StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sea Skimmer wrote:If the British don’t enter the war then Italy probably never would either, and victory for the central powers would be more or less assured.

You don't think France and Russia could have found any other allies in absence of the U.K. ? Both government must have had backup plans if the U.K. had not agreed to their proposals.

Starglider wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:If the British don’t enter the war then Italy probably never would either, and victory for the central powers would be more or less assured.

You don't think France and Russia could have found any other allies in absence of the U.K. ? Both government must have had backup plans if the U.K. had not agreed to their proposals.

Who could that have been?

That said, if the Brits leap into the war in 1916, that assumes the Central Powers would not have won by that time already. I really doubt the French can hold out without the BEF. That is up to two million men missing on the French Front and over 5 million total. Granted, the British apparently were very badly-equipped, but bodies are bodies.

Starglider wrote: You don't think France and Russia could have found any other allies in absence of the U.K. ?

Well, like who? What other major power could they call on? There's nobody else of any consequence in Europe.

Both government must have had backup plans if the U.K. had not agreed to their proposals.

You would think so, though given the stupidity of those years there's no point in taking it for granted. We can't be sure the war even begins if Russia and France aren't sure where the British will jump, or if the reduced power of the Entente has any effect on how the Central powers conduct the war. Way too many variables.

Thanas wrote:That said, if the Brits leap into the war in 1916, that assumes the Central Powers would not have won by that time already. I really doubt the French can hold out without the BEF. That is up to two million men missing on the French Front and over 5 million total. Granted, the British apparently were very badly-equipped, but bodies are bodies.

For that matter, could the French have survived 1914? The BEF seems to have turned up at all the critical points during the campaign - advancing into the gap between 1st and 2nd Armies on the Marne, and blocking the right hook at 1st Ypres. Did the French have sufficient reserves to conduct those operations?

Captain Seafort wrote: For that matter, could the French have survived 1914? The BEF seems to have turned up at all the critical points during the campaign - advancing into the gap between 1st and 2nd Armies on the Marne, and blocking the right hook at 1st Ypres. Did the French have sufficient reserves to conduct those operations?

Possibly, assuming they don't throw away units in the Battle of the Frontiers as they did in the OTL. In all likelyhood however, no, probably not.

Thanas wrote: Who could that have been?

That said, if the Brits leap into the war in 1916, that assumes the Central Powers would not have won by that time already. I really doubt the French can hold out without the BEF. That is up to two million men missing on the French Front and over 5 million total. Granted, the British apparently were very badly-equipped, but bodies are bodies.

Around 160,000 bodies as I recall, vs. about 1.1 million mobilized Frenchmen. The French could easily just loose in August 1914, I was throwing out 1916 as the latest possible date they might hold out against total collapse and imposed terms of peace. If the French could hold past August then they would have good chance of clinging on on for a while, as the shell shortage kicks in. The French will likely not hold the coastline along Calais, which would be yet another reason for the British to jump in late, as would the appearance of a German fleet in the channel.

Without the BEF to reinforce the troops keeping the german army from flanking around the French main body in the aftermath of the first Marne battle, the infamous Race to the Sea, how likely would it have been for Schlieffen's plan to see some success after all?

Metahive wrote:Without the BEF to reinforce the troops keeping the german army from flanking around the French main body in the aftermath of the first Marne battle, the infamous Race to the Sea, how likely would it have been for Schlieffen's plan to see some success after all?

The German plan in August 1914 was not the Schlieffen plan, and it’s questionable that the Schlieffen plan could have ever been implemented because of the long distance over which some units would need to be supplied by horse drawn carts. But anyway the race to the sea wouldn’t happen, the French will hold a line roughly along the Somme or a bit north of it at best. They don’t have the troops to string out trying to link up with the Belgians. Also without the British more of the Belgian Army will be lost at Antwerp, and the units that escape may well be wiped out before they can retreat far enough south.

Which would leave the continental coast of the Channel in german hands, meaning any british troops later deployed in France would have to be supplied from further away, potentially even from the atlantic coast or, if the war ran spectacularly badly for the French from the Mediterranean and german submarines would gain safer access to the open Atlantic. I think it was join the war in 1914 for the British or not join it at all.

The British were pressured into commiting a large BEF to secure the French flanks due to political needs(France wanting a firm commitment of British interest and Britain abandonment of splendid isolation for allies/securing her flanks).

What happened if the British had committed to the war, but kept her engagement on the European front to a naval approach? Based on the Napoleanic wars, Britain could had easily constructed a naval blockade of Germany and comitted her armies to Iraq and other "secondary" theatres.

