Germany doesn't invade Belgium in 1914: What does Britain do?
- Thread starter Citycat
- Start date
Laughed as German troops died enmasse invading France from Alsace Lorraine.
Probably plays America in ww2 war profiteering selling to France, enforcing a commercial safety zone that restricts German ability to navally effect France.
Thomas1195
Banned
Britain is not going to enter the war unless the Tories form a majority government, which is unlikely. Even if the Tories become the largest party after 1915 election, Liberals would still hold power with Labour and IPP support. By 1915, Liberal Party could even use anti-war messages to win the election (and France would have already lost the war by then)
If Asquith and Grey tried to go to war, they would anger the anti-war Radicals, which had become the larger faction in the Liberal Party by 1914
Redbeard
Banned
The British Foreign Secretary call his ministry: "Hello, it's me. I need an excuse for declaring war on Germany, we can't have those bullies bully all of the continent. Could you please give me six options to choose between ASAP!" Official: "Certainly sir, we have already been preparing some, you will have them with your afternoon tea. Do you want scones too?"
Please people! The British interest bout WWI was not about Belgium, they couldn't care less about the fate of an obscure country without room to swing a cat about in, and who even can't decide what language to talk!
The British interest was as it had always been - to ensure that no continental power dominated the entire European continent. By 1914 the biggest threat was from Germany and certainly would be acute if Germany declared war on France. What text you release on why is something you make up according to the situation.
BTW Bismarck is to have said: "People sleep better if they don't know how you make sausages and politics!"
Please people! The British interest bout WWI was not about Belgium, they couldn't care less about the fate of an obscure country without room to swing a cat about in, and who even can't decide what language to talk!
The British interest was as it had always been - to ensure that no continental power dominated the entire European continent. By 1914 the biggest threat was from Germany and certainly would be acute if Germany declared war on France. What text you release on why is something you make up according to the situation.
BTW Bismarck is to have said: "People sleep better if they don't know how you make sausages and politics!"
The whole purpose of Belgium was to contain France. At the time the German states were close allies of Britain but it worked the other way around. No invasion through Belgium would have given France a smaller front to meet the Germans so may well have been able to stalemate them as IOTL. Leaning towards France I can see Britain arming France both directly and through underwriting defence purchases in America. Also more equipment and finance would have been available to prop up the Russian Army and then the Romanians. Italy might have been less tempted to join with France and sit out the war releasing KuK forces for the Eastern Front and reducing demands for German assistance. With Britain safe from committing it's troops and Navy to the Western front then Turkey would be more careful about declaring war and possibly remain neutral. Thus a more limited war within Europe and possibly more amenable to negotiation when it all seizes to a halt of attrition. No Middle East meddling, no Russian Revolution, no Poland and assorted other butterflies take off. Britain certainly had more to gain from a surviving Ottoman Empire than it's dissolution.
The UK always became involved in Continental affairs in order to maintain the balance. They'll support the French and Russians, mostly for a profit, and intervene if Germany appears to be nearing a victory.
I vote that Britain gets involved. Part of the math is that it seemed certain France and Russia would win, the British did not want left out of the post-war spoils or redrawing of influences or maps. The more I delve into it the more difficult I find British "neutrality."
That said I think the more compelling and complicated alternative is "what next?"
First, I assume that no invasion of Belgium is a German strategic shift to defend West, attack East, likely based on a more sober minded read of both military and diplomatic reality. I truly feel Moltke was gambling hoping to set his name among the stars. This Moltke sees all the advantages in holding the French until they break and using maneuver in the East to gain victory. While I doubt it is war winning, it sets up a very different war. My assumption is a more even split of forces, 4 Armies worth West, 4 to the East. As an aside Hindenburg likely does not become quite the poster child of victory here, and might get a tough assignment in the West to stiffen the defenses.
Second I assume the British need a little more time to get Parliament to act so the British war machine loses some time, but I think we are counting days or weeks, not more. The BEF deploys and Britain rely upon the blockade more. Blockade takes years and here should be leaky. The BEF is professional and capable but small. With a stalemate at the frontiers the French need to look at Belgium as the way to end the war with Germany. While I doubt the British invade Belgium, I think they regard the Treaty as a "scrap of paper" and give France a pass, holding the right somewhere opposite Luxembourg or the northern Franco-German border. Best case the French go full strength thrust though Luxembourg and tease through Belgium, worst case they hit Belgium hard to strike through to the Ruhr, that will destroy the illusion this is a "just" war. One can see the migration of butterflies.
