Your favorite reason why Britain would DoW Germany anyway if Berlin went east-first in 1914

[ObssesedNuker]

A British declaration of war in defense of umm, Tsarist Russia is not only going to be more controversial at home, it will engender far less sympathy in America.

That assumes the stated casus belli is to “defend Tsarist Russia”. But governments looking for war are not usually so unimaginative. Exaggerating German or Austrian violations of the laws of war in Serbia and/or Poland while discreetly ignoring those done by the French or Russians, exploiting (or maybe even partially engineering) an incident on the high seas and then misrepresenting the details, portraying German naval deployments in the North Sea and Channel as being part of a plot to invade Britain, etc. etc.

Political elites can always convince their country to go to war, even in democracies. The amount of time and effort they have to put into it may vary based on the situation, but it can be done.

 

[Belisarius II]

Without the Invasion of Belgium the British might be involved in a Civil War in Ireland by September. The two battleships would sail to Turkey, and the third to Chile. The SMS Goeben, and Breslau would sail past Gibraltar, and return to Germany. Britain would try to mediate the conflict between the Great, and small powers. The Germans would loudly, and rudely reject British medaling in their affairs, which would quickly push the UK into a more, and more pro Entente policy. The British would loan money to both France, and Russia, and impose tighter, and tighter trade restriction on the Germans.

France would suffer heavy losses in Lorraine, and by not losing the Iron Belt their war economy would be much stronger. During the Fall the Russians would most likely be forced out of the Great Polish Salient, and fall back east of Warsaw. The Austrians would suffer heavy loses, but would be spared the disaster of Lemberg. By the Winter the fighting in Ireland should be over, and a new settlement made, calming down domestic politics. Britain would be mobilizing the army to it's established size of 20 infantry divisions, and several of cavalry. She would be preparing for a primarily naval war, putting Churchill in a more prominent position in the Cabinet. The Wilson Administration would join the British in trying to mediate the conflict.

The Turk's would still enter the war in November 1914, under the terms of their secret treaty with the Germans. By invading Persia the Ottomans would trigger a British declaration of war, drawing war with Germany closer. The British with more troops, and ships available are more aggressive in the War against the Turks. France offers several divisions for a joint landing around Beirut, while the British push into Palestine. Italy enters the war in the Spring of 1915, with a full French Army supporting them. By the Summer of 1915 the British would be effectively at war with the CP.

 

[Faeelin]

That assumes the stated casus belli is to “defend Tsarist Russia”. But governments looking for war are not usually so unimaginative. Exaggerating German or Austrian violations of the laws of war in Serbia and/or Poland while discreetly ignoring those done by the French or Russians, exploiting (or maybe even partially engineering) an incident on the high seas and then misrepresenting the details, portraying German naval deployments in the North Sea and Channel as being part of a plot to invade Britain, etc. etc.

Political elites can always convince their country to go to war, even in democracies. The amount of time and effort they have to put into it may vary based on the situation, but it can be done.

Once again, the guys who issued the Zimmerman Telegram turned out to have made the rational choice. How novel for this forum!

 

[ferdi254]

The political situation would be so different as to render all reasons the hawks have moot.

In an East first scenario Germany can wait until the Russians mobilise, DOW and attack first.
That would make it harder for France to DOW as first the treaty would have to be given to the parliament. Then it is France that mobilises, DOWs and attacks first.

If Germany declares that France can have a status quo ante anytime (even if Russia makes peace) it is not impossible that Italy jumps in on CP side (maybe waiting for a month or so to see how things are going) but with or without Italy it will be extremely hard to drum up any public support in the UK for a war and very hard to get a majority in parliament.

Defending France cannot be used, defending Russia is unpopular and defending Serbia does not work. There is simply no rallying point to attack the purely defensive Germany.

 

[raharris1973]

At the beginnen if WW 1 this was futures music. The subs were far from being the threat they actually became. Actually the germans thought just prior to WW 1 to reduce almost scrap their sub- force until "sonething better" might show up.

Wow, what if that happened. Loss of value of U-Boat campaigns, but no US in the war.

