How could the British lose so badly that they would agree to such a peace treaty? The only way I can see that happening is if somehow a huge part of their army was captured and used as hostages. Even then, the RN would dominate the access between Europe and Egypt and South Africa so totally that the UK would still have the upper hand.
WI: Outcomes of Britain joining the Central Powers in WW1 in a losing scenario?
- Thread starter kaos31
- Start date
How could the British lose so badly that they would agree to such a peace treaty? The only way I can see that happening is if somehow a huge part of their army was captured and used as hostages. Even then, the RN would dominate the access between Europe and Egypt and South Africa so totally that the UK would still have the upper hand.
I have no idea, presumably France and their allies would need to field a comparable navy somehow. It's not impossible given there'd already need to be a fairly big PoD for the UK to align with Germany instead of France, but I'm not sure what changes would need to be made WRT specific naval buildups and whatnot. If they can go toe to toe with the Royal Navy, that makes a land invasion of Britain itself more plausible even if it's still difficult.
iddt3
Donor
Move Austria to the Allies, super Stolypin reforms Russia, France partitioned Belgium with the Netherlands, Industrialized better, and invested far more in the navy. Germany united later/ less successfully, and invests a good deal less in their army.
The Med is an allied lake between Italy, France and Austria, and it's a French offensive into Germany that gets bogged down, not visa versa. I can kind of see that giving us the OPs scenario.
The Med is an allied lake between Italy, France and Austria, and it's a French offensive into Germany that gets bogged down, not visa versa. I can kind of see that giving us the OPs scenario.
If it's not impossible then it's the next closest thing. In 1914, the UK had 22 dreadnoughts and 9 battlecruisers with 14 dreadnoughts and one battlecruiser building (including a bunch with 15" guns). The Germans had 15 dreadnought battleships, 4 battlecruiser and 5 and 3 building respectively. The Austro-Hungarians had three dreadnought battleships and three under construction.
The French had four dreadnoughts in existence and 8 building. The Italians (if they end up on the same side) had three battleships in existence and none building while the Russians had none but had seven battleships and one battlecruiser under construction. Britain and Germany could clearly out-produce the "allies".
So that's a total at the outbreak of war of 53 modern capital ships on one side and seven modern capital ships on the other, even if the Italians join with the French. Among smaller vessels the proportions are also overwhelmingly one-sided; some 500 "CP" destroyers and torpedo boats in existence versus about 300. Only in submarines is there anything approaching parity and only in coastal torpedo boats do the "allies" have an advantage. They also have the issue that they cannot concentrate as easily as the Germans and British can.
By mid war the CPs would have about 79 modern capital ships and the Allies 23. Given those odds, and the overwhelming advantage the "CP" has in construction facilities, it's basically impossible to see how the "allies" could survive at sea in significant numbers. A combined British/German fleet could bottle up the Baltic and use its advantage of over 10 to 1 to take out the French Atlantic/Channel ports. Given their vast numerical advantage it would seem that even the minefields of the Baltic and Adriatic could stop them from destroying the Russian and Italian fleets in short order.
Well yeah, all I'm saying is that with a far back enough PoD to produce this political alignment, there'd also be the potential for changes to those numbers. As far as the specific capabilities of each nation to produce more ships under the right circumstances, I certainly don't know all the details.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
If you go far enough back to have a POD that produces this alignment then:
1. It properly belongs in pre-1900
2. More importantly, WWI in any form that we would recognise becomes butterflied away.
If we are having to go back to a point where France and Italy and Russia have enough shipyards to be able to produce enough warships to seriously challenge Britain and Germany, then we are probably going back to a point where there isn't a Germany, merely a collection of Germanic states. Going from that position to WWI is going to be a challenge. We're likely to get a different outcome of the Franco-Prussian war, for a start, which is going to adjust perceptions which will make the whole collection of power blocs very different, which...
You get the picture?
It's like that old, tired, stupid trope where someone asks: "If the Confederacy won independence and formed the CSA, which sides would the USA and CSA be on in WWI?" As though the history of the last quarter of the 19th Century and the first 14 years of the 20th Century are simply marking time for War Fever to break out.
