No declaration of WW1, blockade instead.

[Mike1158]

Instead of going to war, what happens if Germany is blockaded with front lines manned and ready but no attack?

 

Do the Germans get the head start they actually had in TOT?

[sunday]

The Entente pretty much did that at the start of the war: there was the Battle of the Frontiers at the start of WWI, with Germany attacking Belgium and France.

[RETAC21]

17 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

Instead of going to war, what happens if Germany is blockaded with front lines manned and ready but no attack?

Do the Germans get the head start they actually had in TOT?

In contrast to WW2, the Germany army lacked the mobility to pull off a conquest of France, and both armies worked with similar OODA loops, so the end result wouldn't be that different.

OTOH I may misunderstand and you may want to posit that Germany doesn't invade Belgium, only needs to cover the front with France (which second rate troops would be able to do) and throws everything in the East against Russia and propping up A-H. If Germany can win in 1915 against Russia, and then break the blockade in the peace talks, it becomes the leading European power by default. US remains out of the war.

[Mike1158]

Close tbh, if the French, Belgian and British forces on land are in place well enough to deter attack in the west, would there be a need to attack in the east?  Any7 motive?

 

Could a blockade of the Baltic and North Sea ports curb any ambition the German state had?  The effect on WW2 could be a massive. 

[Argus]

It's an interesting scenario. We've got a sort of 1812/1942 question here, can Germany actually take down Russia at that stage?

Clearly in the field there's no question, I think we can assume the Russians lose the battles back to Moscow, but then... this is not Russia in 1917, national morale is good, the communist are still drinking coffee in Switzerland. 

The at the same time what's happening in the West? If the Germans want to stand on the defensive then not invading Belgium saves them a heap of front +/- the British. On mobilisation the French marched straight into Alsace so its never going to be all quiet on that front. But they're not idiots, those first few weeks were the bloodiest of whole war, and recent scholarship suggests Alsace wasn't such a national obsession as some histories have suggested.  On one hand the French are going to want to be aggressive but having learned the price of offensive and no Germans on French soil, they might be a bit hard up for justification. 

I think a lot is going to boil down to the KM. We've got a bit of an issue here, as Germany didn't really have a naval strategy. They had the 'Steal underpants - ? - Profit' problem. Having built such an expensive fleet naval command is going to want to use it to justify themselves, and there's good work to be done in the Baltic. But... its not very sexy and while there IS a global fight at sea and for colonies, again its not the sort of thing to bring masses of glory to the Kaisers Navy. The temptation I see for them is the Atlantic Coast of France, its weakly defended, and even the French shifted their whole fleet up from the Med I'd put my money of the HSF. Plus the blockade factor, if Germany had managed to keep the British out of the war, then neither side are really in a position to mount an effective blockade, but I'd see the French as making a better of fist of it in distant waters. Germany is certainly going to do what she can locally and likely do so with decreasing levels of discretion as things heat up - So what?  

If there's no invasion of Belgium/Luxemburg and the Germans more or less stand on the Rhine, its becomes hard for Britain to join France. Even the hawks are going to struggle in justifying 'going to France's aid' when France isn't under pressure and the the only trouble that they face is self inflicted. There is however one other tripwire for London, they're not going to let anyone go fighting naval battles in the English Channel. They made that point very firmly to both sides in 1870, and maintained it since - its the basis on which France de-emphasised her Atlantic Fleet once détente was established. I think we can assume Paris would be pretty careful in this sort of thing, but history suggests the Germans are less circumspect. Added to this we've got the general war risk, if Britain isn't at war, the French are going to re-flag their merchant ships in about 2.78 picoseconds, or failing that there's still going to be a mass of war materiel moving on British ships possibly for French and German customers, but I'd imagine mostly French. It's only going to take one frustrated U-Boat skipper to generate a Lusitania moment. 

