't matter if all of their ships keep mysteriously disappearing in the Atlantic Ocean.

And occupying all of France, or even Northern France would be pretty expensive. It would probably be much easier to occupy the iron-producing regions of the northwest, which would pretty much ensure that France gets knocked down to second-tier power status.

They're not going to be able to keep their army in the field, their artillery or their fortresses. Nor are they keeping the fleet

True, Germany would probably demand that the French at least partially disarm. And I agree about the artillery and fortresses. But wouldn't the French scuttle the fleet as a matter of pride?

EDIT:

Truly delusional- why don't you think for one minute. Who "won" the naval race? Britain? Nope- the Germans dropped out to build up their army. Without the huge expense of maintaining an army to fight France and Russia, they'll have more than enough money to bury Britain. Not to mention all the indemnities they would be collecting

Hold up. Britain did win the naval race. We've had a handful of threads on this, and the German naval buildup plan actually only increased the disparity between them and the British. The Germans stopped building because there was no realistic way for them to overcome the British Navy. And I'm not sure about how much faster German construction would be without having to fight France and Russia, but the British could churn out ships faster than anyone at this point. Even the US would have had a hard time outbuilding them.

 

[wcv215]

Of course- Napoleon never conquered the continent and lived in a day without railroads. Trade was a minor part of the economy and Britain could barely hang on (lose Trafalgar and its over). But seriously, how do you think something like the Crimean campaign or the Pennisular War would go in the days of rail when you can move troops faster by land than by sea

Yes trade was a smaller part of the economy, and Napoleon still couldn't stop it, which is what I was actually referring to. And no, if the British lost Trafalgar they keep the rest of their fleet intact (as in all the ships that WEREN'T at Trafalgar, and then win the next battle.

Yep, America and the countries outside of Europe will still trade with Britain. Charge them an arm and a leg but without access to the continents markets, British industry is going to be hurting pretty hard

Hurting and destroying are not even relatively close to the same thing.

Truly delusional- why don't you think for one minute. Who "won" the naval race? Britain? Nope- the Germans dropped out to build up their army. Without the huge expense of maintaining an army to fight France and Russia, they'll have more than enough money to bury Britain. Not to mention all the indemnities they would be collecting

Accusing someone of being delusional because they disagree with you is not an argument, no matter how many times it gets repeated. And you completely ignored the army that's going to be required to occupy these vast tracts of land you insist will be occupied, or prop up the German allies who are in the process of collapsing. OTL Germany was never close to matching Britain's naval strength, and Britain never even went at full capacity. The reason for the OTL race was because the RN wanted more money to build more ships, there was plenty of slack should the Germans try something like matching them.

No your absurd for missing the obvious- the Germans could march their armies into Paris or Moscow at their leisure once the French and Russian armies are defeated. Who do you think they are going to make peace with?
What good is Britain to them?

Oh look, more personal attacks. How unexpected.

Who gives a flying flip who they make peace with? I never claimed they wouldn't lose to Germany, I said "the idea [France and Russia] will surrender their fleets...is absurd." You have produced no evidence to the contrary other than "well they have to make peace." Nor have you produced any evidence for the claim that Germany intended to sieze their fleets, a claim that goes against our knowledge of German war goals.

Oh please, the Germans have plenty of well trained crews and sailors. You seem to forget that the merchant marine in Germany is quite large and that most of the men on these ships did nothing but pass coal and powder

There's more to naval warfare than just "passing coal and powder". The British have centuries of naval tradition, and more importantly experience as a naval power. Germany has neither, and this does not simply appear overnight. Britain meanwhile can also call on significantly wider resource pools than Germany can.

So your only hope is that the Americans somehow get mad at the Germans and bail out Britain- so much for Britian being safe and beyond the Germans

Yeah, because that's definitely what I said.

I said that an Anglo/German War is likely to pull in the United States because of the United States's close economic and cultural ties with Britain, as well as German indifference to civilian deaths and targetting of neutral ships (or to put it another way the exact same things Germany did OTL to pull in the United States).

Belgian wasn't any part of the reason- it was an excuse to rally the public. Survival of the Empire was the issue

I'm going to have to demand a source. Britain was compelled by treaty to aid Belgium. Also, just to note if you are 100% correct, then the entire thread is moot since it would mean Britain will not sit out the war no matter what Germany does.

 

[Dom]

Your really clueless about the way Europe works. Once the French army is beaten and France is at Germany's mercy, they will be doing Germany's biding- they would have little choice.

