if england never got involved via the belgium technicality, did germany have a chance?
>>371491
No, because as your pic explains very well, Belgium was just a pretext
Britain had an alliance with France and Russia, and would have gotten involved regardless
>>371491
In the west, probably but that crucial gap and the lack if those corps would've prevented the Germans from getting into Paris.
I don't see Britain sitting this out even if Germany didn't invade Belgium. Only if the Germans don't annex any French or colonial territory. The same applies to any inch of Russia
>>371491
Britain was also interested on fucking germany's shit up.
In the end, Belgium was just an excuse. England was fully committed to get involved but needed a way in to claim the moral high ground and boost troop morale but saying that they're fighting for something specific, rather than just say it's a land grab.
If belgium wasn't a factor, Britain would have found another way to enter the war, especially due to the unrestricted submarine warfare policy Germany had that Britain was just not going to live with.
>>371491
Germany had a chance in WW1 as it was, nevermind if Britain dind't get involved.
But Britain was going to get involved; their policy was always to prevent anyone from becoming a single, dominant power on the European continent. If Germany looked like it was going to take that role, Brtitain was going to oppose them.
>>371491
If germany hadn't invaded Belgium, it would have been forced to attack the heavily fortified french-german border. The western front would probably have stalled right there, not miöes into northern France. This would create the possibility of French troops invading german terrain, öreventing the emergence of the stab in the back legend. In other words, the english are to blame for Hitler.
Britain would have had to get involved one way or another to preserve the continental balance of power.
>>371491
>Belgium was just a pretext
for the pro-war faction, yes, but there was a substantial peace faction in Parliament as well. Without 'poor little Belgium' it's debatable that the UK would have committed the BEF to France. It would have been a favourable neutrality to France though
How decisive were Commonwealth (and ultimately US) troops to defeating the Central Powers?
Britain would have been shovelling munitions at France in any case; could France have won on their own with Britains economic backing?
>>371534
>unrestricted submarine warfare policy
May not have existed if Britain didn't get involved. U-Boat warfare was a way of attacking entente shipping without running the blockade, without the British net around the HSF unrestricted submarine warfare may not have been implemented. Of course on the flip side it was unlikely that even a neutral UK would allow German warships through the channel
>>371491
Germany had no way to beat France without invading Belgium
They didnt do it for the lulz, what do you think
>>371560
>How decisive were Commonwealth (and ultimately US) troops to defeating the Central Powers
very
It's a different scenario if you exclude Belgium but Commonwealth troops were vital on the western front, as was the naval blockade. Belgian neutrality gives a much narrower front though, so it's an interesting proposition
>>371585
The thing is, if the Germans aren't going to invade Belgium, and they'lre just going to deal with the narrow front in France, chances are, their first strike is going to be against Russia, not the west.
That completely changes how WW1 turns out.
It's crazy just how many chances the Atlantic powers had to stop Hitler
>re-militarization of Rhineland
>Sudetenland crisis
>Maginot line
And they royally blew all of them because MUH PEACE.
>>371593
For Hitler and Germans as a whole, Versailles was a massive injustice and regaining the territories annexed by France was the main objective.
The lebensraum in the east horseshit was only a cherry on top, a luxury if they tore up Versailles first, never a priority.
>>371593
exactly. Another factor is Italy, would they change sides if Britain is neutral? I feel like they'd stay out of the war
>>371612
Are you retarded?
>>371508
No. There was a lot of isolutionists in Britain and the agreement with France and Russia was pretty loose.
>>371612
We're discussing WW1 you mong
>>371508
>alliance with france and russia
But this is wrong, the entente cordiale and anglo-russian convention were colonial agreements.
The question I want to ask is, if Germany had just tried holding the line against France and concentrated most of its military power to knock RUSSIA out of the war first, what would have happened?
>>371653
The entire German military plan was based around avoiding a long two front war. Paris is closer to Germany than Moscow. Read a book.
>>371676
also, everyone thought Russia was much stronger than it actually was. So knocking out France quickly was the Germans' top priority
>>371676
>Paris is closer to Germany than Moscow.
I never thought of that.
>>371676
I know, and yet a long two-front war happened anyway. The problems is, Germany didn't need to get anywhere close to Moscow for the country to collapse. Meanwhile, the war proved that defensive warfare had become incredibly efficient due to the lack of ability to coordinate breakthroughs effectively when on the offensive.
My question is, if through some magical fact Germany had the knowledge that Russia would collapse much faster than anyone expect it to, while the west would become an endless field of trenches, how could that have affected the war? Would there be no need for an invasion of Belgium anymore?
>>371700
>If Germans could see into the future, would they win?
If Germans could see into the future they would not have fought. Everyone thought Russia was stronger than it was so the Germans would not have assumed Russia would collapse quickly.
