The Great War

[The Brain]

Are you saying that Britain had strong reason to believe that France and Russia would quickly defeat Germany in case of war? I haven't encountered this before.

yes of course.  The plan was that the French would tie up the Germans in the West, and the Russians would plow through a virtually undefended East.  And it wasnt that far off - the Allies just underestimated the staggering degree of Russian command incompetence.

[The Brain]

Britain's policy of keeping a small standing army - and relying on continental allies to do a lot of the heavy lifting when war broke out - had been successful for centuries.  I'm not sure how much blame Britain deserves for not keeping a larger army by 1914 considering:

(A)  They already had what appeared to be formidable continental allies encircling Germany
(B)  The policy of a small standing army (partly fueled by a geographical isolation that was still equally true in 1914) had been successful for centuries
(C)  As far as I'm aware, the naval race with Germany was already putting a strain on the British military budget
(D)  Compared to other nations' pre-war plans, e.g.  Plan XVII, the Schlieffen Plan, and Russian lack of effective planning, the British mistake of not keeping a larger army was less spectacularly costly

That being said, in hindsight it would have made sense for Britain to have had a larger army when the war broke out.  But was it a particularly egregious error?  I say no.

Less spectacularly costly 1) to Britain 2) with hindsight, sure. Before the war the Brits couldn't know that their huge gamble would only cost them France being almost defeated and Russia ultimately being knocked out of the war, and not the whole war. It was also an error that had a completely obvious solution: mass army. Unlike some other countries at the time Britain was also a rich, modern and centralized state that could easily have implemented it, had they wanted to.

[dps]

Britain's policy of keeping a small standing army - and relying on continental allies to do a lot of the heavy lifting when war broke out - had been successful for centuries.  I'm not sure how much blame Britain deserves for not keeping a larger army by 1914 considering:

(A)  They already had what appeared to be formidable continental allies encircling Germany
(B)  The policy of a small standing army (partly fueled by a geographical isolation that was still equally true in 1914) had been successful for centuries
(C)  As far as I'm aware, the naval race with Germany was already putting a strain on the British military budget
(D)  Compared to other nations' pre-war plans, e.g.  Plan XVII, the Schlieffen Plan, and Russian lack of effective planning, the British mistake of not keeping a larger army was less spectacularly costly

That being said, in hindsight it would have made sense for Britain to have had a larger army when the war broke out.  But was it a particularly egregious error?  I say no.

Less spectacularly costly 1) to Britain 2) with hindsight, sure. Before the war the Brits couldn't know that their huge gamble would only cost them France being almost defeated and Russia ultimately being knocked out of the war, and not the whole war. It was also an error that had a completely obvious solution: mass army. Unlike some other countries at the time Britain was also a rich, modern and centralized state that could easily have implemented it, had they wanted to.

The  problem is, it wasn't a huge gamble--it was the expected course of events, and if the Russians had been even marginally competant or the French hadn't been so committed to an immediate attack throught the heavy German fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine, it would have worked. 

[Sheilbh]

It's not even keeping a larger army though.  The British theoretically had around 700 000 troops at most in 1914.  That includes full mobilisation of all reserves.  By contrast the French were planning with around 1 500 000 and the Germans considerably more than that.

Although it's worth remembering that the Entente was based on Britain sending a force of 100 000 in case of a Franco-German war.  That force was sent, it was just wiped out in the first few months.

[Neil]

If Germany quickly defeats France (and Russia) then a big British 1914 army would have been sorely needed

No it wouldn't have.  If France and Russia are defeated, then the British army is a waste of resources, because only the RN matters at that point.

Deliberately obtuse much? It would have been needed to prevent the quick German defeat of France and Russia.

Which is exactly what they did.

British strategy:  1
The Brain:  0

[Grey Fox]

But what about the ACW?

[HVC]

But what about the ACW?

The british didn't have enough soldiers in that war either.

[grumbler]

I love Great War revisionism, therefor I this thread.

[Darth Wagtaros]

But what about the ACW?

How about a map showing the Great War's African campaigns had the South won the ACW?

[Valmy]

But what about the ACW?

That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.

[jimmy olsen]

But what about the ACW?

That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.

Germany would have won that war then I think given their immense industrial capacity and innate organization.

[Barrister]

But what about the ACW?

That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.

The only winner would be the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk.

[crazy canuck]

But what about the ACW?

That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.

The only winner would be the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk.

No chance, they were large and powerful yes but had no general staff and their logistical support was very sub par.

[Ideologue]

They suffocated under their own weight.  Dumb.

[Tonitrus]

But what about the ACW?

That is what it would have looked like if everybody tried to fight the Great War with no standing army.

The only winner would be the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk.

No chance, they were large and powerful yes but had no general staff and their logistical support was very sub par.

And eventually Incan Torpedo Boats would have intervened to save the day.