So how do we feel about the British Empire going to war in Russia? A million odd men say, with good logistics, reasonably competent leadership and all the transport in the world, rocking up in Odessa? The Russian Navy owned the Black Sea, Turkey's likely not joined the war or if she has the Gallipoli campaign suddenly got serious.

 

[DB]

The UK would not tolerate a French blockade and would use the navy to break any such attempt.

What endurance would the HSF have even if it got to the French Atlantic coast?

[Stuart Galbraith]

The problem with all this is, how likely is it that the German Empire goes on the defensive against France, when they know they are just itching to take back Alsace Lorraine? We know the Germans regarded the French as their most dangerous opponent and, allied with the British, its impossible they would just want to sit on their heels, even if (as they dont yet) appreciate how modern weapons are more useful defensively than offensively. But as Barbara Tuchman pointed out, they were obsessed with the von Schlieffen plan, and you know how Generals are with their plans. That meant war with Belgium, and hence war with Britain. From then on it all runs on rails.

Its kind of like expecting the British to not use their navy in WW1, because they think chipping it and painting it is much more useful than conducting a blockade. It runs in the face of how both nations thought.

Could it work? Perhaps. Looking back it was probably the smartest thing to do. The Kaiser fleetingly thought so. The Russians were much better in 1914 that at any other time, but its difficult to believe they could have done any better at Tannenberg with the full might of the German Army falling on their neck.  Moltke would have just LOVED improvising that on the fly im sure.  

For all this to happen, the Germans dont have to be Germans, and the French have to be considerably less French. And that is where it all falls down.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, DB said:

What endurance would the HSF have even if it got to the French Atlantic coast?

Drachinifel (who knows way more than I do about subject...) thinks that any attempt of German fleet to come out anywhere close to English channel would have lead to UK entering war almost immediately.

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...but its difficult to believe they could have done any better at Tannenberg with the full might of the German Army falling on their neck...

OTOH w/o pressure to do something to try to draw out German units in order to help French Russians might have adopted more defensive posturing, as originally planned. And then it is anyone's guess how it would have deployed.

One thing is certain however - if Turkey does not enter war then Bulgaria does not enter war either, which means Serbia is a potential second place to send troops in order to strike at Austro-Hungary, which was weakest link in the Central Powers. Large scale offensive would be probably impossible (only single track rail link to Salonica as a supply line, but significant pressure could be probably applied.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, DB said:

What endurance would the HSF have even if it got to the French Atlantic coast?

I think it would be a difficult mission.  The battleships and cruisers could operate off the French coast for some time, but probably not enough to blockade France, (which could rely on its southern ports to skirt any interference.  The HSF torpedo boats could not accompany the fleet - out of range.

[glenn239]

On 8/11/2025 at 10:49 PM, Argus said:

It's an interesting scenario. We've got a sort of 1812/1942 question here, can Germany actually take down Russia at that stage?

Tough to say.  The Germans had the better army, but the Russians were good on the defensive as well.  The Russians historically ruined their army on the offensive.  If France is neutered and Britain is neutral, would the Russians forgo most of their offensive activity and be content to fall back into their interior?

Quote

Clearly in the field there's no question, I think we can assume the Russians lose the battles back to Moscow, but then... this is not Russia in 1917, national morale is good, the communist are still drinking coffee in Switzerland. 

Counteroffensives against the Germans would likely not work, but against the Austrians might disrupt CP strategy and offensive momentum.  But over the course of years, yes, the Russians surely would be hard pressed.

 

Quote

The at the same time what's happening in the West? If the Germans want to stand on the defensive then not invading Belgium saves them a heap of front +/- the British. On mobilisation the French marched straight into Alsace so its never going to be all quiet on that front. But they're not idiots, those first few weeks were the bloodiest of whole war, and recent scholarship suggests Alsace wasn't such a national obsession as some histories have suggested.  On one hand the French are going to want to be aggressive but having learned the price of offensive and no Germans on French soil, they might be a bit hard up for justification. 

