Effects on the July 1914 crisis if Conservative government is leading in Britain?

[raharris1973]

What if a relatively late PoD places the Conservatives at the head of the British governing coalition by some point in 1912, 1913, or very early 1914, possibly headed by Arthur Balfour, instead of OTL's Liberal government headed by Asquith.

Furthermore, suppose a "butterfly net" means the Sarajevo assassination and July Crisis still occurs. Will Germany and Austria be estimating their situation or chances any differently with a Conservative government in Britain that is likely more vocally militarist and navalist, and possibly more openly pro-Entente as well?

How will the public rhetoric and private diplomacy of the Conservative government match or diverge from that of Asquith and Grey? Would they issue explicit warnings and promises that war on the Entente powers means war with Britain, either publicly or privately?

Would they wait upon events developing in Belgium and use that as a focal point of argumentation in public rhetoric and with wavering parliamentarians?

 

[ATP]

Germany still wanted war before Russia become too strong to fight - so they would start war anyway.Maybe attack Russia instead,to not provoke England - but England would fight anyway.

 

[stevep]

What if a relatively late PoD places the Conservatives at the head of the British governing coalition by some point in 1912, 1913, or very early 1914, possibly headed by Arthur Balfour, instead of OTL's Liberal government headed by Asquith.

Furthermore, suppose a "butterfly net" means the Sarajevo assassination and July Crisis still occurs. Will Germany and Austria be estimating their situation or chances any differently with a Conservative government in Britain that is likely more vocally militarist and navalist, and possibly more openly pro-Entente as well?

How will the public rhetoric and private diplomacy of the Conservative government match or diverge from that of Asquith and Grey? Would they issue explicit warnings and promises that war on the Entente powers means war with Britain, either publicly or privately?

Would they wait upon events developing in Belgium and use that as a focal point of argumentation in public rhetoric and with wavering parliamentarians?

Well as you say such a British government is likely to be more belligerent plus with a late POD Germany would go for its OTL invasion of Belgium so I think it would ensure pretty much the war as OTL. A more openly anti-German stance could make France more confident while I can't see it affecting Germany other than probably making the Kaiser and army more militant themselves.

As ATP says there was going concern in Berlin, arguably in London as well that Russian strength was growing rapidly. Not sure how accurate this was given what actually happened in the war and the Russian empire had a number of serious flaws, not limited to the imperial family. However it's commonly stated that the German leadership were convinced that by 1916 the Russian military and railway system would have been developed such that they could no longer risk trying a quick knock-out blow against France before switching forces to face Russia. Even seen it suggested that might have been why Germany was so eager for war in 1914.

The one issue that would make me cautious about British entry into the war would be that a Tory government is almost certain to be opposed to Irish Home-Rule. As such there could be a major crisis in Ireland which might distract London at a vital time.

Steve

 

[Buba]

If Sarajevo and France's carte blanche to Sankt Peterburg are as in OTL, then there must be a war.
In spite of a more openly hostile UK enough of the top levels of German military had deluded themselves into believing that Moltke's Plan would work. Hence Britain's intervention would come too late to matter.
No Ostaufmarsch - here again enough of the topmost generals had wed themselves to the "beat France first" strategy and outright lied to the Kaiser that attacking eastward was "no can do".
So, I suspect that events follow OTL.

1914 might be too early for Britain to switch its policy of Entente Cordiale. But give it a few years, have the French finish the 8-12 dreadnaughts they were building/planning, have Russia lay down the 8 4x3x16" battleships it was thinking about, and we will have the Tories eying Berlin and thinking about an alliance in spite of their Germanophobia ...

 

[raharris1973]

Germany still wanted war before Russia become too strong to fight - so they would start war anyway.Maybe attack Russia instead,to not provoke England - but England would fight anyway.

Looking at the idea of Germany going east to avoid provoking Britain, but Britain meddling anyway for *reasons*.

Is Germany and Austria occupying several hundred square kilometers of Serbia and Russian Poland, and smacking around the Serbian and Russian armies, while successfully defending against France in Alsace-Lorraine (and in defending, that means not really threatening to occupy France or its Low Country neighbors) all adding up to a major pro-German, specifically anti-British, shift in the European and world balance of power?

I guess Britain could have a domino theory opining that shifts in control over Serbia and Russian Poland are the hinge of the global balance of power, but they could also conclude, that it really is just a minor change of administrative lines of jurisdiction over a bunch poor, uninteresting vodka-drinking, pierogi-eaters.

 

[Buba]

Britain had been gearing for war with Germany since the middle/late naughts - including semi-official (which the French thought official) arrangements on where to deploy its army in northern France.
Also, curbing its strange obsession with the idea of Russia invading India.
So yes, the UK was worried about Germany.
Fate of drunk pierogi eaters and/or some goat shaggers did not come into it.