Third, I think as the war drags past 1914 the British public face some serious disillusionment. That is to me the real effect of this scenario. Any rationale for joining the war now feels paper thin, "free Luxembourg" would be less compelling than "rescue Belgium", the French and Russians look more clearly aggressor and not victim, the Germans gain much propaganda grist, and the blood and bodies flowing out of France make a call for even deeper sacrifices, especially conscription a harder sell. Britain has likely mortgaged itself enough to be dubious of further treasure spent, the French are less desperate and less dependent on the British so they steer an uncomfortably independent course. The Russians still soak up a ton of money and British industry plays a bigger part in supplying them. British industry likely likes this war and the profits. What once looked like a jolly curb stomping of the dreaded Germans and victory parade at Christmas has become the real threat they will win and dictate terms to us after the next mass slaughter near some quaint town in France! 1915 to 1916 become the pivot when Britain needs to either get fully in this war to win or look at graceful ways to exit.
One might still see a big naval battle everyone loves. It might be more about Britain seeking a true victory and it might go horribly wrong. Italy may take the gifts and accept the seduction but stay neutral. Romania might not feel as confident in slipping into this grinder. The Ottomans might have merely gone to war with Russia making it more complex as to how the Anglo-French react. And without the forward bases the German submarine campaign may be a false start. The USA likely sells more to the CP and now has different axes to grind as the blockade hits American commerce. Does America defy the blockade? Russia gets more savaged by German tactical prowess and falters sooner? On and on one finds tattered threads in the unraveled tapestry here to feed butterflies endlessly.
Belgium alone does not butterfly the British entry to war but it sets loose many butterflies over its effort. That is what I ponder over.
That said I think the more compelling and complicated alternative is "what next?"
First, I assume that no invasion of Belgium is a German strategic shift to defend West, attack East, likely based on a more sober minded read of both military and diplomatic reality. I truly feel Moltke was gambling hoping to set his name among the stars. This Moltke sees all the advantages in holding the French until they break and using maneuver in the East to gain victory. While I doubt it is war winning, it sets up a very different war. My assumption is a more even split of forces, 4 Armies worth West, 4 to the East. As an aside Hindenburg likely does not become quite the poster child of victory here, and might get a tough assignment in the West to stiffen the defenses.
Second I assume the British need a little more time to get Parliament to act so the British war machine loses some time, but I think we are counting days or weeks, not more. The BEF deploys and Britain rely upon the blockade more. Blockade takes years and here should be leaky. The BEF is professional and capable but small. With a stalemate at the frontiers the French need to look at Belgium as the way to end the war with Germany. While I doubt the British invade Belgium, I think they regard the Treaty as a "scrap of paper" and give France a pass, holding the right somewhere opposite Luxembourg or the northern Franco-German border. Best case the French go full strength thrust though Luxembourg and tease through Belgium, worst case they hit Belgium hard to strike through to the Ruhr, that will destroy the illusion this is a "just" war. One can see the migration of butterflies.
Third, I think as the war drags past 1914 the British public face some serious disillusionment. That is to me the real effect of this scenario. Any rationale for joining the war now feels paper thin, "free Luxembourg" would be less compelling than "rescue Belgium", the French and Russians look more clearly aggressor and not victim, the Germans gain much propaganda grist, and the blood and bodies flowing out of France make a call for even deeper sacrifices, especially conscription a harder sell. Britain has likely mortgaged itself enough to be dubious of further treasure spent, the French are less desperate and less dependent on the British so they steer an uncomfortably independent course. The Russians still soak up a ton of money and British industry plays a bigger part in supplying them. British industry likely likes this war and the profits. What once looked like a jolly curb stomping of the dreaded Germans and victory parade at Christmas has become the real threat they will win and dictate terms to us after the next mass slaughter near some quaint town in France! 1915 to 1916 become the pivot when Britain needs to either get fully in this war to win or look at graceful ways to exit.
One might still see a big naval battle everyone loves. It might be more about Britain seeking a true victory and it might go horribly wrong. Italy may take the gifts and accept the seduction but stay neutral. Romania might not feel as confident in slipping into this grinder. The Ottomans might have merely gone to war with Russia making it more complex as to how the Anglo-French react. And without the forward bases the German submarine campaign may be a false start. The USA likely sells more to the CP and now has different axes to grind as the blockade hits American commerce. Does America defy the blockade? Russia gets more savaged by German tactical prowess and falters sooner? On and on one finds tattered threads in the unraveled tapestry here to feed butterflies endlessly.