Assuming Belgium is neutral, you're no doubt right that Joffre would squander hundreds of thousands of troops in futile frontal assaults.  But after that I'm not so certain.  France, now with gobs of surplus troops in relation to the total frontage, should have an expeditionary option in the Balkans arena, and might take it.

 

Quote

I think a lot is going to boil down to the KM. We've got a bit of an issue here, as Germany didn't really have a naval strategy.

I'd picture the HSF sitting this one out in response to the British blockade.  Maybe it could shift into the Baltic and seek ahistorical projects like an invasion of Finland?
 

Quote

So how do we feel about the British Empire going to war in Russia? A million odd men say, with good logistics, reasonably competent leadership and all the transport in the world, rocking up in Odessa? The Russian Navy owned the Black Sea, Turkey's likely not joined the war or if she has the Gallipoli campaign suddenly got serious. 

I think the chances of the Ottomans entering the war would be very high if Britain were neutral.  The Italians and Rumanians would be less likely to enter on the Entente side.  In terms of expeditionary forces, assuming the Black Sea route is blocked at the Straights, could France establish the communications to justify a meaningfully sized force on the Eastern Front, (ie, Army sized)?

 

Edited August 14 by glenn239

[seahawk]

If the Germans can attack through Belgium, so can the French. It also requires the UK to give convincing guarantees to the Germans, that it will not join the war and will not tolerate a French attack into Belgium. There was no political will for that. Or let me put it differently, if the UK takes such a position, there is no WW1, as the Entente would be broken, which alone would be a huge win for Germany and which would make France a lot less willing to join the Russians, but without France and the UK Russia would probably also step down and WW1 would turn into a small war between AH and Serbia. 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, DB said:

The UK would not tolerate a French blockade and would use the navy to break any such attempt.

What endurance would the HSF have even if it got to the French Atlantic coast?

I suspect we're thinking of different parameters for any blockade.

London would have no issue with blockade in general, they were the greatest supporters of it. It's what belligerents do, they might argue the details with individual nations, but US Civil War, or as recently as the Russo-Japanese War, the right of a belligerent to impose a blockade was not in question.

Now I agree, a French Sqn cruising in the North Sea is NOT going to be any more popular in London than a German one hovering south of Fastnet. This is where Britannia is going to be tapping her trident on the strand and start drawing some unofficial rules around the situation. Again, nothing that hasn't happened before in outline if not as in this case at such a scale. But we end up with a situation that looks sort of the same as the historical WWI blockade, only bi-lateral. Historically Close Blockade was impossible because parking a fleet off the German coast wasn't too smart in the presence of minefields, submarines and torpedo boats. In this situation, that would also hold true, but its also rather moot if the RN are not going to let it happen anyway.

However a global war on trade by the two belligerents is more than possible, I'd say its inevitable, and so the rules are going to change to allow distant blockade. I'd see it more as a blockade at the point of departure, again largely as the UK ran in both World Wars, only far less effectual as neither France nor Germany have the same reach or depth.     

I'd see any HSF expedition more as a raid than anything requiring much endurance. Sail down, bombard a port or two, take some prizes and sail home - East Coast raids writ large.  
 

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 hours ago, bojan said:

Drachinifel (who knows way more than I do about subject...) thinks that any attempt of German fleet to come out anywhere close to English channel would have lead to UK entering war almost immediately.

OTOH w/o pressure to do something to try to draw out German units in order to help French Russians might have adopted more defensive posturing, as originally planned. And then it is anyone's guess how it would have deployed.

One thing is certain however - if Turkey does not enter war then Bulgaria does not enter war either, which means Serbia is a potential second place to send troops in order to strike at Austro-Hungary, which was weakest link in the Central Powers. Large scale offensive would be probably impossible (only single track rail link to Salonica as a supply line, but significant pressure could be probably applied.

Yes, Ill grant you that. But  it seems unlikely to me the Russians wouldnt have took the opportunity to hammer Austro Hungary instead, which was ultimately the whole point of the war.

