WI: No UK involvement in WWI, relatively fast CP victory, British foreign policy post-war?

RousseauX

Donor
Let's say in 1914 Britain sits out the war and doesn't enter due to Belgium (the otl UK government was fence sitting on it and a different set of personalities might very well have decided not to enter the war). Germany is even more successful in 1914 against the French and takes more of the industrialized NE France though it falls short of capturing Paris.

Let's say by early 1916 France and Russia folds: France can't economically continue the war without direct British involvement and with too much of its industries fallen to Germany. Russia suffers same defeats otl and as France surrenders it throws in the towel. Italy joined the CP and Ottoman remains neutral.

Let's say Russia loses Poland and some of the Baltics/Galicia but nowwhere close to OTL Brest-Litvosk. France maybe loses Savorie to Italy and gets reversed Versailles with the frontier demilitarized and heavy indemnities imposed. France is basically knocked out from the ranks of the Great powers but Russia actually don't suffer a revolution (at least immediately).

How does the UK react to this situation? Does it make accommodations with Germany, does it try to put together an anti-German alliance on the continent? Does it draw closer together with the US to create a trans-Atlantic partnership to counter Germany and double down on the empire?
 
Last edited:
If France holds on to early 1916, Germany might be in a bit trouble. Also, British help was absolutely necessary in 1914. There were key battles during the mobile phase where a small troop differential in the sector could make or break the theater and the British were involved in them before the Marne. Long story shot, without the British, the French dumb mistakes would have cost them a lot more than the German mistakes and there wouldn't be a Marne... because by then the Germans would have either reached Paris, or go around it.
 
I think this belongs on the post-1900 forum.

Anyways, I think the context in which Britain stays out is a big factor, if the PoD is 1914 then the UK is a pariah state that just threw the Entente Cordiale under the bus, if there was no Entente Cordial then the UK has much more freedom to court whomever it wants.

It would probably try to break up the Central Powers, as the last thing it wants is to have a naval arms race (or worse, a war) against all three. Additionally with France, Russia, and Serbia bloodied one or both of Germany's partners might be looking for less domineering allies.
 
Russia could pretty easily get away with only losing Poland and Lithuania they basically got slapped with B-L because they were negotiating in bad faith
 
France gets squished, and so does Russia. The war is actually over by Christmas. England really just focuses on keeping it's Empire in order; really, trading with Germany is going to be a lot more helpful than trying to get into some massive arms race against them. Plus, while IMO Austria-Hungary not only could but probably will at least try to pull itself together a little along with the Ottoman Empire, England knows that ultimately Germany is gonna be too busy to ever really challenge them militarily, and England's gonna sink or down anything that even tries to land troops in the British Isles proper, so they'd rather just sit back and collect trade and trying to keep their empire in line rather than get into a bunch of wars with an enemy it ultimately can't hurt but can't hurt Britain back either.
 
Paris falls by Christmas if not the end of September while Russia takes longer because of her size. France loses Briwey and surrounding area, signs a clause rescending any future claims to Alsace and Lorraine, Luxembourg becomes German, Poland becomes all but German, and maybe Lithuania becomes a puppet or direct German territory. Mittelafrika develops as does Mitteleuropa and German becomes one of the main world trade languages. Russia continues her innovative streak with heavy doses of social reform while France descends into chaos for a while. Italy might get Corsica and Savoy if she jumps in but more likely she doesn't do anything.
 
there wouldn't be a Marne... because by then the Germans would have either reached Paris, or go around it.
My understanding is, the Germans were incapable of achieving that, because supply wouldn't permit it: the horse-bound Germans couldn't lift fodder in large-enough amounts to allow the army to advance far & fast enough from railheads.
 
My understanding is, the Germans were incapable of achieving that, because supply wouldn't permit it: the horse-bound Germans couldn't lift fodder in large-enough amounts to allow the army to advance far & fast enough from railheads.

