Impact of CP WW1 Victory on a Neutral British Empire?

[Disraeli's Ghost]

My general question is how a German victory would impact the British Empire, in a scenario where Britain remained on the sidelines throughout the July Crisis?

For me, having recently studied the pre-1914 politics of Britain, one idea that keeps cropping up is that of a 'Weary Titan'. Politicians like Joseph Chamberlain in particular bought into the idea that Britain was losing its preeminence in global affairs to Germany and the United States. The result was a large number of societies popping up throughout the period, focused on raising awareness of the empire and military matters. As well as a series of proposals for strengthening the empire, particularly the exciting topic of tariff reform/Imperial Preference.

Historically these ideas were largely kept in check first by Lord Salisbury, and then by the Liberal internationalism of the Campbell-Bannerman/ Asquith administrations.

But how would a German victory, and the resulting castration of Europe impact British politics and the empire?

Personally, I think rather than seek accommodation with the new German order, the result would be a new wave of imperialist and jingoist politics throughout the empire. Things like Tariff Reform I could see making a resurgence as a way to strengthen the British bloc against German dominated Europe. Would Imperial Federation now be taken seriously, with an aggressive and victorious Germany flaunting its power across Europe?
How would things like the Home Rule be impacted by such a scenario? Would a clash between Germany and Britain be inevitable or not?

 

[Garrison]

My general question is how a German victory would impact the British Empire, in a scenario where Britain remained on the sidelines throughout the July Crisis?

For me, having recently studied the pre-1914 politics of Britain, one idea that keeps cropping up is that of a 'Weary Titan'. Politicians like Joseph Chamberlain in particular bought into the idea that Britain was losing its preeminence in global affairs to Germany and the United States. The result was a large number of societies popping up throughout the period, focused on raising awareness of the empire and military matters. As well as a series of proposals for strengthening the empire, particularly the exciting topic of tariff reform/Imperial Preference.

Historically these ideas were largely kept in check first by Lord Salisbury, and then by the Liberal internationalism of the Campbell-Bannerman/ Asquith administrations.

But how would a German victory, and the resulting castration of Europe impact British politics and the empire?

Personally, I think rather than seek accommodation with the new German order, the result would be a new wave of imperialist and jingoist politics throughout the empire. Things like Tariff Reform I could see making a resurgence as a way to strengthen the British bloc against German dominated Europe. Would Imperial Federation now be taken seriously, with an aggressive and victorious Germany flaunting its power across Europe?
How would things like the Home Rule be impacted by such a scenario? Would a clash between Germany and Britain be inevitable or not?

Much depends on the nature of the victory. If Germany is stronger than before the war but not the master of the whole of Europe Britain pursues it interests and does the best it can to ensure that there are no threats from the Low Countries. If Britain stays out there may be the possibility of a rapprochement with the Germans, especially if there are moves towards political reform in Germany. On the other hand if this is some sort Deutschland Uber Alles victory then all bets are off. The British will do everything in their power to undermine Germany and pin them back in Europe.

 

[Wendell]

It's probably a net positive for the British Empire.

 

[Garrison]

It's probably a net positive for the British Empire.

Exactly, a quick German win in 1914 probably means that overall Britain benefits from not practically bankrupting itself, not to mention all the lives not lost. A drawn out war where the CP more or less 'wins' whatever peace is signed is also more than likely a net positive. Only if Germany ends up superdominant do I see any sort of negative consequences for the British Empire and even then it depends on how stable the new order in Europe turns out to be.

 

[Wendell]

Exactly, a quick German win in 1914 probably means that overall Britain benefits from not practically bankrupting itself, not to mention all the lives not lost. A drawn out war where the CP more or less 'wins' whatever peace is signed is also more than likely a win. Only if Germany ends up superdominant do I see any sort of negative consequences for the British Empire and even then it depends on how stable the new order in Europe turns out to be.

There's also no realistic way or Germany to become super dominant. Britain, for example, not being in the war, can threaten to join the conflict if the Germans are unreasonable in postwar demands.

