Q: Would the CP have considered an eventual attempt of invasion of the UK if France would have quickly fallen in 1914?

[weasel_airlift]

The only way Germany would consider an invasion of the UK would be if they had already somehow had a smashing victory over the RN, reducing the fleet disparity to at least 50/50. This is... not impossible, but would require luck for the Germans and intense bungling for the British.

I'm not sure how much bungling. Consider:

France gets smashed. Italy jumps in shortly before the end to get some morsels at the table. Med is now a CP lake, but the RN can't simply let that go...they have to send some reinforcement. Italy and A-H have a good 6 dreadnoughts, with Goeben hanging around as well. That's not an insignificant amount of ships, and doing nothing is not a possibility.

That said, invasion is still not happening. My point is more that it isn't hard to force the RN to make some very hard decisions.

 

[Dominic]

I'm not sure how much bungling. Consider:

France gets smashed. Italy jumps in shortly before the end to get some morsels at the table. Med is now a CP lake, but the RN can't simply let that go...they have to send some reinforcement. Italy and A-H have a good 6 dreadnoughts, with Goeben hanging around as well. That's not an insignificant amount of ships, and doing nothing is not a possibility.

That said, invasion is still not happening. My point is more that it isn't hard to force the RN to make some very hard decisions.

If France was knocked out it's extremely hard to see the RN diverting any forces to the Med, especially if the Italian fleet is in against them. Egypt or some other Mediterranean interest is not worth much if Britain itself is attacked and occupied. Britain will abandon its Empire very quickly if the homeland is threatened, just as it did in WW2. Such a scenario is a clear German win anyway, before substantial British losses - they'd negotiate very quickly.

There are a number of ways to make the RN make hard choices, but they are 'hard' because they involve abandoning peripheral interests such as the Med or some other body of water not adjacent to the UK. The RN will always stand there if it's threatened. IMO they have to face actual defeat in battle.

 

[weasel_airlift]

If France was knocked out it's extremely hard to see the RN diverting any forces to the Med, especially if the Italian fleet is in against them. Egypt or some other Mediterranean interest is not worth much if Britain itself is attacked and occupied. Britain will abandon its Empire very quickly if the homeland is threatened, just as it did in WW2. Such a scenario is a clear German win anyway, before substantial British losses - they'd negotiate very quickly.

I agree with you on that, though I would ask, would the RN have enough disrespect for the Italian and A-H fleets to just send some pre-dreadnought and call it good? Suez and Malta are not insignificant prizes. (I do not count Gibraltar as at risk)

 

[ArtosStark]

I agree with you on that, though I would ask, would the RN have enough disrespect for the Italian and A-H fleets to just send some pre-dreadnought and call it good? Suez and Malta are not insignificant prizes. (I do not count Gibraltar as at risk)

Not likely. The RN had been watching the Italian and Austrian Navies closely pre-war, as they could not rule out the possibility of fighting the entire Triple Alliance. They are not likely to believe that a few pre-dreadnoughts would be enough to take on the Austrian and Italian Dreadnoughts, unless (maybe) they had a considerable superiority in numbers (like 3 to one at least), and even that is unlikely.

 

[weasel_airlift]

Not likely. The RN had been watching the Italian and Austrian Navies closely pre-war, as they could not rule out the possibility of fighting the entire Triple Alliance. They are not likely to believe that a few pre-dreadnoughts would be enough to take on the Austrian and Italian Dreadnoughts, unless (maybe) they had a considerable superiority in numbers (like 3 to one at least), and even that is unlikely.

Oh, I didn't mean a few. At least 50% more, which is easy enough. The Lord Nelsons and the Wobblies should give 10, along with suitable escorts, two or three flotillas of destroyers, a couple of light or protected cruisers, maybe a couple of armored cruisers, or the Swiftsure and Triumph.

 

[ArtosStark]

Oh, I didn't mean a few. At least 50% more, which is easy enough. The Lord Nelsons and the Wobblies should give 10, along with suitable escorts, two or three flotillas of destroyers, a couple of light or protected cruisers, maybe a couple of armored cruisers, or the Swiftsure and Triumph.

By WW1 a ships ability to fight other heavy ships was measured by the number of big rifles they carried. By their nature Pre-dreads carried about 4x 12". The latest Italian and Austrian Dreadnoughts carried 11 or 12. In theory, a group of three Pre-dreads could match a single dreadnought if they were well enough trained in coordinated firing. But only just. They would be outmatched in speed (an important consideration for the RN at the time), and would probably have inferior fire control equipment, leading to an inferior practical firing range. They would also require considerably more resources to keep fighting than their opponents would.

