WI: Germany managed to butterfly away British intervention - Impact on British economy and industry?

Thomas1195

Banned
Let say, Germany decided to go East first and fight a defensive war on the Western Front, thus killed off the arguably best casus belli for Britain. Then, throughout the war, they managed to avoid clash with British ships. This, together with intensifying domestic problems such as Ireland, forced Britain to stay neutral permanently.

In this case, what would be the impact of this neutrality on British economy and industry?
It is certain that their macroeconomic conditions would be much better, it would not face high debts and deficits, and also earn lots of profits from war trade, at least by selling food, raw materials and some goods like processed food, machinery, equipment, armaments (to Entente) or tobaccos, footwears, clothing...(for both sides). They might even grant secured loans to the Entente.

On the flip side, British industries might never be modernized because of lack of motivation. Notice that British industries were seriously obsolete compared to the US and Germany by 1913, and there were no signs of modernizing and catching up in new industries before the war IOTL. And the existence of a Liberal government led by Asquith would butterfly away any kind of interventions similar to the war efforts or the formation of Central Electricity Board in 1926 OTL.
 
On the other hand, Britain's leading educational and military moderniser, Haldane would not be forced out of office by ill informed anti German sentiment, the Labour party would be headed by an engineer and not by the useless Ramsay McDonald. The "Wake Up England" and "Reveille" movements would be even stronger. Press Barons Lords Northcliffe and Rothermere were both keen advocates of modernisation. Moseley would not perish in the trenches with benefits to British science. And Britain wasn't exactly short of innovative talent - Richard Fairey, Harry Ferguson, Thomas Sopwith, John Carden, Arthur Purvis, Noel Pemberton-Billing, Herbert Scott-Paine, Geoffrey de Havilland all coming into their young manhood at this point in time. Walter Elliot just starting his political career. Oswald Mosley still not started his. And that not counting all the promising young politicians and scions of industrial families that wouldn't be killed in the war. The British were inclined to be complacent because their industries were still making money and they faced no very serious military threat. A neutral Britain would probably start to modernise out of self preservation from about 1916 onwards. They might not be as prompted by actual experience but their journalists and military observers would have brought back reports of the effects of the new technologies on modern warfare.

And a Germany that had transformed the Baltic states, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine into vassal states and hugely weakened Russia if not having transformed it into a vassal state also? Might it not have got a trifle complacent and reluctant to modernise as vigorously as it had prior to 1914? Huge military commitments so more troops on active service, huge assured Imperial markets, large war debts. Might not the British disease have set in in Germany as much as the British felt compelled to modernise?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
On the other hand, Britain's leading educational and military moderniser, Haldane would not be forced out of office by ill informed anti German sentiment, the Labour party would be headed by an engineer and not by the useless Ramsay McDonald. The "Wake Up England" and "Reveille" movements would be even stronger. Press Barons Lords Northcliffe and Rothermere were both keen advocates of modernisation. Moseley would not perish in the trenches with benefits to British science. And Britain wasn't exactly short of innovative talent - Richard Fairey, Harry Ferguson, Thomas Sopwith, John Carden, Arthur Purvis, Noel Pemberton-Billing, Herbert Scott-Paine, Geoffrey de Havilland all coming into their young manhood at this point in time. Walter Elliot just starting his political career. Oswald Mosley still not started his. And that not counting all the promising young politicians and scions of industrial families that wouldn't be killed in the war. The British were inclined to be complacent because their industries were still making money and they faced no very serious military threat. A neutral Britain would probably start to modernise out of self preservation from about 1916 onwards. They might not be as prompted by actual experience but their journalists and military observers would have brought back reports of the effects of the new technologies on modern warfare.