On one hand, such a strategy was going to be poor PR and unlike Wellington, the British army could no longer deploy small expeditionary forces on Germany flank due to the changing nature of ground warfare. But on the other, such a strategy could very well have kept British exposure to the war at a mimimal while contributing decisively to Germany defeat via the blockade.

No, the Brits couldn't have risked a repeat of Napoleon and end up with most of the continent arrayed against them once again, not with how dependent they were on the continental markets as customer by then. Napoleon also mostly failed because he commited several blunders, like enforcing the continental system, which enraged his allies, seizing Spain and invading Russia, which bound or wasted most of this troops, not because the blockade was all that effective a measure. Hoping that your enemy effectively defeats himself is not something you should build your strategy around.

PainRack wrote:On one hand, such a strategy was going to be poor PR and unlike Wellington, the British army could no longer deploy small expeditionary forces on Germany flank due to the changing nature of ground warfare. But on the other, such a strategy could very well have kept British exposure to the war at a mimimal while contributing decisively to Germany defeat via the blockade.

That assumes that after the Fall of France, Russia and Italy the blockade would not have been effective. Because if both fall, there really is not much britain can do. It will have to fight very hard to save Suez.

Furthermore, what is Britain going to do? Stop trade by neutrals to France and Italy - which is going to infuriate the USA even more than the blockade did - or try to seize their shipping? Also, let us not forget that Britain itself was hurting due to the U-boats, which of course would now be even more effective. Besides - what do you think Germany needs that she cannot get from Russia or France?

Because congratulations, you just handed the central Powers a pretty much unassailable continental position which allows them to built up their naval forces in relative security. It really is not a good way to wage a war.

Had the British Empire attempted to seriously develop it's overseas colonies in the beginning in the vein of a Rome or Mongolia, it probably would have lasted a much longer time.

As I'm fairly certain was mentioned in another thread, the problem with colonies after WW1, and especially after WW2 was that warfare and economics had both progressed to the point where they weren't really useful unless they were large and developed enough to have absolutely no reason to tolerate remaining colonies.

For an example, take someplace like Kenya. Sure, given a few months preparation time, it can turn out a regiment or three, but in an era of mechanized and aerial warfare, all that gives you is an extra few thousand bodies to bury. To get enough out of a colony to justify the cost of governing one, it has to be something on the order of India or Australia, at which point there's simply no way to hold on to it indefinately. Economically, it became much easier to simply sell things to newly-decolonized countries and save on operating costs, not to mention avoid all those unpleasant little wars that started cropping up after WW2. Look at the French in Algeria. They tried damned hard to hold it, pouring money and troops into the place, and still managed to be driven out - and this is after almost a century of settlement and developement. No, the colony's day was certainly done after WW2, and arguably as early as after WW1.

I am a bit curious as to exactly which overseas colonies Mongolia is supposed to have developed, but I'll assume you meant colonies in general. For future reference, 'Mongolia' generally refers to the modern nation, whereas 'Mongols' or 'Mongol Empire' is generally taken to me Ghengis Khan and Friends. Also, well done with the necromancy.

For that matter, the idea that the Mongols "developed colonies" at all strikes me as very odd. The Mongols' modus operandi usually involved invading and conquering territory outright and setting themselves up as the new rulership caste, with very little active 'development' going on. They didn't do very much building compared to the amount of stuff they burned down, as a rule.

By the time that started to change among some of the Mongol successor states (the Yuan Dynasty and the Indian Mughals come to mind), the "Mongol Empire" as a single concentrated power no longer existed in any meaningful sense. It had splintered into a number of smaller, more compact states ruled by elite classes who might claim Mongol ancestry but were totally assimilated into the local cultures (Chinese, Turkic/Persian, and so forth).

Granted, the British apparently were very badly-equipped

Are you referring to shell stockpiles, or something else?

As a general rule, either add a name so that whoever you're quoting can know they're being quoted and respond or quote enough for somebody else to answer the question. As it is, you've pulled a random half-sentence out of a two-month-dead thread and expect people to remember who said it, which is unlikely to happen.

i reckon this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Federation
might have included the the colonies more in the empire. i like to think what might have happend if the idea had become reality.

Artemas wrote:

Granted, the British apparently were very badly-equipped

Are you referring to shell stockpiles, or something else?

