WI: Great Britain stayed out of WW1?

[I Blame Communism]

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.

Good point about the treaties. However it wasn't the 18th century. We'd moved passed Channel Ports paranoia as we were fully confident in our own naval strength: we were looking at the capacity to dominate the continent. Once unfettered by competition with other European Great Powers, a power was a huge threat to us. Even in the 17th Century, I think, this more sophisticated policy was only outwardly amifesting itself in staunch defence of Belgium for logistical reasons (in those days no fleet of any size could guarantee to stop an invading armada based inAntwerp because of wind).

 

[Askelion]

In all truth, there's a few points I must make abundantly clear:
A.) The Ottomons were becoming MORE stable and liberal in the 20th century. It had a brave, disciplined, skilled military equipped by the Germans. The Armenians and Arabs revolted due to British involvement and intelligence operations. No GB in WWI, no Ottoman collapse for a good long time.

B.) If Austria-Hungary can survive its mediocre leadership long enough for Karl I to reunite the dual throne and make his reforms, it could survive indefinately.

C.) Japan joined the Entente in order to steal German territories in the Pacific. Why would this change? It's likely that the Empror would make a peace treaty and trade alliance with the CP's in return for not forcing their exhausted and overextended troops from launching a horrible Pacific campaign against a disciplined and fanatical force with close ties(for now) to the US. I know that I wouldn't want another war half the world away while Britain and America (unfazed from the war, no less) watch over my shoulder with suspicion.

D.) Italy, with its excellent (pre-Mussolini) army will align with the alliance that treats them right. If the CP's stiff Italy like the Entente did OTL, one can expect a dire(and likely impoverished) revolutionary state to rise and align itself with the worst possible enemy of her enemy (perhaps Great Britain ).

It all depends on the victors how the aftermath of a conflict unfolds, and the same can be said here. We can have anything from german and Ottoman troops facing the Amero-Japanese force in the Pacific (and a channel invasion from those crazy British), to a Fascist (or Communist, for that matter) Italy uniting with Britain and the other anti-german powers to bring it to the Kaiser in the 40's.

Hmm...now I want a timeline

 

[I Blame Communism]

In all truth, there's a few points I must make abundantly clear:
A.) The Ottomons were becoming MORE stable and liberal in the 20th century. It had a brave, disciplined, skilled military equipped by the Germans. The Armenians and Arabs revolted due to British involvement and intelligence operations. No GB in WWI, no Ottoman collapse for a good long time.

True, although Armenia was a Russian connivance (the Ottomans would still win and excluse Russian influence, though).

B.) If Austria-Hungary can survive its mediocre leadership long enough for Karl I to reunite the dual throne and make his reforms, it could survive indefinately.

Probably true.

C.) Japan joined the Entente in order to steal German territories in the Pacific. Why would this change? It's likely that the Empror would make a peace treaty and trade alliance with the CP's in return for not forcing their exhausted and overextended troops from launching a horrible Pacific campaign against a disciplined and fanatical force with close ties(for now) to the US. I know that I wouldn't want another war half the world away while Britain and America (unfazed from the war, no less) watch over my shoulder with suspicion.

Possible. They entered the war under the terms of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

D.) Italy, with its excellent (pre-Mussolini) army will align with the alliance that treats them right. If the CP's stiff Italy like the Entente did OTL, one can expect a dire(and likely impoverished) revolutionary state to rise and align itself with the worst possible enemy of her enemy (perhaps Great Britain ).

Not sure what you're getting at, but "excellent" the army was not. Cadorna was an arsemonger.

It all depends on the victors how the aftermath of a conflict unfolds, and the same can be said here. We can have anything from german and Ottoman troops facing the Amero-Japanese force in the Pacific (and a channel invasion from those crazy British), to a Fascist (or Communist, for that matter) Italy uniting with Britain and the other anti-german powers to bring it to the Kaiser in the 40's.

Hmm...now I want a timeline

It's really not very plausible to keep Britain out, though. I'm actually scheming a TL based on Ottoman neutrality.

 

[Hapsburg]

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.

Or Britain maintains colonial and naval supremacy 'cuz they're fucking Britain, and welcomes this new "unified European" market.

