The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-31-2009, 04:05 AM
Lantern Lantern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
If Britain had stayed out of WW1?

Bertrand Russell and others have argued that Britain should have stayed out of WW1 which would probably have led to a German victory but would have avoided the horrendous bloodshed of the war as well as the rise of Communism and Nazism and the second world war.

It seems to me that this argument assumes a dichotomy: either accept German domination or the horrendous consequences which resulted from the world war. The issue is whether those consequences were inevitable or whether there were smarter policies which would have defeated Germany in a much less costly way.

Some questions:
1) What would be the long-run implications of German domination of Continental Europe. Would Germany have tried to annex the rest of the continent or would it have been satisfied with a position of political and economic dominance?
2) Could the war have been fought more intelligently reducing its duration and cost?
3) Given the reality of the war as it happened could the Allies have done more to prevent the rise of Communism and defeat the Reds in the Russian civil war?
4) Could they have prevented the rise of the Nazis or at least contained them through robust military action in the 30's?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-31-2009, 04:49 AM
wmfellows wmfellows is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Bertrand Russell and others have argued that Britain should have stayed out of WW1 which would probably have led to a German victory but would have avoided the horrendous bloodshed of the war as well as the rise of Communism and Nazism and the second world war.

It seems to me that this argument assumes a dichotomy: either accept German domination or the horrendous consequences which resulted from the world war. The issue is whether those consequences were inevitable or whether there were smarter policies which would have defeated Germany in a much less costly way.
Well, Imperial German hegemony in Central Europe (perhaps in this direction, possible fusion with the Austro-Hungarian Empire) was something already emerging.

Quote:
1) What would be the long-run implications of German domination of Continental Europe. Would Germany have tried to annex the rest of the continent or would it have been satisfied with a position of political and economic dominance?
What do you mean by Annex the Rest of the Continent?

Annex France? Belgium? Netherlands? Fusion with A-H Empire?

Quote:
2) Could the war have been fought more intelligently reducing its duration and cost?
With the benefit of the lessons of the war itself, yes, but given the actual leaders of the time, I do not believe the sheer enormity of technological change and what it meant for war could really be imagined.

Quote:
3) Given the reality of the war as it happened could the Allies have done more to prevent the rise of Communism and defeat the Reds in the Russian civil war?
I doubt it, although perhaps the Mensheviks could have been strengthened, if support of the old system had been thrown out the window.

Quote:
4) Could they have prevented the rise of the Nazis or at least contained them through robust military action in the 30's?
This is unclear, do you mean by a victorious set of Allies in 1918? Avoidance of the most punitive and humiliating measures imposed on the Weimar regime, such as war reparations, an engagement by France and Britain to help build a democratic regime in Germany (sort of an earlier version of post-WWII policy) would have, I think, certainly avoided the Nazis as such. Would it have avoided a collapse of the Weimar regime and the rise of some anti-democratic movement inspired by rightist authoritarianism, maybe not (see Italian example, which was an Allied Power, but saw the emergence of Mussolini).

As such, I think Nazism qua Nazism was avoidable. Rightist Authoritarianism or the worst option, Left Dictatorship, much harder to avoid.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-31-2009, 05:16 AM
Lantern Lantern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmfellows View Post
What do you mean by Annex the Rest of the Continent?
Annex France? Belgium? Netherlands? Fusion with A-H Empire?
Yes. Basically the issue is how bad German domination would have been for the rest of Europe. Germany domination which allowed other European countries to govern themselves for the most part would obviously be preferable to a German empire which annexed other countries and ruled them. I don't believe the latter was part of the German plan in 1914 but that might have been the long-run outcome of prolonged German domination of Europe without any counter-weight.

Quote:
This is unclear, do you mean by a victorious set of Allies in 1918?
Yes.

You seem to be arguing that the rise of the Nazis could have been reasonably prevented but not the rise of the Communists or the enormous costs of the war. In that case was WW1 really worth fighting from the pov. of Britain? Of course they couldn't have known all this at the time but in hindsight?