Belgium alone does not butterfly the British entry to war but it sets loose many butterflies over its effort. That is what I ponder over.
The UK, France and Russia were bound together by the 'Triple Alliance', which pretty much meant -like NATO today- that an attack against one state is an attack against all of them. That was one of the reasons behind everyone declaring war on everyone within one day of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke. So as soon as the first shot against France is fired, the UK HAD to help France. However depending on how the war is going, tho aid may take different forms, from just sending out the Royal Navy to trouble the German sea routes to a full-fledged 4-year military campaign as OTL. Remember in 1914, many of the UK soldiers departing for France were convinced they would be back home by Christmas. All it would take on their behalf were a few battles to stop the German advance and then lave it up to the diplomats to hammer out a peace that returns things to the status ante bellam. No one really believed the mess would last until 1918
Thomas1195
Banned
The problem is that after decades under the leadership of William Ewart Gladstone, three quarter of Liberal MPs including Lloyd George (without Belgium Lloyd George would remain anti-war) did not think like that. Only a small Imperialist faction took it seriously, and they would be overthrown by a Radical coup if they tried to do so. And the Conservatives would have to wait to 1915 to win the election (unlikely even if they become the largest party)
Wrong Alliance for you...
Seriously please read up even on Wiki before you name the wrong alliance. The Sides were the Entente and Central Powers. But the Tripel Alliance was Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. The last got serious flak for switching sides in WWI.
In the 1870 war the armies mobilized for the initial fighting were something like 5 times smaller than in 1914 and the per capita firepower maybe something about 1/4 of 1914. They could operate on the offensive in 1870 without using Belgian territory. But, by 1914 the fortress belts on both sides were formidable and the armies so vast and sprawling that only a part of each army could operate along the common frontier.
Yeah that would make sense and it would be such a huge loss on both sides so that's why the Germans took Belgium in order to get past those barriers.
And one more thing: Forget about the spoils of war. If London intervenes, it will not be because of the spoils of war. For a good deal it will be to keep the balance of power, but mostly it will be because its 'the gentleman thing to do',especially having that treaty with France. Also as soon as the war is eminent, parliament will mobilize all necessary troops within a day. People were just that jingoistic in that era.
Oops, my bad.
But still it doesn't take away from the premise. France, England, Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungaria went to war because they had given their word as Gentlemen to support each other. Doing otherwise would go straight against everything their ruling elites believed. Go bad on those moral principles and would loose all claims on a legitimate rule. You could just as well go ahead and proclaim a Marxist Workers Republic.
Riain
Banned
Not a hope in hell.
Of all the strategic options open to Germany, considering her own strengths and weaknesses and those of her adversaries and the mechanics of mobilisation at the time, outflanking the French Army by advancing through Belgium was the only chance Germany had of getting a good outcome. Sitting on the defensive in the west only causes a pointless battle of attrition with no chance of a decisive outcome there while only giving Germany the chance to engage/defeat 2-3 of Russia's 8-10 armies in the east.
Contrary to popular opinion the likes of Moltke, Bethmann-Hollweg and even the Kaiser weren't complete dickheads. Even the Kaiser, although flighty, could see these quite simple problems readily enough and ask pertinent questions and be questioned himself, its all very Monday morning super-coach to sit back and say they were all morons. The invasion of France through Belgium is a reasonable and rational answer to the strategic questions that Germany faced in the 1911-14 period.
British Home Fleet was at sea by the afternoon of aug 2nd with orders to attack any german ships, so in practice Britain was already at war.
look the anglo french naval agreement should make it obvious that britain will be at war with germany as soon as germany and france are at war.
look the anglo french naval agreement should make it obvious that britain will be at war with germany as soon as germany and france are at war.
RousseauX
Donor
This actually isn't true in otl 1914: becuse it wasn't all that clear whether Russia+france was stronger or if Germany+austria was stronger, Britain actually intervened to -appease- Russia as much as against Germany
remember in 1914 the idea of russian steamroller was real and British government was a lot more afraid of Russian than germany, the idea was that Britain had to get on Russia's good side because if Russia wins then they'll invade india or something