WW1 without Britain

[Hvalrossen]

I saw a debate on the question "should Britain have fought in world war 1"? Which is the background for this thread.

Points for the motion (Britain Should Not Have Fought in the First World War)
- Germany would not neccesarily impose a draconian peace, the Germans did not do so in the Franco-Prussian war. Also Germany OTL imposed a draconian peace but only after 4 years of war, they would not do so after a 1 year war.
- Germany had given up on the naval race, Britian had won the naval race.
- Kaiser Wilhelm was not Hitler. Kaiser Wilhelm did not want war and tried to calm the Austrians.
- Germany victory would not negativly affect the British position.
- Britain was the largest creditior in the world before ww1, after ww1 Britain was the largest debtor.
- Germany had large socialist and progressive movements.
- Britain had plans of blocading Belgium and forcing them into the war.
Points against the motion (Britain Should Not Have Fought in the First World War)
- Germany did impose a draconian on Russia(Brest-Litovsk treaty).
- Germany had engaged in a naval race with Britain, knowing that the navy was considered as the British line of defense.
- Kaiser Wilhelm was militaristic and dangerous. Kaiser Wilhelm supported Indian nationalists.
- German victory would disrupt the balance of power in Europe.
- Britains role as creditor was dependent on imperialism, therefore Britain needed to go to war to defend this system and Britian domination of the system.
- Germany was illiberal.
- Germany invaded Belgium.
Question/Discussion:
1. Could Britain stay out of WW1?
2. How would WW1 progress without Britian participation?
3. How would the peace deal after such a war look like? How would the map look like? What do you imagine the peace treaties would dictate?
4. How would this ATL Britain use it's dominant financial positions during this war and in the aftermath?
5. Would some countries that were participants in OTL WW1 avoid the war or fight on different sides?
6. Could Germany have colonised France in such a scenario if they won? Colonised in the sense of settled by Germans, and overtime assimilating the French.

 

[Timmy811]

Germany wins in two years.

 

[Dorknought]

Germany had not given up on the Naval Race. By 1920 they would be laying down 2 40,000 ton battleships and 1 large cruiser every year, forever. It was the Law - and Germans love Laws. The Austro-German plan was to run the RN out of sailors - not out-build the RN.

 

[Dorknought]

In Prussia-Germany the state existed over and above society. The individual's rights and obligations were always subordinate to the powers-that-be who were, in the Lutheran scheme of things, ordained by God and that the state was a spiritual entity, as the philosopher Hegel had taught, namely the hand of God on earth, under a monarch who was ‘God’s anointed one’ and as such it was anything but a mere cooperative association for the facilitating of commerce. Above all it was a warrior state. The government ruled the Empire according to the requirements of the army, and that is the true definition of militarism, namely the prioritisation of the perceived needs of the defence forces over all others. And further, just to underline the difference between imperial Germany and western powers at the time, there existed in the Reich a separate constitution for the army Wehrverfassung. The essential feature of this arrangement was that the Empire was divided into military districts under the command of a general officer who was constitutionally controlled by an independent military cabinet that exercised the so-called Kommandogewalt meaning that the military stood under no other authority than that of the Kaiser, the all highest himself. Only the administrative structure was subsumed under the authority of the regular bureaucracy. But what is crucial was the fact that the Kaiser in times of national emergency could decree that the Kommandogewalt of the army should assume responsibility for all normal government policies and actions. The civilian bureaucracy would have to submit to the ultimate authority of the army, SDP majority or not.

The British army generally did not see itself as the guardian of British institutions beyond the authority of Parliament. It was the servant, not the master. No one in the United Kingdom seems to have understood that in Germany the opposite was true. The German General Staff saw itself as the guardian of the state. The Kaiser himself, who thought he was the state, had been sidelined in 1908 after giving a notorious interview to a British newspaper. In 1914 the General Staff ruled Germany, a situation which became more obvious during the war.

