AHC/WI: Britain won world war 1 without becoming heavily indebted

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes, the UK building a much larger army helps them greatly in WW1, and by winning faster, it may, again may, prevent financial ruins. The butterflies are profound on a major UK army expansion say starting in 1905 or 1911.

Unfortunately the POD is 1914. Having said that the Edwardian UK didn't need a bigger army in peacetime, it needed a better one.

A good place to start would be the Territorial Force. IOTL it was still equipped with Boer War vintage weapons and it's formations weren't organised on the same pattern as the Regular Army. For example its field artillery batteries had 4 guns instead of 6.

If the 14 infantry divisions in the TF were organised on the same pattern and had the same equipment as the 6 Regular Army infantry divisions that would at least have given the British Army a bigger gun and ammunition making industry plus larger stocks of modern artillery shells at the start of World War II. That would have relieved the shell shortage somewhat and allowed the munitions industry expand at a faster rate after war was declared.

I don't know if its true, but I did read in one book that Lord Haldane wanted a TF of 28 divisions but was only able to get the Cabinet to approve 14. I'm not sure that enough men could have been recruited in peacetime if the money had been made available, but what might be possible is that the 20 home based infantry divisions (6 regular and 14 TF) could be given a 100% reserve of modern equipment to replace losses while industry was mobilised and to facilitate rapid expansion in an emergency.

Whether or not that would shorten the war is another matter.

 

[Thomas1195]

He is exaggerating. They UK ran out of cash in 2.5 years, so I don't see the 10 years. By what % in size are you reducing the British military?

The big problem is the UK imported a lot, even before the war. When doing wartime production, you can't be doing export production. Then import prices jump during a war. The the cost of blockade.

Oh, i forgot, the 10 year war case was derived from a study by Keynes. That was from a book i read several months ago.

 

[Thomas1195]

Besides, force france to pay by GOLD. The french had a huge gold reserve, and in otl, they could have delayed uk bankruptcy if they ship gold to america.

 

[Thomas1195]

Gallipoli succeeds - The Turks exit the war and Austria Hungary collapses in 1916.

Faced with a three front war Germany sues for peace.

Or the Turks stayed neutral. IOTL, the Entente suffered terrible losses in the campaign. Lots of troops would be moved to western front (around half a million).

 

[NoMommsen]

... OTL 1914 actually went fairly badly for the Central Powers, ...

Only in that the Schlieffen-plan or with its 'modifications' rather "Moltke-Plan" didn't succeeded as intented. And only if you define 'going fine' as the complete victory.

With the territoy gained in France, another state almost completly occupied (Belgium) I would call this a rather good performance.

Another possibility is that Britain supports the Entente only with some financial and industrial help and with naval stuff like the blockade. They never expand their army or send an army to France. They use their existing troops and the Indian Army to pick off German colonies and Turkish possessions in the Near East. Somehow the Russians, French, and Italians manage to win without forty to fifty British divisions in northern France and Belgium. Something like this could happen if the Germans don't invade Belgium.

? ? ?

Then what's the reason/casus belli for Britain ?

In this scenarion : will Britain actually be at war with Germany or not ?
(Sounds more like a "non-belligerent" status.)

However : with Germany NOT invading Belgium and Belgium staying out of the war completly, neither becomming battlefield nor participant I don't see anyway for France (even with financial british support) to beat Germany in 1914 or even 1915 (only if a damn lot of other things run much, very much worse for Germany [what would need a damn lot of other 'additional' PODs ... or ASBs] ).

 

[cpip]

Besides, force france to pay by GOLD. The french had a huge gold reserve, and in otl, they could have delayed uk bankruptcy if they ship gold to america.

[Citation Needed]

Given that the French were attempting in late 1914 to sell off holdings in America specifically to buy gold from the States... and given that France was borrowing hand over fist through most of the war... I find this assertion difficult to believe.

 

[NoMommsen]

[Citation Needed]

Given that the French were attempting in late 1914 to sell off holdings in America specifically to buy gold from the States... .

One of the reasons, why McAdoo closed for 4 month Wall Street ('full' trade restarted even as late as december IIRC).

 

[Blackfox5]

Was Britain even a debtor nation at the end of WWI? Can anyone confirm that with a source? It's entirely possible Britain was still a creditor nation.

(BTW, being a debtor does not mean one is bankrupt. Bankruptcy only happens when you cannot SERVICE the debt you have.)

By end of WWII, Britain was certainly a large debtor nation, and the British government's inability to adequately deal with that was a major reason for its long term economic decline until Thatcher. However, I don't think Britain was that bad by 1919.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Was Britain even a debtor nation at the end of WWI? Can anyone confirm that with a source? It's entirely possible Britain was still a creditor nation.

By end of WWII, Britain was certainly a large debtor nation, and the British government's inability to adequately deal with that was a major reason for its long term economic decline until Thatcher. However, I don't think Britain was that bad by 1919.

Britain did indeed owe money in 1919, and it was in turn owed money by others. It was not however Bankrupt. Why then did Britain later effectively default on the repayments of it's debt? Britain acted as middleman to secure dollar loans to other nations that the US was unwilling to lend money to. The Soviet Union in particular refused to repay the loans leaving Britain with the Debt. There was also Germany's inability to pay the reparations imposed on it because of it's economic collapse.

