Yet Another No UK WWI

[Tacitus]

The British in OTL ensured Belgium neutrality in the Treaty of London in 1839.
From the wikipedia website, "When the Germans invaded Belgium in August 1914 in violation of the Treaty, the British declared war on August 4. Informed by the British ambassador that Britain would go to war with Germany over the latter's violation of Belgium neutrality, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg infamously exclaimed in frustration that he could not believe that Britain and Germany would be going to war over a mere 'scrap of paper.'"

Did the ancient treaty not really count anymore and Britain just used it as an exuse to side with France in OTL? I heard the claim made eariler on here that it was the up and coming threat of Germany that caused Britain to enter the war, and that the invasion of Belgium was just the pretext they needed. However if both sides invade Belgium, than Britain has no moral high ground in which to justify an attack on Germany. I am not sure how much the "moral high ground" actually matters but it is probably useful to stir up popular support for war on the homefront and has uses in international politics.

 

[Andrei]

Especially if the Russians promised them Moldova. I keep harping on that because it's true. Even with a German king they would have gone to war for both Transylvania and Moldova. Dobruja would have been a problem because that was Bulgarian.

Romania gained most of Dobruja in 1878 , after the San Stefano and Berlin peace treaties. The rest of Dobruja was annexed in 1913 , after the Second Balkan War. Romania didn't want Southern Dobruja very much , but she entered the war because she feared that Bulgaria would have become too strong if she had won against Serbia and Greece.

I doubt the Russians would have offered Besserebia to Romania for entering the war , because they didn't in OTL , and Transilvania was much more important for Romania.

I don't think the British would have let Istanbul to fall to Russia's allies. I think the UK might have occupied it for the duration of the hostilities , and later the city might have become a free city.

 

[Alratan]

Romania gained most of Dobruja in 1878 , after the San Stefano and Berlin peace treaties. The rest of Dobruja was annexed in 1913 , after the Second Balkan War. Romania didn't want Southern Dobruja very much , but she entered the war because she feared that Bulgaria would have become too strong if she had won against Serbia and Greece.

The POD is that the second Balkan war continues, I think, so this isn't neccassrily the situation after Audtro-Hungary enters the war.

I don't think the British would have let Istanbul to fall to Russia's allies. I think the UK might have occupied it for the duration of the hostilities , and later the city might have become a free city.

Hmm. Would they let the city fall to Italy, if given strong enough guarantees about freedom of navigation. If not and they arange some deal with the Turks and Italians by which the former surrender the city to British forces rather than to a Russian allied Balkan alliance, and the latter abandoning the siege of the city to march against Austro-Hungary - this might prove to be sufficient of a diplomatic falling out to ensure the British don't enter the war on the Entente side.

 

[Michael B]

POD is the Italian attack on Turkey.
This time the Italians don't make peace till the Balkans launch their attack, so that Turkey is worse off than in OTL. Considering that Turkey in Europe was reduced to Istanbul and had five armies outside the walls in OTL, that's saying a lot.
Austria-Hungary goes to war to preserve Turkey, Russia comes in, Germany comes in ....

I don't see any motion for the Austro-Hungarians to protect the Turk if the Italians did invade. Given the German interests in the Ottoman empire, that power is more likely to go in.

As for the Russians, there is no way that they are going to allow another Great Power seize control of the Bosporous. If Italy did move it, they would be in too to get their cut which would include Istanbul. The suggestion that it is made a free city is interesting, but the Russian would be more more likely to go for a codominium say under British, German and Russian control.

 

[Admiral Matt]

I could see the US staying out under these circumstances, but the UK's entry into the war is pretty much inevitable. In fact, it might be best to come up with some distracting domestic crisis to prevent Britain from entering the war immediately.

The period immediately proceeding the war saw a very rapid change in the relative power of the participants. A great war starting in 1912 would see the Ottoman army in a terrible condition - they were well into massive military reforms when the war broke out in OTL. Losing the Balkans to a bunch of midget kingdoms provided a rather vivid demonstration of their weakness. Russia's military was also being built up quickly.