 

[Hvalrossen]

Germany had not given up on the Naval Race. By 1920 they would be laying down 2 40,000 ton battleships and 1 large cruiser every year, forever. It was the Law - and Germans love Laws. The Austro-German plan was to run the RN out of sailors - not out-build the RN.

Why would the Austro German bloc be intrested in the British Royal Navy running out of sailors?

 

[Rothbardian21]

The vote for war in the Parliament was pretty close to unanimous so, I'm really skeptical whether Britain actually could or would have stayed out of the war even if it managed to avoid a July/August entry, most likely I think the Liberals would have been tarred and feathered. For starters it would have meant throwing Belgium to the dogs, which would be a serious blow internationally for the British in future dealings. All of this doesn't even begin to grapple with what the likely fallout on the continent would be, i.e. a German victory by 1916 (if not sooner), so the costs for Britain of staying out of the war could potentially have been very high.

That said, on the plus side, having a more powerful Germany - who would obviously have committed to another Naval Arms race at some point, given her new territorial holdings, people and resources - would have served to bring the British Empire closer together. The common enemy would have presented a strong incentive to form some kind of closer constitutional ties with Canada, Australia, South Africa and NZ, with Britain legitimately needing their help (as well as India's) to hold onto naval supremacy long-term. Additionally, the war would have left Britain in an incredibly advantageous financial position versus the continent. Germany would have experienced massive inflation just as OTL, but Britain's debt-to-GDP would have stayed at 30-40%, rather than the 175% of GDP it became by 1918. The British pound would not have been unseated by the dollar as the undisputed world reserve currency, and likely the Soviet Union never forms either, which means long-term Germany will have more than enough on it's plate to deal with.

Germany absolutely would have imposed a harsh peace though, we know the terms they had envisaged for a defeated France, as the video debate you linked goes on to elaborate. Wouldn't be as major in the east though, unless Russia totally collapses on the battlefield, but I imagine France would be the first to lose in this timeline after the capture of Paris. Italy's decision will have played a big role. If Italy joins the war the Entente actually has a shot at armistice, if they don't, then the war may not even last to 1916.

Ultimately Britain couldn't countenance an attack on it's neighbors by a would-be European master, especially when Britain was now friendly with those neighbors (France most recently as of 1904), had treaty obligations to one of them, and the aggressor in question was a country who had just several years prior been locked in a naval arms race that had seen British naval resolve pushed harder than at any point in the last 100 years.

All that being said, I'm a classical Liberal in the Gladstonian sense, so it's hard for me to vote yay. If I had been in the British cabinet I'd have recommended waiting at least a few months before jumping in, using the question of war as an opportunity to call a grand "Imperial Conference" where the issue of whether to go war could be discussed not just within the British Parliament, but the Dominion governments as well. Promising German Southwest Africa to the Union of South Africa, the Pacific Islands to New Zealand, New Guinea and the Bismark Islands to Australia, I'd have tried to leverage the whole situation into constitutionalizing (not a word I know lol) the British Empire. That period of waiting - to see what the Empire would decide on as a whole during the conference - would also serve to negotiate the issue over treaty obligations to Belgium, and the British could have used the question over their entry into the war, to demand a leadership role from France and Russia in any peace conference.

 

[NoMommsen]

The vote for war in the Parliament was pretty close to unanimous so, ...

There was no vote at all in Parliament.
The parliament even had to press for having a debate only on Greys speach.

Read Hansard.

 

[Dorknought]

Why would the Austro German bloc be intrested in the British Royal Navy running out of sailors?

The real limiting size of the RN is not number of ships or money but the pool of volunteer sailors to man the ships. In 1914, the Personnel department at the Admiralty was drawing up plans for manning 90 capital ships by 1920.