 

[stevep]

Britain had been gearing for war with Germany since the middle/late naughts - including semi-official (which the French thought official) arrnagements on where to deploy its army in northern France.
Also, curbing its strange obsession with the idea of Russia invading India.
So yes, the UK was worried about Germany.
Fate of drunk pierogi eaters and/or some goat shaggers did not come into it.

Yes the growing hostility of the German leadership, not just the naval threat that Germany was so determined to pose was a major concern for Britain. This went back to at least the Boer war when Germany offered support to the Boers in their attack on S Africa.

 

[raharris1973]

Yes the growing hostility of the German leadership, not just the naval threat that Germany was so determined to pose was a major concern for Britain. This went back to at least the Boer war when Germany offered support to the Boers in their attack on S Africa.

Yabbut the French and Russians went even further to support the Boers. In fact by 1914 some British diplomat was rewriting history to attribute a Russian intervention proposal Germany warned Britain about, to Germany.

 

[Aaron Fox]

It wouldn't do shit. Britain's primary geopolitical goal in Europe is literally divide and conquer. Germany made that impossible.

Germany's leadership wasn't that belligerent, at least not more than average. Remember, Germans would never trust the French before the Cold War, largely because history told them that France was one of their worst enemies.

It should be noted that Kaiser Willy tried to keep things from going out of control during the July Crisis. Problem is, well, too many people with axes to grind or having too many people with more ideology than sense in charge of critical leadership positions.

 

[raharris1973]

It wouldn't do shit.

I'm sorry, I need to double-check your meaning to be sure I am interpreting your bottom-line corrections.

"It wouldn't do shit" to you means "having a Conservative government would make for no divergence from the course of action the OTL Liberal government took"?

or

"It wouldn't do shit" to you means "A Conservative government would not take any dynamic action in favor of any allies or against any enemies in the July Crisis of July 1914"

Because I'm not sure what direction you are arguing from here, I can't tell specifically who you have in mind in these statements:

well, too many people with axes to grind

Where, in Britain? Germany? Austria? France, Russia?

too many people with more ideology than sense in charge of critical leadership positions

Where, in Britain? Germany? Austria? France, Russia?

 

[Aaron Fox]

I'm sorry, I need to double-check your meaning to be sure I am interpreting your bottom-line corrections.

"It wouldn't do shit" to you means "having a Conservative government would make for no divergence from the course of action the OTL Liberal government took"?

or

"It wouldn't do shit" to you means "A Conservative government would not take any dynamic action in favor of any allies or against any enemies in the July Crisis of July 1914"

Because I'm not sure what direction you are arguing from here, I can't tell specifically who you have in mind in these statements:

It won't change from OTL in the slightest. Sorry for not explaining.

Where, in Britain? Germany? Austria? France, Russia?

France (because, well, they lost in Franco-Prussia and were still seriously butt-hurt over it to the point that it became a political ideology) and Britain (who looked out the window one day and discovered that their divide and conquer Europe stratagem isn't going to work anymore, people forget that by the 19-teens, it was Berlin that was becoming the economic and technological center of Europe, not London) to start. Remember, Germany was dragged into WW1, not an active belligerent.

Where, in Britain? Germany? Austria? France, Russia?

France (as above) and Serbia (the Black Hand -a group of nationalists that have more nationalism than sense- pretty much controlled the Serbian Intelligence Service at this time) to start out with.

 

[stevep]

It won't change from OTL in the slightest. Sorry for not explaining.

France (because, well, they lost in Franco-Prussia and were still seriously butt-hurt over it to the point that it became a political ideology) and Britain (who looked out the window one day and discovered that their divide and conquer Europe stratagem isn't going to work anymore, people forget that by the 19-teens, it was Berlin that was becoming the economic and technological center of Europe, not London) to start. Remember, Germany was dragged into WW1, not an active belligerent.

France (as above) and Serbia (the Black Hand -a group of nationalists that have more nationalism than sense- pretty much controlled the Serbian Intelligence Service at this time) to start out with.

If that was being dragged into WWI then I would hate to see a Germany eager for war! They fully supported Austria in very extreme demands on a neighbouring state that were widely seen as unacceptable and again when Austria decided that massive Serbian concessions were unacceptable to them. they were the only power that had the policy that mobilizations meant war, so much so that the invasion of a neutral state, as part of an attack on another power, was part of their mobilizations process.

