The British would seek peace because the Russians and French have surrendered and the BEF has been defeated in or chased from the field in the process, because the CP has won.
They may.
Certainly Peace would look attractive proposition and it is very possible that the British would accept a peace with good terms. But it would very much depend on those terms.
A lot of people believe Britain can't be touched, that they don't have to give back the German colonies because of the RN and there is nothing Germany can do about it
I mentioned on another thread that Britain is unlikely to continue a war in Europe for the sake of colonial gains. However, while Britain remains at war with Germany, yes, there is little Germany can do to regain them. And Britain could remain at war if the Germans demand too much in the peace. Germany can “touch” Britain. But what they cannot reasonably do is invade it. And what the Napoleonic and two World Wars IOTL have proven is that Britain cannot effectively be cut off from world trade. Damage can be done, but by 1917 losses of shipping had dropped to sustainable levels and I-boat losses were increasing. And as such, as long as the British people support continuing the war, Britain can probably remain at war. The British people certainly may decide not to, but that is a separate issue, and should not be taken for granted.
My contention is that Germany can do something about it, much like they did when the Soviets were jerking them around
The Germans were sitting on Russian territory with Russia simultaneously fighting a civil war, with Soviet leaders ideologically more worried about counter-revolutionaries than foreign armies. After all, it was thought inevitable that Germany would soon have its own revolution and the Soviets would soon be dealing with a fellow workers dictatorship. Quite different circumstances to what would be faced with Britain.
and the biggest part of that would be a renewal of USW from a better position
With several WW1 threads hitting similar points I can’t remember if we have established the role of the US yet. However, if we are looking at a late war German victory the US is either already involved or will be brought in by USW. Which means Britain only needs to hold out for the time being. The blockade just became inescapable, irrelevant of what territory Germany controls and Britain is assured of support in the future.
convoying alone reduces imports by 1/3 due to it's inflexibility and inefficiency before a single ship has been sunk.
This statistic is correct but overused and little understood. It refers to the difference between convoys and
peacetime sailings. Warfare footing already reduced imports to ports in affected areas by 10-20%, even when local enemy threats didn’t pause them entirely. Shortages of workers and the increased loads of wartime meant clearing through a port was already slower than peacetime standard. So the addition of convoys would increase the problem, it would not be a change of 33%.
Additionally if this 1918 is as OTL (again not sure of the if tree we are debating here) then Trans Atlantic convoys have been a thing for over a year by mid 1918 and the east coast already has a very good system of air forces, radio stations, sweepers and minefields protecting its coaster traffic.
For what purpose is Britain's government going to subject it's people to this hardship when her Army has been defeated, her Allies surrendered and there is no hope of victory
Depends on the Germans. If German demands are considered too onerous, the British will likely fight on. The loss of the BEF and 4 years of war
might be enough for Britain to accept a Continental power holding hegemony over the continent for the time being.
And what if Britain causing fighting to begin again doesn't pay off? It sure as hell didn't for the Soviets, which surely would be something the British government would be thinking about.
Again, pretty different circumstances between Russia in OTL and Britain ITTL.
One of the biggest differences compared to OTL ww2 would be that here the russian are already out
When those convoys were introduced in WW2 The SU was considered a co-belligerent of Germany. Russia’s status has absolutely zero effect on the ability or motivation of the British to set them up.
Further Germany (at this point the whole of continental Europe) would be very difficult to blocade effectively.
The blockade was not primarily one of warships stopping merchant ships at sea. That certainly happened but primarily the blockade was formed by diplomatic agreement. A lot of that will still be valid even if France falls. It becomes more complicated and likely leakier. But it does not completely invalidate the blockade. And if the Germans launch USW after the fall of France and that brings the US in, then the blockade is just as effective as it was in 1917-18 OTL.
would be other active fronts that the british were fighting (Middle East) - and now the germans would be as well, arriving in force likely turning those around
By 1918? While garrisoning all of Europe apparently? The German army was a shattered force after the Spring Offensive. And the bulk of those losses were from the attack. Even in victory the Germans would be fielding mostly 17-18 year olds barely trained and in poor physical condition. They have to keep a huge amount of their forces in Europe to keep their victories intact. Meanwhile the Arab revolt had gained momentum in Syria. The Germans could possibly stabilize the front, particularly if they can set up defences in Cilicia. But reversals seem unlikely, to me at least, on a large scale. Not impossible, but unlikely.
If the germans were to take Suez the U-boats and the turkish and Austrian fleets that thus far have been or could have been operating in the Meditrranean would be able to attack british shipping in the indian ocean - and the UK would be very hard pressed to send any force there as the only thing standing between them and an invasion would be the Grand Fleet that still needs to face the Hochseeflotte. Maybe the japanese would be willing to help out so this might be solved.
That’s a lot of big ifs.
And with shipping becoming increasingly difficult to the home island as well the UK would be hard pressed to hang on without a real prospect of victory
The most dangerous part of either u-boat campaign was the early stages. As the RN learned to deal with it losses fell and u-boat losses mounted. In WW1 the introduction of convoys, better air patrol routes and the use of depth charges dropped shipping losses down into sustainable ranges, while increasing attrition among u-boats. So the longer that USW goes on the less effective it is at keeping shipping away from the home islands.