 

[BlondieBC]

In Prussia-Germany the state existed over and above society. The individual's rights and obligations were always subordinate to the powers-that-be who were, in the Lutheran scheme of things, ordained by God and that the state was a spiritual entity, as the philosopher Hegel had taught, namely the hand of God on earth, under a monarch who was ‘God’s anointed one’ and as such it was anything but a mere cooperative association for the facilitating of commerce. Above all it was a warrior state. The government ruled the Empire according to the requirements of the army, and that is the true definition of militarism, namely the prioritisation of the perceived needs of the defence forces over all others. And further, just to underline the difference between imperial Germany and western powers at the time, there existed in the Reich a separate constitution for the army Wehrverfassung. The essential feature of this arrangement was that the Empire was divided into military districts under the command of a general officer who was constitutionally controlled by an independent military cabinet that exercised the so-called Kommandogewalt meaning that the military stood under no other authority than that of the Kaiser, the all highest himself. Only the administrative structure was subsumed under the authority of the regular bureaucracy. But what is crucial was the fact that the Kaiser in times of national emergency could decree that the Kommandogewalt of the army should assume responsibility for all normal government policies and actions. The civilian bureaucracy would have to submit to the ultimate authority of the army, SDP majority or not.

The British army generally did not see itself as the guardian of British institutions beyond the authority of Parliament. It was the servant, not the master. No one in the United Kingdom seems to have understood that in Germany the opposite was true. The German General Staff saw itself as the guardian of the state. The Kaiser himself, who thought he was the state, had been sidelined in 1908 after giving a notorious interview to a British newspaper. In 1914 the General Staff ruled Germany, a situation which became more obvious during the war.

You have been reading too much British wartime propaganda. The German democracy in many ways was more liberal than the British democracy. Higher percentages of the population could vote. Generous social programs had been passed. The military budget was a lower % of the GDP than many rivals.

The military "State of War" powers exist in all nations in slightly varying forms. The USA has plan for military districts in its CoG plans. The UK had such plans and did such undemocratic things appoint people to parliament and suspend election in war. And BTW, how did the main Hindu party vote in the declaration of war on Germany? O, hmm, Indians did not get to vote in UK elections and UK was at war before parliament voted.

As Guardian of the state, it was more the Royal Navy that played the role of the German Heer.

Then we can get to the issue of the British occupying independent white nations in the Boer Wars.

WW1 was not about good fighting evil. WW1 was about empires fighting each other. Many shades of grey.

 

[Hvalrossen]

The German democracy in many ways was more liberal than the British democracy. Higher percentages of the population could vote. Generous social programs had been passed. The military budget was a lower % of the GDP than many rivals.

When Bismarck and his flock introduced these progressive policies one of it's aims was to pacify the masses. If the masses have good life quality, then they have more to lose and be more tolerant of the present regime.

The military "State of War" powers exist in all nations in slightly varying forms. The USA has plan for military districts in its CoG plans. The UK had such plans and did such undemocratic things appoint people to parliament and suspend election in war. And BTW, how did the main Hindu party vote in the declaration of war on Germany? O, hmm, Indians did not get to vote in UK elections and UK was at war before parliament voted.

Indians did not get to vote in UK elections becouse they were not seen as part of the UK. Indians were merely subjects not citizens.

WW1 was not about good fighting evil. WW1 was about empires fighting each other. Many shades of grey.

Real Politik

 

[Timmy811]

The vote for war in the Parliament was pretty close to unanimous so, I'm really skeptical whether Britain actually could or would have stayed out of the war even if it managed to avoid a July/August entry, most likely I think the Liberals would have been tarred and feathered. For starters it would have meant throwing Belgium to the dogs, which would be a serious blow internationally for the British in future dealings. All of this doesn't even begin to grapple with what the likely fallout on the continent would be, i.e. a German victory by 1916 (if not sooner), so the costs for Britain of staying out of the war could potentially have been very high.

Well, maybe the POD involves that. We have a rather long ongoing thread on the matter you might want to check out.