And a Germany that had transformed the Baltic states, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine into vassal states and hugely weakened Russia if not having transformed it into a vassal state also? Might it not have got a trifle complacent and reluctant to modernise as vigorously as it had prior to 1914? Huge military commitments so more troops on active service, huge assured Imperial markets, large war debts. Might not the British disease have set in in Germany as much as the British felt compelled to modernise?
Sounds good, but you need a POD (OTL shell crisis) to change the prewar liberal government, at least from Asquith to Lloyd George. Things like Central Electricity Board requires government intervention.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Sounds good, but you need a POD (OTL shell crisis) to change the prewar liberal government, at least from Asquith to Lloyd George. Things like Central Electricity Board requires government intervention.

The prewar liberal coalition government was clinging to power by a thread - all you need is a few of liberal hawks to resign in protest at British neutrality (possibly with the expectation the conservatives would go for war) and no more liberal government. Bonar Law, the leader of the conservatives, was a former industrialist and a strong advocate for serious tariffs. Since Britain was the largest trade customer for German goods, this creates a serious head wind for post war Germany.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The prewar liberal coalition government was clinging to power by a thread - all you need is a few of liberal hawks to resign in protest at British neutrality (possibly with the expectation the conservatives would go for war) and no more liberal government. Bonar Law, the leader of the conservatives, was a former industrialist and a strong advocate for serious tariffs. Since Britain was the largest trade customer for German goods, this creates a serious head wind for post war Germany.

The conservatives would go to war, unless Irish crisis break out.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The amount of profits that Britain would gain from war depends on how long the war last. If the Russian was crushed and the French was able to take most of Alsace in 1915, then the war would be over.

Overall, without British intervention I dont think the war could last to 1918 or even 1917.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But could Britain, not the US like in OTL, become the biggest profiteer in this case? After all, although the US could sell more and better manufactures, the Brits controlled the sea lanes, the global trade and financial system.
 

BooNZ

Banned
But could Britain, not the US like in OTL, become the biggest profiteer in this case? After all, although the US could sell more and better manufactures, the Brits controlled the sea lanes, the global trade and financial system.
Based on the reference you've provided on a concurrent thread, before 1916 the US managed to manufacture for delivery a total of 20 aircraft, less than 200 pieces of artillery, no rifles or machine guns - the US would be better of focusing on taking over markets the Germans were unable to satisfy due to wartime conditions.

Based on OTL performance, the British industry proved far more adaptable than the US at producing military arms - in this case even more so because the UK workforce would not be volunteering for military service.

The amount of profits that Britain would gain from war depends on how long the war last. If the Russian was crushed and the French was able to take most of Alsace in 1915, then the war would be over.

Overall, without British intervention I don't think the war could last to 1918 or even 1917.

A German East first POD with a neutral Britain is a frightful German wank, but even so, the earliest Russia is going to fall is late 1915 or early 1916. That means that it will be almost 2 years before the Germans can focus fully on the French. By this time the French would have likely had horrific losses, but the worse of their doctrine and equipment shortfalls would be rectified and they would be entrenched along a relatively narrow front. The Belgium fortifications would likely to be reinforced by a fully mobilized and entrenched field army.

Even a victorious Germany in the East would have suffered hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded. It would be apparent that a further unconditional victory over France would be costly and the rising Social Democrats would be looking for alternatives. If Russia fell, I'm sure France would nave a very generous peace proposal on the table, which would be forcefully endorsed by both Britain and the US. The Germans would be under immense pressure to settle for peace with few territorial gains in the West. Based on the above, I would expect peace to breakout in late 1916 after about 2 years of war.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Based on the reference you've provided on a concurrent thread, before 1916 the US managed to manufacture for delivery a total of 20 aircraft, less than 200 pieces of artillery, no rifles or machine guns - the US would be better of focusing on taking over markets the Germans were unable to satisfy due to wartime conditions.

Based on OTL performance, the British industry proved far more adaptable than the US at producing military arms - in this case even more so because the UK workforce would not be volunteering for military service.
I think Britain would sell more arms, shells as well as other things like military boots and uniforms, processed food or tobaccos.
But the US would win in the machinery market, because Britain could not produce special types of machine for highly precision and complex tasks such as processing shell fuses or making High explosive (HE) shells (british machines could only produce shrapnel shells). They would have to import US machines for these tasks. Besides, US machines better suit mass-production for increasing output over a short period.


