WI Britain Stays Neutral?

[Black]

How would wwi have turned out if Britain hadn't joined?

You can use any PoD that you think if most plausible to give your analysis. It would be interesting to see the different ways this solution could be possible.

 

[Xgentis]

Joined what?

 

[Tongera]

Joined what?

The 1st World War.

 

[Black]

I know the war's start would likely be different as a PoD would probably be needed a few yeard before 1914 at leady.

 

[The Red]

I blogged about this a little while ago

British involvement was not inevitable, the German invasion of Belgium in an effort to attack weakly exposed northern France and win a speedy victory prompted the British to declare war on the Germans based on their historic agreement to defend Belgium from enemy invasion. Had Germany for instance focused on their Eastern Front against Russia, Britain may very well have remained neutral in the conflict.

So let's consider what would have happened. The guys from Glasgow, London, Manchester, and all parts of the British empire would remain in their low paid jobs, mining or building or fishing rather than digging trenches and searching for German sea mines. With none of their ships being sunk by German submarines the Americans would prefer to look the other way

With the full force of the German army directed against Russia, it is likely their weak armies would have collapsed even quicker than in reality. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin would bring about revolution in similar conditions. Russia would have exited the First World War and collapsed into its own Civil War even faster, after signing away large parts of eastern Europe in exchange for peace, which would be incorporated into Germany or ran as German puppet states.

With the wealth flowing from their new empire in Eastern Europe the Germans could finally switch to the offensive against the French, now fighting alone, outnumbered and outgunned. They might hold out for a year or two, perhaps surrendering in 1918. A peace conference may then have been held at Versailles, where the French would have terms dictated to them.

The popular uprisings caused by the weakness of the old empires fighting each other being avoided, Britain could maintain a firm hold on Ireland, the events of Easter Sunday in 1916 likely avoided. Wary of a communist state on her new borders, Germany would likely have intervened in the Russian revolution and crushed the communists, setting up a pro-German puppet regime with a new Tsar.

A victorious Germany would have never had the discontent that led to the rise of Hitler, if he even survived the war, he would have been stuck making paranoid speeches to fellow German troops occupying northern France. America would remain weak, and although it would become more powerful, it would never experience the growth it gained from large loans to Britain. Russia falling under a fascist regime and half destroyed would never become the superpower that was the Soviet Union.

Instead the 20th century would have avoided the second world war altogether most likely, and would instead be a Cold War between the British and German Empires, both of whom would likely acquire nuclear weapons at some point. Anybody who likes the Beatles or Rammstein would be disappointed by the fact that both states would remain conservative and reactionary, lacking the upheavals of the twentieth century.

The Liberals and Conservative would remain dominant in British politics, if you like the idea of an NHS you might have to move to Germany, Labour would be about as relevant as the Lib Dems today. What about an independent Scotland? Don't be silly, there's no-one politically strong enough to fight for it. The Irish of course had their own devolution, but the British already had a proud tradition of ignoring Irish calls for independence. You might however see 70-odd Sinn Fein MP's abstaining from Parliament rather than just 6 however.

 

[sparky42]

I blogged about this a little while ago

I think you might be optimistic about Ireland. If the Empire stays out of WW1 that means Home Rule in 1914, which most likely means some sort of issue with Ulster. After the Curragh Mutiny could you see the Irish based officers replaced? And since you'd had the Larne Gun Running only months before the outbreak of WW1 would there be any interference in the internal matter by one of the WW1 belligerents?

Either way while there wouldn't be the 1916 Rising and subsequent War of Independence, it would be hard for a non involved UK to put off implementation of the 3rd Home Rule Act which as I said would bring other Irish issues.

 

[The Red]

I think you might be optimistic about Ireland. If the Empire stays out of WW1 that means Home Rule in 1914, which most likely means some sort of issue with Ulster. After the Curragh Mutiny could you see the Irish based officers replaced? And since you'd had the Larne Gun Running only months before the outbreak of WW1 would there be any interference in the internal matter by one of the WW1 belligerents?

Either way while there wouldn't be the 1916 Rising and subsequent War of Independence, it would be hard for a non involved UK to put off implementation of the 3rd Home Rule Act which as I said would bring other Irish issues.

I admit the stuff on Ireland is pretty broad, the principle of Ireland remaining in the UK isn't that unlikely though.

 

[sparky42]

I admit the stuff on Ireland is pretty broad, the principle of Ireland remaining in the UK isn't that unlikely though.

I think it would depend on how the Home Rule was implemented, though it includes huge variables.

