Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/25/2008 7:02:48 PM

chris51

Posts: 56
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: England
Status: offline

I read an interesting article in the BBC History Magazine for this month saying that there was no legal obligation to defend Belgium, and the alliance was no plitical bind on Britain to follow France into the war. The Article claims that many in the British Parliament saw the war as ' A Balkan quarrel' It was only Britains fear of a German dominated Europe that lead to a declaration of war.
The Article goes on to say that without Britains manpower, industrial strength and mighty navy to support the allies the war could have been over in a matter of months without the four long years of bloody war and all the aftermath that such a destructive conflict brought to the rest of the world. Of course, this is just speculation, history in hindsight is best viewed with an open mind. Still, an interesting article from a great publication. Makes anyone wonder if it is worth trying a pbem game and totally ingnoring Britains war effort to see if such an opinion would work.

Post #: 1

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/25/2008 8:29:46 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

2nd Most powerful fleet in the world was German next to the British, I think that is a big part for UK entrance. Fear of an eventual Super German Empire

France-Russia losing would have given Germany a free hand to do what she wishes in other regards

(in reply to chris51)

Post #: 2

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/25/2008 8:52:26 PM

chris51

Posts: 56
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: England
Status: offline

Indeed it would. Britain saw the expansion of Germanys navy as a direct challenge against British Naval superiority. The German Kaiser in formal dinner parties with the respective heads of the German armed forces and government toasted ' Der Tag' the day when Germany could take on the British navy in open battle. Also it seems to me that Germany would have been able to pour rsources and support into covert, possibly overt campaign in Africa threatening British held colonies.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 3

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/26/2008 1:27:47 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Chris, exactly. Even the small Colonial War that the Germans waged against the British and other Colonials caused a lot of revolts around the world that would eventually lead to the death of the old Empires. I think in a way it was Germany's vengeance.. I had heard to a lesser degree the Germans tried the same thing in WW2 but of course that wasn't with the same success. Though weakening the Major European Powers at home did hinder their ability later to Govern Colonies abroad. Plus the changing of the Guard...

So in reality Britian did defeat Germany along with her Allies in WW1 and in WW2 but at the price of Empire...Ultimately, it would have served her better to negotiate with Germany. We should thank her

(in reply to chris51)

Post #: 4

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/26/2008 1:53:01 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

It's really a no-brainer that Germany would have quickly won the war in France and then turned on Russia - it shouldn't surprise anyone at all really.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 5

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/26/2008 2:24:00 AM

chris51

Posts: 56
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: England
Status: offline

It's interesting to read in the article that an early meeting in July 1914 between Germanys chancellor and Britains ambassador that in agreement for Britsih neutrality in event of a franco german war, Germany would guarantee the intergrity of Belgium and France settling for a simmiliar reparations payment from the French Government as to that exacted after the Franco-Prussian war of the previous century. The idea of a large swathe of western and eastern europe annexed by Germany in view of a German victory was only ' A provisional sketch' immediatly seized upon by the Hawk members of a British government determined to justify the declaration of war. Of course, the BBC's History magazine only being a small publication ( The article is only a page long) provides no reference to where this evidence comes from. And the speculation about there being no collapse of Russia, or a communist revolution, no Great depression, no slow dissolution of the British Empire or collapse of the Habsburg empire and most of all, no Adolf Hitler is just that: pure speculation. It makes one wonder if the world today would be an entirely different place. And does anyone fancy trying the scenario out in GOA?

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 6

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/26/2008 3:06:05 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

I do not think that Germany may have had such an easy time as SMK does. The BEF, the resource aide the blockade of her Navy in WW1 and more... All this very important... and ultimately an Anglo-American Alliance, that perhaps France alone could never have fostered!

Though deep in my mind somewhere I feel that Germany was taking on a task too great for herself trying to defeat every European nation on the continent. In the end there would have been some consequences... I am not sure what they might have been... Though the bigger you get the harder you fall!

Also, I am not much interested in alternative history I am a fanatic when it comes to the feel of the original war and pulling it out of that context changes everything for me. GOA is very very hardcoded to WW1 and even if you rearrange your troops you will find that there are dire consequences. I would say that the whole of the game is limited within it's context and should be... It's simple, sweet and to the point and a greater game would encompass the entirety of strategic and tactical possibilities, though in this game the tactical possibilities can be explored pretty much!