 

[Disraeli's Ghost]

Exactly, a quick German win in 1914 probably means that overall Britain benefits from not practically bankrupting itself, not to mention all the lives not lost. A drawn out war where the CP more or less 'wins' whatever peace is signed is also more than likely a net positive. Only if Germany ends up superdominant do I see any sort of negative consequences for the British Empire and even then it depends on how stable the new order in Europe turns out to be.

Generally I agree that remaining neutral was preferable.

But I'm not quite sure Britain is sitting quite as pretty in such a scenario.
If the Germans take Paris they can relegate France to the third class power they intended. Annexing their industrial heartland and supressing them with reparations. They'll also be able to enact something like the Septemberprogramm in the East.

I personally think Britain could have negotiated a German withdrawal from Belgium. But even so, the Kaiser and his militarists worst tendencies have just paid off and left Germany in control of much of Europe. If Britain ends up in a war with Germany, as the Kaiser may well fancy after a triumph in Europe (whatever form that takes), it has no allies in the immediate future.

There's also no realistic way or Germany to become super dominant. Britain, for example, not being in the war, can threaten to join the conflict if the Germans are unreasonable in postwar demands.

Germany didn't care about Britain joining before the war, why should they care when they've just crushed the French Army? To me looking at German diplomacy during the war and before, says they'll make their excessive demands and leave Britain to like it or lump it in most cases.

 

[Wendell]

Germany didn't care about Britain joining before the war, why should they care when they've just crushed the French Army? To me looking at German diplomacy during the war and before, says they'll make their excessive demands and leave Britain to like it or lump it in most cases.

Is an exhausted Germany in any shape to take on the British Empire under those circumstances? One doubts that with all the egos and bravado involved, the Germans aren't going to be stupid, especially given their agreements with Britain over the Portuguese colonies and the fact that the Germans entered the war without clear victory aims.

 

[Garrison]

Germany didn't care about Britain joining before the war, why should they care when they've just crushed the French Army? To me looking at German diplomacy during the war and before, says they'll make their excessive demands and leave Britain to like it or lump it in most cases.

They cared, they just assumed in 1914 they could finish off the French before any British blockade would have an impact and that the British couldn't have any meaningful impact on the fighting on land. As with so many other assumptions the Germans made both were badly flawed. If the Germans behave as badly in France as they did in Belgium Britain will have all the excuse they need to maintain the blockade and the financial means to do so. And if the Germans are thinking of getting access to the French colonial empire well I suspect they will be disappointed in that.

 

[Riain]

One non negotiable German war aim was that it's former enemies not erect punitive tariff barriers to German trade throughout the world, as MittelEuropa was no economic substitute to access to global markets. This shows both what Germany's rivals like Britain can and will likely do, and how important it was to Germany for them not to do it.

However Britain won't be able to push its luck too far as it will lack the strength of a victorious Germany within a few years of the victory. Once peace returns and Germany has incorporated the reparations of France and Russia she will be a superpower closer to the USA than to Britain and without Britain's vulnerability to blockade on food. As Britain stood aloof she would have no say if Germany was able to negotiate basing rights for German warships in France and the transfer of colonies.

Personally I'd think Britain would try the carrot and stick approach. She would keep the threat of punitive trade barriers alive while doing things like dividing the Portuguese colonial empire between then like they planned to do in 1913.

 

[Aphrodite]

A neutral Britain would go down to defeat within two to three years- that was the opinion of Haldane and why he chose to fight.

First, a war without Britain will be short. France will be lucky to survive past the Marne. Take the six British divisions away and it's easy to see Germany taking advantage of the opportunity at Guise, the French not having enough at the Marne or being forced to abandon Nancy.

Even if she survives, a neutral Britain means Germany can import at will and France will be hard pressed to borrow abroad. Germany will also be pounding the French coasts at will. Italy is almost certain to join in the war.

Once France is beaten, the Russians will seek terms. Those terms will be at Britain's expense.