WW1 was a war for joiners, countries like the US joined and went all in on a flimsy pretext 3 years into the horrendous fighting so I find the notion that Britain's entry being done on the most slender pretext somewhat unrealistic.

A 'war for joiners', meaning it just seemed to exercise some hypnotic attraction on all the great powers?

exploiting (or maybe even partially engineering) an incident on the high seas and then misrepresenting the details

The Bight of Heligoland Incident

it is not impossible that Italy jumps in on CP side (maybe waiting for a month or so to see how things are going)

I see this every now and then, where Italy joins the CP side if Germany is defending on the west, and the technical treaty obligations are harder for Italy to sidestep in good faith.

But I have to ask @lukedalton and others, are the Italians *really* any more like to side with Germany, and thus Austria-Hungary, just because the circumstances of provocation and casus belli may end up putting Germany more 'in the right'? Does that matter to Italy?

 

[Faeelin]

But I have to ask @lukedalton and others, are the Italians *really* any more like to side with Germany, and thus Austria-Hungary, just because the circumstances of provocation and casus belli may end up putting Germany more 'in the right'? Does that matter to Italy?

Since you're already decided that Kaiser Wilhelm made all the right calls, and know the Italians would've attacked anyway, not sure why you're asking.

 

[lukedalton]

But I have to ask @lukedalton and others, are the Italians *really* any more like to side with Germany, and thus Austria-Hungary, just because the circumstances of provocation and casus belli may end up putting Germany more 'in the right'? Does that matter to Italy?

The big problem is not Germany but Austria-Hungary, relations between her and Italy are not very good and initially was really ok in keeping Italy neutral...so not to share the pie even if art.7 said the contrary. Much depend on what the UK do, as London joining the entente put Italy in a not very good position in term of supply and warfare in the Med, and can decide to wait till the situation is more clear and also when the supply situation of the army is better

 

[raharris1973]

Since you're already decided that Kaiser Wilhelm made all the right calls, and know the Italians would've attacked anyway, not sure why you're asking.

A few samples:

Kaiser Wilhelm - Dropping reinsurance treaty - wrong call, perhaps driven more by Holstein than him, but wrong to accept. May have been hard to continue to deriving practical benefits or guarantees from it however.

Kaiser Wilhelm - Going for Tirpitz plan on navy - wrong call, but probably not decisive as many think

KW - the Kruger Telegram - a diplomatically indiscreet comment, but really the British just being freaking hegemonic bullies turning molehill into mountain

KW - Yellow Peril drawing and rhetoric - pure nonsense and silliness

KW- the Huns comment pre-Boxer expedition- Stupid bloviation and incitement to war crimes

KW- "Shooting from the lip" in general - he was a remarkable media player pre-twitter, this didn't work well for him, was mostly used against him, and generally got international media watching for his next verbal screw-up. Not a good place to be.

KW-Idea of alliance with Britain good; expectation of Britain's need for a German alliance - stupidly overconfident

KW- Treaty of Bjorko - Good instinct and initiative, failed execution, probably due to lack of fully committed reciprocity on Russian side and lack of full commitment on German staff side. Could have save two crowns, 1 neck under a Crown, and millions of lives.

KW- Daily Telegraph Affair - Again with the indiscreet comments he should have kept to himself, but nothing in them was dangerous or threatening in them, to the extent Britain got huffy and more anti-German about them, that was their own fault.

KW-(and maybe officials too) - Balkan diplomacy in the otts and teens. Screw-ups and missed opportunities. Shouldn't have undermined Austria-Hungary in pig war of 1906. Under-invested in relations with Ottoman Empire. Especially in teens, far too optimistic about potential for alliances with Romania, Serbia, and Greece as opposed to Bulgaria.

KW- Blank Check- BLUNDER! Unnecessary, where else can the Austrians go? Any check should have had many lines written out in fine print of legalese with caveats and conditions.

KW's reaction to Serbian reply to Austrian ultimatum - 'No need for war' - Good instinct, better than Moltke and staff. But WIMPED OUT and didn't force an end to escalation right there.

