Would Germany have (completely) won World War I if Britain would have been neutral?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,797
SoCal
#1
If Britain would have been neutral in World War I, then would Germany and the Central Powers have (completely) won World War I?

Any thoughts on this?

As for me, I am tempted to say Yes. After all, British neutrality in World War I means U.S. neutrality in World War I. Also, after Russia would have gotten defeated, I would find it extremely hard to believe that France would have been able to overcome Germany's numerical superiority and to prevent Germany from occupying all of France (which in turn would have forced France to surrender to Germany).

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,797
SoCal
#2
Also, for the record, by British neutrality, I mean no British troops participating in World War I and no British blockade of Germany and of any of the other Central Powers.
 
Feb 2014
527
South Carolina, USA
#3
Absolutely no question about it. I think they probably would've managed to exhaust the French sometime in late 1916, accelerating Russia's collapse.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,797
SoCal
#4
Absolutely no question about it. I think they probably would've managed to exhaust the French sometime in late 1916, accelerating Russia's collapse.
In regards to late 1916, do you think that the Germans would have won at Verdun if it wasn't for the attempted British offensive at the Somme at this same time?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,797
SoCal
#5
Also, for the record, a great way to have Britain remain neutral in World War I would be for Germany to avoid massively expanding its navy in the pre-World War I period (and to use that money to improve Germany's army and later Germany's air force as well) and for Germany to avoid invading Belgium and instead adopt an East-first strategy in World War I while playing defense in the West until Russia is defeated.
 
Jun 2015
5,723
UK
#6
If the Tsar abdicated still, perhaps. I think combined Anglo-French effort in the West limited the Germans' scope a lot. And with no naval blockade, they could send troops to capture French colonies and gain resources. Resource from the Congo or Indochina to fuel the war effort would go down a treat.
 
Feb 2014
527
South Carolina, USA
#7
In regards to late 1916, do you think that the Germans would have won at Verdun if it wasn't for the attempted British offensive at the Somme at this same time?
Not necessarily, but without a British presence in France I'm not sure the French could handle that kind of attrition even if they did prevent a breakthrough.
 
Jan 2015
3,538
Australia
#9
If the US is intervening it doesn't matter anyway, since they basically ended the war overnight (it dragged on for a little, but as soon as the US got involved it was basically over). Of course, we'll now get into the ridiculous definitions of "neutrality" that the pro-German side will want to use, which will interpret neutrality to mean not only Britain not fighting Germany, but actively opposing the US sending forces to fight Germany and trying to stop them coming by sea (which is hardly neutrality).
 
Nov 2011
8,874
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#10
If Britain had remained neutral in 1914--it would have not been a World War, it would have remained a European conflict. There was a small window of opportunity in July/August 1914 for Germany to have avoided conflict with France and therefore have no need to enter Belgium and thus invoke British participation, but the German military, foreign office and the Kaiser were all working to different agendas.
Germany did not NEED to go to war against France, but for a decade or more the German military believed that they NEEDED to go to war against Russia as early as possible in order to define their eastern borders as Russia was industrialising and modernising and the longer they waited to go to war, the harder a war would be.
The German High Seas Fleet was not intended to actually go to war against the British Grand Fleet--it was rather supposed to function as nuclear deterrents have in the late 20thC--a weapon that deterred an opponent and to be used as a tool of blackmail in diplomacy.
Without British involvement there would have been no South African action in South West Africa, no Australian action in the South Pacific, no sea battles in the South Atlantic, no Japanese take-over of Chinese treaty ports, no East African campaign. It is questionable if Turkey would become a belligerent against anyone but Russia if at all--so no Gallipoli, no Palestine Front, no Arab revolt. Without British money, it is doubtful if Italy would have entered the war--Romania certainly would not have. Without British involvement, the entry of the US into WW1 would have been impossible for a dozen reasons.
A totally different war, a totally different 20thC. We can blame that bloody Lord Grey!