WI: Outcomes of Britain joining the Central Powers in WW1 in a losing scenario?

[kaos31]

Planning to start a personal Alt-history scenario which includes Britain as a central power, and just wanted some thoughts on what might happen if they ended up losing, as almost every UK central power scenario or discussion entails them winning.

So, in a WW1 scenario in which the ending remains somewhat similar to the OTL WW1, what happens to a central power Britain in a losing scenario in terms of peace terms like the treaty of versailles and other geo-political consequences? Not too interested in internal consequences to be honest.

End of Major Power Status? Would they lose most of their colonies? United Ireland? Or is there a possibly of them maintaining their Empire by throwing their allies under the bus? Or is there even a possibility of them dropping out early à la Russia?

 

[Gar48]

It depends. Unlike the other CPs, England can't be invaded directly and can get support from its colonies.

Unless it is starved into submission, England could simply negotiate a peace deal.

You could have it turn into a Fascist Italy variant thanks to the impression of getting screwed over

 

[David Flin]

Planning to start a personal Alt-history scenario which includes Britain as a central power, and just wanted some thoughts on what might happen if they ended up losing, as almost every UK central power scenario or discussion entails them winning.

If the only change to the line-up in 1914 is that, by some miracle, Britain is an ally of the Central Powers (it is left as an exercise for the reader how that is managed), then the weight of finance, metal, and manpower is firmly on the side of the Central Powers.

I'm struggling to see a plausible way this doesn't end up as a CP victory.

Let's wave a magic wand and say that by copious use of lead paint and magic fairies helping the Entente, the Entente wins.

What is the Entente going to do to enforce any peace treaty? The RN outweighed everyone else by some margin, and the German Navy was next closest. The Entente is simply not going to be able to do a damn thing when the water gets to be more than 2 fathoms.

 

[kaos31]

If the only change to the line-up in 1914 is that, by some miracle, Britain is an ally of the Central Powers (it is left as an exercise for the reader how that is managed), then the weight of finance, metal, and manpower is firmly on the side of the Central Powers.

I'm struggling to see a plausible way this doesn't end up as a CP victory.

Let's wave a magic wand and say that by copious use of lead paint and magic fairies helping the Entente, the Entente wins.

What is the Entente going to do to enforce any peace treaty? The RN outweighed everyone else by some margin, and the German Navy was next closest. The Entente is simply not going to be able to do a damn thing when the water gets to be more than 2 fathoms.

My apologies, I should have clarified in the original post that a central power Britain is one of a multitude of changes, but that the ending is WW1 is planned to be similar (or at least as similar as can be due to the scenario)

 

[Clandango]

What does the were the goals of the UK to start with this? Surely they are not doing this for good will with Germany, who has shown itself to be less than trustworthy, given how the Prussiansa invaded or backstabbed every single neighbor of theirs in the past preceding century that wasn’t very small and subservient to them. I expect they are going to have to give up something directly related to why they entered the war, even if not much.

 

[kaos31]

What does the were the goals of the UK to start with this? Surely they are not doing this for good will with Germany, who has shown itself to be less than trustworthy, given how the Prussiansa invaded or backstabbed every single neighbor of theirs in the past preceding century that wasn’t very small and subservient to them. I expect they are going to have to give up something directly related to why they entered the war, even if not much.

The reason for Britain allying with Germany on this timeline would be similar to other timelines on the subject, so a more intense Fashoda, a more industrialised/more threatening Russia and a friendlier Germany. WW1 starts for similar reasons as OTL. The reasons for these changes I havent quite fleshed out yet as I wanted to see where I can realistically go with this first.

 

[Clandango]

The reason for Britain allying with Germany on this timeline would be similar to other timelines on the subject, so a more intense Fashoda, a more industrialised/more threatening Russia and a friendlier Germany. WW1 starts for similar reasons as OTL. The reasons for these changes I havent quite fleshed out yet as I wanted to see where I can realistically go with this first.