UK wanted war, England as she did with Napoleon stopped the Great Conquoror. They would have again with the Germans. One Nation and one Man cannot possess so much power without envy and fear. That inspiration in the end would've lead to the Kaiser's demise and the demise of his Empire as I reirate my feelings above. Just my feeling my Two Cents

(in reply to chris51)

Post #: 7

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/26/2008 3:44:01 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Take Britain out of the war, the BEF no longer on the Marne or fighting in the retreat from Belgium, and what scenario do you have that allows France to not be defeated?

ther German armies may have been exhausted by early September....but without the BEF having helped the resistance they would be less so, and the French more so - plus there's a BEF-wide gap in the French line - there's no threat of a breakthrough ath e Marne, the French break Manoury's 6th army despite reinforcements from Paris, Paris is invested, and hte French humiliated again only 43 years afterh teh last time......veterans of het 1870-71 war weep in the streets......

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 8

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/26/2008 8:02:14 PM

arichbourg

Posts: 32
Joined: 7/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

One Nation and one Man cannot possess so much power without envy and fear.

Particularly when that nation or man is opposed to British trade interests, as Napoleon kept finding out. Britain's genius was to somehow disguise (at least at the critical decision points) its consolidation of global power (perhaps by having no clear Dictator?), thus allowing Pax Britannica.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 9

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/26/2008 8:30:51 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Take Britain out of the war, the BEF no longer on the Marne or fighting in the retreat from Belgium, and what scenario do you have that allows France to not be defeated?

For argument's sake . . . pretty much what happened irl. Kluck would have attacked in the flank by the French 6th army and, as Kluck and Bulow were pulled apart, the French 5th army (this time w/o the BEF) would have hit the gap. The other wing of French 5th army would have still attacked Bulow. Von Moltke would still retreat because of panic, bad communication or the infamous Lt. Col. Hentsch.

You can compare the relative level of forces involved by the casualties suffered:

French: approx. 250k
British: 12k
German: probably 250k

The BEF's impact was important but whether its participation at the Marne was decisive is, at least, arguable.

quote:

ther German armies may have been exhausted by early September....but without the BEF having helped the resistance they would be less so, and the French more so - plus there's a BEF-wide gap in the French line - there's no threat of a breakthrough ath e Marne, the French break Manoury's 6th army despite reinforcements from Paris, Paris is invested, and hte French humiliated again only 43 years afterh teh last time......veterans of het 1870-71 war weep in the streets......

Why would there be a gap? While it would have thinned out the line, I think the French high command was crafty enough not to leave a vacant space in their line for non-existent troops.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 10

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/27/2008 1:38:08 AM

talldwarf

Posts: 15
Joined: 1/23/2008
Status: offline

Even if the French successfully stop the Germans, a neutral England assures German eventual victory. With no blockade, Germany does not run out of steam in 1918. There is no U-Boat war, which means the Americans don't come in either. Would Italy have entered without England? Subtract Italian front means a free hand for Austria. Also, no England also means Turkey is free to concentrate against Russia.
From the game standpoint, I think Frank's decision to make British entry automatic is necessary for game balance. As the CP player, I would pay almost any price to keep England out.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 11

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/27/2008 1:38:22 AM

talldwarf

Posts: 15
Joined: 1/23/2008
Status: offline

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 12

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/27/2008 3:59:29 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Germany would have had hands free to do a lot damage upon France and Russia without the UK. Eventually the BEF would have placed a great deal of Manpower into France. Even if the initial blunting of the German Sabre was done by the French more so than the British. The outcome was still the same, in a war of attrittion a blockaded, multiple front, outgunned nation was going to be beaten.

AH was of no great importance along with Serbia and Turkey. I really honestly believe these nations were perhaps defensible but capable of a real offensive? The AH probably had the most capability of the three along with Italy on the other side... Though not much more than any of the others. The Roles they played were big enough but the major Battles that mattered were in France and for a moment in Prussia.. In the game AH can only beat Serbia or Italy 1vs1. Turkey, Italy, Bulgaria and Romania are best defending themselves! I find that historically accurate vs a Major Power of course.