I suppose it all depends on how much a threat a German-dominated Europe would have been to Britain. Given the vast industrial power available to Germany they could probably have built a significantly bigger navy than Britain in which case Britain would have been dependent on a US alliance to defend itself.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-31-2009, 05:21 AM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Without the UK's entry into the war, it would have been just another 19th-century conflict - the Franco-Prussian War, redux. France would not have been annexed, but it probably would have been forced to cede some colonies, most likely in North and West Africa.

The UK would clash with Germany eventually, of course - a rich, victorious German Empire would accelerate its fleet-building to expand its global presence. Remember, it was the High Sea Fleet that really brought the UK into the war. Britain would never let another power rule the waves.

Another thing that no-one has noted - British neutrality would leave the Ottoman Empire intact. Setting aside the impact this would have on my country's history, would the Turks have succeeded in keeping hold of the Middle East, with its increasingly valuable oil deposits? Or would they collapse later on their own?

Last edited by Alessan; 08-31-2009 at 05:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-31-2009, 05:21 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
For Britain to stay out well she would have to stop being Britain. Since around 1500, it has been the policy of England/Great Britain/ United Kingdom, that there cannot be one power on the continent, England/Great Britain/United Kingdom have all gone to war over that. It would require a fundamental rethink of centuries of policy.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-31-2009, 05:37 AM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
You seem to be arguing that the rise of the Nazis could have been reasonably prevented but not the rise of the Communists or the enormous costs of the war. In that case was WW1 really worth fighting from the pov. of Britain? Of course they couldn't have known all this at the time but in hindsight?

I suppose it all depends on how much a threat a German-dominated Europe would have been to Britain. Given the vast industrial power available to Germany they could probably have built a significantly bigger navy than Britain in which case Britain would have been dependent on a US alliance to defend itself.
Well, one of the main reasons behind WWI was Britain trying to curtail Germany's economic growth. Espescially the rise of the german navy and Germany's foothold in Africa were something the Empire would not tolerate.

So was it all worth it from the pov of the British Empire?

What empire?

Would the empire still exist today if Britain had refrained from escalating the conflict to a World War?

Hard to say. A clash between Britain and Germany seems pretty much unavoidable, as Germany was seen encroaching on terrain Britain saw as hers.
But a private German-Britain war would probably not have resulted in the actual loss of the Empire. IMHO

Also, regarding Nazism and the Sovjets. If not for WWI the 'modern' movements of communism and the offsprings socialism and fascism would hardly have been as virulent, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-31-2009, 06:17 AM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Another thing that no-one has noted - British neutrality would leave the Ottoman Empire intact. Setting aside the impact this would have on my country's history, would the Turks have succeeded in keeping hold of the Middle East, with its increasingly valuable oil deposits? Or would they collapse later on their own?
Interresting point.
One would have to take the 1911 freedom struggles of the Balkans into consideration, I think. As the Ottomans were unable to prevent them seceding.
How would they have fared against the British and/or French trying to get hold of some oil rich territories? It would seem inevitable that they would try something in that direction.

So a 'Turkish War' would seem very likely. It would perhaps also play out the way it did, only later. Who knows, maybe even a Jewish state would not be totaly unlikely.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-31-2009, 08:08 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 31,609
A totally different World War I essentially re-rolls the dice that determined the world's ffate after 1918. I really don't believe we can even begin to guess how history would have unfolded.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-31-2009, 08:59 AM
villa villa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: True Blue Virginia
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
2) Could the war have been fought more intelligently reducing its duration and cost?
I don't really have anything on the first question, but my answer on this is pretty much no. Unless you massively change things beforehand. The technology for much of a different type of war simply didn't exist. In the end, Germany had to be bled white. Given that they could fight a defensive war, and had chosen the terrain, that was going to be bloody and long. Especially as more and more of the burden moved to the British, who didn't have sufficient trained NCOs to make other tactics feasible.