Likely you would need France to invade Belgium and possibly declare union with it to get the British involved, as for Fashoda, the ending borders are important. Really, the French and British worked together a lot, and if they had all this heat between them then there might not be as many tit-for-tats. Or perhaps their would be. Realpolitik and all that. I guess here you would get Egypt independent but I doubt it. Hell, the Ottoman Empire would not fall without the continuous stream of British men, money, and weapons to destabilize them or to seize Arab areas. Maybe we somehow end up with the Khedive staying in charge of Egypt and being given sole control over the Suez Canal, just so long as it stays internationalized. Likely the French want to take it. The problem for everything is the British cannot really be made to give up anything they already, just to return what hey occupy during the war.

 

[kaos31]

Likely you would need France to invade Belgium and possibly declare union with it to get the British involved, as for Fashoda, the ending borders are important. Really, the French and British worked together a lot, and if they had all this heat between them then there might not be as many tit-for-tats. Or perhaps their would be. Realpolitik and all that. I guess here you would get Egypt independent but I doubt it. Hell, the Ottoman Empire would not fall without the continuous stream of British men, money, and weapons to destabilize them or to seize Arab areas. Maybe we somehow end up with the Khedive staying in charge of Egypt and being given sole control over the Suez Canal, just so long as it stays internationalized. Likely the French want to take it. The problem for everything is the British cannot really be made to give up anything they already, just to return what hey occupy during the war.

The Fashoda im this TL wouldnt turn into a conflict but just make Franco-British relations more tense.

The outcome you mentioned is more so what I was driving at tbh, I dont really plan for a collapse of the British Empire, at least not yet, was more checking in on what would be possible and impossible to keep for the UK.

Like at the very least I would imagine things like Malta -> Italy or Egypt -> France/Independent would be things that are bound to happen in a peace treaty.

 

[Evil Crusader]

It mightily depends on the scenarios envisaged, and I'll say I don't think the scenario will be likely to be plausible either.

 

[David Flin]

My apologies, I should have clarified in the original post that a central power Britain is one of a multitude of changes, but that the ending is WW1 is planned to be similar (or at least as similar as can be due to the scenario)

The trouble is that shifting Britain from one side to the other makes it really difficult to see how the Central Powers lose. There's no blockade of Germany; France is screwed nine ways from Sunday (blockaded, huge lengths of coast vulnerable to naval strikes, having to protect a lengthy border with Germany, with no access to British finance). Russia is screwed nine ways from Sunday (with Britain with the CP, then Japan is almost certainly also with the CP, meaning Japan gets to play Russo-Japan War Part 2, with Russia stretched holding back Germany and AH and, in due course, an Ottoman Empire not hampered by British depradations. Russia's access to supplies becomes questionable - Germany and Britain can block the Baltic. Britain and the Ottomans block the Black Sea. Britain hinders the Persian route. Britain and Japan block the Far East.

However, let's arm wave and say that by some miracle the Entente pull off a victory similar to that of 1918.

How is the Entente going to enforce any colonial changes on Britain? Malta, Gib, they're secure. Persia is of too much interest to Britain, and that means the Suze is vital to British interests, which means France is going to have to force it, and the naval balance becomes silly.

1914: Our new CP have (with Entente strength in brackets)

Dreadnoughts: 42. (6)
Dreadnoughts under construction 25 (15)
Battlecruisers 14 (0)

and so on down to

Destroyers 429 (170)

This is discounting those ships that were part of the British Empire navies (such as the Australian Navy).

Essentially, if at a peace treaty, the Entente demands Britain give up any colonies or overseas influence, Britain goes: "Lol, no."

And I am simply not seeing how the Entente is going to win if Britain is on the side of the CP.