No BEF means the French have to absorb or deflect another two to three German divisions. OTL plans were alrrady underway to begin evacuation of Paris and reorganization at Bordeaux, you'd have Paris fall then probably a move to cut off the remaining French army in a giant pincer. Most of northern France would be in German hands, at that point the only question becomes what they take in the peace settlement.
 
With a CP victory the main thrust of British foreign policy will not to be invaded by Germany in a future war. She might be able to create an Entente with the US but nobody in Europe will risk German displeasure in favour of such a faithless country. She will also have to maintain a huge fleet and reform the army to make an invasion attempt too costly.
 
What is the exact reason for Britain not entering the war?

I mean, if it’s because Belgium is not invaded, then the front lines just shortened significantly. Which means France can concentrate her forces more densely.

I don’t think Britain can avoid entering the war once Belgium has been invaded. She would lose too much prestige if she failed to stand by her agreement.
 
What is the exact reason for Britain not entering the war?

I mean, if it’s because Belgium is not invaded, then the front lines just shortened significantly. Which means France can concentrate her forces more densely.

I don’t think Britain can avoid entering the war once Belgium has been invaded. She would lose too much prestige if she failed to stand by her agreement.
The POD is that ITTL British politicians of the time value peace and prosperity more than prestige.
 
The POD is that ITTL British politicians of the time value peace and prosperity more than prestige.
Selling everything to everyone at premium prices and afterwards sitting at the negotiating table, maybe to "safeguard" the French colonies for them until they get their house in order again.
 
It’s signing the death warrant for the British Empire.

They made more from the ‘informal’ empire then they did from the actual empire. Until everything was sold in a fire sale at the start of WW2 that is.
 
Perhaps a less aggressive Kaiser (as far as the British are concerned - a smaller HSF coupled with no invasion of Belgium (perhaps they focus on Russia first?) - all negates the reasons for Britain to join the war.

Germany had only recently become a 'threat' to the UK and many in the German Navy fondly remembered a time when they were based in the UK

Otherwise Britain would do what it perceived to be in its best interests and treat the whole thing much like 1870

And if that was to stay neutral - then so be it.

Basically Britain would be the USA of OTL in this scenario selling weapons equipment and ammo to whomever had the money - plus loans etc which might cause issues.

With no invasion of Belgium then the Western Front is half the size and much of it better suited for defence with a great many 'modern' forts - there will be no quick decision

Also with no UK in the war and no blokade of Germany and also no occupation of North East France and its industry and coal mines

Also they would be in a position to demand things like Turkey not closing the Bosporus to international commerce etc.

And possibly might be able to act as an honest broker?

All in all perhaps the war would be shorter and less costly!
 
It’s signing the death warrant for the British Empire.

They made more from the ‘informal’ empire then they did from the actual empire. Until everything was sold in a fire sale at the start of WW2 that is.

True, but never underestimate the potential short-sightedness of politicans worried about their polling numbers. IOTL the Liberal government was already on INCREADIBLY shakey ground in terms of their hold on power (By popular vote numbers they'd actually lose the previous election to the Unionists. *Whispers* Forshadowing a century later in another deeply divided English speaking world power...) and were getting shook up by the Home Rule Crisis. Any over controversial action taken or problem not handled quickly and efficently ran the risk of handing power back to the Conservatives, who could role back the beloved domestic reforms that had been painfully stiched together over the previous decades.
 
I'm not sure how you keep the British Empire out of the war in the first place. The issues that dragged them in the first place would have to be gone and that would require TL changes in some cases as late as the Napoleonic Age. In a scenario the British stay out, they might not have much of an empire in the first place.

However in a scenario the British stay out, I think France would seek a Ceasefire and peace once Russia collapsed. The US don't have much of a reason to get involved, unless the Germans continue to screw everything up by blowing up Atlantic shipping. Without back the French would probably seek peace with honor and the return of Belgium, with the trade off being Germany & A-H getting a free hand at carving up Russia & the Balkans.

