If Germany doesnt start at war with Belgium ...

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

France prostrate and irrelevant

How is that different?

[Dirtdog20]

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

France prostrate and irrelevant

How is that different?

Dont ask the French that. They may just have to drive over some more German cars during exercises.

[FrankHunter]

Okay, here was my thinking on this subject that led to my decision not to make Germany start the game at war with Belgium but at war with Britain.   Early on in the design Britain started the war completely neutral.  But my reading showed that Britain and France did not start making plans for how they would conduct a war against Germany the day after Belgium was invaded.  That planning started about a decade earlier if I recall correctly.  I agree there was not an iron-clad commitment from Britain to France but it was way beyond complete and strict neutrality.  French military planning assumed the British would be there on the flank and even von Schlieffen expected British forces to come to the aid of the French although he expected them to be dealt with easily.

In my opinion, and I stress its only my opinion, Britain would have sided with France whether or not Belgium was invaded.  Belgium simply helped sell the idea to the public much faster.   Unlike Germany and France though, the British army starts the game very small and it takes some time before they are able to build up a large force.

[no_dice]

Hmm, it's been a while since I studied this in university (I wrote a paper on Britain's entry into the war) but a more accurate take on the situation would be that Britain is neutral with until "war is declared" but is entirely active against the High Seas Fleet the moment it leaves port. The British fleet was on annual manuevers before hostitilities took place and did not demobilize back to peace time strenght as the pre-war crisis grew. The British policy that was implemented was that they were not going to give the High Seas fleet a free hand and would have fought them had they sortied and tried anything we gamers would call sneaky.

Interesting to see if a British player could try and "Copenhagen them" - as the Huns feared - before war is formally declared in this game(Churchill was the first sea lord so I wouldn't rule it out historically).

The actual British declaration of war was near thing in the Liberal goverment cabinet. Some of the supporting documentation that I recall had the government declaring war because if they didn't the government would fall and the opposition would do so in any event. Frank's post is just about right in my opinion but I would try and limit Britain's involvement without some kind of additional provacation from Germany.

While we are on the topic of sneaky Frank can you comment on if you are going to handle the war rumor that the germans believed that 100,000 Russians had landed in scotland and were going to invade belgium autumn 1914?

No Dice

[FrankHunter]

Interesting that you mention the naval aspect.  It was one of the gnawing things affecting the change, how can I have the British navy be at war and contest any German naval movement while the army remains at peace until Belgium is invaded.

[sol_invictus]

This limited war probably would have lasted until the first British sailor was killed and certainly no longer than the first British ship being sunk. I just can't imagine the policy could be maintained for very long. I can see how it would be very difficult to implemet this in a game.

Of course, this raisies the issue of what Britain would have done had Germany stayed completely on the defensive in the west and kept the fleet in port. I imagine after Russia started getting pounded and continued French calls for assisitance, Britain would have sent soldiers to the continent. This could be modelled by delaying British entry by a turn or two, or at least making it a bit random. Two truns after the war starts though, I think Britain should be a full belligerent no matter what Germany has done.

[Ironclad]

If Germany had opted for a sole eastern offenensive it would have presented the British Government with a horrendous dilemma.

I can't see the British Liberal Government in 1914 having the political strength/nerve to join in a conflict where France was not under immediate threat (and was actually attacking) in the face of public opinion. If the High Seas Fleet was kept in port at a low state of readiness or deployed in the eastern Baltic only this would have been the "acid" on the cake. A declaration of war would have split the Cabinet and party and I think the replacement Conservative Government would have faced the same problem of lack of public support for armed intervention.

It would have been similar to the American administration's position during the 1939-41 period - arms/war materials/loans but no troops engaged. Over time British public opinion could have been won around but that wouldn't have happened until some time into 1915 at the earliest unless German restraint slipped.

Of course the saving grace for the British Government was that the German Army leadership by 1914 had given up any possibility of such a two front strategy - not that the navy had ever adopted it. So maybe it is unfair to pose it as a credible option in 1914.

