WI: Britain sits out WW1?

[MrHaakwood]

You realise in a way your paranoia is showing a bit

Part of the problem with your response is that you are assuming that the Germans are doing the nasty stuff...in a timeline with a high probability that Serbia is either under the Austrians or the Hungarians or split between them...there really are other culprits.

Now of course it is true that the resort to unrestricted submarine warfare was a reaction to the Massive German Mismanagement of Available Food Resources and the British Blockade which really was not helping and did exacerbate things.

However the blockade was not new, in fact it is part and parcel of the naval strategy everyone predicted the British adopting if they went to war with...well anyone.

Germany also blockaded Russia and once the Ottomans came in on their side it really began to bite and of course Russian mismanagement of their resources had a lot to do with their eventual collapse as an active combatant.

I actually believe that the submarine campaign was more an act of desperation than evidence of innate savagery but you need be very careful about the use of German right wing rhetoric when arguing that Germany is more than right wing rhetoric (regardless of nationality).

Good post. But you need to clarify in which way my "paranoia" is showing or where I am showing German right wing rhetoric.

The almost comical description of anything German around that time is pretty much vile propaganda and this plays a role to this day! So yes, I have damn problem with every thread which slightly touches Germany and the result is a assumption that this has to be as evil and bloody as possible.

So why did not Britain go to war with America? We have numerous discussions of more than enough flash points and yet by this stage America had long since overtaken Britain in wealth and productivity and was a rising naval power with far more serious long term naval capacity than Germany and the money to pay for it.

You need to find something more in the mindset to explain British fear of Germany's rise which even in August 1914 was not set in stone.

Now a lot of commentators have raised the point that there is more than one factor drawing Britain in and it might be hard to stay out but that is utterly different from the idea that one factor alone, jealousy, was the motive for war.

I guess the British Elite knew pretty soon that the never will be able to challenge the rise of the USA. Germany on the other hand was an easy target. Two enemies on both sides, bad geographic situation, newcomer on the stage....compare that with the USA and it becomes quite obvious why it was Germany in the end.

 

[Halagaz]

Your bias is shown very clearly.

Not believing that CP Mitteleuropa would be, to quote a previous poster, "pretty much OTL EU" is hardly a sign of bias.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Good post. But you need to clarify in which way my "paranoia" is showing or where I am showing German right wing rhetoric.

The almost comical description of anything German around that time is pretty much vile propaganda and this plays a role to this day! So yes, I have damn problem with every thread which slightly touches Germany and the result is a assumption that this has to be as evil and bloody as possible.

I guess the British Elite knew pretty soon that the never will be able to challenge the rise of the USA. Germany on the other hand was an easy target. Two enemies on both sides, bad geographic situation, newcomer on the stage....compare that with the USA and it becomes quite obvious why it was Germany in the end.

OH to be absolutely clear and I do realise that it was my fault for not being clear I do not presume you are right wing. Hunger Blockade however is straight out of the Right is right lexicon. As is the argument it was novel.

That said in trying to envisage a post war German victory I am actually inclined to wonder if the fall out might not be less horrendous than OTL. For various reasons that do not require the Germans to be noble they would not be as inclined I think to press as great a set of territorial reforms as were mooted in that timeline where the British do get involved.

I would argue that the Empire level leadership did not go to war for territorial gain so much as fear of their enemies internal and external. The internal enemy were perceived to be the socialists who were on the advance in the Reichstag despite the flagrantly rigged electoral system in Prussia. The external trigger was the rapid growth in Russian industrial clout which appeared to threaten Germay's ability to hold them off and France at the same time.

If the Imperials can pin their enemies' ears back for a time (Russkies and German socialists primarily) I think they would largely be content with the breathing space and not try to force a hegemony whose cost in blood would risk their achievable gains.