Its widely reported that German leaders were worried that their plan for a quick knock out blow against France in time to then switch forces to defeat the Russians would no longer be viable from 1916 due to Russian logistical developments. As such there is a good argument that the German leadership knew exactly what they were doing. Austria wouldn't have fought without promise of German support. Russia wouldn't fight but for the Austrian determination to conquer their last ally in the Balkans. France wouldn't fight if Russian wasn't attacked. Germany didn't have sole responsibility for the outbreak of war when it did but there's clear evidence that it had more than any other great power.

 

[Buba]

They fully supported Austria in very extreme demands on a neighbouring state that were widely seen as unacceptable and again when Austria decided that massive Serbian concessions were unacceptable to them. they were the only power that had the policy that mobilizations meant war, so much so that the invasion of a neutral state, as part of an attack on another power, was part of their mobilizations process.

The German mobilisation plan involving an invasion of an assuredly neutral country is indeed extremely stupid, showing that civilian oversight of the military is necessary.

I disagree with you on the rest. Great Powers bullying lesser states was normal. It just is that victors write the official history.
Don't forget that France fully supported Russia over its support of Serbia, the 1914 equivalent of Kaddafi's Libya.

I do disagree with @Aaron Fox though - in 1914 all the five Great Powers were eager for war - all jumped headfirst into the fire making happy anime girl Squee! Squee! noises.

 

[stevep]

The German mobilisation plan involving an invasion of an assuredly neutral country is indeed extremely stupid, showing that civilian oversight of the military is necessary.

I disagree with you on the rest. Great Powers bullying lesser states was normal. It just is that victors write the official history.
Don't forget that France fully supported Russia over its support of Serbia, the 1914 equivalent of Kaddafi's Libya.

I do disagree with @Aaron Fox though - in 1914 all the five Great Powers were eager for war - all jumped headfirst into the fire making happy anime girl Squee! Squee! noises.

Bullying smaller states yes. But the sort of demands that Austria made on Serbia seem to have caused widespread outrage and Serbia still accepted all bar one of them. Furthermore while Serbia was seen as distinctly less than civilized and a few years before had seen the bloody displacement of the previous dynasty I don't think the comparison with Libya is that accurate. The Black Hand group associated with the F-F assassination was at odds with the current Serbian government and I suspect the latter would be glad of an excuse to stamp down on the former.

There was too easy an acceptance of a new great war by the continental powers albeit the wiser heads were nervous about the results, possibly even if they won. Britain was a lot more cautious but felt it had no choice after the invasion of Belgium which also threatened a quick defeat of France by Germany which would have drastically upset any balance of power in Europe.

If we don't enter the war immediately then for the reasons I mentioned, plus also a clear idea of how bloody the resulting war was I could see Britain having widespread reluctance to stick our arm in the meat grinder unless there were clear motives to do so. Or someone does something really stupid which again is quite possible.

 

[Buba]

Britain was a lot more cautious but felt it had no choice after the invasion of Belgium which also threatened a quick defeat of France by Germany which would have drastically upset any balance of power in Europe.

I disagree with you here. Belgium was just a pretext. Britain had been preparing for war with Germany for years.
Any sort of quick defeat of France was up in the clouds - we are talking early August.
Simply put in 1914 enough of the British elite thought that the balance of power in Europe had been upset enough as to merit war.

I agree that Belgium was an excellent pretext to sell the "Cabinet War over Balance of Power" to the public. Even if only 20% (30%?) of the public had the vote.

 

[ATP]

It wouldn't do shit. Britain's primary geopolitical goal in Europe is literally divide and conquer. Germany made that impossible.

Germany's leadership wasn't that belligerent, at least not more than average. Remember, Germans would never trust the French before the Cold War, largely because history told them that France was one of their worst enemies.

It should be noted that Kaiser Willy tried to keep things from going out of control during the July Crisis. Problem is, well, too many people with axes to grind or having too many people with more ideology than sense in charge of critical leadership positions.

Only partially true.England wonted divide and keep divided,not conqer.And they made that impossible when they let their tool,Prussia,conqer german states and become superpower.As long as Prussia was England tool,divided Europe worked perfectly.

And when all superpowers in Europe wonted war,Germany was only which want it before 1916,before- in their opinion - beating Russia after that was impossible.
Whether they were right or no,it is unimportant.Important thing is,that they wonted war before 1916.All other superpowers could wait longer with starting it.

 

[stevep]

I disagree with you here. Belgium was just a pretext. Britain had been preparing for war with Germany for years.
Any sort of quick defeat of France was up in the clouds - we are talking early August.
Simply put in 1914 enough of the British elite thought that the balance of power in Europe had been upset enough as to merit war.

I agree that Belgium was an excellent pretext to sell the "Cabinet War over Balance of Power" to the public. Even if only 20% (30%?) of the public had the vote.