Mind, I'm assuming that something different had to happen with German naval policy, i.e. that they were less aggressive and antagonistic towards Britain, in order for this to work. As said, Britain's opposition to Germany was based on a German superpower both continentally and navally. If Germany avoids being a dick with ships and colonies, Britain won't be as uptight about it. A continental German hegemony is more amenable to Britain than is usually made out to be; it just depends on the naval/colonial situation.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Or Britain maintains colonial and naval supremacy 'cuz they're fucking Britain, and welcomes this new "unified European" market.

Mind, I'm assuming that something different had to happen with German naval policy, i.e. that they were less aggressive and antagonistic towards Britain, in order for this to work. As said, Britain's opposition to Germany was based on a German superpower both continentally and navally. If Germany avoids being a dick with ships and colonies, Britain won't be as uptight about it. A continental German hegemony is more amenable to Britain than is usually made out to be; it just depends on the naval/colonial situation.

Debatable. It would help, but we've consistently opposed continetal hegemony since Louis XIV or earlier.

 

[Susano]

The Japanese were in a similar situation as Italy. They could join either side to gain territories. Way I heard it is that the British-trained navy favoured the British side, and the German-trained army the German side. If there is no Britain in the war, the latter side might win out and try to gain some Russian territories.

IBC, if Hollweg was ready to let Russia even regain Poland, would in such a peace treaty Germany make any gains? I mean, a white peace would still be favourable to have a free hand in the west, but I still find that curious...

 

[I Blame Communism]

The Japanese were in a similar situation as Italy. They could join either side to gain territories. Way I heard it is that the British-trained navy favoured the British side, and the German-trained army the German side. If there is no Britain in the war, the latter side might win out and try to gain some Russian territories.

But Japan had a binding alliance with britain that had allowed them to win the Russo-Japanese war. That swung things pretty hard our way. It's possible that Japan might attack if Britain is neutral, but nobody wants Japanese Vladivostok. They'd aim for Manchurian hegemony, and Sakhalin if they remember it exists.

IBC, if Hollweg was ready to let Russia even regain Poland, would in such a peace treaty Germany make any gains? I mean, a white peace would still be favourable to have a free hand in the west, but I still find that curious...

Well, I should probably recheck my source here, but if you look at the September Program, Hollweg is very vague about the east, but his plan is to strip France of great power staus and then establish German economic hegemony in western Europe (that was before Gorlice-Tarnow, true). Getting Russia out of the war would accomplish this in 1916, or so he thought. Of course Ludendorff, who thought the war winnable on both fronts and wanted eastern gains, sabotaged him with him sham kingdom of Poland, so he had exactly that objection to the plan.

Edit: Here it is, Struggle for Mastery in Europe, "The Dilomacy of War", p552: "Bethmann's efforts at compromise took most practical form in the autumn of 1916. He seemed then within sight of a seperate peace with Russia. Here a genuine compromise was possible. There were no great prizes for Germany in eastern Europe, and the status quo of 1914 would be tolerable for her there, if it freed her hands to make vital gains in the west. Ludendorff ruined Bethmann's negotiations with the Russians."

 

[sloreck]

If, as in the thread here where Germany has an "east first", there is no German thrust in to Belgium, my opinion is that the UK will not jump right in in August 1914 in a scenario where the main fight is Germany vs Russia & the French are gleefully killing themselves with "elan vital" and "attaque a l'outrance" against German fortifications to try and recover Alsace & Lorraine. They may tilt French but there will be no blockade, and since there would be little advantage at this stage to sending any significant German naval units in to the Channel (no German Army thrust to support & British shipping not being attacked) unless the German admiralty has an acute attack of the stupids (on a Hitlerian scale) that particular causus belli does not exist.

A French move, uninvited, into Belgium, puts Britain between a rock & a hard spot as their choice is abrogating the guarantee or actually going to war with France, which won't happen. However the Brits will be less than pleased about the French putting them in that position.

As far as the US goes, absent the UK in the war (and the blockade) they will be happily selling stuff to and trading with Germany. You might, depending upon how long the war lasts, see Germany offer to sell some or all of its Pacific islands to the US to help finance things and I believe the US would be happy to buy them to keep them out of the hands of the Japanese.

 

[Hapsburg]

Debatable. It would help, but we've consistently opposed continetal hegemony since Louis XIV or earlier.