I'm getting really bored of this thread, every fucking day man.
>>371724
>If Germans could see into the future, would they win?
This is really not at all the question.
The signs were all there. I'm not talking about some magical unforeseeable event like what would the outcome of this or that battle be. There were people at the time already arguing that an european war would be extremely costly, deadly and wouldn't end quickly, and the signs of Russia as a juggernaut made of flammable wood were there. Hindsight is 20/20, but foresight isn't blind either.
>>371761
>if through some magical fact Germany had the knowledge that Russia would collapse much faster than anyone expect it to
>not Germany seeing into the future
The signs were not all there, Russia was perceived as so powerful than even Britain and France's foreign ministries were wary of it. Edward Grey was worried Russia didn't need the anglo-russian convention anymore, and Poincare was worried Russia didn't need the alliance anymore, which would have left them in the lurch.
Diplomacy from 1905-1911 is characterised by perceived Russian weakness, anything afterwards is about perceived Russian strength.
Germany was on a team with 3 complete retards and couldn't hope to carry.
That being said, I think England would have gotten involved eventually anyway. Their whole European policy for like 300 years prior had been 'Bismarckian.' They needed to maintain a balance of power in mainland Europe or it threatened their lucrative trade-empire.
>>371653
Russia was perceived to be stronger because Germany had just kicked France's ass in the Franco-Prussian war. Germany thought it could shutdown the western front before Russia could even mobilize, and then they could deal with Russia in full force.
In retrospect, I think going east first might have been the proper choice.
>>371761
Well nobody thought Austria-Hungary was basically a husk either. I mean, everyone knew the condition of the Ottomans, but Austria-Hungary was very overstated.
Germany had these two useless retards to prop up while also dealing with everything else.
lets also be completely fair here, the fact that the UK could claim moral superiority was entirely the fault of Germany and its excessive actions within Belgium
>>372002
>moral superiority
?
If you're talking about the war guilt clause, that really isn't justified and the historiography of WW1 really supports that.
>>372002
I think being on the winning side had more to do with that than anything else.
When's World War 3 supposed to be starting?
>>371542
this.
and nothing else
>>372007
>If you're talking about the war guilt clause, that really isn't justified and the historiography of WW1 really supports that.
I hope by the above you mean that the outcry and butthurt surrounding the supposed 'war guilt' clause isn't justified.
Because that is what historiography supports.
Because the 'war guilt' clause is nothing but a technical clause, and every peace treaty had one. It basically says nothing about 'guilt' or responsibility for causing the war'.
It's in there to provide groundwork for reparations. For damages. Caused by - in this case - the German invasion of Belgium. And France. And responsibility for those.
Whatever 'guilt' is associated with it is solely because of German butthurt and postwar propaganda.
>>371491
As far as I know, public opinion (like that matters) in Britain was largely against war until the Belgian incident, and their alliance with France was extremely loose. Despite that, it was almost always a certainty that Britain would get involved if only to put down Germany as competitor in general and especially on the seas (Germany had recently built a large navy on the Kaiser's orders).
Nonetheless, IF Britain never enters, then Germany definitely wins it -- relatively easily, in my opinion. They'd pull off the Schlieffen plan without BEF interference, then smash the Russians just as they did in reality (likely worse) and that would be it, I believe.
>>372056
damn that autism
>>372675
You are overplaying the importance of the BEF. You are talking about some 70 thousand men... in an allied force of over 1.2 million soldiers.
>>372704
Muh elite units
I forget -- was it mostly British or French who accidentally exploited the gap in the German advance? Would the gap still have appeared if the BEF weren't present at the extremity of the northwestern flank?
>>372723
The one at Marne? That was not accidental - its creation more or less was, but not its exploitation by the French 5th and the BEF.
>>372749
I suppose I misremembered. What were the circumstances of the gap's opening?
In any case, I doubt that France alone in the west would have been able to withstand the Germans' persistence without the support of British conscripts, volunteers, funding, supplies, and so forth.
And another question: would the US have left the allies out to dry if the Germans hadn't gone all out with their submarines? I can't imagine that, but of course I wasn't there.
>>372782
>In any case, I doubt that France alone in the west would have been able to withstand the Germans' persistence without the support of British conscripts, volunteers, funding, supplies, and so forth.
They would have withstood the initial attack easily I think - like >>372704 said, 70k men in an army of 1m+. So the early years in the west probably stay the same... but what happens later on, especially when the Germans shift back west after dealing with the east?
>>371631
>>371640
>Thinking England wasn't scared shitless of Germany
>Thinking England does not always side with the underdog
>Thinking England entered in the most destructive war of it's histroy on a fucking technicality
>Not knowing why England guarenteed Belgium in the first place
Get the fuck out of /his/ you first level history learners.