How does Ulster react to it passing?
Does the UVF carry out it's threat to resist?
If they do what happens?
If they don't then Home Rule Ireland is much stronger than OTL

How does the Irish Parliamentary Party transform itself into a home rule Dublin Party?
How well does the Dublin parties administer the nation?
How much/What type of investment goes on in Ireland after Home Rule?
Can the economic mistakes leading to economic and population decline be averted (ie no War of Independence, Civil War, Economic Trade War to mention a few)

If the IPP got Home Rule SF is unlikely to become the dominate force they did post Rising, and given that by the end of the 20th century even assuming no better conditions in Ireland than OTL, Ireland would be the largest nation after England in population terms so who knows what policy decisions would have been made.

Could you see a Dominion of Ireland arising out of Home Rule in the mid 20th Century

 

[Hörnla]

British involvement was not inevitable, the German invasion of Belgium in an effort to attack weakly exposed northern France and win a speedy victory prompted the British to declare war on the Germans based on their historic agreement to defend Belgium from enemy invasion. Had Germany for instance focused on their Eastern Front against Russia, Britain may very well have remained neutral in the conflict.

I agree. Under such circumstances, it would not be guaranteed, but well possible.

With the full force of the German army directed against Russia, it is likely their weak armies would have collapsed even quicker than in reality. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin would bring about revolution in similar conditions. Russia would have exited the First World War and collapsed into its own Civil War even faster, after signing away large parts of eastern Europe in exchange for peace, which would be incorporated into Germany or ran as German puppet states.

This is a possible course of events, but not a given. It would most certainly take the Germans and Austrians years to wear down the Russian Army. The revolution is not a certainty. The earlier peace comes, the better are the chances for the monarchy, resp. the republic, to survive.
Also, under less desparate conditions, the Germans might be disinclined to shove Lenin into Russia, which would be a game-changer, too.

With the wealth flowing from their new empire in Eastern Europe

*cough* You mean once the burden of the Eastern Front is lifted. Such an empire in the East would not pay that glorious dividends.

They might hold out for a year or two, perhaps surrendering in 1918. A peace conference may then have been held at Versailles, where the French would have terms dictated to them.

One should note that the French, without major allies, might be inclined to offer acceptable peace conditions, perhaps mediated by London as a "honest broker" à la Bismarck.
Wise moves aren't Germany's specialty in 14-18, but to accept a cheap peace with France and acceptance of free reign in the Balkans and Eastern Europe would be wise. Fighting down the French on the 1871-border would be costly.

A victorious Germany would have never had the discontent that led to the rise of Hitler, if he even survived the war, he would have been stuck making paranoid speeches to fellow German troops occupying northern France.

Thank you, very true. Without defeat, Hitler would not even make speeches to his comrades. Only defeat and revolution led to a string of events which showed this misfit that he had a rhetoric gift and political ambition.

and would instead be a Cold War between the British and German Empires, both of whom would likely acquire nuclear weapons at some point.

Both of whom would be very busy keeping their spheres of influence intact. Germany would still be unable to keep a rump-Russia subdued as a puppet. And this Russia would still be a country with huge potential. Same goes for the USA, their industrial and financial power even before 1914 runs contrary to them being underestimated in Europe. Then there are Japan and China...

Anybody who likes the Beatles or Rammstein would be disappointed by the fact that both states would remain conservative and reactionary, lacking the upheavals of the twentieth century.

Strange bedfellows, those bands. But although they will of course be butterflied away, you underestimate the vibrant cultural scene of the world at the eve of the First World War. Also, this war would already by an immense upheaval by the standards of the time, also giving "inspiration" and pushing boundaries.
Cultural products and styles might be different, but would still modernize in a different way.

 

[Roisterer]

I think the Germans would find it hard to hold on to all of Russia, even if they install a puppet Tsar. They might constantly have to intervene to prop him up. Russia might even split up between a (German puppet) Tsarist part, a white (warlord) part, and a Red part.

As to the conservatism in Britain and Germany, that's a maybe. The British Labour party and German SPD are very much around before the war. This WWI will still cause large debts. As a neutral, Britain will enjoy an economic boom, which will then turn into a recession of unpaid bills once the war is over. Germany will not get the expected economic dividend. So socialist parties may still make gains in the early 20s in both countries, without ever gaining enough momentum to form governments.

The wild card is the Kaiser, with his prestige intact. Would he overplay his hand even more?

Regards

R

 

[Jason222]

Germany vicotry is likley outcome without France simple likley just plan over runned.

 

[33k7]

If Britain stays out of the war France will stay out of the war and the Czar of Russia will say it was nice knowing you kingdom of Serbia.

It would kind of be a chain reaction.

Austria-Hungary invades Serbia with the Kingdom of Bulgaria probably coming in to.

This would probably delay World War I until some other crisis happens.

 

[Tyr]

I don't see how Britain could stay out of it too long.
If Russia does collapse against the Germans then you wouldn't see Britain just sitting around whilst Germany and Austria carve up the Russian empire. Things just weren't done so uniliaterally. Britain would want a say in things and try to act as a mediator- maybe the Germans would tell Britain to shove it which would bring them in....

