Germany Goes East first in 1914, British politics aspects only discussion - continuation

[michelvan]

The Belgium King Albert I and his Government were clear about this

The Kingdom of Belgium IS NEUTRAL

That include Germany were Emperor Wilhelm II, who repeated threaten King Leopold II and Albert I,
and French Government demands in regard if certain German actions happen.

The British empire would be in strange situation in This War
oblige by Treaty to help Belgium military agains EVERY invader of Kingdom.

Same time want declare Germany war, but has no justification to do so
Since German invade Russia, what British consider a rival special after Doggerbank incident.
(were Russian warship attack British fishing boats by mistake)

Next to that France that want to move true Belgium to attack Germany
What force the Britain to send BEF to Belgium-French border to guarantee the kingdom neutrality
This will diplomatic conflict between Britain and France
what delay the declaration of War to Germany.

But the French are not stupid, they need Britain help to fight Germans, once Russia is out the way.
in hope the BEF could hold Belgium once the German army attack west front
while both focus there war effort on Ottomans empire and West front German defences line.

[stevep]

Nov 24, 2024 15:25:46 GMT michelvan said:

The Belgium King Albert I and his Government were clear about this

The Kingdom of Belgium IS NEUTRAL

That include Germany were Emperor Wilhelm II, who repeated threaten King Leopold II and Albert I,
and French Government demands in regard if certain German actions happen.

The British empire would be in strange situation in This War
oblige by Treaty to help Belgium military agains EVERY invader of Kingdom.

Same time want declare Germany war, but has no justification to do so
Since German invade Russia, what British consider a rival special after Doggerbank incident.
(were Russian warship attack British fishing boats by mistake)

Next to that France that want to move true Belgium to attack Germany
What force the Britain to send BEF to Belgium-French border to guarantee the kingdom neutrality
This will diplomatic conflict between Britain and France
what delay the declaration of War to Germany.

But the French are not stupid, they need Britain help to fight Germans, once Russia is out the way.
in hope the BEF could hold Belgium once the German army attack west front
while both focus there war effort on Ottomans empire and West front German defences line.

   In general agreement.  Belgium would oppose any breach of their neutrality and Britain would be treaty bound to support such a defence.  However this is a TL where Germany abandons the Schlieffen Plan and concentrates on attacking Russia.  Or are you referring to a later French attack through Belgium in support of its ally after an offensive into A-L fails? 

  Not sure Russia will fall quickly, or that either side will expect that in such a scenario.  Its likely to know that German policy has changed so rather than mobilizing quickly to aid France by attacking into E Prussia its going to have a more defensive force, slowly giving up land in a staged retreat.  They might still, especially with the belief in the superiority of the offensive that dominated the continental great powers of the time, seek to attack the Austrians, both to take some pressure off Serbia and to try and win some victories and weaken Austria before their forced out of Russian Poland.  The war might end as early as 1916 but its still going to be very bloody for all involved and an Franco-Russian victory, while unlikely isn't totally impossible.

[michelvan]

Nov 25, 2024 10:04:38 GMT stevep said:

Or are you referring to a later French attack through Belgium in support of its ally after an offensive into A-L fails? 

that is not the point - Belgium will NOT allow France forces move true Belgium into Germany, they are Neutral.

But France has other options:

One: lure Italy into war (they dit that in OTL) but this now the main battle field to attack Austria-Hungary
Two: attack Central powers via Greece with British forces.
Three: land in Dardanelles and attack Ottomans to make supply corridor to Russia (in OTL became infamous Gallipoli campaign)

[raharris1973]

Nov 25, 2024 11:34:41 GMT michelvan said:

Nov 25, 2024 10:04:38 GMT stevep said:

Or are you referring to a later French attack through Belgium in support of its ally after an offensive into A-L fails? 

that is not the point - Belgium will NOT allow France forces move true Belgium into Germany, they are Neutral.

But France has other options:

One: lure Italy into war (they dit that in OTL) but this now the main battle field to attack Austria-Hungary
Two: attack Central powers via Greece with British forces.
Three: land in Dardanelles and attack Ottomans to make supply corridor to Russia (in OTL became infamous Gallipoli campaign)

They can try any of the three, but none of them would be sure winners.