With the Germans stopped in Belgium, the idea of pushing to Paris will look much less viable than it did in OTL. With Britain temporarily out, the Germans have an even better numerical advantage in the West. There will still be attacks, but they'll probably be nothing more than efforts to bleed the French, like Verdun. "Ha ha! We only suffered 120,000 casualties to the French 100,000. At this rate there will still be ten million Germans left when the French are extinct. Victory is ours!"

That said, the Germans will probably be focusing on the East more and sooner. Partly because they can actually make gains there, and partly because the Russians are relatively weaker compared with OTL. On the other hand, the situation is reversed on the Caucasus front. The Ottoman's will fair very poorly in Eastern Anatolia until the Russians are forced to shift troops away to fight the Germans.

My gut feeling is that the Rumanians will go with the Entente. To do otherwise would leave them stuck between the Russians and Bulgarians with only Dobruja and Bessarabia as potential spoils. Jumping on the back of the already wobbling Hapsburgs has got to look more appealing than that.

 

[Andrei]

The POD is that the second Balkan war continues, I think, so this isn't neccassrily the situation after Audtro-Hungary enters the war.

Actually , I think the POD is that the First Balkan War turns into a war between the Balkan Alliance and A-H , and then into WWI . So , the Second Balkan War is avoided , and the other Balkan nations don't attack Bulgaria.

I don't think the Russians would have attacked the British , if they had occupied Istanbul for the duration of the war. They were having enough trouble with the Central Powers.

 

[Alratan]

I could see the US staying out under these circumstances, but the UK's entry into the war is pretty much inevitable. In fact, it might be best to come up with some distracting domestic crisis to prevent Britain from entering the war immediately.

The war starts in a very different way and a very different time, with Germany moving to support Turkey and and to prevent Istanbul from falling to Russian allies (a goal which Britain would support), then esculated where Russia attacks the CP in support of its allies, pulling in France and Austro-Hungary.

If France makes the first hostile moves in the West, going through Belgium in the process, then it would be much more politically difficult for Britain to enter the war immediatley, particularly with their being significant concern about the status of the Bosphorus. If thw Russians refuse to surrender Istanbul, then it is quite plausible that that could become a block to entry indefinetly.

I imagine that Britain will thensell massive amounts of materials to the Entente on credit, and probably would refuse to sell to the CP. It then all depends on what happens in the war. If the war descends into the bloody stalemate I describe above, with the French wasting a generation against German trenches, and Austro-Hungary and Turkey imploding under the pressure from Russian, Balkan, and Italian forces, and Germany not winning against the Russians fast enough, thanks to the ability of the Russians to buy and sell via the Bosphurus, then the British may decide that they are quite happy to sit out the war, growing fat off selling to the combatents, whilst they deal with the Irish home rule crisis properly.

Perhaps later in the war the British would even accept Istanbul from the Russians when they are desperate as collatoral for more war loans, for the Free city mentioned above. If no one power seemed to be coming out on top the British would not feel compelled to intervene, and when the sides are sufficiently exhausted and Britains tolerance for selling on credit is exhausted, they would probably delight in mediating a settlement.

 

[David S Poepoe]

The whole deal with Istanbul sounds a little 19th century-ish given the fact that British influence on the Sublime Porte is in decline. Since Russian annexation of Istanbul was one subject in a secret treaty between London and St. Petersburg during the OTL Great War I think too much is being made of it.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Agreed. By 1914 the British had switched their focus to securing Russian participation in the war by any means necessary. The old strategy of limiting Russian gains against Turkey had become a secondary priority. Of course, they'd rather the Russians didn't take the straits, but if that's what it takes to get the job done...

 

[LordKalvan]

I don't see any motion for the Austro-Hungarians to protect the Turk if the Italians did invade. Given the German interests in the Ottoman empire, that power is more likely to go in.

.

All the A-H Balkan policy after 1900 is predicated in avoiding a collapse of Turkey in Europe: they are well conscious that a successful Serbia would sooner or later challenge A-H dominance in the northern Balkans (while the border with the Ottomans has been stable since 2 centuries). See the management of the Bosnia crisis, the diplomatic notes to Italy at the time of italo-turkish war and the A-H in Northern Albania (plus the ultimatumatum to the Balkan armies to stop moving against Constantinople - 1st Balkan war).