Without a mass standing British Army in 1914, or significantly different results for the French in the first few months of the war, the path of the war was pretty much set. While technology was very suggestive of a static attrition war in 1914, it is amazing how fast it developed. Things like the creeping barrage were unimaginable at the start of the war, and would have saved a lot of lives had they come earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
3) Given the reality of the war as it happened could the Allies have done more to prevent the rise of Communism and defeat the Reds in the Russian civil war?
Tough one. I don't see either as working. Intervention was massively unpopular and actually pushed Britain pretty close to the edge with regard to worker discontent. I seem to remember there being a docker's strike refusing to load munitions, and even a police strike over the matter. Full scale intervention, which is what it would have taken to save the (corrupt, incompetent, and not very pleasant) White army would have led to social breakdown back home, I think without doubt a General Strike, and mutinies in the army, who weren't that keen on fighting any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
4) Could they have prevented the rise of the Nazis or at least contained them through robust military action in the 30's?
Two choices I think might have worked. One is the common idea that Versailles was too harsh. Trouble is, being nice to Germany wasn't going to be popular back home, and a politician would have gotten his balls nailed to the wall for suggesting it.

The other option is that Versailles was significantly too light on Germany. While it was bad enough to humiliate, it left Germany as a country. Unification wasn't set in stone by 1919, and there was still rivalries between the individual states. Splitting everyone else off from Prussia, stamping on Prussia heavily, and treating the others noticeably better might have been an interesting way to deal with it. But I have no idea what the long term effects would have been.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-31-2009, 09:17 AM
strqwert44 strqwert44 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
This is pure speculation....but a WWI German victory would probably have been a lot like the German 1871 victory v. France......except that France would have probably paid lots of reparation like Germany after WWI.

Ironically/fatalistically, fascism might have arose in an economically wrecked France in the 1930s especially as the far left and far right were significant influences in French politics in the 30s.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-31-2009, 09:34 AM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,051
In terms of what the Germans wanted in the east, we can look at what happened at Brest-Litovsk. As for the rest of their plans, there's always Bethmann-Hollweg's September Program, which laid out German war aims. Their goals:

1. Dismantling of French border fortifications, annexation of Briey and possibly the western Vosages, reparations high enough to keep France from rearming for at least 20 years, and a commercial treaty making the French economy dependent on Germany.

2. Annexastion of Liege, Verviers, and the frontier of Belgian Luxemburg. Possibly of Antwerp. If Belgium is to exist as a state, it should be a vassal of Germany and allow German occupation and use of its coasts and military ports. French Flanders (Dunkirk, Calais, Boulogne) to Belgium.

3. Annexation of Luxemburg as a new German state.

4. A central European Economic Zone, consisting of Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Austria Hungary and possibly Italy, Sweden, and Norway, all of which have nominally equal power, which is, in reality, dominated by Germany.

5. Colonial acquisitions in Africa, to be figured out later.

6. Economic treaties signed with France and Belgium.

7. The Netherlands to be brought under closer German control and made dependent on Germany, but carefully, so as not to offend them. Maybe an alliance or a customs union? Maybe offer them Antwerp in exchange for the right to station troops in a fortress around there?

Last edited by Captain Amazing; 08-31-2009 at 09:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-31-2009, 09:48 AM
Jerseyman Jerseyman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Nazi policies on Lebensraum and anti-semitism did not arise with them. In fact, though it existed, anti-semitism was far less significant in Germany than in Austria. The treaties of Brest-Litovsk gave huge amounts of the western Russian Empire to Germany though they came to nothing with Versailles. That might have been too harsh in the wrong way (mainly due to France) and not harsh enough in the right way so that it left Germans feeling betrayed (since they were not getting the full facts). We see WW1 very much as the 1916 stagnation and courtesy of Oh what a lovely war but once the German resistance broke it was a rout that might have done better to demand unconditional surrender. If Germany had kept fighting, Germans would have had no doubt that they had lost and not been betrayed and very likely gone the same way as Russia though whether the victors would have allowed a more Socialist government than Weimar's is a different matter. There would be nothing Germans could do about it.