As to the second notion I don't think the British were really all that set on Germania delenda est(excuse the poor Latin) . I do think there were several general paranoias which Germany managed inadvertently to crystallise about herself but there was no conscious plan of going out to destory what the Royal Navy itself had described as "Our Friends Today, Our Friends Forever."

 

[It's]

The Crimson thread of kinship

So why did not Britain go to war with America? We have numerous discussions of more than enough flash points and yet by this stage America had long since overtaken Britain in wealth and productivity and was a rising naval power with far more serious long term naval capacity than Germany and the money to pay for it.

You need to find something more in the mindset to explain British fear of Germany's rise which even in August 1914 was not set in stone.

Now a lot of commentators have raised the point that there is more than one factor drawing Britain in and it might be hard to stay out but that is utterly different from the idea that one factor alone, jealousy, was the motive for war.

Germany was the biggest threat to Britain that was foreign. Although the British might have resented America's historic disloyalty, sanctimony and dumb luck (i.e. from their perspective), they still viewed America as essentially "Britain mk II"; more an heir than a successor to Britain's hegemony, and far more desirable for this position than "real" foreigners, in particular Germany and nations like Germany.

 

[Tallil2long]

So why did not Britain go to war with America? We have numerous discussions of more than enough flash points and yet by this stage America had long since overtaken Britain in wealth and productivity and was a rising naval power with far more serious long term naval capacity than Germany and the money to pay for it.

You need to find something more in the mindset to explain British fear of Germany's rise which even in August 1914 was not set in stone.

Now a lot of commentators have raised the point that there is more than one factor drawing Britain in and it might be hard to stay out but that is utterly different from the idea that one factor alone, jealousy, was the motive for war.

What major power would assist Britain in taking down the U.S.? Against Germany in 1914, Britain would have France and Russia. This alone makes it possible for Germany to be taken down without utterly ruining the British Empire.*
Against the U.S., the British would be acting alone. It simply wasn't possible.

* as it turned out, the cost to Britain of warring against Germany in 1914-1918 was tremendous, and probably put the British Empire irrevocably on the road to decline; but British leaders didn't expect that at the time they jumped in.

 

[brokenman]

Germany was the biggest threat to Britain that was foreign. Although the British might have resented America's historic disloyalty, sanctimony and dumb luck (i.e. from their perspective), they still viewed America as essentially "Britain mk II"; more an heir than a successor to Britain's hegemony, and far more desirable for this position than "real" foreigners, in particular Germany and nations like Germany.

Well, according to my understanding, Germany is Britain's best buddy up until the HSF tried to match the Royal Navy in tonnage. Britain still is scared more of the Franco-Russian alliance, which when put to total war, outnumbered the Austro-German armies by a wide margin. Remove Germany's (actually her king at that time, forgot his name) stupid ambition to surpass the naval might of Britain and British-German relations could be cordial if not friendly even at the onset of WWI.

What I don't know is if Britain would still trade a potential friendly German over the guarantee to Belgium should Germany asked for the bypass route to France.

 

[TFSmith121]

Okay, but the realities of blockade (say, the British against

As was the hunger blockade, Unrestricted submarine warfare was the response to that.

Okay, but the realities of blockade (say, the British against France up through 1815) were not unknown; the idea of commerce warfare without cruiser/prize rules was something new.

Even during the (for example) Anglo-French and Anglo-American wars of the first decade(s) of the Nineteenth Century, generally privateers fought according to the rules of war - they were not pirates.

Even during the US Civil War, the rebel raiders played by the cruiser/prize rules.

Granted, policies and procedures had not caught up with technology by 1914-18, but still - it was a change, and one the Germans quite deliberately considered before ordering it. They knew they were moving beyond the expected - they may have felt it was justified, but they also knew it was a different approach to warfare at sea.

I'd expect some of their concepts of how to occupy and/or annex territory in wartime or afterward in such an alternate Great War would have pushed the envelope.

Again, not to 1939-45 extremes, but still.