A German East first POD with a neutral Britain is a frightful German wank, but even so, the earliest Russia is going to fall is late 1915 or early 1916. That means that it will be almost 2 years before the Germans can focus fully on the French. By this time the French would have likely had horrific losses, but the worse of their doctrine and equipment shortfalls would be rectified and they would be entrenched along a relatively narrow front. The Belgium fortifications would likely to be reinforced by a fully mobilized and entrenched field army.

Even a victorious Germany in the East would have suffered hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded. It would be apparent that a further unconditional victory over France would be costly and the rising Social Democrats would be looking for alternatives. If Russia fell, I'm sure France would nave a very generous peace proposal on the table, which would be forcefully endorsed by both Britain and the US. The Germans would be under immense pressure to settle for peace with few territorial gains in the West. Based on the above, I would expect peace to breakout in late 1916 after about 2 years of war.

I think the French would take Alsace-Lorraine, of course with horrible losses, but no where near OTL. After all, 70-80% of German forces would go to the East. And I am not sure about the Baltic and the Dardanelles Strait in this TL.

For me, in the long run the worse scenario ever would be Schlieffen Plan + British neutrality (although quite ASB).

If Russia fell, I'm sure France would nave a very generous peace proposal on the table, which would be forcefully endorsed by both Britain and the US. The Germans would be under immense pressure to settle for peace with few territorial gains in the West. Based on the above, I would expect peace to breakout in late 1916 after about 2 years of war.
I don't see the US intervene in favour of France, especially German Americans might lobby to win the American public view. Britain, of course.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I think Britain would sell more arms, shells as well as other things like military boots and uniforms, processed food or tobaccos.
But the US would win in the machinery market, because Britain could not produce special types of machine for highly precision and complex tasks such as processing shell fuses or making High explosive (HE) shells (british machines could only produce shrapnel shells). They would have to import US machines for these tasks. Besides, US machines better suit mass-production for increasing output over a short period.

Again, as outlined in my previous post, your reference demonstrated 'US machines' produced next to nothing in 1914 and 1915 except for munitions, in 1915 the US achieved 50% of British munition production, which was in a crisis at the time. Clearly, the US industry had feet of clay when compared to those fleet footed British industrialists - at least based on the reference you provided...

I think the French would take Alsace-Lorraine, of course with horrible losses, but no where near OTL. After all, 70-80% of German forces would go to the East. And I am not sure about the Baltic and the Dardanelles Strait in this TL.

I think not. The most credible German East first plan had 4 armies heading East and 4 armies defending in the West (i.e. 50% head East). The German eastern rail infrastructure could only cope with the rapid deployment of 3 German armies, so at least one of those armies was expected to do some marching. OTL the Schlieffen plan defended the German-French border with 2 German armies, while 5 German armies swept through Belgium and France. The French initially launched furious attacks on the heavily outnumbered German defensive positions for great loss, but no success.

If the Germans head East (i.e. send four armies East), compared to OTL in the West they will have a greater volume of German forces defending a more condensed front, better suited for defense on a both tactical and strategic level. The French offensive doctrine was as willful as it was awful and the French lacked equipment (mainly heavy artillery) to effectively threaten entrenched German positions. OTL the horrible French offensives were forced to halt because of the Germans pouring through Belgium, but if Germany is on the defensive in the West the disproportionate French body count could continue to rise until Joffre was removed.

I don't see the US intervene in favour of France, especially German Americans might lobby to win the American public view. Britain, of course.

At that time the Heer was the most effective fighting force on the planet and German science was brilliant, but German diplomacy and PR in the post Bismarck era was a total train wreck! French and even English diplomacy was generally competent.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Again, as outlined in my previous post, your reference demonstrated 'US machines' produced next to nothing in 1914 and 1915 except for munitions, in 1915 the US achieved 50% of British munition production, which was in a crisis at the time. Clearly, the US industry had feet of clay when compared to those fleet footed British industrialists - at least based on the reference you provided...