 

[kaos31]

The trouble is that shifting Britain from one side to the other makes it really difficult to see how the Central Powers lose. There's no blockade of Germany; France is screwed nine ways from Sunday (blockaded, huge lengths of coast vulnerable to naval strikes, having to protect a lengthy border with Germany, with no access to British finance). Russia is screwed nine ways from Sunday (with Britain with the CP, then Japan is almost certainly also with the CP, meaning Japan gets to play Russo-Japan War Part 2, with Russia stretched holding back Germany and AH and, in due course, an Ottoman Empire not hampered by British depradations. Russia's access to supplies becomes questionable - Germany and Britain can block the Baltic. Britain and the Ottomans block the Black Sea. Britain hinders the Persian route. Britain and Japan block the Far East.

However, let's arm wave and say that by some miracle the Entente pull off a victory similar to that of 1918.

How is the Entente going to enforce any colonial changes on Britain? Malta, Gib, they're secure. Persia is of too much interest to Britain, and that means the Suze is vital to British interests, which means France is going to have to force it, and the naval balance becomes silly.

1914: Our new CP have (with Entente strength in brackets)

Dreadnoughts: 42. (6)
Dreadnoughts under construction 25 (15)
Battlecruisers 14 (0)

and so on down to

Destroyers 429 (170)

This is discounting those ships that were part of the British Empire navies (such as the Australian Navy).

Essentially, if at a peace treaty, the Entente demands Britain give up any colonies or overseas influence, Britain goes: "Lol, no."

And I am simply not seeing how the Entente is going to win if Britain is on the side of the CP.

While obviously the Central Powers would still have an advantage, 2 of factors which would have gone into Britain joining would be a smaller and not as threatening naval build up by Germany, as well as a more industrialized Russia, so these two factors could hopefully tip the scales a little bit.

 

[David Flin]

While obviously the Central Powers would still have an advantage, 2 of factors which would have gone into Britain joining would be a smaller and not as threatening naval build up by Germany, as well as a more industrialized Russia, so these two factors could hopefully tip the scales a little bit.

Removing Germany entirely and totally discounting its navy, and halving the size of the RN, we still end up with a CP/Entente ratio of greater than 2:1 in every single category of vessel.

1914-1918 OTL was a slogging match where weight of metal (in all areas) matters and where manpower resources matters and where access to the sinews of war matters. Shifting Britain from one side to the other is going to have a major impact (look to see which was the dominant army on the Western Front in Q3 1918).

One can arm wave - somehow - an Entente victory in 1914. An injudicious German attack through Belgium (as OTL) that loses the Race to the Sea and a French Army that gets between the German armies and Germany, for example.

However, that doesn't give us the 4 year slogging butchery of OTL.

 

[jlckansas]

IF the UK is a member of the Central Powers it makes it more likely to win and not loose the war.
1. UK rules the waves and can prevent anything getting through to the French and Russians easily.
2. Japan is looking at what would be happening in Europe and see that the UK has backed the Central Powers and would be looking at Russo Japanese War 2. This would tie up forces in the Far East and make the Russian have to put resources out there that they did not orginally have to.
3. Turkey gets it BB's and can be counted to be friendly neutral to the Central Powers or join them, as IOTL, but not having to face the Entente in the Middle East would free up more troops against Russia and could even allow the UK to send forces to fight the Russians, there were numerous Indian Army units that were Muslim and would be able to fit in with the supply situation with the UK able to have the same supplies to the Turks.
4. Resources and supplies that the Central Powers did not have because of the Blockade are available to the Central Powers.

 

[kaos31]

Removing Germany entirely and totally discounting its navy, and halving the size of the RN, we still end up with a CP/Entente ratio of greater than 2:1 in every single category of vessel.

1914-1918 OTL was a slogging match where weight of metal (in all areas) matters and where manpower resources matters and where access to the sinews of war matters. Shifting Britain from one side to the other is going to have a major impact (look to see which was the dominant army on the Western Front in Q3 1918).

One can arm wave - somehow - an Entente victory in 1914. An injudicious German attack through Belgium (as OTL) that loses the Race to the Sea and a French Army that gets between the German armies and Germany, for example.

However, that doesn't give us the 4 year slogging butchery of OTL.

