WI: Great Britain stayed out of WW1?

[Jasen777]

What if Great Britain had been neutral in WW1?

 

[Riain]

Germany wins, no holocaust.

 

[I Blame Communism]

What if Great Britain had been neutral in WW1?

This is problematic. Briatain was tied to France at the hip by a naval agreement which put our stuff in the North Sea and their stuff in the Med. To not support France would be to sell them to the Germans, and our whole policy was to prevent germany's hegemony on the continent. To this end, we played up Belgium, but I think Edward Grey said himself that this was policy, not real concern for the treaties. We'd have sound some other justification.

 

[RGB]

Germany beats Russia, France admits loss.

Britain faces a continental power she can no longer overcome. Britain has to join the war or surrender supremacy.

 

[Extrasolar Angel]

Or Germany wins, Britain is shocked, Russia and France crave revenge.
Germany goes with its plans in the east removing milions and exploiting Central and Eastern Europe-which pushes the population into hands of pro-Russian politicians.
Eventually WW2 starts as a rematch-Germany gets the Atom bomb, but Russia/Britain retaliate by using chemical weapons, which in turn leads Germany to use chemical weapons against Russian foces. In the end new Entente wins, but Europe has a couple of nuclear craters, and large parts of Germany and Central Europe are chemically poisoned.
The death toll in tens of millions.
At the end of the war the collapse of authority leads to revenge massacres against German settlers by local population after years of exploitation.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Or Germany wins, Britain is shocked, Russia and France crave revenge.
Germany goes with its plans in the east removing milions and exploiting Central and Eastern Europe-which pushes the population into hands of pro-Russian politicians.
Eventually WW2 starts as a rematch-Germany gets the Atom bomb, but Russia/Britain retaliate by using chemical weapons, which in turn leads Germany to use chemical weapons against Russian foces. In the end new Entente wins, but Europe has a couple of nuclear craters, and large parts of Germany and Central Europe are chemically poisoned.
The death toll in tens of millions.
At the end of the war the collapse of authority leads to revenge massacres against German settlers by local population after years of exploitation.

Those plans originated with the Silent Dictatorship after 1916. If Britain has a stupid attack and stays neutral, Germany will win in 1915. In 1916, Hollweg and Stuermer were still negotiating on the basis of the 1914 frontier before Ludendorff proclaimed his sham kingdom of Poland, and that was after Gorlice-Tarnow. Russia will probably just make peace on that basis early on.

That whole posted was a bit revenge-porn, you know?

 

[Extrasolar Angel]

Those plans originated with the Silent Dictatorship after 1916.

Colonization plans ? They were thought of way longer, in fact I think around later half of XIX century, but you are correct that strong government plans were happening after 1915.

That whole posted was a bit revenge-porn, you know?

Not like our OTL, right ?

If Britain has a stupid attack and stays neutral, Germany will win in 1915

In one year ? That seems a bit fast, I have my doubts.

But still would even more profitable peace for Russia not mean that Russia will get stronger even sooner, threatening German position ?

As to revenge porn-I actually don't care about that much about it. What I find interesting is the assertion that with A-bomb you win the war. That certainly is naive-using in Europe would result in revenge with chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction.
It even didn't completely worked with Japan, and it was also isolated enough from USA that it couldn't strike back.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Colonization plans ? They were thought of way longer, in fact I think around later half of XIX century, but you are correct that strong government plans were happening after 1915.

There were (failed) attempts to Germanise the Prussian Partition, but plans to settle Congress Poland originated with OKH. I repeat: Hollweg was willing to return Congress Poland to the Russians.

Not like our OTL, right ?

In one year ? That seems a bit fast, I have my doubts.

Consider the military situation. France has no navy in the north sea, so the German fleet can waltz into the channel (bringing Britain into the war if it isn't already, but the whole point of the thread is that every British stateman goes brain-dead). The battles in 1914 were so close that Britain's precious few elite divisions could leave the final line much more in Germany favour. And then of course Germany has no supply problems, Russia has tremendous ones. Some of the principal events of 1915, remember, included the Russian army effectivly melting and British troops holding off the Germans on the extreme left in a bloody battle. On both fronts the Entente have less: not British army (which by 1915 was a big part of the forces in Europe), and if the Ottomans come in, and they could well, they have more then with no Gallipoli or Mashriq campaigns.

So the war probably ends in late '15, and even after that Russia was still being offered the status-quo.

But still would even more profitable peace for Russia not mean that Russia will get stronger even sooner, threatening German position ?

Hmm. Putting it that way, given the Hollweg was trying to sign peace to win the war which is now a lot more winnable, Germany may hold out for the original B-L program (Poland, Lithuania, Courland). Still, no OKH taking over the country. Without Brusilov, we may well see an Austro-Poland.