The British would need at minimum a 3-to-1 local superiority in numbers to make this considerable. Even then, the squadron of pre-dreads would probably still be considered inferior to a single dreadnought in many respects. 3 Ships was considered the maximum that could be grouped for cooperative firing, so you may be looking at needing two 3-ship squadrons per dreadnought (a 6-to-one ratio) for this to be considered feasible, if the Admiralty are feeling conservative, which they likely are in this situation.

 

[Catspoke]

When the OP mentioned "knocked out", what does that mean??? Its hard to believe 1914 France would settle for a 1940 style armistice. Russia is still in (and Britain) and they can get better terms together.

So I would expect the French fleet to be still in, in this "knocked out" scenario, and perhaps the French still fighting in the south of France or at least North Africa.

Italy would remain neutral now in this TL. Although I certainly see them badgering the French for concessions while the French are weak.

I assume the Russians have still beat the Austrians in Galicia, so the Germans would still want to take 1915 to handle Russia and Serbia, starting to transfer significant troops as early as late October 1914 east. I assume the Germans would still bring the Ottomans in, once the figure out Russia and Britain aren't making peace.

So presumably 1916 rolls around, the French are beaten, the Russians are pushed back further than OTL, assume Riga, Minsk and Zhitomir are Central Powers occupied. And yet the Allies don't want to make peace.

Germany might consider the possibilities of an invasion, at the very least maintain the threat of one to keep the overextended British fleet occupied with channel defense. The risk/reward for an invasion is still out of place though.

If the Germans occupy the Biscay ports a conventional prize rule commerce war becomes very easy for the Germans, and they may well want to take prizes, as well doing as blockade running, Italy is still an open blockade hole, so the Germans are less desperate here, don't need to do unrestricted submarine warfare.

Note: I expect the Belgians at least will reach some armistice with Germany once their country is occupied by 1914 (which might help the Germans in East Africa).
Once the Russians are pushed back in 1915, I would think the French facing a multi year occupation, the population probably hungry and suffering are going to be pressing their Allies for an armistice by 1916.

Faced with these threats the British sometime in 1916 would accept an armistice where they don't have any colonial losses themselves and the Germans are off the Belgian and French coasts.

 

[I want to learn]

Oh, I didn't mean a few. At least 50% more, which is easy enough. The Lord Nelsons and the Wobblies should give 10, along with suitable escorts, two or three flotillas of destroyers, a couple of light or protected cruisers, maybe a couple of armored cruisers, or the Swiftsure and Triumph.

By WW1 a ships ability to fight other heavy ships was measured by the number of big rifles they carried. By their nature Pre-dreads carried about 4x 12". The latest Italian and Austrian Dreadnoughts carried 11 or 12. In theory, a group of three Pre-dreads could match a single dreadnought if they were well enough trained in coordinated firing. But only just. They would be outmatched in speed (an important consideration for the RN at the time), and would probably have inferior fire control equipment, leading to an inferior practical firing range. They would also require considerably more resources to keep fighting than their opponents would.

The British would need at minimum a 3-to-1 local superiority in numbers to make this considerable. Even then, the squadron of pre-dreads would probably still be considered inferior to a single dreadnought in many respects. 3 Ships was considered the maximum that could be grouped for cooperative firing, so you may be looking at needing two 3-ship squadrons per dreadnought (a 6-to-one ratio) for this to be considered feasible, if the Admiralty are feeling conservative, which they likely are in this situation.

What is the Royal Navy trying to accomplish at the time? The minefield, submarine, and coastal-fort combination backed up by a (very) small surface fleet was very effective on the defensive. Malta, Gibralter, and Suez could be held by minimal commitment of battleships.

 

[weasel_airlift]

What is the Royal Navy trying to accomplish at the time? The minefield, submarine, and coastal-fort combination backed up by a (very) small surface fleet was very effective on the defensive. Malta, Gibralter, and Suez could be held by minimal commitment of battleships.

I'd say that Gibraltar needs no surface assist, though some torpedo boats or destroyers are a good thing to have.

Malta has a decent amount of fortifications, so a couple of guardships would make the place more trouble than it's worth.

Suez (Well, Alexandria) is where I would post the fleet. Minefields and subs out of there too, hoping for the best.

 

[Dominic]

I agree with you on that, though I would ask, would the RN have enough disrespect for the Italian and A-H fleets to just send some pre-dreadnought and call it good? Suez and Malta are not insignificant prizes. (I do not count Gibraltar as at risk)

The Italian navy alone will run rings around British pre-dreds, and with Austria-Hungary it'd be more efficient for the RN to just drown the sailors themselves. The best way to preserve Suez is to negotiate quickly. A CP Italy sounds like the war ended in late 1914 or early 1915, and while 1914 was incredibly bloody it was not so long that the British will have a difficult time throwing the French under the bus and preserving their Empire, and I doubt the Italians would have contributed enough for the Germans to support them taking Egypt... unless the British resist long enough that they can just outright occupy it.