The British Empire won't collapse, but the violation of the of Belgium neutrality and the refusal of the British to stick to their word and get involved, will be a big blow to their prestige. You'll probably see the slow strangulation of the British Empire in Europe. The Kaiser might have been friendly with Britain, but his government would be idiotic to not take measures to declaw the Lion in the Sea.
 
True, but never underestimate the potential short-sightedness of politicans worried about their polling numbers. IOTL the Liberal government was already on INCREADIBLY shakey ground in terms of their hold on power (By popular vote numbers they'd actually lose the previous election to the Unionists. *Whispers* Forshadowing a century later in another deeply divided English speaking world power...) and were getting shook up by the Home Rule Crisis. Any over controversial action taken or problem not handled quickly and efficently ran the risk of handing power back to the Conservatives, who could role back the beloved domestic reforms that had been painfully stiched together over the previous decades.

In a situation where Britain is making loads of money selling to the Europeans like the US did would at least in the short term provide a boost to the British Economy - while at the same time without nearly a million dead and several million wounded across the Empire and no massive crippling war debt surely Britain would be better off?
 
In a situation where Britain is making loads of money selling to the Europeans like the US did would at least in the short term provide a boost to the British Economy - while at the same time without nearly a million dead and several million wounded across the Empire and no massive crippling war debt surely Britain would be better off?

In absolute terms? Yes. But in relative terms her position to act around and compete with Germany in the future would be worse than IOTL. Prior to this, Britain had options of forces and capabilities she could use to augment her own in the event she ended up in a competition with Berlin, and the passive actions of other powers pursuing their own interests passively tying down some of Germany's attention and resources without any cost to herself; thus limiting Germany's ability to focus them on initiatives that are against British interests. If France and Russia have been weakened and a substantial part of that strength/influence now under German control, those advantages are lost, so not only are conflicts with Germany more likely as the two powers start bumping around more in similar circles, but Britain has fewer options for responding and those that remain are more personally costly than those they'd lost.

Granted, there's not really a PERFECT option for Britain in this case, but that's more a sign of the unsustainablity of the global system without Germany essentially capitulating to permeant "contained"/ 2nd rate status as it was rather than stupidity on Britain's part
 

BooNZ

Banned
Anyways, I think the context in which Britain stays out is a big factor, if the PoD is 1914 then the UK is a pariah state that just threw the Entente Cordiale under the bus, if there was no Entente Cordial then the UK has much more freedom to court whomever it wants.
How so? Even Grey maintained the UK had a free hand. Most of the British Cabinet were unaware of anything before the war that would compel a British decision either way.

It would probably try to break up the Central Powers, as the last thing it wants is to have a naval arms race (or worse, a war) against all three. Additionally with France, Russia, and Serbia bloodied one or both of Germany's partners might be looking for less domineering allies.
How would Britain break up the winning team? OTL Germany might have got bossy has it carried A-H through the war, but Britain's navy is not much use against the continental armies of A-H's rivals. So Britain just gets Italy - everyone's happy!

As an aside, Germany was developing the Mitteleuropa concept in part to ensure the team stayed together.

No BEF means the French have to absorb or deflect another two to three German divisions. OTL plans were alrrady underway to begin evacuation of Paris and reorganization at Bordeaux, you'd have Paris fall then probably a move to cut off the remaining French army in a giant pincer. Most of northern France would be in German hands, at that point the only question becomes what they take in the peace settlement.
No BEF still leaves the Germans at the end of their logistical chain - the French would need to sh*t the bed to lose Paris, even without the BEF. Talk of giant pincers after the Germans have already been marching 5-6 weeks is somewhat ambitious.

With a CP victory the main thrust of British foreign policy will not to be invaded by Germany in a future war. She might be able to create an Entente with the US but nobody in Europe will risk German displeasure in favour of such a faithless country. She will also have to maintain a huge fleet and reform the army to make an invasion attempt too costly.
Why is an Anglo-German reconciliation so unthinkable - you know, the continuation of what was already happening from 1912?
 
Top