 

[BlondieBC]

All that being said, I'm a classical Liberal in the Gladstonian sense, so it's hard for me to vote yay. If I had been in the British cabinet I'd have recommended waiting at least a few months before jumping in, using the question of war as an opportunity to call a grand "Imperial Conference" where the issue of whether to go war could be discussed not just within the British Parliament, but the Dominion governments as well. Promising German Southwest Africa to the Union of South Africa, the Pacific Islands to New Zealand, New Guinea and the Bismark Islands to Australia, I'd have tried to leverage the whole situation into constitutionalizing (not a word I know lol) the British Empire. That period of waiting - to see what the Empire would decide on as a whole during the conference - would also serve to negotiate the issue over treaty obligations to Belgium, and the British could have used the question over their entry into the war, to demand a leadership role from France and Russia in any peace conference.

Interesting position. I don't quite recall anyone proposing this position for the UK in our many ATL discussions. It will give the UK a much better result than OTL, but it is unlikely to give the end position you suggest. Trying to reorganize the British Empire into something with stronger institutions while a major war is going on is a high return, extremely high risk gamble. Whatever this new conference system did could easily evolve into the Federal Government of the British Empire, but probably not. This part looks tempting, and strangely enough, I could even see the UK leadership attempting this measure.

The plan will fall apart due to the developments on land. We have to pick a date for your late, entry, so a few months is November 1. The war in the west goes much better for the Germans for a series of reason. Without the UK in the war, Antwerp is likely to surrender earlier. Belgium may formally leave the war since 100% of Belgium will be occupied. The German supply situation is much better since there are a few more months of largely unrestricted imports by the Germans. This may let the Germans win TTL battle of the Marne or destroy the French 5th Army. The Germans will win the Race to the Sea. Due to the defense of Paris and the Austrians incompetence in the east, France is unlikely to fall, but Germany is much better off than OTL. The Germans will also control Calais and portion of the English channel coast line.

The east is still probably a mess for the Central Powers, but there are potential favorable butterflies here since Germany could send more resources east to help the Austrians. Ottomans are also less stressed as a late UK entry to war probably delays all British operations against the Ottomans to Spring 1915

To the colonial areas. It is likely the various colonies are importing weapons and supplies for the white populations. There may even be a sizable influx of overseas Germans rallying around the flag. While these forces will not be large by European theater standards, the addition of a few extra battalions or maybe even regiments of light infantry will mean a lot more complications when the British arrive.

In the Naval Sphere, the High Seas and Baltic fleet will have lots of time to get organized. I would guess the SMS Goeben still goes to an Ottoman port, but I would have to look up the access rights to the Suez Canal for ships of nations at war. There certainly nothing in the French Navy that would stop the Goeben from going to China with the rest of the convoy (supply ships). The German merchant shipping have friendly ports to go to. Good chance a lot of them are being armed as AMC's and mucking around with the French. Japan will not enter the war until the UK does, so Tsingtao will continue to pull in supplies and the ships to the base. If the Germans choose too, they have enough forces to drive French shipping from Chinese waters. So far, it is a great ATL read.

So we get to November 1, and we have a unified British Empire. Presumably spending on the Army as been much higher than peace time but lower than OTL WW1 spending. The BEF is rapidly expanding as patriots join. The RN is rushing ships to completion. This part is good, but the British have a much harder tactical situation to deal with. The Germans are probably sitting on a defensive line in the west due to logistics. They are preparing for the push in 1915 to knock France out of the war. The line is probably something like the Somme River to the Marne, but I can't rule out Paris actually being under siege. All the German colonies excluding Tsingtao have at least twice the land military power of OTL. Tsingtao has a much smaller gain in land strength, but the navy remains. And the British government has promised a colonial war first, and the fall of Paris does not really threaten Cape Town or Sydney. The Aussies will spend 1915 taking German possessions in the Pacific, and this will take a few more RN ships. South Africa will focus SWA. The Ottomans, German East Africa, and Cameroon have had time to get organized. OTL use of Indian units did not work so well, and here, they will work less well.

So what do you do with the BEF. The BEF is heavy enough to sweep the German colonies, but I have trouble seeing this being done since the UK population will be panicking with Germans in Calais and France is very near falling. Seems a lot like the BEF still lands in France, but is fighting in a much worse position than OTL. And it get hard to see how the British find the troops to fight the Ottomans, German East Africa, or Cameroon. Tsingtao still will fall since the Japanese can put the full weight of their navy and army into the battle. And all this runs the risk that France or Russia will be knocked out of the war in 1916. Maybe even the likelihood.