I think not. The most credible German East first plan had 4 armies heading East and 4 armies defending in the West (i.e. 50% head East). The German eastern rail infrastructure could only cope with the rapid deployment of 3 German armies, so at least one of those armies was expected to do some marching. OTL the Schlieffen plan defended the German-French border with 2 German armies, while 5 German armies swept through Belgium and France. The French initially launched furious attacks on the heavily outnumbered German defensive positions for great loss, but no success.

If the Germans head East (i.e. send four armies East), compared to OTL in the West they will have a greater volume of German forces defending a more condensed front, better suited for defense on a both tactical and strategic level. The French offensive doctrine was as willful as it was awful and the French lacked equipment (mainly heavy artillery) to effectively threaten entrenched German positions. OTL the horrible French offensives were forced to halt because of the Germans pouring through Belgium, but if Germany is on the defensive in the West the disproportionate French body count could continue to rise until Joffre was removed.



At that time the Heer was the most effective fighting force on the planet and German science was brilliant, but German diplomacy and PR in the post Bismarck era was a total train wreck! French and even English diplomacy was generally competent.

First, US machines were mainly used in other industries or were exported because they were not at war until 1916-1917.
In this timeline, Britain would not gear its economy towards a wartime one, so it might import less and export more machinery as well, while producing fewer shells and armaments (but still more than the US).

Looking at the whole period 1900-1913, American machines normally outperformed British ones in export markets (you could search for info about American export surge from late 1890s to early 1900s), so the US would outperform Britain in exporting machines to war combatants.

Besides, Britain was also heavily or totally dependent on American machines in various sectors, such as shoe machinery (you can search for this) for producing military boots, or farm machinery, or office machinery (typewriter, adding machine, cash register).

I dont think Britain would produce lots of aircrafts and tanks (British tank development might even butterfly away).


Last, frankly, I could not find any source which states that British-made products were qualitatively superior in general except for textile, apparel and footwear.

At that time the Heer was the most effective fighting force on the planet and German science was brilliant, but German diplomacy and PR in the post Bismarck era was a total train wreck! French and even English diplomacy was generally competent.

You should also take into account German American community, as well as the US attitude towards both France and Germany prewar. Note that in this TL Germany might not use submarine warfare and thus would not antagonize the US.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
I think not. The most credible German East first plan had 4 armies heading East and 4 armies defending in the West (i.e. 50% head East). The German eastern rail infrastructure could only cope with the rapid deployment of 3 German armies, so at least one of those armies was expected to do some marching. OTL the Schlieffen plan defended the German-French border with 2 German armies, while 5 German armies swept through Belgium and France. The French initially launched furious attacks on the heavily outnumbered German defensive positions for great loss, but no success.

If the Germans head East (i.e. send four armies East), compared to OTL in the West they will have a greater volume of German forces defending a more condensed front, better suited for defense on a both tactical and strategic level. The French offensive doctrine was as willful as it was awful and the French lacked equipment (mainly heavy artillery) to effectively threaten entrenched German positions. OTL the horrible French offensives were forced to halt because of the Germans pouring through Belgium, but if Germany is on the defensive in the West the disproportionate French body count could continue to rise until Joffre was removed.

Joffre would be fired after several failures like that, because there would be no Marne miracle in this TL. But I expect the battleline would be in Alsace Lorraine, which means that the French would make big gains if they change to trench warfare, bite and hold tactic.
 

BooNZ

Banned
First, US machines were mainly used in other industries or were exported because they were not at war until 1916-1917.

OTL the Entente placed significant arms orders with the US in the opening months of the war, but most of those orders only started to be fulfilled in 1916. In this scenario the war would probably be over before any US arms were produced.