[stevep]

   I don't know if there is a sure victory for either bloc, although the CP's especially since their likely to be joined by the Ottomans will have a clear edge.  Looking at the suggested options.

  Getting Italy into the war might work but the best option would be to avoid attacking across the Isonzo river where the Austrians have a very strong defensive position.  Better would be using Franco-Italian naval superiority to support operations in the Balkans.  This would make better use of Italian manpower than throwing them against pretty much impossible positions along the Isonzo,  This would also draw at least a fair amount of Austrian pressure off Serbia and Russia and quite possibly as OTL some German units.

  Trying to get Greece involved on the allied side would be difficult I suspect as the king was pro-German, although the leading politician at the time, who had a republican inclination was more favourable.  Without Britain being on the allied side its more likely that Greece would sit out the war.  The possible exception would be if Turkey is getting those two BBs here and that frightened the Greeks a lot as they feared a Turkish attack with naval superiority.  This might be reduced here, at least in the short term if the Ottomans get into a war with Russia.  Or if Turkey joins the CPs and Italy the allies then some in Greece at least might consider supporting operations to open the straits and weaken the empire.  This would greatly aid any such operation as the Greeks could provide a fair number of troops with knowledge of the region.  It would also open up a land line to Serbia via Thessaloniki and is also more likely to keep Bulgaria out of the war, or possibly even bring them in on the allied side.

  Of course one complication is the complex interests of the powers in the region and it would be very difficult to get a real agreement on who gets what in any victorious war with the competing interests of Italy, Serbia, Albania, Greece and possibly Bulgaria and Romania - as well of course of imperial Russia.

[nomommsen]

... let me procede with the events of 2nd August ... to bring this part to some kind of 'provisionally' end:

From ~ 14:00 onwards people begin to gather for the Great Anti-War demonstration to start at about 16:00 at Trafalgar propagated by the pro-labour papers Daily Herald and Daily Citizen. ... ITTL there might also/already be some leaflets be distributed by these papers with utilising the Reuters report from the morning (labour was stauchnly anti-russian) and some infos given by the german embassy like :

• "despite last minute efforts even by the Kaiser (who has brought social security to the german workers unherad and dreamt of in Britain) the mourderous Tsarist regime has launched the war."
  
• ... or something alike ...
  

(might even be that the germans themself have printed such leaflets (?))

At around 14:30 Cambon will be told now 'officially' by Grey about the british protection of the channel and the french channel coast. ... at least. If ITTL he also expands the cabinets decision to the "german fleet comming through the North Sea" and protection of the french coast regardless which one as well of french shipping without specification ... I don't know.
... but ... for the sake of the pro-ententists ... let it happen. IMHO it likely would be 'relativated' again later on 3rd August - the speech of Grery before parliament.
Again the french ambassador would be told that sending or ordering to send the BEF on the continent - even if only in 'symbolic' numbers - won't serve any good - atm at least. 

But to 'comfort' him likely Grey would also tell him ITTL that the case of Belgium as a 'lackmus-test' will be brought before parliament (as happened IOTL). ... though ... how much 'comfort the french side would draw from this ITTL ... at this point of time rather knowing about the german statement(s) about not attacking on/from its western borders ... I don't know. I would suspect not as much as IOTL (which was already below their expectations/wishes).

The Luxembourg-question would ITTL not arise as IOTL since Luxembourg isn't 'touched' (yet ?) by german troops.

I'm not sure yet if at this point mentioning of the (as explained above ITTL 'debatable') german declaration of assummed war as well as the ITTL more payed attention to the russian incursion on german soil in the East between Cambon and Grey would have much of an effect and if what kind of ...
Therefore I would prefer to skip this topic from their talk.

Btw ... what would Benckendorff - the russian ambassador to London do and what might he been ordered to do by Sazonov? Would he show up by himself? Would Grey ask for him to 'explain' the warlike events on the german-russian border?
By now it would also be of interest, if and when what the german goverment (Kaiser) might have 'declared' regarding these events by themself on this 2nd August?

• ... decrying that Russian now has brough war by aggression alone?
• ... ordering now - on 2nd August - the general mobilisation abainst Russia alone?

With the Anti-War demonstration on Trafalgar (as similarly throughout the whole british isle) begun at 16:00 some of the cabinet members (Burns tells such in his diary) will come pass this on their way to the second cabinet meeting beginning of the day at 18:30. ITTL possibly also fetching the one or other leaflet distributed.

