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?
If Britain had stayed out of WW I the French would be driving better cars.
But eating worse food.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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. :dubious:
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.
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”.
If Britain had not entered WW1 a century ago today, Germany would have undoubtably defeated France, Russia and their other allies. Then Germany would have dominated the Continent for possibly 50 years. That is the bad part, but there are many good outcomes of this alternative history. The war would have been short, sparing Europe the devastation and killing of two world wars, because WW2 only happened because Germany didn’t win WW1.The USA would not have entered the war. Communism would not have risen, the Berlin controllers would have seen to that! The Cold War would not have happened, including the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.
But there would have been a kind of cold war between the German Empire and the British Empire, Germany could never have invaded the British Isles, considering the Royal Navy was the most powerful in the world, backed up with a strengthened British Army. The two empires would have co-existed and possibly gone on an arms race in the same way the United States and The Soviet Union did after WW2. This would not have left much room for the United States to expand, which would have continued it’s isolationist policy. It would have taken the United States much longer to become the top world power.
The world a century after WW1 wouldn’t have been much different to today’s world. The United States would have recently become the top world power, Germany would have been top European power, as it is, and Russia would have been a secondary power under the influence of Germany. China and Japan would have been much as they are now, after a war between Japan, China and the USA in 1941, which the USA won. Britain, and Europe as a whole, would have been strong, not the weakened, divided, ‘living in the past’ continent we see now.
There is a problem with your theory. The sort of Navy the Germans were building was specifically designed for defeating the Royal Navy in home waters - generally short ranged, heavy armoured and armed ships designed to turn the North Sea into a German Lake.
The Royal Navy was built for Imperial Defence - fast long range ships that had to shed armoured plate to achieve that. Not worse ships - just all-rounders.
It was a direct, deliberate and obvious challenge to the Royal Navy - and an act that guaranteed that we would be on opposite sides in any coming War. And quite correctly so.
My speculation is that if Britain had remained neutral, Germany probably would have won the war. The main question is whether the British absence would have been a decisive factor in the early weeks of the war and allowed a quick German victory in 1914 or if the British absence would have been a long-term factor that would have tipped the war of attrition in Germany’s favor and allowed a German victory in 1918.
But either way here’s my predictions:
-
Germany would have wanted colonies. The French and the Dutch would have had to surrender some colonies to Germany. Colonies were a sign of prestige in that era and Germany would have wanted trophies.
-
Russia would have become a German ally. The alliance between France and Russia was always difficult. They were the most liberal and the most conservative great powers in Europe. The only thing that held the alliance together was the belief that it was necessary. If it had failed, it would have fallen apart. Russia was politically much closer to Germany and had been allied with Germany in the past. A German victory would have caused a realignment and Russia would have moved back on to the German side. But in this case, it would be the junior partner to Germany, as Austria-Hungary was.
-
Germany would get bogged down in Eastern Europe. With political alliances with the governments of Austria, Russia, and Turkey, Germany would be committed to propping up those governments. And all three of these governments had problems. The results of a German victory in a world war would have been German troops constantly being dispatched to suppress uprisings in its allies.
-
France would go fascist. France would be facing the same situation Germany historically faced after its defeat. Military defeat, political isolation, and a sense of having been betrayed. Some French analog of the Nazis would have ended up taking power.
-
Nobody would like the British. Germany would see Britain as its one remaining rival. France would see Britain as the country that had abandoned it in its hour of need.
I am not sure if France would have “lost”. The war would have dragged on. it’s quite possible that France & Germany would have been brought to Peace talks by GB or the USA, and basically neither “losing”. Germany would have had to give up Netherlands and Belgium, but they certainly could have insisted they be demilitarized. Germany would have had huge gains in the east and might have settled for that. Italy would have had to concede a little to AH.
Between AH & Germany the Communist revolution would be localized, with Russia being balkanized. No Nazis.
Actually it might have been for the best. The USA might not have become such a super-power early.
An excellent question since I believe that war rarely settles any problems except maybe overpopulation. I think the Germans would have eventually won out - without the Brits I doubt the USA would have gotten involved either. France would have had to give up some territory and hang their heads in shame for a while. Basically, as someone else said, Frano-Prussian war, part deux (or part Neuf). Russia would have collapsed on cue, so I doubt much would have changed there.
In the end, the major question would not have been answered though: Who’s in charge, Germany or Britain? Around 1935 or so they would need to have another war to settle that.
I don’t know if France would have been explicitly fascist, but I reckon a deeply conservative monarchical restoration would have taken place. The Third Republic was in fact an accident; the Crown was offered to the Legitimist Heir, Henri, Comte de Chambord, who declined it, so the leaders of France at the time opted to wait for him to die so they could offer the Crown to his more liberal heir, Louis-Philippe, Comte de Paris. Unfortunately, Henri lived to 1883, so the ‘temporary’ republic ended up accepted as default.
Peter O’Toole wouldn’t have nominated for an Oscar for Lawrence of Arabia.
Alessan touched upon the issue of the Ottoman’s continuing existence. How does this change the world we see today? One thing is we don’t have France and England carving up the Middle-East, so these borders may well be completely different. Perhaps this makes more warfare, perhaps less. Do we have the Zionist Movement in the Levant under the Ottoman’s? Israel’s very existence may not have occurred, and there might not have been a need.
Another point about the United States, without England getting involved, then it may well be unlikely the USA gets involved. Our isolationist tradition would be intact moving through the twentieth century. Even if Europe erupted in war again, we’d have that fight here and delay our entry into such a war, if we entered at all. If Europe doesn’t get embroiled in a second Great War, then their economies aren’t shattered completely … maybe the USA is still a second or third rate power “over there”.
War between the Hapsburgs and the Tzars is probably unavoidable, that brings France and Germany to blows yet again.
Extra credit question: Did England join the right side in WWI?