England was the Major Power of the Day along with Germany, so naturally her presence in the war was a Big Factor. Though you cannot really expect for 1 of the 2 great powers to remain silent in the face of Continental Aggression. You wouldn't find that happening today and in Napoleon's era or in most eras... A Great Power usually involves itself in matters of importance to it's longterm Border Security and Dominance. However, What Germany was doing siding with the Austrians in Serbia completely and utterly baffles me. Serbia is not worth two spits in a bucket to the longterm and AH is a hump on the Dragons back and will only hold her down. The Kaiser was foolish and I'm not the first person to think so or to openly express it

the Brits never knew that fighting Germany would be their end. Without Nuclear War long long wars of attrittion and global strife in Colonies will cause a Colonial Empire to fracture. So she had to see it was comming eventually. Plus the changing times with the death of the Old Monarchies of Europe and the Old Empires. It would have Serbed the Monarchies/Empires better to have supported one another in peace and prosperity. The Infighting is why they all pretty much fell or were replaced with new Radical Governments some good, and some downright worse than the old!

< Message edited by wargamer123 -- 2/27/2008 4:00:10 AM >

(in reply to chris51)

Post #: 13

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/27/2008 9:45:53 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

the German armies may have been exhausted by early September....but without the BEF having helped the resistance they would be less so, and the French more so - plus there's a BEF-wide gap in the French line - there's no threat of a breakthrough ath e Marne, the French break Manoury's 6th army despite reinforcements from Paris, Paris is invested, and hte French humiliated again only 43 years afterh teh last time......veterans of het 1870-71 war weep in the streets......

Why would there be a gap? While it would have thinned out the line, I think the French high command was crafty enough not to leave a vacant space in their line for non-existent troops.

Because that's what was there in 1914 in real life - an effing-great gap - the French generals proved insufficiently crafty to avoid leaving a vacant space in their line even when they had existent troops - let alone non-existent ones!

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 2/28/2008 12:11:46 AM >

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 14

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/27/2008 8:52:19 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Still disagree. The BEF arrived in middle August. At that time there was only one reasonable place that the BEF could be committed. . . on the left flank of the French 5th army. The 6th had not been organized as of yet. The French maneuvered expecting the BEF to extend their line. There was no gap. Had the BEF not existed, they would have extended their line to the left.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 15

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/28/2008 12:14:26 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

And what was on the left of their line? the German line outflanked the French, even with the BEF in it.

Take out the BEF and the French have to thin their line elsewhere just to gover that distance....which makes the 5th army even more vulnerable to frontal attack, and still outflanked.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 16

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/28/2008 2:22:16 AM

boogada

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Ok lets see...

First off I don't agree with SMK that the Germans would have overrun France in the summer of 1914 if the BEF would not have been there fighting with the French. The German advance was massive, but it did not destroy the French army. The army was still intact and thats why it could sucesfully counterattack when the Germans ran out of steam. The Germany might have advanced a little further or faster, but the Schlieffenplan would still not have worked and missed its original strategical goal.
There is little doubt though, that the Central powers would have won the war. Without the British army, without the blockade, without the Royal Navy both France and Russia would have surrendered. Not in 1914, but in 1915/16. Italy would most likely not have sided with the Entente too, neither would Romania have...

But even if the Entente was no formal alliance and Britain had no obligation to enter the war, they still had an agreement with France to secure the Channel in case of a war, so that the French fleet could mass in the med. Not to mention that they would loose all diplomatic gains they made with France, Belgium, Italy and Russia in the years before. If England does not side with France and Russia in a war, why did those countries agree on colonial issues? Why not continue the race in Africa with France and in Persia with the Russians? Not to mention all the other things that made England join the Entente in the first place.

If you like the idea of Great Britain not entering the war, then read Niall Fergusons "The pity of war". His central idea is, that Britain should have stayed out of the conflict. That idea has some good things to offer: No Third Reich, no Hitler, no Second World War, no communist Russia and Britain would have been sucesfull in keeping its Empire together. And a German dominated central Europe would not have been worse than the German dominated European Union we have today... (a very British view that is...)
There is a lot in this book that is interesting, but its counterfactual history and I dont agree with most of it.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 17

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/28/2008 5:26:58 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

WW1 & WW2 were once described in a history lecure I attended as deciding whether Germany would dominate Europe, or Europe would dominate Germany - Germany may be the biggest single player in Europe now, but it's not quite the way it was intended to be by Hitler et al! :)

I would submit to you that one of hte reasons the French army was stil in reasonable condition to attack at the Marne was precisely that the Germans had been delayed dispropotionately by the BEF (and associated British units such as the RN division with the Belgians at Antwerp) - without that extra delay you have more French casualties and lower morale (even if the army is not "destroyed" as such) and less German exhaustion, and no opportunity to attack on the Marne.