 

[BlondieBC]

When Bismarck and his flock introduced these progressive policies one of it's aims was to pacify the masses. If the masses have good life quality, then they have more to lose and be more tolerant of the present regime.

Indians did not get to vote in UK elections becouse they were not seen as part of the UK. Indians were merely subjects not citizens.

Real Politik

And Bismarck introducing these policies show the functioning of a imperfect, but still liberal democracy. You can't claim the UK is morally higher when it treats its people worse. And it is not just these policies. We had the Irish Potato famine. Was there ever a great Polish Famine that Germany caused?

And as to being a liberal democracy, not allowing over 90% of your people to vote (colonies) invalidates claims of moral superiority of the UK over Germany. WW1 may have been many things, but it was not a crusade where democracy beat evil empires. Tsarist Russia being in the Entente is enough to invalidate this claim.

 

[Rothbardian21]

Well, maybe the POD involves that. We have a rather long ongoing thread on the matter you might want to check out.

Sure, you got the link?

 

[Timmy811]

Sure, you got the link?

Currently on page 30

Germany Does Not Invade Belgium in 1914, What Does Britain Do?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-belguim-in-1914-what-does-britain-do.440691/

 

[Rothbardian21]

Thanks.

 

[Hvalrossen]

Was there ever a great Polish Famine that Germany caused?

If remember correctly Germany had a famine in the same period as the Irish famine. But in Germany social programes prevented starvation by buying food from abroad aswell as the state distributing the food it could get hand of.

 

[naraic]

Points for the motion (Britain Should Not Have Fought in the First World War)
- Germany would not neccesarily impose a draconian peace, the Germans did not do so in the Franco-Prussian war. Also Germany OTL imposed a draconian peace but only after 4 years of war, they would not do so after a 1 year war.

Did they not?? A six month war where reparations were 25% of french gdp, a french region and trade clauses that remained in force til 1914.

Points against the motion (Britain Should Not Have Fought in the First World War)
- Germany did impose a draconian on Russia(Brest-Litovsk treaty).

Given that Germany was still at war with UK USA and France the draconian peace treat can be seen in a different light.

 

[BlondieBC]

Did they not?? A six month war where reparations were 25% of french gdp, a french region and trade clauses that remained in force til 1914.



Given that Germany was still at war with UK USA and France the draconian peace treat can be seen in a different light.

The terms were only Draconian because the the Russian refused the first offer. The initial offer was near a cease fire in place which would have made the Congress of Poland a German Client state. And part of the Baltic area would have also been freed of Russian influence. Maybe a small border adjustment to Austria-Hungary advantage.

 

[Rothbardian21]

Interesting position. I don't quite recall anyone proposing this position for the UK in our many ATL discussions. It will give the UK a much better result than OTL, but it is unlikely to give the end position you suggest. Trying to reorganize the British Empire into something with stronger institutions while a major war is going on is a high return, extremely high risk gamble. Whatever this new conference system did could easily evolve into the Federal Government of the British Empire, but probably not. This part looks tempting, and strangely enough, I could even see the UK leadership attempting this measure..

What the Britannic Nations decide on at the conference was not necessarily within the bounds of my comment, only that "some" measure of closer and official constitutional linkage be established. That could take the form of an Imperial Council/Parliament, it could take the form of a jointly-funded and staffed executive departments for Imperial matters (think the Foreign Office and Colonial Office), it could be a series of indefinite treaties for free trade and mutual defence, or some other scheme. My point wasn't to outline what the scheme would be, however strong my inclinations and opinions on the matter might be, only that they set out to do it, come whatever decision may. I would also point out the possibility of collaboration at the executive levels of government, before the complete constitutional ratification of the fuller measures, which might only be fully completed after the war.