Just because you've done it forever doesn't necessarily mean it's beneficial.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Just because you've done it forever doesn't necessarily mean it's beneficial.

Hey, did I say it was?

Still, most of the people we foiled weren't brilliant. Napoleon was an okay sort, really.

 

[Riain]

Short reply to your earlier question, Britain didn't make much of a military contribution until 1916, so the battles of 1914 and 1915 should go largely the same as OTL, with the details going Germany's way. The entente won't be crushed in 1915, the military avantage to the CP isn't that great, but the entente will be pinning their hopes on some diplomatic coup with Britain or the US or some other country great or small. They won't yeild until all hope for help is gone.

 

[f1b0nacc1]

An assumption too far..

There seems to be a general assumption that German pursues her 'East first' strategy (safe assumption), but strangely enough, everyone also seems to assume that France engages in war in any event. This second assumption is (to my mind) an assumption too far. Without British involvement, the French cannot possibly defeat the German Army, and their entire foreign policy from the 1890s forward (before that really) indicates that they understand this. Russia, while a valuable ally, is not worth a repeat of 1870 (or worse), and without the British, the French would be facing precisely that.

If the British decline to become involved in the latest crisis (for purposes of simplicity, we will assume that the assasination remains the proximate incident), then the French will be unlikely to support Russia response to the Austro-Hungarian threats against Serbia, which was what brought the Germans into the game. Without French support, the Russians aren't willing to take on both the Austro-Hungarians and the Germans, which in turn keeps them from mobilizing.

The result, no WWI, probably a short ugly war between the Serbs and the Austro-Hungarians, and a general ratcheting up of tensions and hostilities in the Balkans. The Third Balkan War will probably lead to a Fourth Balkan War, but there is no bloodbath on the Western Front, and the Tsars will have to find another way to commit suicide.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Short reply to your earlier question, Britain didn't make much of a military contribution until 1916, so the battles of 1914 and 1915 should go largely the same as OTL, with the details going Germany's way. The entente won't be crushed in 1915, the military avantage to the CP isn't that great, but the entente will be pinning their hopes on some diplomatic coup with Britain or the US or some other country great or small. They won't yeild until all hope for help is gone.

Guys, Britain may not have conscripted until 1916, but it did have a bif army in Europe by 1915 (conscription actually raised less than was expected because so many people had already gone), and anyway you're completely ignoring the tactical aspects. British troops fought First Ieper, the ending battle of the race to the sea. If there not there, who's going to stop the Germans? The French, presuambly. Even if the French do thin their lines and deplete their reserved and somehow deposit six or so divisions in front of the Germans in time, they may not be good enough. That's not meant as a snide remark about the French, they were as good as anyone, but the first few corps Britain sent to the continent were trained to an enormously high standard: there are reports that at Ieper the Germans though they were facing machine-guns because of the speed of rifle fire British troops were keeping up.

So at best the French will have done a lot worse in the Race to the Sea and be stretched much thinner, and by 1915 the British forces in Europe grew to substantial numbers. I really doubt if France can hang on without them.

Over at the other end, as I said earlier, its pretty likely for the Ottomans to still join the war, but with no Gallipoli landing or Iraq campaign, more Russians will be drawn to the Caucasus, while will only worsen the complete failure of supplies and morale that befell them in 1915.

 

[I Blame Communism]

There seems to be a general assumption that German pursues her 'East first' strategy (safe assumption), but strangely enough, everyone also seems to assume that France engages in war in any event. This second assumption is (to my mind) an assumption too far. Without British involvement, the French cannot possibly defeat the German Army, and their entire foreign policy from the 1890s forward (before that really) indicates that they understand this. Russia, while a valuable ally, is not worth a repeat of 1870 (or worse), and without the British, the French would be facing precisely that.

If the British decline to become involved in the latest crisis (for purposes of simplicity, we will assume that the assasination remains the proximate incident), then the French will be unlikely to support Russia response to the Austro-Hungarian threats against Serbia, which was what brought the Germans into the game. Without French support, the Russians aren't willing to take on both the Austro-Hungarians and the Germans, which in turn keeps them from mobilizing.

The result, no WWI, probably a short ugly war between the Serbs and the Austro-Hungarians, and a general ratcheting up of tensions and hostilities in the Balkans. The Third Balkan War will probably lead to a Fourth Balkan War, but there is no bloodbath on the Western Front, and the Tsars will have to find another way to commit suicide.