As to revenge porn-I actually don't care about that much about it. What I find interesting is the assertion that with A-bomb you win the war. That certainly is naive-using in Europe would result in revenge with chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction.
It even didn't completely worked with Japan, and it was also isolated enough from USA that it couldn't strike back.

I don't really follow you.

 

[Riain]

I don't think the war would end in 1915, or perhaps even 1916 but it would certainly be going much better for Germany in these years and reduce the tendency towards radicalism.

 

[Snake Featherston]

What if Great Britain had been neutral in WW1?

Britain's interest in the Balance of Power would ensure its entrance on the Allied side if we presume the circumstances of OTL World War I.

 

[Nae'Blis]

Britain's interest in the Balance of Power would ensure its entrance on the Allied side if we presume the circumstances of OTL World War I.

Not really. While British intervention was quite likely, it was still touch and go for awhile. It would have been very easy for circumstances to have lead to Britain staying out, even with a POD in 1914.

 

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

You would need to have a really early POD to create a completely different, almost unrecognizable, WW1. Otherwise Britain is getting in. As has already been stated, it needed to maintain the balance of power.

 

[bobbis14]

If you have POD of the Fashoda incident being worse, the Great Game and less German naval build up (HSF designed to operate in Baltic) - That keeps Britain out, any of those remaining who want entrance will be shut up when Trench warfare is shown in all its glory

 

[karl2025]

Britain would be in a heap of domestic trouble. IOTL the problems of Ireland, Labor vs Business, militant Suffragists and Suffragettes could have torn the Untied Kingdom apart if they weren't put on the back burner by the war.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Britain would be in a heap of domestic trouble. IOTL the problems of Ireland, Labor vs Business, militant Suffragists and Suffragettes could have torn the Untied Kingdom apart if they weren't put on the back burner by the war.

I am forced to resort to the fuck: the fuck?

Ireland could be (and was) torn apart by its brewing conflict, however in the long term the war actually exarcebated that. The unionists rushed off to Stop the Hun and Save Britain and got slaughtered (the demographic position of Protestants was further weakened by the pope's decree on mixed marriages), while the moderate nationalists went too and also took a heavy blow. The people left were radicals who wouldn't serve. This caused the Easter Rising and its badly-handled repression which hardened hearts. Without all this, the Irish question may be resolved both more amicably and more in favour of Britain.

As for labour versus business, the country didn't collapse when we elected a labour government, did it? I see no reason why the war changed that.

The war did also have a big influence on the suffrage issue, but they were clearly going to win in the end, and the idea that Britain could ahve been balkanised or thrown into civil war by the suffargettes putting acid in letterboxes is beyond ludicrous.

Unless of course you meant that the prevailing political status-quo would be torn apart... but that happened anyway.

I don't think the war would end in 1915, or perhaps even 1916 but it would certainly be going much better for Germany in these years and reduce the tendency towards radicalism.

Why don't you think it wouldn't end then? As I said, I've actually analysed the military factors. I've shown that Germany will have totaly naval supremacy, and that France and Russia, already stretched to breaking point in 1915-16, will ave less forces and more supply problems. I've shown that Germany will have almost no supply problems, and that the British army was by 1916 a significant part of all forces on the western front, Furthermore I should point out that this tilts the balance in favour of the CP dramatically and will encourage more countries to stay neutral or join them.

Nobody has actually given me a reason why the war shouldn't end by 1915. As for 1916, given that the Russians tried to back out then OTL...

Not really. While British intervention was quite likely, it was still touch and go for awhile. It would have been very easy for circumstances to have lead to Britain staying out, even with a POD in 1914.

We've established that Britain's whole foreign policy could not possibly allow Germany to win, that we had been making major measures over the past decade that basically guaranteed our intervention. There was debate. The debate may, without Belgium last longer. The same side will still win it.

 

[Lord Insane]

We've established that Britain's whole foreign policy could not possibly allow Germany to win, that we had been making major measures over the past decade that basically guaranteed our intervention. There was debate. The debate may, without Belgium last longer. The same side will still win it.

Most likely true. I had to resort to weakening the Franco-British relationship before the Great War, and one of those highly unlikely events that, nevertheless, happens every now and then- and that only meant Britain was kept out because their treaty obligations were now in direct conflict with their policy (oh, and helping France would now be even more prone to making France the new European hegemon than it was in OTL, plus some additional issues with neutral countries).
Though I will note that the OP doesn't mention that the POD has to be in 1914. If we assume a butterfly-minimalising approach, it might be possible.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Most likely true. I had to resort to weakening the Franco-British relationship before the Great War, and one of those highly unlikely events that, nevertheless, happens every now and then- and that only meant Britain was kept out because their treaty obligations were now in direct conflict with their policy (oh, and helping France would now be even more prone to making France the new European hegemon than it was in OTL, plus some additional issues with neutral countries).
Though I will note that the OP doesn't mention that the POD has to be in 1914. If we assume a butterfly-minimalising approach, it might be possible.