Looking at the whole period 1900-1913, American machines normally outperformed British ones in export markets (you could search for info about American export surge from late 1890s to early 1900s), so the US would outperform Britain in exporting machines to war combatants.

In the same way as Chinese goods currently "out perform" US goods in volume? Please provide references - last time I checked, you had US machine tools from the 1950s producing WW1 kit...

Besides, Britain was also heavily or totally dependent on American machines in various sectors, such as shoe machinery (you can search for this) for producing military boots, or farm machinery, or office machinery (typewriter, adding machine, cash register).

Please provide references, I'm not into treasure hunts... The reference I provided suggested the wartime import of American machine tools was generally limited to munitions production, but that was not addressing private use during peacetime - and the US machines were cheaper...

You should also take into account German American community, as well as the US attitude towards both France and Germany prewar. Note that in this TL Germany might not use submarine warfare and thus would not antagonize the US.

Please provide references or a plausible POD which results in the German American community having a disproportionate influence on American foreign policy.

Last, frankly, I could not find any source which states that British-made products were qualitatively superior in general except for textile, apparel and footwear.

The qualitative superiority in respect of machine tools in that higher pricing that sustains greater profit margins is only possible if products have qualities that attract a premium - like those of the British. I'm not sure if the British machine tools were 'better' or whether it was the design philosophy that made their application more flexible and therefore more valuable. In WW1 the production of munitions was one of the few sectors that applied what we would consider to be mass production, which was the sector where American machine tools excelled.

The textile and apparel industry is interesting since from what I can gather, the British also enjoyed superior supply chain and production efficiencies than its competitors (including Germany), which enabled Britain to double its output in that sector in the decades prior to world war one. Curiously over that same period, the production output of Germany over textiles in the same period trebled, despite its inefficiencies and disadvantages compared to the British. I understand German and British outputs in the textile industry were actually comparable prior to the war, demonstrating that Germany was happy to focus on "old tech" even when it faced multiple competitive disadvantages resulting in far lower profit margins than the British.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Although the British might become the biggest profiteer in this scenario if the war prolong, the absolute amount of profits would be no where near the amount that the US earned in OTL, simply because Continental belligerents could never pay for the OTL amount of imports even though they hand over all of their gold and forex reserves as well as their foreign investment holdings. They would have to export to import more, but most of their capacity would have been geared to war production rather than export, and if Britain demand goods in return then the profit would be cancelled out to some extent.

Besides, Britain would not be similar the like of Stalin, who often demanded his customer (nazi) to hand over technological blueprints and patent IOTL.

The biggest benefit for Britain could be the capture of gaps in neutral markets rather than the absolute amount of money gained.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But if a strong Liberas successfully introduced Land Tax Reforms as well as various Education Reforms, Britain would be much better off in the long run.
 
To paint very broadly I might think that not as much changes as one might suspect. Here you have a migration of all the butterflies.

First, I think the British still extend credit to France and Russia, they export war material, although France may have less demand with its industry not impacted by German occupation. So France has less soldiers as they keep factories open, a narrow front still bleeds bodies and they perhaps borrow less but also buy less from the UK. The net effect might be France being more internally indebted to the detriment of the supposed profits for the UK.

The British might sink a lot of cash into buying neutrality, a boon to Europe's poorer states, Italy, Romania and Greece come to mind, but would they not be just as willing to let trade flow to Germany who here is not the evil aggressor and this war seems more just a big Russia versus Germany showdown. Sympathy flowed to A-H over the assassination and that might carry forward to dampen the desire to get involved with a war still being fought for that. Belgium likely stays at least suspicious of France using it to circumvent the Western deadlock so I would not overplay its part supporting either side.