 

[Catsmate]

The Easter uprising received little support from the general population. It was only after the British executed the ringleaders that it became a rallying point. if they are actively working with the Germans that's a different matter. It should also be pointed that the Irish Catholics Divisions serving in the Army did not exactly rise up in protest or mutiny after the Easter Uprising. The British control the Irish ports, smuggling a few fishing trawlers worth of small arms but you aren't going to ship arms en masse. Also there are plenty of Loyalists the British would be only too happy to arm them. But this is all based off a two sentence OP that offered zero details of how this came about. There's no POD no details, so there's no way to construct any reasonable scenario.

That is a common misconception. The executions didn't greatly inflame public opinion, despite the 'received version' of some textbooks. It was the Conscription Crisis that united most of the factions in Ireland (Catholic/Protestant, Unionist/Nationalist, Conservative/Radical) and radicalised sentiments, especially after Gay and Collins adroitly used the British mishandling of the "German Plot" to decapitate the moderate wing of Sinn Féin.

 

[TRH]

That is a common misconception. The executions didn't greatly inflame public opinion, despite the 'received version' of some textbooks. It was the Conscription Crisis that united most of the factions in Ireland (Catholic/Protestant, Unionist/Nationalist, Conservative/Radical) and radicalised sentiments, especially after Gay and Collins adroitly used the British mishandling of the "German Plot" to decapitate the moderate wing of Sinn Féin.

Thoughts on my theory that Ireland ITTL becomes a problem because continuing the war without any hope of victory will be seen as a pretext for continued foot-dragging on Home Rule implementation?

 

[James Ricker]

WWI era subs? The fishing trawlers would be a better bet.

Subs meeting with fishing trawlers at sea and the trawlers coming back to Port with the weapons hidden under the fish

 

[Lexijag]

Not sure where you get the RN figure of 22 from, but if you start in 1914 and include the French BBs under construction (16! - really?) then you should also add all of the RN ships completed or planned during the war.

Alternatively, we know the French postponed then cancelled the Normandies (with exception of Bearn as CV) as the factory building the turrets was occupied by the Germans, and they had other higher priorities for use of resources, hence the Lyon-class being cancelled in 1914. The first French dreadnoughts were pretty awful, roughly on the par with the Nassau-class in HSF.

Take Gibraltar? As the British proved, this wasn't quite the age for amphibious assault, and Spain really wasn't interested in joining either side.

Link. https://warandsecurity.com/2014/08/04/the-naval-balance-of-power-in-1914/

 

[Catsmate]

Thoughts on my theory that Ireland ITTL becomes a problem because continuing the war without any hope of victory will be seen as a pretext for continued foot-dragging on Home Rule implementation?

Predicates.
1. The Home Rule issue is complicated and was heading towards a civil war in 1914 before events in Sarajevo and elsewhere saved the day.
2. The Irish Parliamentary Party (far and away the largest political faction in southern Ireland in the period) were generally supportive of the war, on the understanding that this would lead to an all-Ireland state with autonomy within the UK. This support extended to most of the populace (e.g. the IVF/NVF split)
3. "Home Rule" in 1914 was not independence. It was legislative autonomy within the United Kingdom. This was acceptable to most, with many considering this a step towards full independence.

So let us postulate the Central Powers achieve a quick victory in 1914. Now this will almost certainly require several divergences from history as we know it. Perhaps Essen does attack Sweden , Gibbs McAdoo was killed at Depot Street, Churchill was killed at Sidney Street and the Haldane Reforms are screwed up, leaving the UK somewhat unable to intervene in mainland Europe 1914.

So Germany knocks out France, perhaps following the original plan and letting the French bleed themselves, followed by a thrust at Paris that works. The rail network is severed, the coal and iron fields are taken, and the Germans take the channel ports before there's a significant UK presence. France will sue for peace and the war ends early in 1915 (I used a variation on this in my EDCverse).

Does the UK continue to fight the war? Well the terrifying prospect of a German controlled continent faces them. But what can they do? An invasion of France (or Germany) seems utterly impossible. There will be a vast Invasion Scare, far worse than previously, and the army will be deployed defensively. The RN may engage in a blockade and/or commerce raiding but that seems unlikely to work (especially given the state of the US economy given my divergence points) but this looks like a losing tactic. They may continue to support Russia, but given the available forces after France is knocked-out of the war that empire is probably doomed also.
Also remember this isn't 1918, the war has ended (as many expected) quickly. Yes there are many, many, dead but not the levels of four years later. Peace settlements can probably be found.