 

[johnboy]

The straits are forced in 1915, the ottomans knocked out of the war. Romania and Bulgaria join the entente side. Dual monarchy collapses under allied offensives in 1915. Germany throws in the towel as left alone fighting an impossible battle.

 

[Simon]

Britain did indeed owe money in 1919, and it was in turn owed money by others.

Is there a list online anywhere showing who owed what to whom at the end of the war?

 

[Thomas1195]

Is there a list online anywhere showing who owed what to whom at the end of the war?

Well, by 1916 british financed most of the empire's and all of italy's war expenditure, and two third of france and russia war effort, not to mention smaller combatants. Italy was actually a big net drain.

Iotl the brits were too generous. They should have forced the french to ship their huge gold reserve to britain, like stalin did with republican spain and nazi germany.

 

[Thomas1195]

Btw,

[Citation Needed]

Given that the French were attempting in late 1914 to sell off holdings in America specifically to buy gold from the States... and given that France was borrowing hand over fist through most of the war... I find this assertion difficult to believe.

Stockpiling gold was a major policy of French central bank at that time. The Brits should have forced the french to ship their huge gold reserve to britain as payment for supplies, like stalin demanding hard currency with republican spain and nazi germany.

 

[Catsmate]

[Citation Needed]

Given that the French were attempting in late 1914 to sell off holdings in America specifically to buy gold from the States... and given that France was borrowing hand over fist through most of the war... I find this assertion difficult to believe.

According to Horn, who cites data was from the Histoire des finances the French gold holdings were:
1914 Stg£164.9
1915 Stg£201.4
1916 Stg£201.5
1917 Stg£212.2
1918 Stg£217.2
while the Bank of England holdings were:
1914 Stg£70.5
1915 Stg£50.5
1916 Stg£53.5
1917 Stg£56.4
1918 Stg£77.0

 

[Thomas1195]

According to Horn, who cites data was from the Histoire des finances the French gold holdings were:
1914 Stg£164.9
1915 Stg£201.4
1916 Stg£201.5
1917 Stg£212.2
1918 Stg£217.2
while the Bank of England holdings were:
1914 Stg£70.5
1915 Stg£50.5
1916 Stg£53.5
1917 Stg£56.4
1918 Stg£77.0

That's why i said the Brits were too generous on their terms. The French had the second largest gold reserve, if I remember correctly. Make them running out of gold and then you could feel easier to allow them to grab Saarland.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Never heard about South Dakota and Nagato? In this scenario, they would have been able to react earlier to the American and Japanese naval buildup.

In this scenario they would be reacting to Germany owning the Europe. The Japanese and Americans would be a distant worry in the back of the mind compared to a hostile power that was already a peer competitor now being an unrivalled superior in almost every respect.

 

[Thomas1195]

In this scenario they would be reacting to Germany owning the Europe. The Japanese and Americans would be a distant worry in the back of the mind compared to a hostile power that was already a peer competitor now being an unrivalled superior in almost every respect.

I mean in this scenario G3 class might have been designed earlier actually commissioned, because the Brits would have been able to focus more on their navy than OTL, and they would have been in much better shape post war than OTL.

 

[deathscompanion1]

I mean in this scenario G3 class might have been designed earlier actually commissioned, because the Brits would have been able to focus more on their navy than OTL, and they would have been in much better shape post war than OTL.

Which is nice from a gear head persepctive but the admirality would much rather have won the war.

The BEF fought well above its weight and grew to a massive force, without committing to fighting in France and keeping France afloat financially (and it was not just a question of gold here) France is not holding back the Germans, if France falls Russia is certainly not lasting any longer than OTL so Germany gets to do what it wants to Europe which certainly is not what Britain wants. So a few ships and some worthless colonies vs losing two major allies and facing a hostile continent that would have the resources to compete in a naval arms race that Britain needs to not only win but win well enough to also defend the empire at the same time. OTL it could not do this with Japan's rise. ITTL it certainly cannot do this with Germany not being badly stunted in the naval department.

 

[Thomas1195]

Which is nice from a gear head persepctive but the admirality would much rather have won the war.

The BEF fought well above its weight and grew to a massive force, without committing to fighting in France and keeping France afloat financially (and it was not just a question of gold here) France is not holding back the Germans, if France falls Russia is certainly not lasting any longer than OTL so Germany gets to do what it wants to Europe which certainly is not what Britain wants. So a few ships and some worthless colonies vs losing two major allies and facing a hostile continent that would have the resources to compete in a naval arms race that Britain needs to not only win but win well enough to also defend the empire at the same time. OTL it could not do this with Japan's rise. ITTL it certainly cannot do this with Germany not being badly stunted in the naval department.

There are some ways to do so, which includes keeping ottoman neutral. This means no or later total conscription because the galipoli and middle east forces would have been relocated to the west, while the russian still get supplies through bosphorus, and no bulgarian entry, which means serbia lasts longer.

 

[deathscompanion1]

There are some ways to do so, which includes keeping ottoman neutral. This means no or later total conscription because the galipoli and middle east forces would have been relocated to the west, while the russian still get supplies through bosphorus, and no bulgarian entry, which means serbia lasts longer.

That still requires fighting on the Western front and the Ottomans are highly unlikely to stay neutral given they believe (100% accurately as it happens) that the French and British want to partition them post war so its Germany or bust and its not in Britain's power to choose any of these outcomes.

It can gamble on everything going well but it can't decide what will and won't happen given its one out of multiple belligerents.