If Britain had kept out then France would probably not have lasted for long or might never have got in and the result would be an east European conflict tied up with Balkan independence which Germany and Turkey would probably have won but quite possibly ended up fighting each other over the Balkans or bogged down in independence uprisings throughout eastern Europe. The Ottoman Empire was fairly sound at its core but the Austrian was not. It would have been faced with independence uprisings from Bohemia south and quite possibly so would a successful Germany be faced with Bavarian and other independence moves.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-31-2009, 09:57 AM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseyman View Post
. . . and quite possibly so would a successful Germany be faced with Bavarian and other independence moves.
Would it? There was a secession movement in Bavaria after World War I, but was there any active Bavarian secession movement before the war?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-31-2009, 10:07 AM
Regallag_The_Axe Regallag_The_Axe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by strqwert44 View Post
Ironically/fatalistically, fascism might have arose in an economically wrecked France in the 1930s especially as the far left and far right were significant influences in French politics in the 30s.
That's what I was thinking. Captain Amazing's link reinforces this thinking. There was plenty of antisemitism in France (remember the Dreyfus Affair?). Odd to think of, but might have seen Charles de Gaulle, Le Chef de la 3rd Empire Francais.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-31-2009, 02:12 PM
Pleonast Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los Obamangeles
Posts: 5,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by villa View Post
The other option is that Versailles was significantly too light on Germany. While it was bad enough to humiliate, it left Germany as a country. Unification wasn't set in stone by 1919, and there was still rivalries between the individual states. Splitting everyone else off from Prussia, stamping on Prussia heavily, and treating the others noticeably better might have been an interesting way to deal with it. But I have no idea what the long term effects would have been.
Why did the Allies keep Germany intact? They broke up the Austria-Hungary empire, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-31-2009, 02:51 PM
villa villa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: True Blue Virginia
Posts: 7,622
I don't know the answer to that. I believe the French talked about splitting Germany up.

Part of the problem was, I imagine, that the German Army wasn't fully broken, unlike in 1945. Reversing unification would, I guess, have required occupation of Prussia, and that level of occupation would have taxed the treasury and manpower of Britain and France too much.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-31-2009, 03:17 PM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,051
Well, they did split Germany up. Almost all of West Prussia and Posen became part of Poland, Danzig, the Memel territory and the Saarland became Liege of Nations protectorates, Alsace and German Lorraine became part of France, Northern Schleiswig became part of Denmark, and there was additional territory given to Belgium and Czechoslovakia. This is all in addition to the loss of their colonial territories. Germany lost about 25,000 square miles and 7 million people from territorial concessions.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-31-2009, 05:06 PM
villa villa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: True Blue Virginia
Posts: 7,622
Well yes and no. By split up, I meant dismember. Reverse unification. Return to the days of Saxony, of Bavaria, and in particular of Prussia. Then work on destroying the power of the Junker class in Prussia.

I need to dig a book out to see what areas the Nazis ever achieved a majority in.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-31-2009, 05:27 PM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by villa View Post
I need to dig a book out to see what areas the Nazis ever achieved a majority in.
If you scroll down on this board you'll see a map showing how the various parties did in the Reichstag elections, as well as the two presidential elections.

The areas where Hitler beat Hindenburg in the 1932 presidential election were Brandenburg, Thuringia, Pomerania and Schleswig-Holstein.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-01-2009, 12:40 PM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Amazing View Post
In terms of what the Germans wanted in the east, we can look at what happened at Brest-Litovsk. As for the rest of their plans, there's always Bethmann-Hollweg's September Program, which laid out German war aims. Their goals:

......


7. The Netherlands to be brought under closer German control and made dependent on Germany, but carefully, so as not to offend them. Maybe an alliance or a customs union? Maybe offer them Antwerp in exchange for the right to station troops in a fortress around there?

I could live with that..:-)

Hmm, these Germans aren't so bad.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-01-2009, 02:42 PM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by villa View Post
Well yes and no. By split up, I meant dismember. Reverse unification. Return to the days of Saxony, of Bavaria, and in particular of Prussia. Then work on destroying the power of the Junker class in Prussia.
It probably wouldn't have worked. Without invading the country (which would have been bloody and pointless), Germans weren't going to roll over on that issue. They'd spent a couple centuries trying to achieve unification and finally had it through Bismark. They'd have simply ignored it.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-02-2009, 08:13 AM
villa villa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: True Blue Virginia
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by smiling bandit View Post
It probably wouldn't have worked. Without invading the country (which would have been bloody and pointless), Germans weren't going to roll over on that issue. They'd spent a couple centuries trying to achieve unification and finally had it through Bismark. They'd have simply ignored it.
I don't disagree it would have required invasion. Which would, in turn, have required US acquiescence, which probably would not have come. Might have stopped the counterproductive intervention in the Russian Civil War had it happened, but then we are getting way off topic...