If the British use their cash to buy up shipping and materials to in effect "blockade" the Central Powers then the British burn a lot of money as in OTL. But that blockade is likely leaky with the British increasingly hurting the Neutrals and irritating the USA. The RN would rust as it has no purpose with the UK merely a hostile neutral and the Imperial Fleet could focus on the Baltic, maybe raids into the Atlantic. How was France situated to defend against a cruiser war? Germany might develop its submarines for better long range interdiction and mount a blockade of Russia North, snipe French shipping, but that would likely take until later in the war. It might not harm relations with the USA since this is not USW.

If the UK is kept fully out of actual fighting then it has less incentive to modernize and improve its industry, it invests in lucrative war industries to supply the Entente at war but those industries would skim off the new tools and create much skilled labor that may become useless in a post-war peace. War "profits" seem ephemeral, in fact it might lop-side the economy as we suspect it did to the USA in the 1920s.

Russia likely still defaults on its debts and that will hurt. One might see the British have better financing power beyond where they tapped out OTL, but I would love to see a better accounting and prediction than mere fingers in the breeze. And to what end? Russia could have had a few more billions and another year of it but the populace was ready to end the war, perhaps more so with its armies being more savaged on Russian soil.

The Dominions might be better off with no drain to fight in Europe however, and they likely get some of the opportunity that flowed to the USA. Part of the British problem was lack of shipping, it was better to source from the Empire but less efficient, cheap and fast the stuff could be bought in the USA and shipped. Although the submarine offensive hurt, I suspect without it the British can buy more inside the Empire, that benefits the British but might drive inflation, over investment and a heated frenzy of growth that crashes the Empire once peace comes. If we still see a tariff war in the peace, the gold standard and fiscal policy crushing inflation then the ingredients for Depression still exist but perhaps more focused on the Empire. So the UK may come out better in many ways, it also loses many little pieces that long term might haunt the economy and society just as detrimentally.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
To paint very broadly I might think that not as much changes as one might suspect. Here you have a migration of all the butterflies.

First, I think the British still extend credit to France and Russia, they export war material, although France may have less demand with its industry not impacted by German occupation. So France has less soldiers as they keep factories open, a narrow front still bleeds bodies and they perhaps borrow less but also buy less from the UK. The net effect might be France being more internally indebted to the detriment of the supposed profits for the UK.

The British might sink a lot of cash into buying neutrality, a boon to Europe's poorer states, Italy, Romania and Greece come to mind, but would they not be just as willing to let trade flow to Germany who here is not the evil aggressor and this war seems more just a big Russia versus Germany showdown. Sympathy flowed to A-H over the assassination and that might carry forward to dampen the desire to get involved with a war still being fought for that. Belgium likely stays at least suspicious of France using it to circumvent the Western deadlock so I would not overplay its part supporting either side.

If the British use their cash to buy up shipping and materials to in effect "blockade" the Central Powers then the British burn a lot of money as in OTL. But that blockade is likely leaky with the British increasingly hurting the Neutrals and irritating the USA. The RN would rust as it has no purpose with the UK merely a hostile neutral and the Imperial Fleet could focus on the Baltic, maybe raids into the Atlantic. How was France situated to defend against a cruiser war? Germany might develop its submarines for better long range interdiction and mount a blockade of Russia North, snipe French shipping, but that would likely take until later in the war. It might not harm relations with the USA since this is not USW.

If the UK is kept fully out of actual fighting then it has less incentive to modernize and improve its industry, it invests in lucrative war industries to supply the Entente at war but those industries would skim off the new tools and create much skilled labor that may become useless in a post-war peace. War "profits" seem ephemeral, in fact it might lop-side the economy as we suspect it did to the USA in the 1920s.

Russia likely still defaults on its debts and that will hurt. One might see the British have better financing power beyond where they tapped out OTL, but I would love to see a better accounting and prediction than mere fingers in the breeze. And to what end? Russia could have had a few more billions and another year of it but the populace was ready to end the war, perhaps more so with its armies being more savaged on Russian soil.