He could be referring to the fact that, at the beginning of the war, the British had very few mortars and machine guns. I remember reading that the standard was 2 machine guns per company, though I'm not very confident about that number.

France, Britain and Germany all had the same official scale of issue for machine guns in 1914; two per infantry battalion. A rifle company in 1914 had no supporting weapons AT ALL. Nothing but rifles, pistols, bayonets and swords. The hand grenade was not standard issue anywhere. The Germans gained an advantage however from controlling the machine guns at the regimental level, concentrating them at the decisive point of the regimental sector as needed. British and French units always kept them with respective battalions. That gave the Germans the impression of having more machine guns then they really did, in reality a considerable number of German reserve units had no machine guns at all. They also had many formations which were under strength in artillery.

The British were well equipped man for man, certainly better in artillery then the French as they had three 18pdr field gun battalions (called brigades because the British love inflating stuff, I dunno why) plus a heavy battalion with three 4.5in howitzer batteries and one 5in gun battery in the division. A French infantry division had nothing but 75mm.

The real problem was the BEF was just small, six infantry divisions and one cavalry division. Six batteries of siege guns were held at army level command. No corps artillery. This had to face up to a German force on the western front that amounts to seven complete armies. The Germans did have an advantage in mortars, but said mortars of varying were controlled by special engineer units and intended for sieges, rather then being infantry weapons as they would soon become in 1915 in all armies. As a side effect of this history the Germans made mortars that were really damn heavy throughout the war too, and rather expensive as a result, limiting the number that could be fielded and making them near impossible to move on foot. This worked out absurdly badly in 1918, wasn't a big deal in the rest of the war.

yeah, in 1914 Britain had one corps command, whereas germany had something like 36 and france 30. It didn't have the type of institutional room to grow rapidly, whe German and France were designed for that from the beginning.

The outcome of the 1st world war could had gone either way, Britain could had easily sided with the central powers, Russia and France were still seen as formidable naval powers, even victory over [Admiral Alfred von] Tirpitz’s newly powerful navy would be a Pyrrhic one, and a loss of ships could weaken it sufficiently to leave Britain in a poor position to face a challenge from French and Russian naval power. So while one of the big shocks about WWI was Britain supporting what was at the time the old enemy and not germany, however germany was a rising power, and nobody was blind to that, this was why there was great emphasis of foriegn policy to support belguim that generated sympathy and of course mass recuritment when war came.

More importantly The main consequence of a continental war that did not involve Britain was that France and Russia could defeat Germany alone. This would not mean that Britain was no longer threatened, far from it. Despite agreements to settle imperial rivalries with both France and Russia in years prior to 1914, which allowed them to focus on the emerging power of Germany, ‘the outbreak of war in August 1914 did not cause the Entente partners to forget their prewar differences. If Britain failed to come to the aid of the French and the Russians, it was highly likely that in the event of their victory, traditional imperial tensions would re-emerge and they would want to punish Britain for ignoring the appeals for help from friends. Therefore, in the words of French it is realistic to make the assessment that ‘British desiderata were chosen not only with an eye towards securing Britain’s postwar position against Germany but also against France and Russia.’

Now in regards to decline, the first crack was obviously the American revolution, though even if it was won America would had been the new economic hub of the british empire, power may have been transferred from Britain to Washington, there is also the formation of the republic of Ireland, along with the emergence of Ghandi made one thing clear that if there is one thing you can't fight against and that's the opinion of the governed. How much longer would the empire had lasted had WW1 and 2 not occurred? I don't think it would had lasted any longer, in the latter half of the 20th century with asian countries becoming more wealthy and structured politically, supported with the incoming global media (TV Internet etc) I still think dissolution of the empire would had occurred because of freedom of information that was becoming more evident in the empire and globally also.

I perceive some very silly things here.

Korgeta wrote:The outcome of the 1st world war could had gone either way, Britain could had easily sided with the central powers...

Capitalization aside, how? Was there any real political credibility supporting such a notion? Who in Britain advocated this, and did they exist in sufficient numbers to make a Central Powers entry into the war viable?

I submit that Britain joining the French in WWI wasn't a shock to anyone who had been paying attention to the previous five years of European history. It was hardly the first time Britain and France had found their political interests in alignment, after all.

More importantly The main consequence of a continental war that did not involve Britain was that France and Russia could defeat Germany alone.

This raises another very obvious question:

"You and what army?"

How would France and Russia have gone about defeating the Central Powers alone, given that Russia was historically beaten by Germany even with no British aid whatsoever, while the French relied heavily on British naval support to protect their overseas commerce, and relied increasingly on British ground troops to help balance the numbers on the Western Front?

