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

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.
How the British (rightly or wrongly) sees their non-involvement and how the continentals see it are two separate things. Perfidious Albion is a popular and enduring meme after all.
 

BooNZ

Banned
The 1839 Treaty of London does not obligated the signers to go to war. Economic sanctions are a possible alternative.
With the benefit of hindsight, the German wholesale invasion of Belgium was the genuine reason that caused the majority of the British decision makers to choose war. No invasion of Belgium means British belligerence is unlikely, but the OTL invasion of Belgium made British Belligerence a certainty.

Things become more Grey if Germany only advances through the Ardennes, which was not considered significant by most. Alternatively, what if Belgium chose not to resist a wider German invasion? On paper the radical doves in the British Cabinet had the numbers to block the British entry even in those circumstances, but it is certainly debatable.
 

BooNZ

Banned
How the British (rightly or wrongly) sees their non-involvement and how the continentals see it are two separate things. Perfidious Albion is a popular and enduring meme after all.

OTL the French were well aware the British were not bound to enter the war and that Grey was heavily outnumbered by the radical doves in the British Cabinet. British neutrality would certainly be viewed favourably by Germany - would any other continental opinion matter.

As an aside, the perfidious Albion meme endures despite British sacrificing its empire to protect Europe from those dastardly Germans - apparently to no avail.
 
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.
I think that would make an interesting technical/hardware/theory TL in itself. Of course it would depend on the British Empire/German relationship dynamic that is created - (begrudging recognition of the detente between them, loose alignment or recognition of the new status quo etc.)
 
he best variation on the scenario is Germany does not invade Belgium, instead sending more Corp to the East, Britain cordons the Channel, Joffre sends the 5th through Belgian Luxembourg prompting the Third to attack through Belgium south of the Meuse, drawing more troops otherwise to be sent East, the French have a very bad opening and get flanked, suffering high losses but not as much territory, Russia takes losses and A-H does better. That could get you to end of 1915 and an armistice, likely end of 1916 and a cold peace. Italy sits it out, OE maybe gets hostile very late if at all. Japan is poised to shift toward Germany Britain is not a belligerent but did not abandon the Entente entirely. Germany is undefeated but not victorious, A-H survives, France is not defeated but humbled, Russia should still be a tottering mess.

Here Britain will support the "cold war" that settles in between France and Germany, try to intervene in Russia and ind its balance in China unraveling. Germany might gain some colonial scraps from France, like French Congo, or a piece of Chad, but no sweeping changes, instead remaining the third colonial power. Britain should see an imperial preference a good thing and try to snub Germany, but if they engage them then Germany will dial back as global trade was far more important than any bits and bobs on the continental map. The 1920s are tense, the 1930s are detente and by the 1940s things are rather back to usual. Germany will return as the second naval power but have little interest in upsetting the European dominance, the colonial system or global free trade. We might see some "ideological" divide but nothing as extreme as USSR versus USA, this will be a cool relationship but built on mutual commerce, more like PRC versus USA. If Russia falls to chaos then Germany is the bulwark, if Russia stays benign then Germany is viewed with more fear as it is the hound in pursuit of the British hegemon. I think the game shifts to China and jockeying to exploit it. The USA will condone the Americas and promote free trade, be jealous in China but otherwise a non-actor. Japan should shift more to the German camp. It might be rather more modern but very much the old Great Power games.
 
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.
That's true even if the French completely bungle it, because every step the Germans take is one further from the railheads that supply them. The French have a lot of time to get their act together in WW1, unlike WW2.
 
Top