Best,

 

[It's]

Well, according to my understanding, Germany is Britain's best buddy up until the HSF tried to match the Royal Navy in tonnage. Britain still is scared more of the Franco-Russian alliance, which when put to total war, outnumbered the Austro-German armies by a wide margin. Remove Germany's (actually her king at that time, forgot his name) stupid ambition to surpass the naval might of Britain and British-German relations could be cordial if not friendly even at the onset of WWI.

What I don't know is if Britain would still trade a potential friendly German over the guarantee to Belgium should Germany asked for the bypass route to France.

Germany had become a serious rival for British exports and economically therefore a far greater threat to Britain than relatively agrarian France or backward Russia. Any "best buddy" relationship may have been a hangover of the napoleonic wars given a minor fillip by royal marriages but, as a German diplomat said, countries do not have permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. with America and Britain their innate values were (and are) too similar for them to have interests that could be considered significantly disparate, certainly not enough to go to war without one of them having a serious brain-fade (after the tumultuous acrimony of the war of independence).

 

[LordKalvert]

Well, according to my understanding, Germany is Britain's best buddy up until the HSF tried to match the Royal Navy in tonnage. Britain still is scared more of the Franco-Russian alliance, which when put to total war, outnumbered the Austro-German armies by a wide margin. Remove Germany's (actually her king at that time, forgot his name) stupid ambition to surpass the naval might of Britain and British-German relations could be cordial if not friendly even at the onset of WWI.

What I don't know is if Britain would still trade a potential friendly German over the guarantee to Belgium should Germany asked for the bypass route to France.

That would actually be wrong. Germany had a lot of complaints about British behavior and her building of the HSF was in response to the repeated provocations of the British. Its a long series of grievances based on the Germans feeling that Britain could count on the triple alliance against France and Russia and therefore didn't have to pay for German support.

A partial list (beginning in 1894 but there were others before):

The Congo Treaty by which Britain compromised the neutrality of the Belgian Congo for a railroad concession that threatened both France and German interests. The French and Germans forced Belgium to back down

The Triple Intervention: British refusal to adhere to previous agreements among the powers for joint intervention against Japan in the Sino-Japanese War

Eritrea: The British repeatedly refused Italian requests for support during the Italian-Ethiopian War Specifically, the refusal to allow Italian troops through Zeyla.

Armenia: Lots of complaints here. The British made numerous proposals that seriously jeopardized German and Austrian interests and some that would have even led to war between Austria and Italy. Specifically, the British offered Albania to Italy which Austria would never allow. The repeated attempts at a show of force at the straits and the obvious risk of general European warfare and the idiotic idea to depose the Sultan

Crete and the Greek War of 1897: Germany sought, along with Austria, France and Russia, to prevent the Greeks from fomenting revolution on the Island but Britain always blocked efforts at forming a blockade. Britain also prevented a blockade of Greek ships running supplies to their forces along the Turkish border. The Germans felt that the whole war was Britain's force

Samoa- The British refused to reach a settlement with the Germans (who had equal rights with America and Britain) during the succession crises

Portuguese Colonies- After reaching an agreement concerning loans to Portugal where the colonies would be collateral, Salisbury arranged a loan using other collateral

Kruger Telegram- well known and obvious. The Germans were particularly upset because the Kaiser's message was legal, didn't insult Britain at all and was at the same time that President Cleveland of the US sent a really nasty belligerent message about Venezuela. Germany got threatened while the Americans got bought off.

Spanish American War- British refusal to join efforts to prevent the war and preserve the Hapsburg Queen Regent an issue dear to the Kaiser and the Austrians

This brings us to 1898 when the building of the HSF gets going

 

[LordKalvert]

Haha Operation Sea mammal

Bring it.

Actually it would be nice for a change for the HSF not to turn tail and run away as fast as it can at the first sight of the Grand Fleet while finding a great deal of religion and praying for night.

And I suppose that with all those occupied shipyards and enslaved workers they could always build another one to replace the one the British had just sunk......