However, from now on - well ... already from somewhat befor (see above) - things are going into 'writing realms' with decisions to be made by an author on certain situations where differing possiblities exist and each might have up to very different outcomes. ... the butterflies get MUACH bigger now. ;-)

[nomommsen]

Nov 25, 2024 10:04:38 GMT stevep said:

   In general agreement.  Belgium would oppose any breach of their neutrality and Britain would be treaty bound to support such a defence.  However this is a TL where Germany abandons the Schlieffen Plan and concentrates on attacking Russia.  Or are you referring to a later French attack through Belgium in support of its ally after an offensive into A-L fails? 

  Not sure Russia will fall quickly, or that either side will expect that in such a scenario.  1) Its likely to know that German policy has changed so rather than mobilizing quickly to aid France by attacking into E Prussia its going to have a more defensive force, slowly giving up land in a staged retreat.  They might still, especially with the belief in the superiority of the offensive that dominated the continental great powers of the time, seek to attack the Austrians, both to take some pressure off Serbia and to try and win some victories and weaken Austria before their forced out of Russian Poland.  2) The war might end as early as 1916 but its still going to be very bloody for all involved and an Franco-Russian victory, while unlikely isn't totally impossible.

ad 1)

... given that ITTL the german decision comes rather 'suddenly' there won't be any opportunity (not to speak of technical ability) to change operational thinking/strategy and tactics that way.

ad 2)

... that's ... interesting  to intriguing how that should happen at all ... esp as I would render your envisaged outcome rather ... 'very unlikely improbable' at all

... however: this would once again need to design/describe a whole alternate World War one ...

[nomommsen]

Nov 25, 2024 16:56:09 GMT stevep said:

...

  Getting Italy into the war might work but the best option would be to avoid attacking across the Isonzo river where the Austrians have a very strong defensive position.  Better would be using Franco-Italian naval superiority to support operations in the Balkans.  This would make better use of Italian manpower than throwing them against pretty much impossible positions along the Isonzo,  This would also draw at least a fair amount of Austrian pressure off Serbia and Russia and quite possibly as OTL some German units.

...

... I have to admit I struggle to see how the wihtout a doubt more ... 'sensible' action for Italy to join naval forces with France could cause the in the last sentence mentioned effect.

The Adriatic was never a 'battlefield' of much importance and as it would be a purely naval matter I don't see much of an esp. austrian 'distraction' more than the immese fighting at the Isonzo-front.

Not having this much more austrian landpower manforce would be preserved rather helpting the austrian cause. To man eventually more naval vessels (where to come from ?) would never draw as much men as even only one of the Isonzo battles drew from A-H.

Also: no amphibious (if the italian or french navy would have ever considered such) attack could drwa as much ibnto the austrian manpower. ... btw ... given the 'uninviting (not for touristst but for military forces) adriatic east coast such an endeavour would likely end not too different from the Gallipoli 'affair'.

However ... I well agree with you that a 'prediction' with whatever amount of 'certaincy'or probability somewhat above 0,5 ... is short of impossible regarding the whatever balkanese events ITTL

[stevep]

Nov 30, 2024 16:13:13 GMT nomommsen said:

... let me procede with the events of 2nd August ... to bring this part to some kind of 'provisionally' end:

From ~ 14:00 onwards people begin to gather for the Great Anti-War demonstration to start at about 16:00 at Trafalgar propagated by the pro-labour papers Daily Herald and Daily Citizen. ... ITTL there might also/already be some leaflets be distributed by these papers with utilising the Reuters report from the morning (labour was stauchnly anti-russian) and some infos given by the german embassy like :

• "despite last minute efforts even by the Kaiser (who has brought social security to the german workers unherad and dreamt of in Britain) the mourderous Tsarist regime has launched the war."
  
• ... or something alike ...
  

(might even be that the germans themself have printed such leaflets (?))

At around 14:30 Cambon will be told now 'officially' by Grey about the british protection of the channel and the french channel coast. ... at least. If ITTL he also expands the cabinets decision to the "german fleet comming through the North Sea" and protection of the french coast regardless which one as well of french shipping without specification ... I don't know.
... but ... for the sake of the pro-ententists ... let it happen. IMHO it likely would be 'relativated' again later on 3rd August - the speech of Grery before parliament.
Again the french ambassador would be told that sending or ordering to send the BEF on the continent - even if only in 'symbolic' numbers - won't serve any good - atm at least. 