Splitting Bavaria off might have been possible. Weren't there quasi-separatist uprisings in other areas in 1919 as well?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-02-2009, 03:56 PM
Deeg Deeg is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,078
If Britain had stayed out of WW I the French would be driving better cars.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-02-2009, 10:30 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
But eating worse food.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-02-2009, 10:59 PM
dropzone dropzone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 22,752
The Brits would NEVER allow another major power access to the Mediterranean. After Napoleon, and especially after the construction of the Suez Canal, the RN viewed the Mediterranean as "a British lake." Had Hitler branched southward he would have triggered a response that, in 1940, he was not prepared to counter the British fleet, even (especially? considering he had none of his own ships in-theater, and couldn't get them past Gibraltar) with what he added from the French and Italian fleets.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-02-2009, 11:48 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
The UK would clash with Germany eventually, of course - a rich, victorious German Empire would accelerate its fleet-building to expand its global presence. Remember, it was the High Sea Fleet that really brought the UK into the war. Britain would never let another power rule the waves.
Right, it had little to do with German Imperialism, and mostly to do with that idiot Wilhelm II wanting to build his toy fleet, and challenge the British Navy. If he had stuck to KruzerKreig as Bismark said, he would have come out OK.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-03-2009, 03:08 AM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Right, it had little to do with German Imperialism, and mostly to do with that idiot Wilhelm II wanting to build his toy fleet, and challenge the British Navy. If he had stuck to KruzerKreig as Bismark said, he would have come out OK.
This brilliantly exemplifies the Imperialist thinking.
If someone else wants a navy too, it is automatically a challenge.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-03-2009, 09:40 AM
MarcusF MarcusF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latro View Post
This brilliantly exemplifies the Imperialist thinking.
If someone else wants a navy too, it is automatically a challenge.
But it was a 'challenge' in the thinking of the time and seen as such in both Britain and Germany.

Personally I think the basis of the OP is mistaken. The assumption is that Britain staying out leads to a German victory without the blood letting that actually occurred but this does not seem the most likely scenario to me. Whatever we Brits like to think the size of the BEF in 1914 was tiny compared to the German and French armies and its impact on the course of the first year of the war was limited.

The Schlieffen plan (even as modified by von Moltke) was fundementally flawed and was very unlikely to take France out of the war in the same way as the 1940 Blitzkreig did. There is every chance that, even without the BEF, the Miricle of the Marne would still have repulsed the German right with their overextended supply lines and the result would have same. A race to the sea and a continuous trench line from Switzerland to the Channel with the same 'horrendous bloodshed' as seen in the OTL.

Quote:
Originally posted by Alessan:
Without the UK's entry into the war, it would have been just another 19th-century conflict - the Franco-Prussian War, redux. France would not have been annexed, but it probably would have been forced to cede some colonies, most likely in North and West Africa.
I don't think so. It not have been a "world" war but it would not have been a replay of the Franco-Prussian war. This ignores the involvement of Russia.

The logic of German war plans was that France had to be crushed so that it presented no threat to the rear while German defeated Russia. This necessarily meant that France had to be disarmed and the industrial north-east occupied. Assuming that without Britain in the war France had been defeated, the settlement terms would have been harsh.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-03-2009, 10:07 AM
villa villa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: True Blue Virginia
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusF View Post
But it was a 'challenge' in the thinking of the time and seen as such in both Britain and Germany.
No question it was a challenge. It was seen as one and it was intended to be one. And look at the crap Germany ended up with as colonies...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusF View Post
Personally I think the basis of the OP is mistaken. The assumption is that Britain staying out leads to a German victory without the blood letting that actually occurred but this does not seem the most likely scenario to me. Whatever we Brits like to think the size of the BEF in 1914 was tiny compared to the German and French armies and its impact on the course of the first year of the war was limited.
Not sure I agree with you here. The BEF and Belgian armies contribued in pretty important ways in the early going. While it was still a war of movement, the superior training of the BEF was of great use, and sufficiently slowed the Germans down. I don't think the war would have ended without major blood letting, but without the British, I think France would have collapsed in 1916 or 1917. The French Army was shot away, rife with mutinies, and only managed to survive because of offensive launched (agaisnt the wishes of other commanders often) by the Russians and the British to relieve pressure. Take that safety valve off, and Verdun gets one hell of a lot worse for the French. Moreover, France simply couldn't have held the line - from 1916 onwards in particular the British were taking on much more yardage. Remove the German casualties sustained in Ypres, and add that part of the line onto the French defense requirements, also remove the contribution of British industry and finance, and France is in a world of hurt. Also take away the British naval blockade (and presumably Britain remains as a trading partner of the Germans) and the picture for France gets even worse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusF View Post
The Schlieffen plan (even as modified by von Moltke) was fundementally flawed and was very unlikely to take France out of the war in the same way as the 1940 Blitzkreig did. There is every chance that, even without the BEF, the Miricle of the Marne would still have repulsed the German right with their overextended supply lines and the result would have same. A race to the sea and a continuous trench line from Switzerland to the Channel with the same 'horrendous bloodshed' as seen in the OTL.
I don't know here. The Germans came bloody close, even with the BEF and the Belgians knocking them 2-3 days of schedule (and, given the railroad system of the time, schedules were everything to military planners), and had they not pulled east of Paris contrary to the original plan I don't know what the outcome might have been. Paris goes, France capitulates.