As for the Germans, they will have to try al control over the seas. The little British fleet will now face:
A German fleet at Brest able to get to the open seas
A Germany immune from blockade
A Germany supported by the allied Italian and Austrian fleet
A Germany able to use France's worldwide network of based
A Germany able to send surface raiders around the globe
A Germany likely augmented by the captured French and Russian fleets. France and Russia had 15 dreadnoughts and four battle cruisers building. That alone was more than Britain had
On the blocks.

Britain would have little chance of borrowing anything abroad. No one would like her chances and cash on the barrel will be the terms

Britain needed the American, French, Italian and Japanese navies to keep the sealanes open against a Germany fighting for its life on land. I see no reasonable scenario where she can fight a hegemonic Germany.

A neutral Britain would probably face even worse if France and Russia win

 

[Catspoke]

I am assuming this must be about the usual Germany east first scenario popular on this board. Britain ignoring an OTL advance through Belgium seems extra unlikely, otherwise you invite the @Aphrodite world above.

So such a peace the OP proposes would likely have to be after Germany beats up Russia a bit in 1914 before a peace, the result of which forces Russia out of Balkan politics. Maybe some minor colonial concessions from France, Togo expanded up to the Niger, some French Pacific islands maybe. This kind of peace wouldn't affect or bother Britain that much. If this becomes a 2 or 3 year grinder war in the east, with Germany demanding lots of things, its hard to imagine Britain staying out that long, would at least do a colonial blockade war.

Certainly if a peace with even a minor German victory happens, France and Russia might seethe, not trust Britain then. If another thing like the Fashoda incident or Boer war happens, Britain might be very much alone, but that kind of thing is not likely to happen post 1914.

Perhaps Germany then gets aggressive and just invades Portuguese Angola and Timor or something and isolated Britain just has to let it pass (or agree to a split when they don't really want to).

 

[Conveyancer]

If Germany goes east not west when the war starts, and Britain is embroiled in issues around Irish Home Rule, then absent an attack on Belgium or a complete emasculation of France and German navy bases in Brest I think there is a bit of a watching brief. Perhaps a quasi-cold war? Interested in what others think.

Germany goes through Belgium than I think Britain follows the OTL route.

 

[Disraeli's Ghost]

I am assuming this must be about the usual Germany east first scenario popular on this board. Britain ignoring an OTL advance through Belgium seems extra unlikely, otherwise you invite the @Aphrodite world above.

I specifically left how Germany wins vague, for fear the thread would descend into another discussion about that subject. Though looking at the reply's I think not being specific has caused more problems than had I just said how they won to start with. In my mind I had it being as close to OTL as possible, until the decisive moment. (i.e. maybe Lloyd-George swings against intervention and causes the government to fall). Oh well.

Perhaps a quasi-cold war? Interested in what others think.

This is mainly what I was thinking about, though I've found all replies interesting.
Some historians that have speculated on this like Niall Ferguson, argue Britain could have come to an accommodation with Germany following their victory. I was interested to see whether people thought this likely, or it would just escalate Anglo-German tensions further. And, what the impact would be on the British Empire. Whether it would stop the sort of drift like approach which had been taken in previous decades, and a more formal understanding of what the empire was hammered out to counter the German threat.

If the Germans behave as badly in France as they did in Belgium Britain will have all the excuse they need to maintain the blockade and the financial means to do so.

Would Britain really consider enforcing a semi-permanent blockade of Europe though in this scenario (if that's what you are proposing)? It seems like a strategy that might work when there is a continental ally to do the groundwork, or the prospect of having one in the near future. But Germany would have just defeated its only serious competition in Europe.

 

[Garrison]

I specifically left how Germany wins vague, for fear the thread would descend into another discussion about that subject. Though looking at the reply's I think not being specific has caused more problems than had I just said how they won to start with. In my mind I had it being as close to OTL as possible, until the decisive moment. (i.e. maybe Lloyd-George swings against intervention and causes the government to fall). Oh well.