As I sai,d belgium was a convenient excuse for British policy. A French attack on Belgium, under exceptional circumstances, might keep Britain neutral long enough for German victory to be unnavoidable but French hegemony was never an issue. France had not even believed itself to be a great power in some periods between 1871 and 1914. Even its simple geography made it much harder for it, or even Russia, (who might have suceeded Germany as the bogey-man even without communism), to dominate Europe in the way that germany dcould have if they'd won. Napoleon learned that to his cost.

 

[Blue Max]

It might be fair to suggest the Irish situation might distract the UK after 1914 from joining the war later, or that no matter who wins WW1, the UK is going to expand as a result by filling a power vacuum.

Germany and Austria win the Great War, Italy joins them and the Ottomans sit out. This leads to problems down the line--Russia may well go Bolshevik if Germany decides to unleash Lenin, even if German forces have made it further east.

France being treated like Germany was OTL may also be in the cards. The ramifications of this suggest the starting point of a WW2 matchup--France and Russia messed up, Germany overextended and Austria Hungary slowly going to pieces. Throw in a Japan which may have won it big in Russian Territory, and Italy as an opportunistic power, as well as the slow endgame of the Ottoman Empire (which probably will not last for too much longer), and this situation could get really hairy.

This is probably not "Nukes Fly" bad, but I think it would roughly mirror WW2, although it might well be Communism that gets smashed on the battlefield and Fascism/Nationalism that survives.

 

[Lord Insane]

As I sai,d belgium was a convenient excuse for British policy. A French attack on Belgium, under exceptional circumstances, might keep Britain neutral long enough for German victory to be unnavoidable but French hegemony was never an issue. France had not even believed itself to be a great power in some periods between 1871 and 1914. Even its simple geography made it much harder for it, or even Russia, (who might have suceeded Germany as the bogey-man even without communism), to dominate Europe in the way that germany dcould have if they'd won. Napoleon learned that to his cost.

It was a convenient excuse, true, but it was good one- they actually *were* obligated by treaty to declare war on Germany. Which is why *any* French attack on Belgium (or a French ultimatum that Belgium bows to, for that matter), as unlikely as that is, is a problem. Britain might well remain a French-supporting neutral, simply because the alternative may well be that they end up in a post-War world where no-one trusts Britain will place any weight on treaties made.

As for French hegemony not being an issue, not as much of an issue, but France in control of the Channel Ports were no more desireable than Germany in control, nor were a Germany broken desireable.

 

[I Blame Communism]

It might be fair to suggest the Irish situation might distract the UK after 1914 from joining the war later, or that no matter who wins WW1, the UK is going to expand as a result by filling a power vacuum.

British policy was far more far-sighted than that. We saw that if Germany won, France would no longer be an independent great power. It would be threatened by Germany: Austria-Hungary would be dependent on Germany. Between those, Germany effectively controls Europe (this was implicitly acknowledged even in the Septermber Program), with Russia locked out economically and possibly by buffer states. Britain's status as an independent great ower is now in question, with this German bloc controlling such vast resources. Given their naval ambitions OTL...

Germany and Austria win the Great War, Italy joins them and the Ottomans sit out. This leads to problems down the line--Russia may well go Bolshevik if Germany decides to unleash Lenin, even if German forces have made it further east.

I'd think the Ottomans far more likly to join that Italy. In any case I really doubt Germany unleashing Lenin. Why would they? It was a desperate measure by Ludendorff, who was willing to do anything to win, and he may not even come to power. Hollweg was, in 1916, negotiating a seperate peace with Shtyurmyer. In all likelihood Russia will be beaten and sue for peace without the Bolsheviks having any opportunity to launch a coup. The Tsar is probably done for, however.

France being treated like Germany was OTL may also be in the cards. The ramifications of this suggest the starting point of a WW2 matchup--France and Russia messed up, Germany overextended and Austria Hungary slowly going to pieces. Throw in a Japan which may have won it big in Russian Territory, and Italy as an opportunistic power, as well as the slow endgame of the Ottoman Empire (which probably will not last for too much longer), and this situation could get really hairy.

How Germany was treated OTL was to be offended while still being a great power because fundamentally Germany is a great power and it took slicing them in half and militaryily occupying them to change that... and now they've still bounced back to a certain extent. Whereas France, probably stipped of Briey and with Germany hovering over it, is no longer really a great power at all.

I also consider Japan "winning it big" unlikely. No-one wanted the upending of the Pacific and Chinese balance Japan would cause by overruning the Russian Far East (it was Entente diplomacy as much as red firepower that pushed them out in the 20s), and anyway as I side Russia will probably finish intact enough to loo after itself.

This is probably not "Nukes Fly" bad, but I think it would roughly mirror WW2, although it might well be Communism that gets smashed on the battlefield and Fascism/Nationalism that survives.

As I said, I'm dubious about communism.