So you get neither the French, British or Russians not advancing on Germany, and Germany doesnt really need to do anything but sit on its arse and send a few units to prop up the Austrians.

So then you ask the other question, if nobody else is attacking but the Russians, does Italy join with the allies still over essentially nothing at all, or stick with the other triple alliance powers as originally envisaged, because they dont really want Russia emerging as a neighbour?

Edited August 15 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

43 minutes ago, Argus said:

I suspect we're thinking of different parameters for any blockade.

London would have no issue with blockade in general, they were the greatest supporters of it. It's what belligerents do, they might argue the details with individual nations, but US Civil War, or as recently as the Russo-Japanese War, the right of a belligerent to impose a blockade was not in question.

Now I agree, a French Sqn cruising in the North Sea is NOT going to be any more popular in London than a German one hovering south of Fastnet. This is where Britannia is going to be tapping her trident on the strand and start drawing some unofficial rules around the situation. Again, nothing that hasn't happened before in outline if not as in this case at such a scale. But we end up with a situation that looks sort of the same as the historical WWI blockade, only bi-lateral. Historically Close Blockade was impossible because parking a fleet off the German coast wasn't too smart in the presence of minefields, submarines and torpedo boats. In this situation, that would also hold true, but its also rather moot if the RN are not going to let it happen anyway.

However a global war on trade by the two belligerents is more than possible, I'd say its inevitable, and so the rules are going to change to allow distant blockade. I'd see it more as a blockade at the point of departure, again largely as the UK ran in both World Wars, only far less effectual as neither France nor Germany have the same reach or depth.     

I'd see any HSF expedition more as a raid than anything requiring much endurance. Sail down, bombard a port or two, take some prizes and sail home - East Coast raids writ large.  
 

There was an article I read some years ago, envisaging the Germans using one of the Battlecruisers to conduct a blockade. The author calculated that just using one would pull off enough RN forces to run it down, that it would actually emerge to the advantage of the HSF. The only people that would have a chance to run it down would be 5 BCS, leaving the field largely for the rest of the German Battlecruisers.  Probably wouldnt have made any difference in a set piece battle, but would have made any other actions they wanted to conduct difficult to counter.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So then you ask the other question, if nobody else is attacking but the Russians, does Italy join with the allies still over essentially nothing at all, or stick with the other triple alliance powers as originally envisaged, because they dont really want Russia emerging as a neighbour?

The Italians presumably will join the war, being opportunistic.  But they'll likely enter it on the winning side, which with Britain out is going to be Germany's.  If so, they will seek expansion in the Balkans in alliance with Austria.  The Ottomans too will enter the war on the side of Germany, (their war aim was to be accepted into the club as an equal Great Power, and that could only occur if the Russians were defeated).  

[seahawk]

The better question is: Would there be a large war? 

If the British stay out, the French would probably stay out. So if the Germans believe the position of those 2 is honest, Germany has no hurry to declare war and can wait till Russia declares war. Now would Russia declare war? 

In the end it would probably a tiny conflict between Serbia and AH. 

[glenn239]

30 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The better question is: Would there be a large war? 

If the British stay out, the French would probably stay out. So if the Germans believe the position of those 2 is honest, Germany has no hurry to declare war and can wait till Russia declares war. Now would Russia declare war? 

In the end it would probably a tiny conflict between Serbia and AH. 

 

The OP's premise requires that at some level the British have misled the French and Russians between 28 June and 1 August 1914.  The Serbians overrate their chances and go with their historical response rather than the near blanket acceptance they had in their draft the previous day.  After 25 July the Russians continue somehow to assume that the Entente is unified and order their general mobilization.  Then, on or after 1 August just as the Franco-Russians need them the most, the British here sink in the knife and declare their neutrality.  The British also must have warned the French in a hostile manner that if they invade the Ardennes they might face a blockade from the Royal Navy.  (Otherwise the French 3rd, 4th, and 5th Armies will enter Belgium in the Ardennes).  Then, right at the moment they piss their allies off, they pivot to piss the Germans and Austrians off as well by initiating a full blockade on the Central Powers.