If the UK ends the war then Ireland will be restive. There will be a rapid diminution in support. The war is over and there are other matters to deal with. I could see a form of partition enacted (on a "temporary" basis) with a four county NI state created, perhaps with it's own parliament. Sans the Nine Days Insurrection and the Anglo-Irish War there won't be as much support for the NI state within the rest of the UK. Worst case scenario is open warfare in NEU with "involuntary population movements".
The later implications are fascinating. Will there be a RotPA18 analogue? Will the Labour party's rise be delayed? Will this contribute to revolutionary fervour? The situation will not be as bad as 1918-19 when historically Britain faced large scale unrest and the prospect of revolution but the stresses are still there.
In this case I suspect there will be extensive German interest in Ireland for the next war, preparations for which will begin a couple of days after an armistice is signed.

If the UK continued the war then Ireland will also be restive, there will be a rapid diminution in support. The war is effectively over and there are other matters to deal with. Germany may well attempt to meddle, for basing opportunities at least. I can see a naval war, with raiding and colonial actions, continuing. However I can also see Germany meddling in restive British colonies, necessitating troop deployments around the world. Eventually this will probably peter out. Might there be a Kalterkrieg of sorts as Germany reorganises Europe and everyone prepares for the Next Great War?

As for a German invasion of the UK, frankly this is pretty ludicrous. Barring the nullification of the RN the idea of an opposed landing on such a scale will be rapidly discarded.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Link. https://warandsecurity.com/2014/08/04/the-naval-balance-of-power-in-1914/

From the link: -

France has 4 dreadnoughts with 8 building
Britain has 22 with 13 building - and another 9 battlecruisers (+ 1 building) that the French don't have.

So how you compare 21(??) for Britain and 16 (??) for France I have no idea.

It is either 22 to 4 or 35 to 12.

Also note France has 6 semi-dreadnoughts - Agamemnon & Lord Nelson were better, and the "Wobbly Eight" comparable to, but assume these are lumped into the RN predreadnought strength.

 

[Lexijag]

From the link: -

France has 4 dreadnoughts with 8 building
Britain has 22 with 13 building - and another 9 battlecruisers (+ 1 building) that the French don't have.

So how you compare 21(??) for Britain and 16 (??) for France I have no idea.

It is either 22 to 4 or 35 to 12.

Also note France has 6 semi-dreadnoughts - Agamemnon & Lord Nelson were better, and the "Wobbly Eight" comparable to, but assume these are lumped into the RN predreadnought strength.

Add in German. French. Ah. Italy.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Add in German. French. Ah. Italy.

Difference being that all of the British battleships under construction were completed and serving by 1918 with one exception (Resistance) and two completed as BC's.

Germany didn't finish two of the 15"-battleships, France cancelled the Normandie and her sisters, the Austrians remained stuck on 4 dreadnoughts all war. All found more vital military areas to spend their resources on. If we have a land war that results in the overwhelming of France - and, as you impute, the full occupation of the French Channel & Atlantic coasts (something the Allies never thought of doing to Germany when latter prostrate at Versailles) - then I would suggest that Germany and the Central Powers have made their armies the top priority, and would be nowhere near fulfilling their naval construction ambitions.

 

[Veiovis]

Difference being that all of the British battleships under construction were completed and serving by 1918 with one exception (Resistance) and two completed as BC's.

Germany didn't finish two of the 15"-battleships, France cancelled the Normandie and her sisters, the Austrians remained stuck on 4 dreadnoughts all war. All found more vital military areas to spend their resources on. If we have a land war that results in the overwhelming of France - and, as you impute, the full occupation of the French Channel & Atlantic coasts (something the Allies never thought of doing to Germany when latter prostrate at Versailles) - then I would suggest that Germany and the Central Powers have made their armies the top priority, and would be nowhere near fulfilling their naval construction ambitions.

In this scenario France is knocked out within just a couple months of the War starts, which means Italy stays neutral/joins the CP and Russia is in deep, deep trouble. By early/mid 1915, right as mass mobilisation of the industry really kicks in, there would be little reason to throw the historic amounts of ressources into the army. Even assuming the eastern front is still active, your army production would outstrip supply througput anyways.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

In this scenario France is knocked out within just a couple months of the War starts, which means Italy stays neutral/joins the CP and Russia is in deep, deep trouble. By early/mid 1915, right as mass mobilisation of the industry really kicks in, there would be little reason to throw the historic amounts of ressources into the army. Even assuming the eastern front is still active, your army production would outstrip supply througput

A quick win in the west would suggest a surrender on terms less restrictive than Versailles - so handover of the French fleet and occupation of the Atlantic & Channel coasts seems even more unlikely. It's not May 1940 - especially as Germany still has an active eastern front so wants France out of the war quick - a peace that emasculates France risks rejection and an ongoing war on two fronts.