Honestly military realism has never been my strong point, so excuse my ignorance on that subject, but the way in which it will be balanced was something I was planning on figuring out later to be honest. As this is more a personal TL, Im a bit more interested in realistic outcomes to a scenario than to how realistic the scenario itself is.

 

[kaos31]

IF the UK is a member of the Central Powers it makes it more likely to win and not loose the war.
1. UK rules the waves and can prevent anything getting through to the French and Russians easily.
2. Japan is looking at what would be happening in Europe and see that the UK has backed the Central Powers and would be looking at Russo Japanese War 2. This would tie up forces in the Far East and make the Russian have to put resources out there that they did not orginally have to.
3. Turkey gets it BB's and can be counted to be friendly neutral to the Central Powers or join them, as IOTL, but not having to face the Entente in the Middle East would free up more troops against Russia and could even allow the UK to send forces to fight the Russians, there were numerous Indian Army units that were Muslim and would be able to fit in with the supply situation with the UK able to have the same supplies to the Turks.
4. Resources and supplies that the Central Powers did not have because of the Blockade are available to the Central Powers.

Understand the unlikelihood of the Central Power loss, but am hoping to make a TL in which the loss makes some amount of sense. But am really trying to see what outcomes could result from this as I want to see if Im even interested im going down that route.

 

[David Flin]

Honestly military realism has never been my strong point, so excuse my ignorance on that subject, but the way in which it will be balanced was something I was planning on figuring out later to be honest. As this is more a personal TL, Im a bit more interested in realistic outcomes to a scenario than to how realistic the scenario itself is.

OTL was a long slugging match that went down to the wire, and the balance of forces gave pretty much parity for long periods. If, then, you shift one of the major powers of the day from one side to the other, you're going to have to do a lot of fast-talking to explain why that hasn't thrown the OTL balance to hell in a handbasket.

If you are determined to have an Entente victory in a situation where the Entente is weakened by Britain's absence and the CP are strengthened by Britain's presence, then the one thing we can rule out is a long war of attrition as OTL. If this version of the war goes on beyond Spring 1915, then it's a CP victory and all that remains are the details. Therefore, somehow, you've got to have an early Entente victory. I've suggested one arm-waved route to that.

If you're still determined to have what is frankly a totally unrealistic scenario of Entente winning in the style of OTL, but with Britain on the other side, then it's not possible to come up with realistic outcomes because the set-up from which these outcomes are being determined is unrealistic.

Germany doesn't have a Turnip Winter; France has lost many of its colonies to Britain and Japan (France is unable to support them, and Britain, Japan, et al can bring overwhelming weight to bear).

We can't tell you what the outcomes are because of the old adage: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

[Insane Ranter]

What about Britain joining but not throwing any ground troops into the mix? Just ruling the waves and then throwing air power into the mix?
Will the USA still hop into the war? Italy stays neurtral or goes CP?

 

[Leonidas]

If ideas of national self-determination still influence the peace treaty, it’s very possible for it to include an independent Ireland encompassing the entire island. However, their colonies are a whole different story, since France already had what they wanted in West Africa (in contrast to Britain’s Cape-to-Cairo railway idea). Just spitballing though, Egypt could become independent as other posters have suggested. You’d probably also see an independent South Africa since it’s in a strategic location, and Italy might take over Somaliland and Kenya. However, it’s complicated to imagine how the British Empire as a whole would actually fall, and self-determination wasn’t applied in good faith to colonized peoples anyway. Ideas like Indian independence are a long shot without a bottom-up revolution by the people of India themselves and a collapse of British power allowing the Entente to support them. It’s not impossible considering there was at least one attempt at an Indian mutiny in 1915, but it’s a pretty long shot without making some substantial prewar changes.

 

[Tom_B]

A really wild variant of this war would have the USA under President Hearst become an ally of France and Russia.

 

[Discernible]

It depends. Unlike the other CPs, England can't be invaded directly and can get support from its colonies.

There are two land borders West Frankia and Muscovy could use to invade England before turning their fire on Prussia and the Austrian Empire...