Alternate British Non-Entry into the Great War

[SMK-at-work]

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.

[wargamer123]

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...

[SMK-at-work]

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

[wargamer123]

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.