Assuming Germany goes against Russia first and doesn't invade Belgium...I wonder where that would leave the western front.
France would likely be on the offensive to save Russia whilst the heavy German troops in west try and hold them. Things may not be pretty for France, they could knock themselves out of the war whilst the allies are actively giving Russia a kicking.

One thought that came to me- what if France is the one who decides to invade Belgium so as to flank the Germans?
Britain is clearly not going to go to war against France but still, that would leave them in an interesting position.

I think you might be optimistic about Ireland. If the Empire stays out of WW1 that means Home Rule in 1914, which most likely means some sort of issue with Ulster. After the Curragh Mutiny could you see the Irish based officers replaced? And since you'd had the Larne Gun Running only months before the outbreak of WW1 would there be any interference in the internal matter by one of the WW1 belligerents?

Either way while there wouldn't be the 1916 Rising and subsequent War of Independence, it would be hard for a non involved UK to put off implementation of the 3rd Home Rule Act which as I said would bring other Irish issues.

The big factor for Ireland I'd see wouldn't be the indefinate delay of the home rule act, no easter rising, etc... but rather that the loyalists wouldn't lose a huge chunk of their young men.

Assuming ASBs making it so a civil war still kicks off in Ireland it would be a very different affair with there being so many loyalists around.

 

[Hörnla]

If Britain stays out of the war France will stay out of the war and the Czar of Russia will say it was nice knowing you kingdom of Serbia.

It would kind of be a chain reaction.

That depends on the POD. OTL, France and Russia could Not Count on Britain the Way they did on each other. Nevertheless, they got themselves into the war. I am certain that they assumed that while an Active Britain would Be preferable, Britain As a benevolent neutral would Be sufficient. This is Not 1938.

A comparison of Forces would confirm that - it was their Bad that the Germans had better doctrine, leadership and better Equipment where it proved important (Siege artillery in the West, Communications at Tannenberg). At least the First two factors would of course Be denied by French General staffers. ;-)

###

A "Germany goes East" Scenario would still See a deployment of at least half the German Army in A-L. The war would Be frustrating on the French to say the least, but Count on the Germans to squander manpower in counterattacks.

###

Britain As a wildcard and probable mediator would Be interesting. How that plays out is a matter of Personal Taste IMHO.

 

[MSchock]

How would wwi have turned out if Britain hadn't joined?

You can use any PoD that you think if most plausible to give your analysis. It would be interesting to see the different ways this solution could be possible.

Hello,

Britain will not stay neutral. From the british pov they have to strike. So you only could talk about a delay. Even with france invading belgium, UK will stay with the french and russians.

 

[baldy46]

Hello,

Britain will not stay neutral. From the british pov they have to strike....

I've wondered about the HAVE to. I don't think they were bound by treaty. What I've heard through the grapevine is that they thought the Germans were getting "uppitty" and had to be put in their place, which was not projected to be all that hard. The British Army and Navy were thought to be the best in the world and the Russian hordes would pin down large numbers of Germans. If military victory did not come, the economy would collapse. If worst came to worst, the Germans would run out of ammunition because the British Navy would block German access to the Chilean nitrate deposits, which were used in those days to make ammunition.

Assuming Britain stays neutral, WWI basically is a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war. Russia and Germany sign a "temporary" truce which turns out to be permanent or as permanent as treaties are.

 

[MSchock]

I've wondered about the HAVE to. I don't think they were bound by treaty. What I've heard through the grapevine is that they thought the Germans were getting "uppitty" and had to be put in their place, which was not projected to be all that hard. The British Army and Navy were thought to be the best in the world and the Russian hordes would pin down large numbers of Germans. If military victory did not come, the economy would collapse. If worst came to worst, the Germans would run out of ammunition because the British Navy would block German access to the Chilean nitrate deposits, which were used in those days to make ammunition.

Assuming Britain stays neutral, WWI basically is a repeat of the Franco-Prussian war. Russia and Germany sign a "temporary" truce which turns out to be permanent or as permanent as treaties are.

Hello,

as far as i read (beside the propaganda lies) the facts are
Germany was stronger economically as Great Britain
Germany had a much stronger army
Germany had a strong navy (even if in 1912 the "race" ended)
GB belived in balance of powers - so in a war germany against x it has to support x. If x is france it has to bring its army. Why? GB cannot be sure that germany will not get channel ports or - worse - atlantic ports from france. With this - at last this was the thinking in that time - germany is a real danger to british sea lanes.

So, with the war france/russia versus germany/austria germany wins. This win means that russia is weakened (from british pov this sound good), but also france. with nobody at the continent usable as a weapon against germany, great britian gives up.

Sure, with 20/20 this would be the best solution for great britain, in 1914 the british government thought different.

result: great britain will (fast) join france and russia. Even with france violationg belgium or the netherlands. so with no plot in - say 1880 - great britain allways will join the entente in this war

biggest failure of british politics in this time was not to declare this openly.