They're not going to be able to keep their army in the field, their artillery or their fortresses. Nor are they keeping the fleet

But hey, you know, the British government wasn't under your delusions which is why they fought

You are abrasive in the extreme, more often than is necessary.

There is no reason to call other posters delusional because that disagree with you.

Kicked for a week.

 

[Dain]

Well, according to my understanding, Germany is Britain's best buddy up until the HSF tried to match the Royal Navy in tonnage.

Na, that's perhaps what some might have wished, but that was never the case.

The British Empire didn't really permit itself to have friends. It's lonely at the top. And Germany's rising economical power and imperialistic ambitions (totally normal for a European nation at that time, mind you) constantly caused clashes between the two.

As others have already posted, the German decision to challenge the Brits was not a development born out of out-of-the-blue German aggression, but the result of constantly being threatened with the Royal Navy whenever German ambitions started to interfere with British interests. Lacking a sufficiently powerful navy to defend itself, Germany was forced to back down repeatedly.

Is it really a wonder that the German government came to the conclusion that it desperately needed a larger fleet to improve its negotiation position and avoid the easy extortion?

Combined with the extremely chauvinistic atmosphere of the time ("Manly men cannot show weakness and must trample over all resistance!") and what happened in the other imperialistic clashes of the time period, this lead to the unfortunate impression that the only method that got results in international diplomacy was the threat of military force... since asking politely certainly only earned you rejection.

Predictably in such an environment, tensions constantly and unnecessarily escalated.

 

[British Republic]

Long story short CP Victory over Europe with mixed results for Germany.

For Britain staying out would be overall a good thing, granted it will mean Germany would be a major rival but the UK itself would not be under threat and this would be a chance to take the Mainland European colonies in Africa and Asia (from the "Imperial" perspective) or at least some of them, which would help economically for a while.

Plus it would mean Britain and its Empire would not have to waste the lives of many young men for very little.

 

[British Republic]

Britain wouldn't be Top Dog anymore.

Not quite, as long as it has some sort of neo-colonialism in place for its Empire (and whatever it can gain from the Mainland European states in terms of colonies while they are all killing each other.

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.

"We're both part of the same hypocrisy" is a good term to describe it really.

 

[British Republic]

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.

Actually it would have made more sense then getting involved in WW1, mainly because as it turned out, they were the bigger threat to Britain and its position then the Germans were at the time.

 

[British Republic]

I guess the British Elite knew pretty soon that the never will be able to challenge the rise of the USA. Germany on the other hand was an easy target. Two enemies on both sides, bad geographic situation, newcomer on the stage....compare that with the USA and it becomes quite obvious why it was Germany in the end.

Well at the time the US Military was nothing to write home amount, likewise like many times before the (including over the 13 colonies) the British Elites screwed up.

 

[British Republic]

Germany was the biggest threat to Britain that was foreign. Although the British might have resented America's historic disloyalty, sanctimony and dumb luck (i.e. from their perspective), they still viewed America as essentially "Britain mk II"; more an heir than a successor to Britain's hegemony, and far more desirable for this position than "real" foreigners, in particular Germany and nations like Germany.

However it still meant that they would lose power to a nation which did not at the time seem to follow the British Imperial Line at the time. Likewise there where some like Rhodes who were keen on them "rejoining" the Empire, for example this in his own will:

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.[40][41]

Yes I know it is Wikipedia but the sources are correct if you are willing to read them yourself.

 

[wcv215]

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.

America was also insular, tended to not assert itself on the world stage (certain specific instances not withstanding such as the Spanish American War, which still was started in the Americas and featured no fighting in Europe). Given two nations, one larger and more powerful but non-aggressive vs an overall weaker opponent is is both aggressive and nearby it isn't particularly surprising Britain felt more threatened by the latter.

Actually it would have made more sense then getting involved in WW1, mainly because as it turned out, they were the bigger threat to Britain and its position then the Germans were at the time.

After 1900 Britain is no longer capable of winning a. War in the Western Hemisphere against the United States (and it gets questionable whether they would win much earlier). And as noted above the U.S. had shown little interest in opposing Britain on the world stage either (apart of course from small instances in the Americas, which ultimately were minor areas of British interest). And it wasn't the United States that removed Britain from her spot at the top of the ladder of powers, the U.S. just replaced it.

However it still meant that they would lose power to a nation which did not at the time seem to follow the British Imperial Line at the time. Likewise there where some like Rhodes who were keen on them "rejoining" the Empire, for example this in his own will:

If true that's a really stupid idea. The Duke of Wellington questioned the possibility of forcing territorial concessions from the United States near the end of the War of 1812, actually retaking the country would have been impossible.