Your post is, of course, devoid of all logic and reason. I guess you think that the British only choose to intervene out of concern for poor little Belgium, spent themselves into bankruptcy and lost millions of men just out of the kindness of their hearts.

Seriously, the British understood what German hegemony on the continent would mean- the end of the British Empire. That's why she fought, that's why she bled and that's why she spent her treasure

The only hesitation was that they didn't want the Russians to win either but preserving France won out.

And no, nobody is getting enslaved at all. The Germans are getting the continental fleets as trophies of war just like Napoleon did.

The notion that the British could sink the ships in the shipyards is utterly insane given that the British, with the French, Italian and American navies as allies, never ventured near German shores.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Germany had become a serious rival for British exports and economically therefore a far greater threat to Britain than relatively agrarian France or backward Russia. Any "best buddy" relationship may have been a hangover of the napoleonic wars given a minor fillip by royal marriages but, as a German diplomat said, countries do not have permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. with America and Britain their innate values were (and are) too similar for them to have interests that could be considered significantly disparate, certainly not enough to go to war without one of them having a serious brain-fade (after the tumultuous acrimony of the war of independence).

But the point of rising German exports was that they were rising to fill the vacuum left by the relative inability of British manufacturers to boost output due to constraints on the supply of inputs at the time.

American exports are also rising and they tend to buy less British stuff at this time. Simple interests would suggest that Britain has little to fear from Germany.

Yet Britain did fear Germany and so what is the difference? The main one would appear to be that when historians describe the interests of the USA they frequently refer to her as a 'satisfied state'. What does that mean? Essentially that the Americans were happy with the territory they had and saw little or no reason to expand it.

Oh there are always a few idiots but in the USA it was clear they were the minority and not a great influence on those in power.

In Germany on the other hand...well the bitterness still rankles in the posts above...even though modern Germany is clear evidence that it was not lack of empire or territory that was holding the Germans back. Indeed the evidence of the time is that Germany was rising regardless of her apparent lack of room or empire.

People always want to buy German goods, you can almost bank that, in fact the present day euro basically is the means by which people bank that.

See if you are looking for a POD whereby the British don't get drawn in, it looks to be a good one where the German leadership more forcefully rebuffs the fantasists talking up taking away chunks of the British Empire is a good place to start. Lots of small statements like little baby steps not leading you far from OTL but just enough that a big surprise viewed from over here seems almost inevitable in the ATL

 

[RodentRevolution]

Your post is, of course, devoid of all logic and reason. I guess you think that the British only choose to intervene out of concern for poor little Belgium, spent themselves into bankruptcy and lost millions of men just out of the kindness of their hearts.

Seriously, the British understood what German hegemony on the continent would mean- the end of the British Empire. That's why she fought, that's why she bled and that's why she spent her treasure

The only hesitation was that they didn't want the Russians to win either but preserving France won out.

And no, nobody is getting enslaved at all. The Germans are getting the continental fleets as trophies of war just like Napoleon did.

The notion that the British could sink the ships in the shipyards is utterly insane given that the British, with the French, Italian and American navies as allies, never ventured near German shores.

So basically you are arguing that Britain had to intervene in order to defend itself?

Well bang go my efforts to hang some war guilt on my fellow blightarians

 

[Tallil2long]

That would actually be wrong. Germany had a lot of complaints about British behavior and her building of the HSF was in response to the repeated provocations of the British. Its a long series of grievances based on the Germans feeling that Britain could count on the triple alliance against France and Russia and therefore didn't have to pay for German support.

A partial list (beginning in 1894 but there were others before):

snip

Kruger Telegram- well known and obvious. The Germans were particularly upset because the Kaiser's message was legal, didn't insult Britain at all and was at the same time that President Cleveland of the US sent a really nasty belligerent message about Venezuela. Germany got threatened while the Americans got bought off.

snip

This brings us to 1898 when the building of the HSF gets going

An excellent run-down. I would only add a bit of detail about the Transvaal crisis.