But to 'comfort' him likely Grey would also tell him ITTL that the case of Belgium as a 'lackmus-test' will be brought before parliament (as happened IOTL). ... though ... how much 'comfort the french side would draw from this ITTL ... at this point of time rather knowing about the german statement(s) about not attacking on/from its western borders ... I don't know. I would suspect not as much as IOTL (which was already below their expectations/wishes).

The Luxembourg-question would ITTL not arise as IOTL since Luxembourg isn't 'touched' (yet ?) by german troops.

I'm not sure yet if at this point mentioning of the (as explained above ITTL 'debatable') german declaration of assummed war as well as the ITTL more payed attention to the russian incursion on german soil in the East between Cambon and Grey would have much of an effect and if what kind of ...
Therefore I would prefer to skip this topic from their talk.

Btw ... what would Benckendorff - the russian ambassador to London do and what might he been ordered to do by Sazonov? Would he show up by himself? Would Grey ask for him to 'explain' the warlike events on the german-russian border?
By now it would also be of interest, if and when what the german goverment (Kaiser) might have 'declared' regarding these events by themself on this 2nd August?

• ... decrying that Russian now has brough war by aggression alone?
• ... ordering now - on 2nd August - the general mobilisation abainst Russia alone?

With the Anti-War demonstration on Trafalgar (as similarly throughout the whole british isle) begun at 16:00 some of the cabinet members (Burns tells such in his diary) will come pass this on their way to the second cabinet meeting beginning of the day at 18:30. ITTL possibly also fetching the one or other leaflet distributed.

However, from now on - well ... already from somewhat befor (see above) - things are going into 'writing realms' with decisions to be made by an author on certain situations where differing possibilities exist and each might have up to very different outcomes. ... the butterflies get MUACH bigger now. ;-)

  I don't think Germany will be able to twist the propaganda as much as your suggesting.  A dow is a dow so Germany's declarations against both Russia and France will be seen as the final triggers for a general war, rather than possibly limiting it to a limited conflict in the Balkans.  They won't be able to make much of some small Russian raids into German territory.

[nomommsen]

Only that this DoW was ... different than any other DoW up to date and following in the certaincy of wording.

... so : a DoW id not a DoW

... and given the importance of wording in diplomatic exchanges esp. in these times ... and the even by the germans themself as well as by the russians after having received this declaration needing further 'interpretation' by Pourtales at St.Petersburg ... 

I still see my claim of at least 'uncertaincy' standing

... and ... there is no declaration against France ITTL ...

'How much is 'made''out of cossacks attacks on farmers villages ... is a matter of the press and its interest in these changed surrounding and I can see the leftish and a number pf liberal papers of the day likly condemning such russian, tsarist behavior.

[stevep]

Nov 30, 2024 16:28:38 GMT nomommsen said:

Nov 25, 2024 10:04:38 GMT stevep said:

   In general agreement.  Belgium would oppose any breach of their neutrality and Britain would be treaty bound to support such a defence.  However this is a TL where Germany abandons the Schlieffen Plan and concentrates on attacking Russia.  Or are you referring to a later French attack through Belgium in support of its ally after an offensive into A-L fails? 

  Not sure Russia will fall quickly, or that either side will expect that in such a scenario.  1) Its likely to know that German policy has changed so rather than mobilizing quickly to aid France by attacking into E Prussia its going to have a more defensive force, slowly giving up land in a staged retreat.  They might still, especially with the belief in the superiority of the offensive that dominated the continental great powers of the time, seek to attack the Austrians, both to take some pressure off Serbia and to try and win some victories and weaken Austria before their forced out of Russian Poland.  2) The war might end as early as 1916 but its still going to be very bloody for all involved and an Franco-Russian victory, while unlikely isn't totally impossible.

ad 1)

... given that ITTL the german decision comes rather 'suddenly' there won't be any opportunity (not to speak of technical ability) to change operational thinking/strategy and tactics that way.

ad 2)

... that's ... interesting  to intriguing how that should happen at all ... esp as I would render your envisaged outcome rather ... 'very unlikely improbable' at all

... however: this would once again need to design/describe a whole alternate World War one ...