[sol_invictus]

Indeed, the German policy/strategy, was fatally flawed in that it created to many enemies. With a more deft hand, Germany probably could have avoided war with Britain and America and certainly have won the war. I think Britain would have faced a stark choice though, once Russia had been defeated and the full fury of Germany was directed at France. Of course, France may have accepted or offered peace terms after Russia's defeat, if Britain remained neutral. If France had continued the war, it would have been very difficult for Britain to stand by and watch France also beaten down. Of course, it would have almost certainly been to late, at that point, for Britain to save the situation. Regardless, I find the speculation interesting.

[SMK-at-work]

I played a test game vs ejs where I, as the CP, went all out vs russia while trying to hold the French....it didn't really work all that well.  the French were able to push dep into German, albeit with lots of casualties, and while the russians were also pushed back a long way, they have MUCH more distance in which to be pushed back into!!

the game stalled when we found a little bug (I couldn't reinforce some Austrian corps I'd rushed to Germany to try to halt the French), but well before the Brits were properly into it IIRC.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

SMK - I can't remember - does Belgian neutrality affect British deployment?

not at all IIRC.

I agree it would be an interesting option to have the Brits not in the war.

IMO it could go something like this.....

1/ TE player does not "play" the UK until it's in the war
2/ UK starts to expand army at start of game - representing mobilisation of territorials - but perhaps a little slower.
3/ UK declares war when a number of transports are sunk/attacked by central powers (some of the ships represented are bound to be British, even if they are "French" units in the game...), or when/if Belgium is invaded.

so the UK would enter the war with some more forces than just the 2 corps it gets in 1914.

One for the patch perhaps....

[marklv]

Before Belgium was invaded Britain warned Germany that it could not guarantee its neutrality in case mass war broke out in Europe.  This was basically a declaration of 'cold war' on Germany and was intended as a deterrent.  If Germany had not invaded Belgium (very unlikely as the German Schlieffen war plans necessitated such an invasion) then in all likelihood Britain would have stood back and waited.  A German frontal attack on France, through the Vosges mountains, would have been fiercely resisted and probably failed badly with heavy losses.  Germany needed a 'clever' attack because it lacked the numerical and material superiority required to break through in a powerful frontal attack into France.  In case of German failure the attitude of Britain would have become more hostile, and eventually another pretext would have been found to enter the war.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

You have to figure the Huns roll to an easy victory without Britain in the picture.

A couple of British divisions were not the reason for Germany being unable to gain victory in 1914. The next year was one of staggering unpreparedness, so until 1916, France was not in a dramatically different position to having no help on the west. Perhaps there would have been less impetus to attack, and the reverse for Germany, leading to a different pattern of casualties.

Whether France and Russia could hold on and force peace is another matter, but assuming an easy German victory ignores there complete lack of success on the offensive in the west, outside a few short months in 1914.

[SMK-at-work]

"A couple of British Divisions" = 6....small, but not insignificant - they held an important part of the line, and in GoA the 2 British Corps will do teh same if the Belgians are invaded - you'll be damned glad they're there!
 
Take the BEF out of this map - http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/worldwari_maps_map08_largerview.htm and there's an awfully large hole between the French 5th and 6th armies into which Kluck's 1st army is heading - the Germans would have been in a great position to roll up the French line.....

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

"A couple of British Divisions" = 6....small, but not insignificant - they held an important part of the line, and in GoA the 2 British Corps will do teh same if the Belgians are invaded - you'll be damned glad they're there!

Take the BEF out of this map - http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/worldwari_maps_map08_largerview.htm and there's an awfully large hole between the French 5th and 6th armies into which Kluck's 1st army is heading - the Germans would have been in a great position to roll up the French line.....

But things would not have looked like that map without a German invasion of Belgium.

Forcing Britain to be at war from the start seems simply wrong-headed. In a game like this, I'd expect the Germans to be able to explore a strategy of going on the defensive against the French in the West while going for a quick result in the East. Keep Britain out of the war & avoid blockade for as long as possible; put the odium and costs of attacking on the French; tout yrself as the champion of Europe against the fairly generally disliked Tsar; make sure you have the logistics to secure the Ukrainian harvest; present Britain down the track with a situation where she can either join her traditional enemy France in beating their heads against the German frontier & implementing a blockade much reduced in effectiveness, or join with Germany in developing the Russian market.