(in reply to boogada)

Post #: 18

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/28/2008 9:46:50 AM

boogada

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

But some other things went terribly wrong too, even without the BEF. The Germans headquarter had already lost contact to their armys and could not coordinate them in the real scenario. A faster/further German advance would sure have strained lines of supply and communication even more. Not to mention that the German troops were already exhausted marching nonstop for days and days. The whole 'runing out of steam' part of the argument would probably even worse if they had gotten closer to Paris.
Also there are a few other possible variables, that seem to be more convincing than the fighting force of the BEF. What if the Germans had massed more troops on their right wing than they did (like Schlieffen had suggested)? What if they did not sent troops to the east to arrive too late at Tannenberg? Could those troops have made a difference? Could those troops have filled the gap between the armies? Or were supply lines and roads already overloaded with the amount of soldiers the way it was in 1914?
What if the Germans had managed to capture the forts of Liege faster? What if the Belgians had not actively resisted? What if the Germans had their siege artillery ready when they attacked instead of having to wait for its delivery?

And so on and so on and so on. The German campaign in 1914 failed because of a lot of things coming together. And even if some obstacles could have been overcome faster, a lot of the other problems would still have prevailed. The overall idea (to knock France out cold in less than a couple of weeks) was unrealistic.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 19

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/28/2008 9:21:05 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Realistically I have to agree with Boogada, not that I know much of the military situation in the German Army of 1914 but I do know that putting a timetable on anything and praying that you achieve your goals is not going to make it happen. From what I understand the original plan was modified as stated to scrap some units for the East... In doing so leaving a weaker Strategy to even take Paris K'O style, forcing an early diplomatic solution in the West then switching East if need be.

I think though do not quote me Moltke personally was more interested in an East anyway. Or at least he didn't have enough units for what was purposed to be done near a decade earlier.. Whatever... I think that when one looks at say Barbarossa, realistically from the standpoint in the German Army and GHC of 1941 they were so estatic and so high on their victories. They kept naming dates on how long before the USSR collapses. Though in retrospect they didn't do such things previously, perhaps in a way dooming themselves by being drunk on early victories.

Similarly the Early Prussian Victory over France in the FrancoPrussian War and the successive victories over every opponent afterward may have made the German Army a little too confidant. Perhaps a very massive Bleeding offensive for '14 then a followup hammerblow for '15 may have been a bit more realistic, in the light trenches though I may be wrong, but doubtful. Cramming everything into the same road, lines of communication, every horse, every cannon, every soldier for that matter is a lot do.. From what I hear of the early sweeping motions of the early portion of WW1 it seems a s if the borders were extremely static and nothing concrete was ever achieved

Germany needed everything IMO after France... They needed to focus and stay with it until she was bled dry... Then turn on the slower mobilizing Russians

(in reply to boogada)

Post #: 20

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/29/2008 4:56:57 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Yes there are other "what ifs"...but the presence or absence of the BEF is het only one that is really relevant to the British joining the war!! :)

It's not unreasonable to consider 1 variable changiong at a time.... trying to consider the implications of 2 or more changing is a whole lot more complicated.

also please note I did NOT say that France would be defeated in 1914 - I did say "quickly"....but that's a fairly imprecise term - I agree it's entirely possible they would have fought on until 1915 - they fought after Paris was beseiged in 1870, and can't think of any reason they would not do so again, and that would still be a quick defeat IMO.

But I'm pretty sure they were going to be defeated without the Brits in eth war, and that was the original point for consideration.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 21

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/29/2008 5:20:43 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

SMK, I know of a few Great Uncles of mine that died in trenches in WW1, a Great Great Grandmother of mine had a number of children in the teens, all boys. All dead before her, some of smoking and many of WW1

Ultimately, people may not respect the British Losses in those trenches. They were really really high considering that's not even British soil. Near around 1 million casaulties or so? God Knows exactly, that and the blood spilt in unknown farout fronts in MidEast-Gallipoli

British-OE sort of makes it a nobrainer... You're going to get the Limeys in that's Empire there those Turks are messing with...

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 22

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/29/2008 10:29:30 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Um....I'm not trying to disrespect anyone - what makes you think I am??

New Zealand suffered one of the highest % casualties of any "western" country in the war - we had 1 division in hte war - it suffered more casualties in 3 weeks on the Somme than in the 9 months of the much more celebrated Gallipoli campaign - I'm well aware of the unknown horrors

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 23

RE: Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War - 2/29/2008 6:04:03 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Not taken as such...

ANZAC troops did pay a great deal in blood. Especially considering their relative homelands are thousands and thousands of miles away.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 24