KW's last-minute advocacy of east-first - Good instinct, better than Moltke and staff. But WIMPED OUT and didn't force the change. [If you're surprised I think this, this thread is all about giving the other side, which thinks it's so smart in its cycnicism, a good hearing]

KW wartime decisions and rhetoric - some VERY bad ones, including advocating for ethnically cleansed border strips of France.

...also some VERY BAD Downfall-esque anti-semitic rants written in his hand.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Once again, the guys who issued the Zimmerman Telegram turned out to have made the rational choice. How novel for this forum!

That’s... a fair bit of a non-sequitor? Whether the Zimmerman telegram was rational or not*, it was still a stupid idea, since the Mexicans would get their ass kicked and their leadership knew it, it would never do a thing to convince the Mexican Government. What the Zimmerman telegram (in concert with the German resumption of USW) did was convince the political elites in the US, who were vascillating over whether to go to war or not, that Germany was hostile enough to the United States that war was warranted while simultaneously providing them with all the propaganda they ever needed to help bring the American public around too it.

*A “rational idea” is not necessarily the same thing as a “good idea”.

 

[NoMommsen]

... By invading Persia the Ottomans would trigger a British declaration of war, drawing war with Germany closer. The British with more troops, and ships available are more aggressive in the War against the Turks. France offers several divisions for a joint landing around Beirut, while the British push into Palestine. ...

... now THAT'S an interresting new idea ... will keep it in mind. THX

 

[Belisarius II]

Wow, what if that happened. Loss of value of U-Boat campaigns, but no US in the war.

A 'war for joiners', meaning it just seemed to exercise some hypnotic attraction on all the great powers?

The Bight of Heligoland Incident

I see this every now and then, where Italy joins the CP side if Germany is defending on the west, and the technical treaty obligations are harder for Italy to sidestep in good faith.

But I have to ask @lukedalton and others, are the Italians *really* any more like to side with Germany, and thus Austria-Hungary, just because the circumstances of provocation and casus belli may end up putting Germany more 'in the right'? Does that matter to Italy?

How is Germany more in the right for invading Russia, and starting the war?

 

[ferdi254]

Belisarius see my post above. In an East first strategy Germany can be wait until Russia declares and sends the first armies across the border.

 

[I want to learn]

The two battleships would sail to Turkey, and the third to Chile

As I recall it the Turkish battleships were illegally seized before any declarations of war whatsoever. The seizure was representative of the highly antagonistic posture the Admiralty (with the backing of the British establishment) was willing to take in the run-up to war and in ignorance of the details of the German war plan. I don’t see any reason to think provocations would slow down as the war went on.

 

[Aphrodite]

Britain will declare war to save their necks just like they do our time. They don't care about Russia or France or Belgium, just preserving the British Empire.

That means Britain cannot suffer a German held Normandy and it doesn't matter if Germany defeats France or Russia first.

I find it amusing that we endlessly debate whether Britain intervenes or not. The cabinet authorized military action before Germany sends their ultimatum to Belgium and indeed before Germany declared war on France.

Nothing in the cabinet meeting supports the contention that Belgium mattered at all. It was about France and preserving France as a great power that drove the decision (as well as the realization that the war party had the votes and the issue was whether you got to stay in office)

Putting the French coast and shipping under British protection is not just some flimsy move. It's almost everything Britain intended to do in the war except the blockade and sending a small BEF to the continent.

The cabinet is just looking for the best move politically. That would be to get Germany to declare war on Britain. Belgium is just the next best thing

 

[Saci]

How is Germany more in the right for invading Russia, and starting the war?

Because russian general mobilization in the context of the franco-russian alliance represents an existential threat to the German Empire. Austria-Hungary thrashing Serbia doesn't represent an existential threat to the Russian Empire. The stakes are clearly not the same - once russia mobilizes and refuses to stop the mobilization, the germans can't simply "hope for the best".

Regardless, a lot of the "East First" arguments offered in the thread ultimately boils down to "do this and hope for the best", "hope that Britain doesn't join", etc., which is kinda shaky when taking planning in perspective. I'm not particularly convinced that Germany could wage a successful war (not even as successful as otl) if Britain joins the war, even with a East first strategy - it will still be constrained by the factors that affected it in our time.