Even if you are right, and a race to the sea occurs, there is still a lot of bloodshed, but France loses. They didn't have the men, the industry or the money to take on Germany in that kind of war. My guess is total French collapse in late 1916 or early 1917, if they made it out of 1914.

Last edited by villa; 09-03-2009 at 10:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-03-2009, 11:25 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusF View Post

Personally I think the basis of the OP is mistaken. The assumption is that Britain staying out leads to a German victory without the blood letting that actually occurred but this does not seem the most likely scenario to me. Whatever we Brits like to think the size of the BEF in 1914 was tiny compared to the German and French armies and its impact on the course of the first year of the war was limited.

The Schlieffen plan (even as modified by von Moltke) was fundementally flawed and was very unlikely to take France out of the war in the same way as the 1940 Blitzkreig did. There is every chance that, even without the BEF, the Miricle of the Marne would still have repulsed the German right with their overextended supply lines and the result would have same. A race to the sea and a continuous trench line from Switzerland to the Channel with the same 'horrendous bloodshed' as seen in the OTL.
Oh sure, that could have happened. But the war was lengthened by Britain starving out Germany with the British navy. On that note, the German High Seas Fleet could have squashed the French fleet easily, allowing the Germans to raid or invade the French coast.

But in any case, without the British Navy, the French would have lost in a year or two.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-03-2009, 04:43 PM
MarcusF MarcusF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Oh, I agree there is a good chance France would have lost - I'm just doubting that the war would have been over by Christmas. The BEF did contribute to slowing down the German advance but without the BEF coming into the line the French could - and would have - have moved more troops from their right to their left wing.

Who knows, if they had not had the British arriving they might not have launched Plan XVII, their attack into Lorraine, not suffered heavy losses, and been left with more troops to drive back the Germans from Paris.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-07-2009, 04:48 PM
ralph124c ralph124c is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Europe Avoided WWII?

I think a WWI without the UK would have been much less bloody, and would have actually moderated German imperialism. My reasoning: France would probably have lost. The Germans would force harsh reparations upon Frane; and there would have been so much resentment, that Germany would realize the folly of a european empire. As for a naval conflict with the UK, the Kaiser did not want that (he was an admiral in the Royal Navy). Instead, the germans would have gone whole hog into Africa (annexing the former French colonies). They would have gotten into imperialism, just as it (imperialism) was starting to cost money- that would have tamed the german desire for empire real soon.
The UK and Germany were big trading partners-and war between them made little sense. Ironically, the Germans were building faster and better-armed ships (than the British) by 1914. A reply of Jutland in 1920, would probably have been a big debacle for the Royal Navy.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-08-2009, 05:13 AM
Latro Latro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c View Post
Ironically, the Germans were building faster and better-armed ships (than the British) by 1914. A replay of Jutland in 1920, would probably have been a big debacle for the Royal Navy.
Uhmmm....yes..Which is exactly why the British would rather have the war in 1914 than in 1920.

It's Britannia rules the waves! Can't have uppity nations building warships, excuse me, "toy fleets".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.