1)  If it is a fairly last minute change, i.e. the German military abandons their long term plans at the bequest of the Kaiser then there would be no real scope for Russia to make more preparations for defences in the east.  However it will delay German mobilization somewhat as all their plans are going to have to be scrapped and the initial opposition by Moltke was that any move to change the plans, especially a totally reversal would mean chaos. 

  Their still likely to defeat the incompetent Russian thrusts into E Prussia, possibly a bit earlier than OTL and then come to the aid of their Austrian ally.  Plus possibly the failures of the French incentive in AL might prompt counter offensives there as OTL albeit this will still be a secondary theatre.

2)  Not clear what you mean?  By an ending by 1916 I'm thinking of a win, albeit probably a limited one by the CPs with possibly Britain putting pressure on both sides to come to terms.Or possibly some agreement via mutual exhaustion although I would still suspect this would mean territorial gains by the CPs, most likely in the former Russian provinces in Poland.

  In terms of a CP defeat I'm thinking that once they realise the Germans are concentrating against them the Russians fight a largely defensive war, although they might as OTL be able to maul the Austrian forces in the border regions.  This and the German desire for a crushing military victory means that after the Russians are driven from their provinces in Poland and the southern Baltic region the Germans go for deeper invasions.  The logistics won't up really suitable for this, especially with the lack of mobility of heavy weapons plus a defensive war by Russia is likely to reduce its OTL losses and also avoid much of the OTL damage to morale without the costly offensives to relieve pressure on the western front.  This might end in serious overreach and some nasty defeats for the Germans.

  I would argue this is a relatively low probability route but its not impossible and France will be significantly stronger as well without the loss of some of its richest territories.  Coupled with if Italy is brought into the war on the allied side there is whatever it gets up to.

[stevep]

Nov 30, 2024 16:41:35 GMT nomommsen said:

Nov 25, 2024 16:56:09 GMT stevep said:

...

  Getting Italy into the war might work but the best option would be to avoid attacking across the Isonzo river where the Austrians have a very strong defensive position.  Better would be using Franco-Italian naval superiority to support operations in the Balkans.  This would make better use of Italian manpower than throwing them against pretty much impossible positions along the Isonzo,  This would also draw at least a fair amount of Austrian pressure off Serbia and Russia and quite possibly as OTL some German units.

...

... I have to admit I struggle to see how the wihtout a doubt more ... 'sensible' action for Italy to join naval forces with France could cause the in the last sentence mentioned effect.

The Adriatic was never a 'battlefield' of much importance and as it would be a purely naval matter I don't see much of an esp. austrian 'distraction' more than the immese fighting at the Isonzo-front.

Not having this much more austrian landpower manforce would be preserved rather helpting the austrian cause. To man eventually more naval vessels (where to come from ?) would never draw as much men as even only one of the Isonzo battles drew from A-H.

Also: no amphibious (if the italian or french navy would have ever considered such) attack could drwa as much ibnto the austrian manpower. ... btw ... given the 'uninviting (not for touristst but for military forces) adriatic east coast such an endeavour would likely end not too different from the Gallipoli 'affair'.

However ... I well agree with you that a 'prediction' with whatever amount of 'certaincy'or probability somewhat above 0,5 ... is short of impossible regarding the whatever balkanese events ITTL

  The Atlantic was not a major battlefield OTL because Italy decided on the markedly more difficult attempts to break through on the Isonzo front and France had the bulk of its land forces and military attention on the western front, especially seeking to regain the lands lost to the initial Germany attack.  If here the relatively short western front in AL is deadlocked and with the channel also neutralized the Franco-Italian forces can dominate the Adriatic.  With the poor infrastructure in the Balkans and the rugged terrain access by sea could be as easy if not easier than by land and say a landing in support of Montenegro or into N Albania which would help Serbia that could force CP forces to operate in a region where their logistical lines are long and in some areas their unpopular.

[stevep]

Nov 30, 2024 17:16:51 GMT nomommsen said:

Only that this DoW was ... different than any other DoW up to date and following in the certaincy of wording.

... so : a DoW id not a DoW

... and given the importance of wording in diplomatic exchanges esp. in these times ... and the even by the germans themself as well as by the russians after having received this declaration needing further 'interpretation' by Pourtales at St.Petersburg ... 