By the 1890's, Germany owned about one-fifth of all foreign capital invested in the Transvaal. This means that she had a significant, legitimate national interest.
So in 1894, in furtherance of that legitimate interest, Germany sought to build a German-financed railroad from the Transvaal to the coast in Portugese Mozambique. The British protested, even considering annexing Delagoa Bay from Portugal, and rejected any compromise position. The next year, the British ambassador in Berlin, Edward Malet, suggested there would be war if Germany kept up its attempts.

When a British official sponsored the abortive Jameson Raid, which intended to eliminate the (internationally recognized) independence of the Transvaal, the British government denied any approval or involvement. Yet when the Kaiser (understandably) congratulated Kruger on his successful defense of his nation's independence, the British suddenly grew outraged and insulted (how, when they claimed the Raid wasn't any of their doing in the first place?) and a "crisis" resulted.

In March of 1897, the assitant under-secretary for the British Foreign Office, Francis Bertie, told the German ambassador, Hermann von Eckardstein, that Germany needed to refrain from interfering in Britain's policy in Africa, since Britain would not stop at "even the ultimate to repel any German intervention". "Should it come to war with Germany, the entire English nation would be behind it, and a blockade of Hamburg and Bremen and the annhilation of German commerce on the high seas would be child's play for the English fleet".

Interestingly, the fleet plan memorandum presented to the Kaiser in June of that same year observed that "the most dangerous naval enemy at the present time is England".

On 26 March 1898, the Reichstag passed the navy bill that initiated a massive construction program, but of course it was a bit too late, as the British in 1899 finally got the pretext they'd been looking for in order to justify invading and annexing conveniently gold-rich Boer republics, and the Germans had no ability to intervene.


Basically, the British, using their naval superiority as an excuse not to negotiate fairly with Germany in recognition of her legitimate national interests, goading the Germans into believing that the only way their interests would be taken seriously was if they first built up their navy.

Having provoked the Germans into this rather justifiable action, how did the British respond? By blaming Germany for provoking Britain, and by engaging in the most sordid fear-mongering to the British public.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Your post is, of course, devoid of all logic and reason. I guess you think that the British only choose to intervene out of concern for poor little Belgium, spent themselves into bankruptcy and lost millions of men just out of the kindness of their hearts.

Seriously, the British understood what German hegemony on the continent would mean- the end of the British Empire. That's why she fought, that's why she bled and that's why she spent her treasure

The only hesitation was that they didn't want the Russians to win either but preserving France won out.

And no, nobody is getting enslaved at all. The Germans are getting the continental fleets as trophies of war just like Napoleon did.

The notion that the British could sink the ships in the shipyards is utterly insane given that the British, with the French, Italian and American navies as allies, never ventured near German shores.

And your hand wavium defeat of the Royal Navy and successful invasion of Britain is entirely full of Logic and reason?

Any attempted invasion of Britain is going to involve a number of Sea Battles with the worlds largest Navy (and yes despite grabbing other nations navies it would still be materially more powerful) - which will result in either yet another inconclusive fleet action and therefore no invasion or more unlikely the HSF will actually engage the GF which will be larger than OTL and the Germans will lose and therefore still no invasion.

My point about occupied ship yards was in response to the HSF getting sunk "in battle" and needing to be replaced - not the RN conducting port raids - which you have some how inferred!

The OP asked what would happen if the UK sat out WW1 - to which you replied.....

Germany conquers Europe and gains control over every fleet on the continent.

They finish not only their Dreadnoughts and Battle Cruisers but the Russian, French and Italians ones as well and in, short order, sink the British fleet and invade the Isles reducing the English to slavery like they did the rest of the continent. Maybe even worse since the British were hated more than anyone other than the French

And you then claim my post was devoid of all logic and reason!!!