So to me the real question is (a) how long before the Russians join the Central Powers by resigning the Dreikaiserbund, and (b) what happens to the Anglo-French Entente  when Paris realizes that their choices are starker than they assumed?  

Edited August 15 by glenn239

[Stuart Galbraith]

34 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The better question is: Would there be a large war? 

If the British stay out, the French would probably stay out. So if the Germans believe the position of those 2 is honest, Germany has no hurry to declare war and can wait till Russia declares war. Now would Russia declare war? 

In the end it would probably a tiny conflict between Serbia and AH. 

That is admittedly a pretty logical position. Its hard to believe the Russians would want to declare war if they didnt believe they had Britain and France to back them up. OTOH, could the Tsar stand back whilst Slavs are getting a good kicking? He might want to, but with the Russian public getting antsy to do something about it...

[DB]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

I suspect we're thinking of different parameters for any blockade.

London would have no issue with blockade in general, they were the greatest supporters of it. It's what belligerents do, they might argue the details with individual nations, but US Civil War, or as recently as the Russo-Japanese War, the right of a belligerent to impose a blockade was not in question.

Now I agree, a French Sqn cruising in the North Sea is NOT going to be any more popular in London than a German one hovering south of Fastnet. This is where Britannia is going to be tapping her trident on the strand and start drawing some unofficial rules around the situation. Again, nothing that hasn't happened before in outline if not as in this case at such a scale. But we end up with a situation that looks sort of the same as the historical WWI blockade, only bi-lateral. Historically Close Blockade was impossible because parking a fleet off the German coast wasn't too smart in the presence of minefields, submarines and torpedo boats. In this situation, that would also hold true, but its also rather moot if the RN are not going to let it happen anyway.

However a global war on trade by the two belligerents is more than possible, I'd say its inevitable, and so the rules are going to change to allow distant blockade. I'd see it more as a blockade at the point of departure, again largely as the UK ran in both World Wars, only far less effectual as neither France nor Germany have the same reach or depth.     

I'd see any HSF expedition more as a raid than anything requiring much endurance. Sail down, bombard a port or two, take some prizes and sail home - East Coast raids writ large.  
 

I meant that the UK would not allow a blockade of (British) trade with France, which would mean that any attempt by Germany would be ineffective, given that they'd be unlikely to avoid interdiction. As I recall, the endurance of the HSF was limited and even if they put a fleet into the Atlantic, they'd have no chance of sustaining it.

Given the tension already present between the UK and Germany due to the latter's unhappiness about missing out on the Imperial era, I can't see the UK being particularly even handed here, France would suffer less.

I suppose a particularly self-interested UK could allow both sides to bleed themselves dry and benefit from that globally.

So, where would it be best to exploit the exposed weaknesses of both, if one were still thinking of empire expansion?

 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That is admittedly a pretty logical position. Its hard to believe the Russians would want to declare war if they didnt believe they had Britain and France to back them up. OTOH, could the Tsar stand back whilst Slavs are getting a good kicking? He might want to, but with the Russian public getting antsy to do something about it...

Llook at the timing. 

1. Serbia fully mobilises  (not important)

2. Russia partially mobilises 

3. AH partially mobilises 

4. Russia fully mobilises

5. France fully mobilises

6. Germany fully mobilises 

If Russia does not fully mobilise this could be contained and German policy was clear that they can only act if Russia fully mobilises, otherwise the German people would not support the war and trying to get the British to remain neutral would be hopeless.  That is the stupid thing to the war, that each side thought to escalate to seem strong, so everybody lead the world into a catastrophe. 

