WI no Anglo-French Army staff talks/plans 1910-1914 ?

Most likely connsequence of no Anglo-French Army staff talks/plans 1910-1914

  • No WWI, France, without a pledge of British ground support, successfully urges Russian restraint

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • There is a WWI, but lack of prior planning/coordination results in German victory over France

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • There is a WWI, and it is messier for the Allies, but France holds on

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • There is a WWI, but Germany does an east-first strategy & respects Belgium

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • No WWI, but France or Russia, disappointed in UK, revive colonial disputes w/UK

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • There is WWI, France/Russia are restrained over Austro-Serb crisis, but Germany starts war anyway.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if the British governments of the day refuse Army initiatives and French overtures for staff talks between the two countries?

The British government's motive in quashing such talks is a desire to avoid provoking inconvenient questions and a desire to avoid military overcommitment as well as fear of emboldening the French and Russians.

This does not involve a repudiation of the Colonial Ententes with both France and Russia, cooperation in the Morrocco crises, other cooperation and even naval agreements that allow Britain to concentrate more forces in home waters while reducing its strength in the Mediterranean.

Would the course of any of the Balkan Wars, and associated diplomatic tensions from 1912 to early 1914 have changed in any fundamental way?

If not, and we arrived at the June-July crisis of 1914, what effect would the lack of British-French staff talks and related understandings have on development of the ensuing crisis, and possibly, war?
 
I voted for #1 -- "No WW1, France successfully urges restraint on Russia".

The staff talks (and presumably the naval assistance pledge) not happening, strongly implies one of two things:

First, either Grey is less Germanophobic than he was OTL, and/or...

Second, the Cabinet grows a backbone and exercises effective control over Grey's foreign policy, so that he can no longer play his own secret, independent games.

In the first case, Grey is much less likely to fear a potential German victory; and the French, with no assurance of British support (quite the opposite, in fact), are much more wary of letting the Russians drive up the pressure.

In the second case, the "anti-war" majority in Cabinet keep a closer rein on Grey's maneuvers, and the French are still deprived of any assurance of British support.

OTL, far from trying to restrain Russia, Poincare in 1912 wrote Russia a blank check of French support if Russia went to war with A-H; he altered the terms of the Franco-Russian Military Convention so that it would now commit France to help Russia even in a war arising in the Balkans (something the French previously sought to avoid); and in 1914 suggested that the Russians publicly claim to be proceeding slowly and unprovokingly while secretly accelerating her preparations for war. His main concern was not to de-escalate the Crisis but merely to make it look like it was the CP who were actually forcing the pace (a passive-aggressive approach).

He probably didn't actively seek war, and/or he may not have though that war was "best now, rather than later", but he at least failed to realize that this time, unlike previous occasions, a Russian mobilization would almost certainly spark a war by scaring Germany into a preemptive strike in the West.

Without any significant assurance of British support -- in fact, with an obvious British refusal to even talk about support -- he will almost certainly decline to write Russia the blank check, and is far more likely to actually urge Russian restraint. And Russia is not about to risks war between herself and Germany without French support.



Edit: By "no WW1" I mean that, while there might be a war, it will almost certainly be a more localized one: either A-H vs Serbia, or (less likely) A-H and Germany vs Serbia and Russia.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It's like the British took the a) good idea of making deals with France and Russia to avoid major colonial wars, and the b) possibly necessary idea of making naval understandings throughout the world to be able to concentrate the fleet in home waters, to be able to overmatch the increasing German fleet, but then they took A& B to absurd levels, leading to c) a major British commitment to fight alongside France on the continent. The fruits of a policy of preparing for war on the continent on the Entente side resulted in......well.....a war [& kinda two successive wars] wars for Britain on the continent.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It probably butterflies away WW1, but once we assume we have a crisis in the summer of 1914, I tend to see a war with France losing. If the UK does not enter the war, it is a clear Central Power win, perhaps quickly (1914). If we assume the UK still enters the war, it almost certainly means the entry is delayed. All else being equal, France does much worse in Flanders. Perhaps even losing its 5th Army to flanking attacks. Either way, the French are in much worse shape than OTL.
 
Top