T
The Holy Roman Empire might have something to say about this! And to say nothing of the Byzantine Empire!
Grey Wolf
Donor
I assume they are going to lose because the Americans enter the war against them?
There'd be battles in the Atlantic for supremacy, and US cruiser warfare (they'd be able to arm a load of AMCs for this) as well as submarines can cut the British off from their vital trade routes
Given we probably need something to come of the 1900-1901 talks, or for Fashoda to get a bit more jittery pushing Britain and Germany together, then we have a lead-up period where the world's naval rivalry is Anglo-American, as much as it is anything else. In fact the Germans probably go for quality over quantity if they are assured of a British alliance. Whilst the US probably outbuilds even its OTL build-up
Where is Japan in this? After the R-J War, do they retain the alliance with Britain? It certainly would seem geo-politically logical, since Russia was on the opposing side. So, in the world war, Japan is allied to Britain and Germany, against France and Russia, and later the USA? I guess they have some lovely successes until the US enters the war, then things get a bit more hairy. Maybe Japan bales out whilst it can, leaving Britain high and dry in the Far East?
We talk Central Powers, so we assume the Triple Alliance did not hold and Italy stayed neutral? Given their reliance on coal imports, this is probably the best for them, until late in the war when they can enter to snap up bits of the Habsburg Empire, and while they will clash with what remains of British forces in the Mediterranean, they do have a reasonable fleet, and the US are coming to their aid.
As for what happens to a defeated Britain, aligned with a defeated Germany and a defeated Austria-Hungary?
Last edited:
But if the US and Britain are at war where are these vital trade routes going? And how will the US reach them?
The french are going to be losing colonies like missing buttons and everything else outside europe is basically neutral or central powers so there wont be many places to base the subs from
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
Why would America enter the war on the side of the Entente?
Most of its trade to Europe goes to Britain (more than twice the value of US trade in 1914 went to Britain compared to the entirety of the rest of the Entente), then Germany.
America had sod all to gain from joining in on the side of an Entente without Britain, and a considerable amount to lose.
If it’s anything like OTL, if it’s just a British switching sides it this fucks over France, hard. The BEF is one of the major reasons that the French did not lose Paris. They have to get the Americans involved inside of six months.
It's hard to see who would be in the entente in this TL. If you could engineer a French Italian accord, this might bring in Romania and the Yugoslavian countries. That then means the Entente has control over much of the central Med, inconveniencing Britain.
USA would not be unlikely to be very interested in helping the French, and indeed might see an opportunity to take French territories in the Caribbean (to keep them out of British hands of course).
Maybe we'd see an attack on Canada - nominally to support France, but in reality an expansionist land grab [1]. This would be very hard for Britain or Canada to do anything about.
[1] and of course to get US control of the poutine mines and to assimilate the Quebecois.
USA would not be unlikely to be very interested in helping the French, and indeed might see an opportunity to take French territories in the Caribbean (to keep them out of British hands of course).
Maybe we'd see an attack on Canada - nominally to support France, but in reality an expansionist land grab [1]. This would be very hard for Britain or Canada to do anything about.
[1] and of course to get US control of the poutine mines and to assimilate the Quebecois.
I think for the UK to get into a lose-able war resembling WWI while on the side of Germany you need several things:
UK diplomacy and economic policy has to be a lot more burdensome to the rest of the world than OTL. It has to abuse its reserve currency a lot more and become relatively speaking, diplomatically isolated.
France and Russia and even Italy and a bunch of minor nations make a proto-EU to try to limit the power of the UK and the rising power of Germany. Maybe the Ottomans even join up with it and the US maintains a fairly icy neutrality.
Because Germany is the only dance partner available to avoid complete isolation (and the addition of their fleet guarantees naval supremacy), UK allies with Germany.
That I think sets the stage for a war that a UK/Germany alliance could lose, although they'd probably not be called the Central powers anymore.
