Proposal: Should Britain not have joined World War One...

Proposal: Should Britain not have joined World War One, she would have better preserved her empire and would have longer remained the world leader.

Great Britain went from being the biggest lender before WWI to being the biggest debtor after WWI, losing India, Ireland, losing grasp of Africa and Asia, losing a million men to death, crippling or mental breakdown.
Was it worthwhile? Was the alternative, a likely quick victory for imperial Germany and a 1871 tier peace with Russia and France, a worse situation for Great Britain and would a victorious Germany have challenged her?

Britain didn't lose India until after WW2.

>would a victorious Germany have challenged her?
gee billy, would a power that literally challenged britain just for the sake of it before the war when it was not yet as powerful as britain have challenged britain when it would have been more powerful, i dunno

It was too big to die immediately, but the collapse began exactly after WWI.
Indian national spirit and mood for sovereignty began after WWI.
Gandhi started his resistance movement in 1915.

Germany lost the naval race and stopped trying to compete in 1913, they stopped challenging Britain before the war started.
And if it was a shorter and not as expensive in terms of men and money war, the peace wouldn't have been as heavy, it would've been like the Franco-Prussian war - small amount of clay exchange, some reparation, mostly diplomatic dick waving and prestige accumulation campaigns.
Russia got demolished by the peace with Germany because the war had been so costly and long, it demanded a devastating peace to ensure something of worth was gained.
Prior, shorter wars always had smaller, cheaper peace deals. So victorious Germany wouldn't have been much stronger than they were before the war. And a neutral Britain would've been much stronger, lending money and equipment, supervising treaties as a third party, and making diplomatic ties with the victor.

If Germany had annexed farther into France, Poland and Belgium then they would have been able to outstrip England naval power.
Also I doubt a neutrality policy would have lasted long and would probably increase calls for independence to fight Germany

>just for the sake of it
When did Germany challenge Britain before the war?

Between 1906 and 1913 Germany had the idea that if they build a huge navy that will draw Britain into an alliance with them.
The result was the opposite, the british thought they were being challenged and moved away from Germany diplomatically while building up their own navy.
German command saw that, and saw that they can't have a bigger army than France and a bigger navy than Britain at the same time, so they stopped naval buildup in 1913, before WWI was declared and before Britain joined against them.

In fact because of this naval race Germany had a smaller and less well equipped army than France when the war broke, and a smaller navy than Britain. So the race was a complete failure and its a good thing they ended it early.

>Between 1906 and 1913 Germany had the idea that if they build a huge navy that will draw Britain into an alliance with them.
Wrong.

Germany wanted a navy of 2/3rd the size of the Royal Navy in order to protect their oversea assets.

How is this a challenge when the goal is specifically to raise a navy that could only serve as a deterrent rather than an offensive threat?

Irrelevant either way.

The Schlieffen plan failed and the war turn to trench warfare. British involvement in the first decissive months of the war that would define the fate of the war was insignificant.

It's debatable whether the french would have been able to hold the lines for the rest of the war until the american arrival. Maybe. But they would have needed till the very last man in that front, so zero involvement in the italian, balkan and turkish fronts, and more colonial troops in France.

>would a victorious Germany have challenged Britain

Define 'challenge'. The only feature in which Britain had superiority over Germany pre-1914 was in naval power. Industrially, economically and militarilly Germany was already above Britain. Would the gap have broaden over time? Almost absolutely yes. Would the German naval power catch up? Probably not. They never really tried in the first place, the army got top priority, and there wouldn't much of a reason for a naval race. Britain wouldn't be a threat at all for Germany, rather they'd be the ones looking for a deal with Germany. Only if Britain remains diplomatically defiant, then Germany would simply enter another naval race and this time win it.

gandhi's early movements were pretty underwhelming.
Gandhi became more popular internationally after dandi, which was post ww1, which was because britain said no to dominion status to india.

>The Schlieffen plan failed

Because of British involvement - their guarantee which prevented Belgian capitulation, and their navy preventing support and deployment in northern France and Belgium, and her army preventing german advances in the north and establishing what would become the western front trench line.

> British involvement in the first decissive months of the war that would define the fate of the war was insignificant.
Objectively false for the reasons given.