>>372675
Germany winning would have meant the end and eventual conquest of England. England does not have the resources to compete against a European Empire.
>>375285
I doubt the Germans would have been able to cross the channel.
>>371491
If gay Samoans converted to Judaism, would the Battle of Waterloo turn out in Napoleon's favour?
>>375285
I ought to have made it clear that I meant in the long run, yeah.
The European question was one of balancing and Britain held the power to significantly shift the pendulum. Whilst France and Russia were traditional enemies, supporting them was purely a matter of self interest. Britain was a maritime power whose hegemony was being challenged. Its survival was of paramount importance but Britain required the initial German manoeuvres of August 1914 to be able to disguise its self-interest for a moral reactionary stance in order to justify its involvement.
>>371491
if there's no british backup, germany wins the marne and takes paris by the end of september
france is effectively forced out of the war shortly after and russia collapses quickly
Too bad Germany didn't win the first world war
democracy and liberalism would have been stopped dead in it's tracks
I want people to stop looking at WW2 like a spontaneous conflict and more like the premeditated and multi-decade inevitability that it was. You think changing any little one thing changes the grand power struggles in our universe? We cant stop force we can only redirect it, it was inevitable the minute germany agreed to pay all those war reparations. 20 years later we got nazis everywhere. Replace hitler, replace churchill, replace stalin, replace the roose train, the war still happens. These are individuals that fill the void that is there, the underlying causez of WW2 are beyond one man or a dozen.
>>371491
they fucked it up for themselves, sending Lenin to spread gommunism
>>376461
>>376461
>Somalia part of Ethiopia or Germany
Why does no one remember the Dervish state?
>>376438
so the early months of the western front were decided by some fifty thousand men, and the one and a half million other men on the allied side did not do anything? because that is what you are saying
>>376486
>it was inevitable the minute germany agreed to pay all those war reparations
what absolute nonsense
>>371491
It's possible. What really killed the Central Powers was the British blockade and the fact that the Brits were amazing at playing politics and getting the entire world turned against Germany. With no Britain to worry about, they also don't have to deal with the Italians in Tyrol, the Romanians in Transylvannia, Japan in Asia, and ultimately, no Americans entering the war.
With none of that to worry about, the war would be far more winnable for the Central Powers. Of course they're still going to be dealing with major problems like the fact that Galicia got pillaged by the Russians, leaving Austria starving, and the Austrians generally managing to fuck up anything and everything.
The real issue is the possibility of such a situation occurring. The war had been looming for years now, and there was no way Britain would reasonably let a war between the Central Powers and the Entente go on without their involvement. Germany was directly threatening British hegemony, and the British were unwilling to accept that. If they couldn't use Beligum as an excuse, they'd find some other reason to enter the war. Absolute worst case, they'd just enact the blockade and wait until Germany's submarines wreak enough havoc to get public support for boots on the ground.
I don't want to sound like an asshole but this type of WWI topic has been discussed so much that you would think would stop asking.
>>376461
/gsg/ please go and stay go
>>377684
What other outcome is there? Cant pay debts so a)become white africa b)put your fate in the hands of conquest.
The allies left germany no other realistic choice, the war was not decisively won in 1918 and nobody is going to take conditions like that when its not even an occupation
>>378108
You seem to be misinformed. Reparations were cancelled like eight years before WW2 broke out. Not only that, but Imperial Germany literally could pay the reparations. Like, without destroying itself or any such crazy stuff. Read Myths of reparations by Sally Marks, available at JSTOR, or any recent-ish WW1 work really.
>>378121
I just dont see how any other situation arises of ww1, the beefs were not settled and the peace was poorly conceived, the US absence in the league and the policy of appeasement doomed any real peace.
>>376461
>uses alt history grand strategy game mod where half of the west instantly collapses into communism as an argument
The British are the reason the US got involved on the Allied Side. Had the British not got involved, the US either wouldn't have joined, growing how long the war would go, or the US would join the Central Powers and the Allies would have been destroyed.
>>371508
Britain valued their good relations with Germany, but they were also worried that if they lost friendly relations with Russia, they'd lose their Eastern possessions. Ultimately, Britain chose Russia over Germany, but it was far closer than you make it sound. They certainly didn't want to go to war with Germany.
>>378139
>implying that Syndicalism is Communism
please fuck off Trumpfag
>>378178
>the US would join the Central Powers and the Allies would have been destroyed.
the US would not have joined the central powers, seeing as popular opinion was either neutral, or anti-German
>>378178
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLgfSDtHFt8
>>378137
What beefs? Germans in, say, 1930, didn't want war. Why would they.
>>378205
This, German atrocities in Belgium were a big deal at the time. They wiped out an entire town because of partisan activity and totally turned public opinion against them.
>>378223
You mean during the depression? How else do you escape on top?