I still see my claim of at least 'uncertaincy' standing

... and ... there is no declaration against France ITTL ...

'How much is 'made''out of cossacks attacks on farmers villages ... is a matter of the press and its interest in these changed surrounding and I can see the leftish and a number pf liberal papers of the day likly condemning such russian, tsarist behavior.

  I don't think many will accept that a German declaration of war on Russia isn't actually a declaration of war!  Even if there is some vagary with the wording in the popular mind on all sides it will be seen as a clear dow.  If it is delayed for some reason then so probably is the Russian response as Russia will be seeking to complete its slower mobilization.

  In this case, if Germany has mobilized and gone to war with Russia then France will also mobilize and will be able to declare war on Germany at a time of its choosing.  This might be fairly early, to show support for its ally being threatened by Germany, or a bit later when Germany actually militarily attacks Russia.

[nomommsen]

... so ... finally ... about the questions of the starting thread:

A) How long could a Liberal Asquith Cabinet refraining from declaring war in 1914 for many weeks while the CP attack east and south and the French attack east, remain in power without being forced to face an election?

first part: 

IMO as long as it takes for the 'regular' election (due in late 1915 maybe by 'technicalities' shifted to early 1916) to come up ... or .. the germans do something as stupid as IOTL with letting the Zimmermann telegram run over unsecure/by the british secretly tapped lines (though ... how should they have known that the brits tap their 'friend' the US of A).
second part: 

IMO there won't be any 'forced' election. ... also ... 'forced' by whom?

A1) Would Grey resign over Britain remaining a non-belligerent?

IMO: no

He might considered it and would 'threaten' with as IOTL possibly 'reinforce' such a threat at the 2nd cabinet meeting of 2nd August but ... in the end would stay due to :

• being convinced by Asquith - seeing where from 'the wind blows' much stronger ITTL - to stay for the sake of the goverment as well as the party
• being convinced by - probably Asquith as well - that staying in the goverment would give him - Grey - still much more a lever to 'help' his politics and 'friends' aka the Entente with France (in the first instance as Russia comes onla as a further behing 2nd only)
• being pursuaded by the vast majority of the cabinet that his - Greys - conditions ARE actually met:
  
  • no unconditional pledge for neutrality with two - antigerman minded if someone insist on this 'leaning' - tripwires set for a even possible military british intervention.
  
  

A2) Who else would resign from the Cabinet over Britain remaining a non-belligerent, and would that number be sufficient to force a new election?

IMO only Burns who was the sole 'outright non-interventionist-no-matter-what' would also ITTL resign. ... but agree to sit with the cabinet still in the House at 3rd August as IOTL

B) How soon (measured in days) could an election be held, and who would win the majority, Conservative, Liberal, or a forced Coalition?

First part:
Though I'm far from an expert ... weeks to a month as the minimum from the point of time Asquith decides to end the liberal goverment (what IMO neither he nor the majority of the liberal MPs - necessary for - wanted).
I don't see any way the Tories themself would be able to 'bring down' the Asquith goverment at all.

There are a number of necessary regulations to be met.

• To begin with the King has to dissolve the cabinet on question of the goverment but has prior to this be 'convinced' that the goverment is disabled to work aka find a majority within the house. ... what might have bee necessary to be 'proven' by some kind of vote
  • within the liberal faction (remember the change of PMs beginning with Boris Johnson post 2019)
  • within the parliament with some 'vote of confidence' on ... whatever (?) matter but therewith the majority of the liberal party would have to go with it and play along or 
  • by some two-third vote of the parliament for a new election
  
  

• Then the voters have to register aka the electoral registration officers to update and close the electoral rolls. A process probably taking a few at least a couple of weeks given the lack of electronical aid of today and has to be finished about a fortnight befor election date (some Thursday)

• Maybe during the same time the candidates to the single constituencíes
  have to be selected by their parties. Also aprocess of at leas a couple
  of weeks.

• Then the election itself - at least still at that point of time - would take about a fortnight in itself.
  • For the 1918 election the electorial laws were changed beside other things to be held on a single day.
  • However, changing electorial laws and procedures ITTL in 1914 would by itself also take weeks

But as said : at the very beginning their has to be the want of at least Asquith as well as the party for an election.