And remember that the Russians on one hand suggested to the Serbs that they should largely accept the demands of AH and offer little resistance, on the other hand the prepared for full out war, if they got the help of the other Entente powers. 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

 

The OP's premise requires that at some level the British have misled the French and Russians between 28 June and 1 August 1914.  The Serbians overrate their chances and go with their historical response rather than the near blanket acceptance they had in their draft the previous day.  After 25 July the Russians continue somehow to assume that the Entente is unified and order their general mobilization.  Then, on or after 1 August just as the Franco-Russians need them the most, the British here sink in the knife and declare their neutrality.  The British also must have warned the French in a hostile manner that if they invade the Ardennes they might face a blockade from the Royal Navy.  (Otherwise the French 3rd, 4th, and 5th Armies will enter Belgium in the Ardennes).  Then, right at the moment they piss their allies off, they pivot to piss the Germans and Austrians off as well by initiating a full blockade on the Central Powers.

So to me the real question is (a) how long before the Russians join the Central Powers by resigning the Dreikaiserbund, and (b) what happens to the Anglo-French Entente  when Paris realizes that their choices are starker than they assumed?  

That would mean that the triple Entente is broken. But in the end WW1 will go on as it happened. The Royal Navy blockade and the chance for France to fully mobilise the colonial troops and for Russia to fully mobilise the troops from the east, mean that Germany must try a quick victory and that means going into Belgium. the HSF would try to break to blockade, at least hit some ships with U-Boats and we are back to where we started. 

Edited August 15 by seahawk

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 OTOH, could the Tsar stand back whilst Slavs are getting a good kicking? He might want to, but with the Russian public getting antsy to do something about it...

The Germans had offered Halt in Belgrade and the Russians could have taken that off ramp.  If later the Austrians occupied more of the country than some HIB agreement had granted, then the Russians could loudly proclaim German treachery - from the safety of neutrality in the winter of 1914-1915.

Edited August 15 by glenn239

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

That would mean that the triple Entente is broken. But in the end WW1 will go on as it happened. The Royal Navy blockade and the chance for France to fully mobilise the colonial troops and for Russia to fully mobilise the troops from the east, mean that Germany must try a quick victory and that means going into Belgium. the HSF would try to break to blockade, at least hit some ships with U-Boats and we are back to where we started. 

Agreed that British neutrality ends the Triple Entente.  But if Britain remains neutral, blockade or no blockade, Germany is going to win the continental war.  Powers that enter the war later are more likely to do so on Germany's side.  In terms of a British blockade, the Germans just might put up with that without a fuss in order to keep the British otherwise neutral.  After all, once they've beaten the Franco-Russians and re-ordered Europe to their satisfaction, there will be plenty of time to muster the combined navies of the continent against the British.

[seahawk]

The problem is that a blockade is an act of war. So the only think imaginable would be an exclusion zone for all war ships, French, German and Russian in the Channel and North Sea. This would be acceptable for Germany, but again France would not go to the war without knowing the UK is in it. 

[glenn239]

On 8/15/2025 at 1:27 PM, seahawk said:

The problem is that a blockade is an act of war. So the only think imaginable would be an exclusion zone for all war ships, French, German and Russian in the Channel and North Sea. This would be acceptable for Germany, but again France would not go to the war without knowing the UK is in it. 

The French required the British to cover their naval flank, allowing the French army to be massed in almost its entirety on the frontier against Germany.  If the British enact a blockade in the North Sea that prevents the Germans from entering the Channel, and the Russians mobilize, then Joffre would have what he needed to go to war.  The BEF would be a welcome addition, but not a requirement.  After the failure of the initial campaigns and the realization that the Franco-Russians were overmatched without the British, then perhaps real bitterness towards London might start to take hold in Paris and St. Petersburg.

[seahawk]

In the end this posts just shows the stupidity that led the World into WW1. 

One can not deny that the Germans should aim for Navy able to handle the fleets of Russia and France, which means their Navy becomes so big that the British feel threatened, especially as Russia and France were increasing their Navies. But again, a blockade is an act of war. So imho the only option would be something that effects all warring parties equally, which would make the relationship between the Entente go sour right at the start of the war.