>It's debatable whether the french would have been able to hold the lines for the rest of the war until the american arrival. Maybe.
You underestimate the size of the britsh army, the effect on the british introducing tanks and tunneling technology, the naval blockade on trade and supply ships, british artillery and the terribly inefficient, but still destructive for german efforts Somme campaign.
Also the british led the Balkan front in the south with their seven nation army which locked Bulgaria in place, and her colonial army which locked the Ottomans. Both of these countries now demanded german equipment and commanders to help them, further straining the french front.

The war was a stalemate for so long because of a huge british effort. If the british had not been evolved, the central powers would've won and Italy would've probably not even joined the war, or joined at the end to nibble at France.

Kek.

The Schlieffen plan fell for a variety of reasons, the most important one probably being the stupid advance of bavarians and Ba-Wu in the south when they were supposed to lure more french forces, not to push them west, and the complicated and long line of logistics in the northern advance and the least important factor the insignificant and utterly irrelevant British Expeditionary Force.

And finally, what end the german offensive was the french massive counteroffensive in the Marne, which the Germans that had turned south earlier due to the complications, didn't expect the French were capable of pulling.

The french offensive won because the british involvement in the Balkans, Anatolia and northern France pulled too many german men and equipment away from where the french hit.

You continue and continue to underestimate the british royal army and colonial.

Wrong again
In the telegraph interview Wilhelm says it's because he wanted a larger navy than Japan.
And it was a threat because England still practiced the 2+3 rule of navies

Yes, this is a pretty common observation. Britain ought to have stayed out, let it be yet another Franco-German war, and minded our own business.

Is it true that the British PM was a pacifist that cried when he declared war?

It is true that he created the alliance with Russia and France in secret and pretty much ensured war before it was voted or told to the public.
I think it was also him that considered Britain blocking the ports of Belgium if she (Britain) enters the war on the other side.

>Was the alternative, a likely quick victory for imperial Germany and a 1871 tier peace with Russia and France

Not really
The French stopped the German advance without significant British help, so the trench warfare would still have happened
The difference is that the French would probably have lost by 1917 when Russia quited

Well, if Britain did not join the war, she might have faced a strong empirial Grermany. Even though if Germany was stopped without the help of Britian and without the couxing of the Brits to make the US join, she might have lost a lot of support from her allies such as Belgium, France, Finland, and Denmark. The real question is, if Britain did not join the war and Germany was stopped but at a higher cost, would the world look at Britain the same again because of their indifference.

People forget that Germany was in very real danger of balkanizing.
It was a young country full of what will be the fascists, what will be the communists, even an anarchic faction, in opposition to the monarchists.
Germany was a new state, recently formed, full of people who dislike each other, and not at all yet settled in what political direction it should go, with many competing parties and ideologies.
If it had taken more land, with more people that hate each other, and more ideas and political struggle, it might have collapsed.

The "strong imperial germany" boogeyman seems very unrealistic to me.

Just to add, WWI unified Germany, especially losing WWI while the undefeated army meme was in the air and everyone's ear, and probably kept the country together.

You're being full of shit, deluded bong
He's talking about 1914, when the British army consisted of a few irrelevant dozens thoysands men in France and literally nowhere else

What you're talking about (Balkand, Anatolia...etc) happened much later, and the French had troops there as well.

In the end, it's doubtful France would have won without Britain (since they'd have been alone after Russia quited and I doubt the US would intervene if Britain was neutral), but it certainly wouldnt have been a quick victory since the French stopped the German offensive in 1914 and turned the war into trenches without significant British help

Also without Britian telling the US about the Zimmermann Telegram, Mexico might have declared war on the US. Nah I'm just joking, that would have been very, very unlikely, and without Britain joini the war that telegram might not have happened in the first place

Actually without Britain declaring war on Germany, the USA might have joined the central powers.
After Napoleon there wasn't much love between USA and France, and at the time much of USA population was german speaking.

This isnt a video game, autistic teenager
The US would sooner have remained isolationist than joined Germany

They would have most likely lost Ireland anyway because the Home Rule Bill which was postponed because of the outbreak of WW1

>Muh german blood
>Muh germanic race
>Not knowing that France offer the big New-York's statut.

What would happened?
USA wasn't big on the Imperial warmongering german monarchy.

...