UK diplomacy and economic policy has to be a lot more burdensome to the rest of the world than OTL. It has to abuse its reserve currency a lot more and become relatively speaking, diplomatically isolated.
France and Russia and even Italy and a bunch of minor nations make a proto-EU to try to limit the power of the UK and the rising power of Germany. Maybe the Ottomans even join up with it and the US maintains a fairly icy neutrality.
Because Germany is the only dance partner available to avoid complete isolation (and the addition of their fleet guarantees naval supremacy), UK allies with Germany.
That I think sets the stage for a war that a UK/Germany alliance could lose, although they'd probably not be called the Central powers anymore.
You kind of have to have the USA enter and enter early for a chance . The USA might not be able to invade uk directly but they can take Canada, which was a significant source of food. USA, France, and Italian fleets could put up a fight against RN and HSF, especially once US kicks buildup into high gear but it would take a few years to get to that point.
RN was huge but can’t be everywhere, if Entente fleets can interdict enough food supplies from South America and the rest of empire, then a negotiated peace for UK could happen. The US at time still had a large ant British tilt so not impossible that they could fight against with right casus belli . Also don’t forget something like 90 of oil the uk got during ww1 came from US, as the Mideast sources were not developed enough at that time to cover the needs as the war progressed . That is why when us joined otl they were asked to send coal fired ships of Usn due to lack of oil for all ships Initially.
RN was huge but can’t be everywhere, if Entente fleets can interdict enough food supplies from South America and the rest of empire, then a negotiated peace for UK could happen. The US at time still had a large ant British tilt so not impossible that they could fight against with right casus belli . Also don’t forget something like 90 of oil the uk got during ww1 came from US, as the Mideast sources were not developed enough at that time to cover the needs as the war progressed . That is why when us joined otl they were asked to send coal fired ships of Usn due to lack of oil for all ships Initially.
I fear this discussion has gone a bit too much to the side of why the Central Powers lose rather than what happens to Britain in this scenario.
I realize that the scenario presented is not the most realistic, and as such I never have any real plans to make this alt-history public.
As such, as unrealistic of a scenario as a 1919 peace conference led primarily by the same players as OTL but with Britain on the opposite end, I was mainly hoping to see what would be the most likely outcome. In this scenario Britain would then have a similar situation to Germany where their war is ended by armistice and not by conquest.
What conclusion I had come to originally, and one that some posters seem to share, was that minus some minor territorial changes, Britain and it's empire would be relatively unaffected as the Empire would not have been necessarily defeated, and such was not in a position where they were forced to do anything. Altough I would believe that Egypr or Canada had the potential to change hands.
I realize that the scenario presented is not the most realistic, and as such I never have any real plans to make this alt-history public.
As such, as unrealistic of a scenario as a 1919 peace conference led primarily by the same players as OTL but with Britain on the opposite end, I was mainly hoping to see what would be the most likely outcome. In this scenario Britain would then have a similar situation to Germany where their war is ended by armistice and not by conquest.
What conclusion I had come to originally, and one that some posters seem to share, was that minus some minor territorial changes, Britain and it's empire would be relatively unaffected as the Empire would not have been necessarily defeated, and such was not in a position where they were forced to do anything. Altough I would believe that Egypr or Canada had the potential to change hands.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
Maybe your simplest solution is to look at the invasion literature around the turn of the Century, popular in all three of Britain, France, and Germany, in which each raised the horrible spectre of the other two ganging up on it.
You'd need to do a lot of arm waving to get the political justifications, but once you get that, you can play about with the prospect of a proto-Sealion getting stuff onto the south coast of England, and then long drawn out fighting in which FG can't supply the forces ashore quickly enough for them to advance, and UK has to raise and train a mass army to throw them back, and hence a long period of fighting in Kent and Sussex.
More arm waving to get the result you want, and take it from there.
Simply switching Britain from the Entente to the Central Powers makes the two sides grossly unbalanced, and it's hard to argue that this could result in a long, drawn out war that ends in an Entente victory.