This is mainly what I was thinking about, though I've found all replies interesting.
Some historians that have speculated on this like Niall Ferguson, argue Britain could have come to an accommodation with Germany following their victory. I was interested to see whether people thought this likely, or it would just escalate Anglo-German tensions further. And, what the impact would be on the British Empire. Whether it would stop the sort of drift like approach which had been taken in previous decades,

Would Britain really consider enforcing a semi-permanent blockade of Europe though in this scenario (if that's what you are proposing)? It seems like a strategy that might work when there is a continental ally to do the groundwork, or the prospect of having one in the near future. But Germany would have just defeated its only serious competition in Europe.
and a more formal understanding of what the empire was hammered out to counter the German threat.

Well if the Germans are indulging in wholesale pillaging and the use of slave labour, then I'm guessing an embargo won't be that hard to sell.

 

[Catspoke]

If we go with the OTL west first scenario, the Germans "win" the Marne without British divisions and the Germans control in early September North West France and all the mining and industrial places, but don't have enough strength to encircle and take Paris. and Tannenberg happens just the same as OTL, but Austrians are getting beat by both the Russians and the Serbs as per OTL.

Perhaps there an opportunity for a German favorable compromise peace the British can live with, perhaps the British propose a peace settlement???? (Austria gets what she wants on Serbia, some minor colonial adjustments for Germany.

 

[Catspoke]

If we go with the OTL west first scenario, the Germans "win" the Marne without British divisions and the Germans control in early September North West France and all the mining and industrial places, but don't have enough strength to encircle and take Paris. and Tannenberg happens just the same as OTL, but Austrians are getting beat by both the Russians and the Serbs as per OTL.

Perhaps there an opportunity for a German favorable compromise peace the British can live with, perhaps the British propose a peace settlement???? (Austria gets what she wants on Serbia, some minor colonial adjustments for Germany.

Plus maybe a secret clause that the Portuguese colony split can happen if everything is still peaceful in one year.

 

[Disraeli's Ghost]

Well if the Germans are indulging in wholesale pillaging and the use of slave labour, then I'm guessing an embargo won't be that hard to sell.

I have no doubt. But would it really be in Britain's interest to engage in a naval blockade of one of their largest trading partners (and presumably most of Europe as well) for the foreseeable future? The naval blockade may have been the decisive factor in the First World War. But with all Europe's resources at Germany's disposal here, what is the ultimate endgame? Breaking the German economy is surely impossible, or at least not likely in the immediate future?

 

[Disraeli's Ghost]

Plus maybe a secret clause that the Portuguese colony split can happen if everything is still peaceful in one year.

Seeing some sort of compromise and detente after the German victory by way of something like this would certainly be interesting. I tend to think the post-war British government though would be loathe to carry forward any such agreement with a victorious and expansionist Germany.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The most likely way this goes is that France falls and Russia negotiates a status quo ante bellum for themselves. The war will be over by Christmas, the peace may take longer, but Germany's demands are not going to be outrageous - in OTL they got more and more extreme as the war dragged on, partially as a way of compensating for the cost and losses of said war.

France may lose the rest of Alsace-Lorraine and have to destroy border fortresses elsewhere. Their main loss though will be in colonies, either handed to Germany or given back to an independence that the Germans can now dominate.

Serbia will be a goner, but Montenegro will survive.

Russia will be badly shaken by its losses and defeats and having come out with reduced global influence, and the loss of its allies. But it may well avoid an actual revolution in the way that the regime falls. Outbreaks and disturbances, yes, insurrections maybe, but the monarchy remains.

If Italy has remained neutral then it could even be said that British foreign policy in its Mediterranean strategy has scored a success in isolating it from the Triple Alliance, because as a concept that would basically be dead.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Garrison]

I have no doubt. But would it really be in Britain's interest to engage in a naval blockade of one of their largest trading partners (and presumably most of Europe as well) for the foreseeable future? The naval blockade may have been the decisive factor in the First World War. But with all Europe's resources at Germany's disposal here, what is the ultimate endgame? Breaking the German economy is surely impossible, or at least not likely in the immediate future?

A German dominated Europe is an endless strategic threat to Britain, unless that ends how can they do anything else?