A very fine first post, Mr.Unpronouncable!

 

[Riain]

I had a big reply typed but then the site dropped out, but the thrust of it was that despite how good the BEF undoubtably was it could only fight on the front of 6 divisions in a campaign of over a hundred on each side.

Aslo, winning the Race to the Sea is not overly important with no Britain in the war, it's main potential value was a strategic naval position against Britain rather than its value to France.

 

[I Blame Communism]

I had a big reply typed but then the site dropped out, but the thrust of it was that despite how good the BEF undoubtably was it could only fight on the front of 6 divisions in a campaign of over a hundred on each side.

Aslo, winning the Race to the Sea is not overly important with no Britain in the war, it's main potential value was a strategic naval position against Britain rather than its value to France.

Its strategic value was that the side which won would not be outflanked. I'm not saying the Germans will loop round and capture Paris or anything, but those six divisions were in a very important location, and their absence will certainly stretch France. Then, of course, France will get more and more stretched, since British manpower was a growing proportion of the total throughout 1915-16.

 

[Eurofed]

I'd think the Ottomans far more likely to join than Italy.

Actually, the reverse is almost true. If Britain sits out, at least during the first six months to an year of the war or so, Italy is very likely to join the war on the CPs' side in 1914-15 (without Britain in the Entente, Italy joining that side is much less likely, because UK was the only Entente power with strong diplomatic ties to and no significant conflicting claims with Italy). Rome would perceive France and Russia as the weaker side, there is a lot of French stuff that Italy craves, and a large part of the Italian ruling class wants to join the war to affirm Italy's status as a rising great power. The Ottomans were in a more defensive position, so less eager to join a general European war with expansionist aims, although they may be easily interested in cutting down their hereditary Russian enemy a notch down or two in a powerful coalition.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Actually, the reverse is almost true. If Britain sits out, at least during the first six months to an year of the war or so, Italy is very likely to join the war on the CPs' side in 1914-15 (without Britain in the Entente, Italy joining that side is much less likely, because UK was the only Entente power with strong diplomatic ties to and no significant conflicting claims with Italy). Rome would perceive France and Russia as the weaker side, there is a lot of French stuff that Italy craves, and a large part of the Italian ruling class wants to join the war to affirm Italy's status as a rising great power. The Ottomans were in a more defensive position, so less eager to join a general European war with expansionist aims, although they may be easily interested in cutting down their hereditary Russian enemy a notch down or two in a powerful coalition.

Italy is debatable, however the Ottomans had every reason to fight Russia in what was for them partly a defensive war: the Armenian reform package of 1913 effectively undermined their sovereignty and they had t dismantle it and hopefully all the other capitulations as well. This meant fighting Russia or else taking advantage of Russian distraction. If they'd chosen the latter option OTL, they might well still be around, bu the war party wn out, and why should this be different when the risks are so much lower? There certainly were gains to be made: Kars and Batum were almost an Ottomania Irredenta.

 

[Eurofed]

Italy is debatable, however the Ottomans had every reason to fight Russia in what was for them partly a defensive war: the Armenian reform package of 1913 effectively undermined their sovereignty and they had t dismantle it and hopefully all the other capitulations as well. This meant fighting Russia or else taking advantage of Russian distraction. If they'd chosen the latter option OTL, they might well still be around, bu the war party wn out, and why should this be different when the risks are so much lower? There certainly were gains to be made: Kars and Batum were almost an Ottomania Irredenta.

Your arguments about the Ottomans have merit, but everything you said about them and Russia, is even more valid about Italy and France (or Austria, but without an Entente Britain, that option becomes much less favored), with the difference that Italy in the 1910s was an aggressively expansionist nation eager to affirm its status as a great power, which was less blatantly so for the Ottomans.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Your arguments about the Ottomans have merit, but everything you said about them and Russia, is even more valid about Italy and France (or Austria, but without an Entente Britain, that option becomes much less favored), with the difference that Italy in the 1910s was an aggressively expansionist nation eager to affirm its status as a great power, which was less blatantly so for the Ottomans.

France had recently enacted, with British connivance, a measure to turn Italy into a French dependency and/or destroy the Italian state?