Its much more likely that in such a situation Germany and Britain would simply......trade with each other once the fighting had stopped.....in many respects little different to the 1870 kick up.

And yes of course as in OTL Britain like for many centuries before and the century since has opposed any hegemony in Europe - so I would agree with you its incredibly unlikely that such 'Neutrality' could occur....but that's not what the OP was asking is it now?

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

The Central Powers win by 1916. at the latest. All in all I'd suspect that it would be largely considered the "2nd Franco-Prussian war", with Germany annexing Briey-Longwy after the war and carving out at lest Poland and Lithuania from the Russians. No revolution takes place in Russia in all likelyhood.

Germany is the master of the Continent, while the British leadership of the time gets praised for having the good sense to avoid getting involved in the Continental slaughter, and in doing so preserved the superower status of Britain for at least another century.

Agreed. The US remains incredibly powerful and isolationist but maintains close political and economic ties with the UK. The UK ties itself to the US as a deterrent to Germany while all three nations are wary of Tzarist Russia, still powerful in eastern Europe. I think the biggest losers in this scenario are France who's power is diminished and the Ottomans who suddenly find themselves in the way of middle-eastern German and Russian expansion and having turned their back on the British and French as allies.

 

[marathag]

I guess the British Elite knew pretty soon that the never will be able to challenge the rise of the USA. Germany on the other hand was an easy target. Two enemies on both sides, bad geographic situation, newcomer on the stage....compare that with the USA and it becomes quite obvious why it was Germany in the end.

The USA could be lived with, as US/UK relations after 1815 pretty much was like Churchill's 'Jaw jaw and not War War' with the planets longest undefended Border vis Canada, and still made mutually beneficial commercial agreements and Trade where even there were disputes.

Not so much with Germany.

By time of the Samoan crisis, it was pretty obvious that the UK would choose the USA first.

 

[LordKalvert]

And your hand wavium defeat of the Royal Navy and successful invasion of Britain is entirely full of Logic and reason?

Any attempted invasion of Britain is going to involve a number of Sea Battles with the worlds largest Navy (and yes despite grabbing other nations navies it would still be materially more powerful) - which will result in either yet another inconclusive fleet action and therefore no invasion or more unlikely the HSF will actually engage the GF which will be larger than OTL and the Germans will lose and therefore still no invasion.

My point about occupied ship yards was in response to the HSF getting sunk "in battle" and needing to be replaced - not the RN conducting port raids - which you have some how inferred!

The OP asked what would happen if the UK sat out WW1 - to which you replied.....




And you then claim my post was devoid of all logic and reason!!!

Its much more likely that in such a situation Germany and Britain would simply......trade with each other once the fighting had stopped.....in many respects little different to the 1870 kick up.

And yes of course as in OTL Britain like for many centuries before and the century since has opposed any hegemony in Europe - so I would agree with you its incredibly unlikely that such 'Neutrality' could occur....but that's not what the OP was asking is it now?

Yeah talk about devoid of logic. First, there's no need to invade Britain, although that's child's play for the Germans once they sink the British fleet.

First, control over the continent would allow them to shut off Britain's trade just like Napoleon's Continental System did. It would be quite effective in destroying Britain's economic base

Second, the German fleet would within three years be so massive as to guarantee a victory over Britain

Third, given the way Britain had treated the Germans over the years and that no great power ever plays second fiddle, the two Empires will come to blows

Of course, the British government at the time understood all these things quite clearly, unlike the dreamers at this site, and decided to fight but if you want to believe the fairy tale that only concern for the rights of the poor Belgians had anything to do with it, go right ahead

 

[LordKalvert]

The USA could be lived with, as US/UK relations after 1815 pretty much was like Churchill's 'Jaw jaw and not War War' with the planets longest undefended Border vis Canada, and still made mutually beneficial commercial agreements and Trade where even there were disputes.

Not so much with Germany.

By time of the Samoan crisis, it was pretty obvious that the UK would choose the USA first.