Second part:
A 'forced coalition' ... forced by whom? ... the 'outcome' not allowing a single party to 'rule? ... like the two previous elections and the Liberals-IPP 'coalition'?
And regarding the outcome of such an election - if their would be a premature election at all - try some crystal ball tainted by ones own 'wishes', 'believes', 'faith'.

However ... given the plurality of topics during the campaigns (see below) I - very personnally - would assume not much of a change. In the end there would likely still be - though probably narrow - an at least anti-war majority of liberals (regardless a possible split), labour and irish.

C) In a spot election campaign, would the Conservative Party campaign, basically undivided, on a platform of 'Go to war with Germany, yesterday, for God, King, Country, the Empire, the Royal Navy, and the sacred Balance of Power'? [insert whatever slogan you may wish - poor little Serbia or our Gallant Gallic guypals would do as well]

Aside the conservative party being far from as 'monolithic' as seemingly envisaged here - though far from as 'factionalized' as the liberal party at this point of time ... No

I assume the war topic - however propagandistically worked over by the 'hawks' - would be only a part and possibly not even the most important  of their campaign. Domestic topics would likely play a larger role there being so many of:

• 1914 budget (not really passed yet, similar to the 1909 'peoples budget')
• land value tax (some 'pet project' of Lloyd George)
• miners strikes
  
• tariffs (some 'pet project' of Bonar Law)
• suffragtes
• Home Rule
  • Ireland at least
  • maybe also Scotland brough to the fore again
  • not to forget the welsh church disestablishment which actually at this time played a big role (regardless how ...  incomprehensible for us of today)
  
  

Not at least the 'yellow press' would likely cover all the ... 'un-niceties' of the continental battlefields aka the trench-war at least the western front would have changed into comming late autumn/early winter.

(IMHO the 'importance' of the continental war to the contemporary britons - as if their 'only' aim was to beat the germans no-matter-what - is only too often overestimated. ... but that's a personal opinion focusing on the contempories perceptions as described in diaries, letters, as well as the whole of the press (the Times and further Northcliff press was far from 'exemplary').)

D) How soon (measured in days) would the new Commons be filled and Cabinet selected?

As soon as the elction results are confirmed (another couple of days (?) after the closing of the election localities). The next Monday after the election the house could sit. That's for the MP only.

To form a goverment would very much depend on the election results themself:

• How 'clear' or still rather 'undecisives' as the former two elections in 1910
• What members with what 'agendas' would have won their seats
• What 'factions' within the parties themself would be how strong ... and would they (esp. on the side of the liberals in case of a conservative 'victory' how narrow ever) eventually split? ... therewith making the set up of a goverment at least more timeconsuming.

E) If a Conservative majority Cabinet or Conservative-led coalition (presumably dominated by 'go to war with Germany' voices) would new Cabinet both inevitably, and promptly declare war on Germany? Or would there be time for the new Cabinet to deliberate, for Parliament to debate, or to form second thoughts, or to respond to second thoughts about entering the war if such emerged from public opinion, newspapers, or new backbenchers?

They will have to take their time for 'deliberations'.
IMHO it wouldn't be very much before X-mas (in the best case for the militarists/interventionalists) before such a goverment would/could begin to work/sit (if it would be a conservative/Tory controlled goveremnt at all). 

They won't 'declare' war outright but would look for some - at least halfway believable - pretext. ... if not been 'moved' by public opinion about not wanting to share the now obvious trench experience with whoever.
... they might be able to 'arrange' some Tonking-incident maybe ... however such were 'believable' even IOTL on whatever point of time ...

[michelvan]

Nov 25, 2024 13:18:51 GMT raharris1973 said:

They can try any of the three, but none of them would be sure winners.

Italy Army was joke as Germans and Austrian Attacked in WW1
with East campaign first there even More Germans force available to Invade Italy and fast surrender of Italian Government in Neaples.
This bring France in Problems now they would fight on two fronts German Border and Italien border.

The infamous Gallipoli campaign made France and Britain everything wrong, false landing area, wrong force wasted, its miracle that they could escape that deadly failure...

To attack Central powers via Greece with British forces, was the best option for France
Greece under British control weak Bulgarian forces, but the French not use that opportunity
in fact they use Greece to transfer generals and marshals for disciplinary reasons.
and those not realised the chance