 

[ferdi254]

The funny thing is no matter if the UK joins and no matter how the war will pan out, Germany will come out of it much better than OTL.

Even if we take a worst case scenario militariy for Germany with the Russians crushing AH as they did OTL, the 4 German armies getting lured deeper and deeper into Russia not achieving anything and the French and British smashing through the northern part of the border, destroying one army, encircling and capturing another mauling a third and standing in front of Frankfurt and Cologne by middle of October with Germany asking for terms (absolutely improbable) Germany as every other European nation btw would be seriously better of than OTL.

Millions of citizens still alive, billions of Marks not wasted and most likely a much lighter treaty and not tainted by the rape of Belgium.

So even in the worst possible scenario Germany is better off.

But if the UK stais out (Aphrodite you claim to know not only what the UK had done in a somewhat different situation but also claim that would have happened in a vastly different situation) OTL tells us that the CP will most likely win. Because even with the UK committing the whole army, blocking the trade and vastly bankrolling Russia and France it was a draw until April 1917.

 

[Riain]

A 'war for joiners', meaning it just seemed to exercise some hypnotic attraction on all the great powers?

Possibly not a bad way to put it.

These threads concerning Britain seem to hinge on the deliberations on the first few days of August, then people say things like once Britain sees the casualties or whatever other reason they won't join. However there were plenty of casualties to see when the Ottomans joined in late 1914, the Italians and Bulgarians in 1915, the Romanians in 1916 and the US in 1917. In all cases these countries jumped in with all resources at their disposal, yet with that example and the long list of factors behind the British I'm supposed to believe that without the early August 1914 invasion of Belgium the British won't do what history showed so many other countries did do when given the choice. Sorry, I'm not convinced.

 

[Aphrodite]

Belisarius see my post above. In an East first strategy Germany can be wait until Russia declares and sends the first armies across the border.

First, the Austrians will send the first armies over the border into Serbia. This is the start of the war. If Austria doesn't, Russia has saved Serbia and won diplomatically.

Second, if Germany waits she throws away her only two advantages:. Speed and her central position.

Germany can mobilize faster than Russia. Germany can mobilize by about M15 while Russia will not be fully ready until about M45.

Combined with her central position, this allows Germany to concentrate against France before Russia can bring her full might to bear.

Germany also has a speed advantage against France. Because Germany drafts only about half it's male population and France drafts 80 %, German troops are much healthier. German reservists also do more training and have more officers and NCOs. This allows Germany to throw them into battle at the Frontiers while Joffre gradually brings his online. By the Marne, he can use them pretty effectively.

 

[Belisarius II]

Because russian general mobilization in the context of the franco-russian alliance represents an existential threat to the German Empire. Austria-Hungary thrashing Serbia doesn't represent an existential threat to the Russian Empire. The stakes are clearly not the same - once russia mobilizes and refuses to stop the mobilization, the germans can't simply "hope for the best".

Regardless, a lot of the "East First" arguments offered in the thread ultimately boils down to "do this and hope for the best", "hope that Britain doesn't join", etc., which is kinda shaky when taking planning in perspective. I'm not particularly convinced that Germany could wage a successful war (not even as successful as otl) if Britain joins the war, even with a East first strategy - it will still be constrained by the factors that affected it in our time.

Only the Germans accepted that logic. No rational State thinks in terms of a doomsday clock. The British were still trying to mediate between AH, and Serbia. The French had pulled troops back several miles from the border. The Russians were mobilizing troops deep inside their own territory. The Russian 1st Army didn't cross the German border till August 17, more then 2 weeks after Germany declared war on them. Germany's aims were not defensive, they wanted to destroy Russia as a great power, that could threaten Germany, and then do the same to France. Such a policy would at some point force the British to intervene.

 

[Questerr]

The British aren’t going to sit by and do nothing while Germany turns itself in a juggernaut that is uncontested on the continent and who can then build a navy that actually threatens Britain.

The British are coming in on the French side when it becomes clear they can’t successfully invade through A-L and when it looks like the Russians are utterly failing in its defense of Poland and the Baltic’s.