The difference was that the Americans couldn't really be fought but the Germans were a menace to the existence of Britain herself.

British policy had been set for centuries- maintain a balance on the continent so that the continental powers would watch each other and spend huge sums on their armies and nothing on their navies. This is how Britain got the position she got.

Just as she had fought Spain, France and anyone else who threatened to gain hegemony on the continent, the British would fight the Germans to prevent their rise. Everyone understood

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Yeah talk about devoid of logic. First, there's no need to invade Britain, although that's child's play for the Germans once they sink the British fleet.

First, control over the continent would allow them to shut off Britain's trade just like Napoleon's Continental System did. It would be quite effective in destroying Britain's economic base

Second, the German fleet would within three years be so massive as to guarantee a victory over Britain

Third, given the way Britain had treated the Germans over the years and that no great power ever plays second fiddle, the two Empires will come to blows

Of course, the British government at the time understood all these things quite clearly, unlike the dreamers at this site, and decided to fight but if you want to believe the fairy tale that only concern for the rights of the poor Belgians had anything to do with it, go right ahead

Your ideas are pretty far out from reality. What you assume would happen goes even beyond what the German plan in the Septemberprogramm stated. None of which includes your suggested 'occupation of all of Northern France' or 'seizure of the French fleet' (which how are they doing this again? The Fleet would scuttle itself or mutiny and sail to Britain before they let that happen, it would be a point of national pride). They planned to bankrupt France through a massive 10 billion Reichsmarks indemnity, not wantonly stealing everything that wasn't nailed down (which would be impractical).

Since this hypothetical necessarily involves no invasion of Belgium they can't add those plans from the Septemberprogamm either. Not to mention they are going to have to militarily prop up their puppet states in Eastern Europe during this time.

In short your ideas are pretty beyond what even the Germans envisioned, and assume 100% German success in all their post war endeavors. Which is just unlikely, leading your conclusion to be pretty flawed.

 

[wcv215]

Yeah talk about devoid of logic. First, there's no need to invade Britain, although that's child's play for the Germans once they sink the British fleet.

First, control over the continent would allow them to shut off Britain's trade just like Napoleon's Continental System did. It would be quite effective in destroying Britain's economic base.

And we all know how well that worked out for Napolean. Not to mention that shutting Britain out from European trade won't destroy their economic base, it will hurt of course, but a certain other important country can still flip Germany the bird and trade with whomever it damn well pleases, including Britain. And why would Germany shut down trade exactly?

Second, the German fleet would within three years be so massive as to guarantee a victory over Britain

Haha, oh wait, you're serious. Where is this magic German fleet coming from. Germany will be in the middle of recovering from the war, and trying to hold down a vast amount of territory, while also propping up their allies. To do this it must maintain its army, and given the MASSIVE gap between British and German shipbuilding capacity there is no way Germany can maintain European hegemony while also conducting a heightened naval race with Britain. OTL Britain was well ahead in the dreadnaught race without facing a major opponent (the OTL naval "race" was a publicity stunt to get more funding for the Navy not a true race.)

And the idea that France and Russia will simply surrender their fleets, or that Italy and Austria will sail their fleets past British positions to help Germany invade the British Isles is absurd.

Finally, remember this mythical fleet have crews and officers. Britain has both, Germany does not.

Third, given the way Britain had treated the Germans over the years and that no great power ever plays second fiddle, the two Empires will come to blows

Most likely at some point, but it's also likely Germany grows too confident and challenges a certain other nation, or that a further war between the two powers draws in a certain other power the same way Germany did OTL.

Of course, the British government at the time understood all these things quite clearly, unlike the dreamers at this site, and decided to fight but if you want to believe the fairy tale that only concern for the rights of the poor Belgians had anything to do with it, go right ahead

Of course Belgian independance wasn't the only reason, but that doesn't point to the likelyhood of Germany pulling off Sealion either.