However in this scenario France, while seeing ruinous losses in its initial attacks - but unlikely to give full details of them to its own people let alone foreigners - isn't seeing much of its most developed territory overrun and its capital and existence as an independent state immediately threatened. As such while there are concerns about the balance of power there's no clear need for direct intervention yet.

Belgium was very important for public opinion, as well as keeping most of the cabinet and Parliament united. You don't need to have a vote to have some influence and it was especially important for a country seeking to wage a major war without conscription, which was Britain's position for the 1st 2 years of the conflict.

Britain had been preparing for a potential war - at least in some means - for years but that was because Germany was seen as the clearest threat to British survival as an independent state. There wasn't the same desire for war until the issue of Belgium both inflamed public anger and gave clear signs that British intervention was likely to be necessary to prevent a clear French defeat.

 

[stevep]

Only partially true.England wonted divide and keep divided,not conqer.And they made that impossible when they let their tool,Prussia,conqer german states and become superpower.As long as Prussia was England tool,divided Europe worked perfectly.

And when all superpowers in Europe wonted war,Germany was only which want it before 1916,before- in their opinion - beating Russia after that was impossible.
Whether they were right or no,it is unimportant.Important thing is,that they wonted war before 1916.All other superpowers could wait longer with starting it.

Agree with the point that Britain's policy wasn't divide and conquer as it had neither the means or the intent to do that latter. Keeping Europe being largely united under a single power/bloc was Britain's policy as well as that of most other states at the time. From time to time all the great continental powers had hopes of dominating all the others but most of the time they were more busy stopping someone else dominating them.

Prussia definitely wasn't a British tool and it was only rarely a British ally. It after all was on the opposing side in the 7 years war, then later seized Hanover ~1800 was it before it was stomped by Napoleon in 1806-07. Public opinion, such as it was, was on the Danish side in 1864 and probably, like that of most of Germany, on the Austrian side in 1866.

I wouldn't describe any of the great powers as super-powers as that has a much broader meaning. Possibly Britain circa 1815-1870 because of it economic, fiscal and naval dominance but great power was the traditional phase and was definitely more accurate.

Similarly I would disagree that all the great powers wanted war. Nations are very rarely, if at all, unified blocs and there were concerns in all the great powers, as well as others about the probable cost of even a victorious war. Both in blood and in the economic devastation that would be caused to the world economy. However by 1914 the bulk of the powers, in the position that developed generally concluded that war was the least dangerous option. Germany did have additional incentive to look for a war soon because of their fears about growing Russians power.

Steve

 

[Buba]

Germany was seen as the clearest threat to British survival as an independent state.

Now, isn't this a bit hyperbolic?

France [...] isn't seeing much of its most developed territory overrun [...] As such while there are concerns about the balance of power there's no clear need for direct intervention yet.

A good point.
Nevertheless in the first week of August the effects of the German invasion are impossible to predict.

 

[ATP]

Agree with the point that Britain's policy wasn't divide and conquer as it had neither the means or the intent to do that latter. Keeping Europe being largely united under a single power/bloc was Britain's policy as well as that of most other states at the time. From time to time all the great continental powers had hopes of dominating all the others but most of the time they were more busy stopping someone else dominating them.

Prussia definitely wasn't a British tool and it was only rarely a British ally. It after all was on the opposing side in the 7 years war, then later seized Hanover ~1800 was it before it was stomped by Napoleon in 1806-07. Public opinion, such as it was, was on the Danish side in 1864 and probably, like that of most of Germany, on the Austrian side in 1866.

I wouldn't describe any of the great powers as super-powers as that has a much broader meaning. Possibly Britain circa 1815-1870 because of it economic, fiscal and naval dominance but great power was the traditional phase and was definitely more accurate.

Similarly I would disagree that all the great powers wanted war. Nations are very rarely, if at all, unified blocs and there were concerns in all the great powers, as well as others about the probable cost of even a victorious war. Both in blood and in the economic devastation that would be caused to the world economy. However by 1914 the bulk of the powers, in the position that developed generally concluded that war was the least dangerous option. Germany did have additional incentive to look for a war soon because of their fears about growing Russians power.

Steve

During 7th year war Prussia was only big England ally on continent,and bleed when England happilly take french colonies.Survived only thanks to mad tsar.
There was even joke " England fight to the last prussian" made then.Later changed into England fight to their last ally.
In 1864 public could liked danes,but british fleet stopped danish fleet from sunking prussian vessels after they defeated them in sea battle.
Even in 1878 Germany almost joined british planned war on Russia.But later they forget their place,so England must punish them.