[marklv]

Although the British forces would grow to a very substantial size over the course of the war, the British presence in 1914 was strategically insignificant.  The Germans are stopped by their own indecision on the Marne when up against stiff resistance. 
 
The French army in 1914 was actually much better prepared than the German.  79% of eligible adult males in France underwent three years of military service, while the figure for Germany was only around 50%.  This negated the German population advantage and gave France an edge.  The German Kaiser had been too obsessed with a naval arms race with Britain in previous years, so spending on the army was neglected.  He would live to regret this.

[Beyer160]

ORIGINAL: marklv
Although the British forces would grow to a very substantial size over the course of the war, the British presence in 1914 was strategically insignificant.  The Germans are stopped by their own indecision on the Marne when up against stiff resistance. 

In a strategic sense, you're right- in the grand scheme the BEF was tiny, but the indecision at the Marne you refer to was the result of Von Kluck's loosing his cavalry screen in a meeting engagement with the British at Nery. Without cavalry, Von Kluck had no idea what kind of oposition he was facing at the Marne- First Army was essentially blind as they closed in on Paris.

It was eye-opening the first time I saw a map of the Western Front and compared the length of frontage held by the French against that held by the British.

[iamspamus]

The bigger question was if Germany got it's "Lebensraum" (of course used ahead of it's time), would they have even needed to go into France? And this especially after the pruning of the flower of the Germany army by direct assault of France itself. (This takes into account the idea of NOT going through Belgium and thus not giving GB the casus belli to dow.)

I don't know, but it is an interesting thought.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Indeed, the German policy/strategy, was fatally flawed in that it created to many enemies. With a more deft hand, Germany probably could have avoided war with Britain and America and certainly have won the war. I think Britain would have faced a stark choice though, once Russia had been defeated and the full fury of Germany was directed at France. Of course, France may have accepted or offered peace terms after Russia's defeat, if Britain remained neutral. If France had continued the war, it would have been very difficult for Britain to stand by and watch France also beaten down. Of course, it would have almost certainly been to late, at that point, for Britain to save the situation. Regardless, I find the speculation interesting.

[iamspamus]

Well, they had enough to stop the Germans on the Marne and save Paris. Period. This was the direct result of the German's violation of Belgian neutrality.

Jason

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

The British don't have much commitment anyway until mid 1915.

[iamspamus]

Well, yes, but there were many other issues that factored in.

Never strip the right wing to support the left was the original mantra. The Germans did that.
They (just like the French) had an offensive, offensive, offensive mentality.

But the issue is that had the Brits not been there Von Kluck PROBABLY would have gotten into Paris. In my opinion, Britain would not have entered immediately without Begium being invaded and so wouldn't have been there to stop the German adavance.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Beyer160

ORIGINAL: marklv
Although the British forces would grow to a very substantial size over the course of the war, the British presence in 1914 was strategically insignificant.  The Germans are stopped by their own indecision on the Marne when up against stiff resistance. 

In a strategic sense, you're right- in the grand scheme the BEF was tiny, but the indecision at the Marne you refer to was the result of Von Kluck's loosing his cavalry screen in a meeting engagement with the British at Nery. Without cavalry, Von Kluck had no idea what kind of oposition he was facing at the Marne- First Army was essentially blind as they closed in on Paris.

It was eye-opening the first time I saw a map of the Western Front and compared the length of frontage held by the French against that held by the British.

[Berkut]

Well, I don't think that France would have fallen had Paris been taken anyway - this was not 1940, with the French national will crushed by the decimation of WW1. They would have fought on, and were planning to do so.

The British involvement was somewhat sporadic in any case, with poor cooperation with the French. in the early months.

I don't think Britain would have sat on the sidelines for too long absent the invasion of Belgium, they would have still entered the war, and probably sooner rather than later - they had made some promises to France after all. But I think that participation would have been considerably less enthisiastic, and with a longer ramp up time to full commitment.