The Dominions might be better off with no drain to fight in Europe however, and they likely get some of the opportunity that flowed to the USA. Part of the British problem was lack of shipping, it was better to source from the Empire but less efficient, cheap and fast the stuff could be bought in the USA and shipped. Although the submarine offensive hurt, I suspect without it the British can buy more inside the Empire, that benefits the British but might drive inflation, over investment and a heated frenzy of growth that crashes the Empire once peace comes. If we still see a tariff war in the peace, the gold standard and fiscal policy crushing inflation then the ingredients for Depression still exist but perhaps more focused on the Empire. So the UK may come out better in many ways, it also loses many little pieces that long term might haunt the economy and society just as detrimentally.
First, there would be big opposition to buying up neutral goods unlike OTL. Note that this is a liberal government, and there were lots of antiwar Liberals who wanted to spend money for their own people and social reforms. However, buying up European neutral goods could be undertaken using sterling.

Regarding France, Britain would mainly export machinery, machine tools and steel, as well as things like canned food, uniforms or boots rather than weapons. They would only export weapons to Russia, and it might demand Russian hard currency, hard gold and oil. Investment in capital good industries might still lead to industrial modernization. There would be other incentives like capturing neutral markets (look at Japan OTL). So industry would not really focus to war production.

No war entry would not prevent Britain to send observers to keep up with developments (like in Russo-Japanese War in 1905).

Submarine offensive means war, this is a clear casus belli for Britain.
 
Joffre would be fired after several failures like that, because there would be no Marne miracle in this TL. But I expect the battleline would be in Alsace Lorraine, which means that the French would make big gains if they change to trench warfare, bite and hold tactic.

The French repeatedly failed to make any significant gains in the Western Front for more than three years against a much wider and spread out German defensive line. How in the world are they supposed to make big gains against a much shorter and considerably more concentrated German defence in Alsace-Lorraine in a shorter timespan?
 
First, there would be big opposition to buying up neutral goods unlike OTL. Note that this is a liberal government, and there were lots of antiwar Liberals who wanted to spend money for their own people and social reforms. However, buying up European neutral goods could be undertaken using sterling.

Regarding France, Britain would mainly export machinery, machine tools and steel, as well as things like canned food, uniforms or boots rather than weapons. They would only export weapons to Russia, and it might demand Russian hard currency, hard gold and oil. Investment in capital good industries might still lead to industrial modernization. There would be other incentives like capturing neutral markets (look at Japan OTL). So industry would not really focus to war production.

No war entry would not prevent Britain to send observers to keep up with developments (like in Russo-Japanese War in 1905).

Submarine offensive means war, this is a clear casus belli for Britain.

First, if you are correct then the British burn less cash but the Central Powers are effectively under no blockade. That may bankrupt Germany but as far as war goes they have access and I think that is an important variable.

Second I do not disagree but then it is just an overheating commercial economy exporting like crazy to France and Russia with investment in more output but nothing that loks to improve the British economy long term. I suspect Russia had plenty of gold but OTL the British gave tons of credit, perhaps expecting gold rich Russia was good for it, but I think oil was likely not as abundant (only Baku area then) nor necessary with Persia giving ample supply. So the UK at best bulks up on gold and gets even more addicted to gold standard economics post war?

Third, if the UK can supplant Germany in neutral markets that is potentially only as good as the quality of the goods. Germany will return and if it has quality goods those markets fall away, especially if Germany is in real need of exports and can damp down costs whereas the UK will be in the midst of a boon cycle with high inflation pressure. That returns you to the ingredients for the big late-Twenties bust, only maybe minus the debt load.

Fifth, I was intending submarines for use versus Russia up North and maybe France (like a real quoted maybe), likely far off usual shipping lanes and if this develops at all, I suspect the Admirals go for cruisers and rules, they are only irking everyone late in the game. A maybe diplomatic fail at best by that point. And if no submarine warfare the UK has even less incentives to build merchant hulls or disrupt its patterns of trade.

The UK as a hostile neutral through the end of the war is rather unlikely but the best parallel I see is the USA through 1916, a boost but not the game changer.
 
Top