Simon_Jester wrote:

Korgeta wrote:The outcome of the 1st world war could had gone either way, Britain could had easily sided with the central powers...

Capitalization aside, how? Was there any real political credibility supporting such a notion? Who in Britain advocated this, and did they exist in sufficient numbers to make a Central Powers entry into the war viable?

I submit that Britain joining the French in WWI wasn't a shock to anyone who had been paying attention to the previous five years of European history. It was hardly the first time Britain and France had found their political interests in alignment, after all.

A more accurate account would be that only the political and military knew Britain would have to take a side in Europe due to the so called 'Dreadnought Race' from 1905-14, if Germany lost a naval battle it wouldn't mean the defeat Germany itself, Britain was a maritime power and if it lost it's naval fleet it would had spelled the end. It was because of that event that made Britain make it's mind up and join the Franco-Russian side in the event of conflict. Germany were rivals in the past and upto 1914 Britain never had major confrontations with Germany in comparison to France, not only did Britain still regarded france as the old enemy but that France had a old score to settle with Germany because of the franco-prussian war of 1870-1871 (victory of Prussia allowed the creation of germany, and gave Alsace-Lorraine to germany), so the idea that britain would go against Germany was still a shock, all the more so that despite the rivalry we were never at war with them beforehand.

Simon_Jester wrote:

More importantly The main consequence of a continental war that did not involve Britain was that France and Russia could defeat Germany alone.

This raises another very obvious question:

"You and what army?"

How would France and Russia have gone about defeating the Central Powers alone, given that Russia was historically beaten by Germany even with no British aid whatsoever, while the French relied heavily on British naval support to protect their overseas commerce, and relied increasingly on British ground troops to help balance the numbers on the Western Front?

Note the word COULD, at the time there was no knowing if France or Russia would be able to beat germany or how the war may turn around, britan's no entry to the war opens a whole new questions of 'what ifs' something reserved more for those who still like to play risk board games then historians. Britain's no entry wouldn't had changed some things such as the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, the russian mobilisation was considerably understimated, had germany ploughed in any deeper into france during the early days of the war they may have prompted a even faster russian advance or found themselves over stretched too soon. Nonethless the Russians would had made things difficult for Germany.

Korgeta wrote:A more accurate account would be that only the political and military knew Britain would have to take a side in Europe due to the so called 'Dreadnought Race' from 1905-14, if Germany lost a naval battle it wouldn't mean the defeat Germany itself, Britain was a maritime power and if it lost it's naval fleet it would had spelled the end. It was because of that event that made Britain make it's mind up and join the Franco-Russian side in the event of conflict. Germany were rivals in the past and upto 1914 Britain never had major confrontations with Germany in comparison to France, not only did Britain still regarded france as the old enemy but that France had a old score to settle with Germany because of the franco-prussian war of 1870-1871 (victory of Prussia allowed the creation of germany, and gave Alsace-Lorraine to germany), so the idea that britain would go against Germany was still a shock, all the more so that despite the rivalry we were never at war with them beforehand.

It was the stated aim of Britain to diminish the influence of Austria Hungary any way they could, as well as to diminish German influence and Naval power. From the time of Fisher, the only enemy which the British considered seriously enough to alter strategic considerations was Germany. Heck, just look at how many times a Copenhagen scenario was proposed and considered.

Note the word COULD, at the time there was no knowing if France or Russia would be able to beat germany or how the war may turn around, britan's no entry to the war opens a whole new questions of 'what ifs' something reserved more for those who still like to play risk board games then historians. Britain's no entry wouldn't had changed some things such as the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, the russian mobilisation was considerably understimated, had germany ploughed in any deeper into france during the early days of the war they may have prompted a even faster russian advance or found themselves over stretched too soon. Nonethless the Russians would had made things difficult for Germany.

If Britain does not enter the war, then Italy will not enter the war. This means the Austrians can shift way more troops to the Eastern Front and to Serbia. Really, there just is no way for France and Russia to win against that. Without the BEF the battle of the Marne and the Race to the sea would have gone pretty differently and the French would have no surplus strength to start offensives or counteroffensives. The British Force measured at one time well over 2 million men. Take these away and France just collapses.

The situation is even more serious because Britain was the main industrial powerhouse of the Allies. And because if you have Britain stay neutral, France just lost her naval supremacy and may even be blockaded for the war. Germany could fight on without the naval commerce.