Britain is triumphant at Jutland

Except from "A Brief History of the Great War 1914-1917", from a timeline in which the Central Powers (Germany chiefly) emerged victorious despite suffering a massive defeat at Jutland. Some background: Germany focuses on the East and adopts a defensive posture against France. No invasion of Belgium or France means that British involvement in the war does not involve a large British Army commitment to the western Front. Britain focuses on naval war, colonial war, and blockade. Russia collapses first, followed by France, whose troops mutiny after two years of fruitless and bloody attempts to break German defenses. Italy remains neutral as does the USA, who hosts the peace treaty. Discuss:



...However, unlike France and Russia, Britain was in a very strong position and did not depend on German mercies. With her entire military strength focused outside of Europe and a Royal Navy that dominated the sea, she had quickly seized all of Germany’s colonies in Africa while her Japanese ally had done the same in China and the Pacific. Britain and her Arab nationalist clients had wrested all of Arabia from Ottoman control. Other than slight damage from zeppelin airship and naval coastal raids, Britain was untouched by war and, with the assistance of the Imperial Dominions, had raised a large and well-equipped army that was largely intact and still expanding.

The most important factor in ending the war occurred in the North Sea, when Britain won an overwhelming victory over the German High Seas Fleet at Jutland (Skaagerak) in June 1916. This virtually eliminated the German Navy as a serious threat to British naval dominance. Against the loss of one battleship, three battlecruisers, two obsolete armored cruisers, and fewer than 6000 men, an overwhelming force of the Royal Navy under Lord Jellicoe succeeded in trapping and eliminating a large element of the German Navy – sinking or mortally crippling eight dreadnought battleships, four pre-dreadnoughts, and every German battlecruiser in the battle, as well as numerous other light units. Only dwindling British ammunition reserves and poor visibility allowed the remnants of the routed German fleet to escape. Over 29,000 German officers and men lost their lives in the disaster, including Admirals Scheer and Hipper. Another 11,550 men were rescued from the sea or from surrendered German capital ships into British captivity. In the words of First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, “Admiral Jellicoe is the one man who could have won or lost this war in a single day…and in the tradition of Nelson he has won it!”

While Churchill and a few others in the war cabinet argued that the Jutland victory should encourage Britain to continue the war until complete victory was secured, the Asquith government demurred. Britain had, by force of arms, eliminated Germany’s overseas empire and destroyed the only means Germany might have to threaten Britain with direct invasion. In Germany, the Reichstag, Kaiser Wilhelm, and the generally hawkish German press were in a state of shocked apoplexy. In a single battle Britain virtually destroyed the fleet that Tirpitz and Wilhelm II had lovingly created over the preceding decade, with billions of Reichsmarks somewhat grudgingly provided by the Reichstag now resting in Davy Jones’ locker. In a manner surprisingly equivalent to the thinking of Asquith and his advisors in Britain, Germany’s leaders realized that the naval defeat at Jutland did not change the balance of power in Europe, where Germany was victorious in the east and that Britain might accept this now that Germany was no longer a threat to its global oceanic empire. Thus, both Britain and Germany came to see there might be basis to negotiate peace without total victory.

Although France and Russia had already agreed to separate agreements with Germany in early 1917, the United States offered to mediate a British-German peace treaty that would also provide comprehensive settlement among all combatants and establish the structure for a permanent peace in Europe and elsewhere. Negotiations began on July 5, 1917 in Washington DC. Initially only Germany, France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, and Japan attended. Russia, still in the throes of civil war, did not send a representative. Serbia, which was specifically mentioned in the treaty preamble as the power most responsible for the Great War, no longer existed as an independent nation. In late 1917, representatives from several newly independent countries carved out of the former Russian Empire were also invited by US President Wilson to sit in. These included the Grand Duchy of Poland, the Kingdoms of Belorussia and Ukraine, and the Federated Baltic Kingdoms. Finland, which had achieved independence without German assistance, attended to ensure its new nationhood was internationally recognized.

Although the Washington Treaty as finally signed in August 6, 1918 did not live up to Woodrow Wilson’s lofty and ultimately unrealistic goal to serve as the springboard for a permanent “League of Nations” it proved to be an enduring document that:

1.Formally ended the European war and restored normal diplomatic relations throughout Europe
2.Provided formal recognition of the previous Russo-German and Franco-German treaties and armistices,
3.Provided international recognition for the new nations of central and eastern Europe and established several border adjustments
4.Provided international recognition for Finland
5.Recognized the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Serbia
6.Recognized the independence of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine under British protection
7.Ended the war between Britain and Germany on terms that were acceptable, if not ideal, to both parties.

Recognizing that the Anglo-German naval arms race was a prime cause of the Great War, the Washington Treaty also included a separate naval reduction codicil between Britain and Germany that formally limited the size of any future German navy to one-half of the tonnage of the British navy, with specific limitations on the actual numbers of some capital ship classes for both powers.

There were, however, a number of unresolved issues or snubs that caused some participants not to sign the treaty and created the stage for future regional conflicts as well as one major war over the following four decades.

The Washington Treaty did not address the Balkans, other than to affirm Austro-Hungarian gains and legitimize the extinction of Serbia as an independent nation. As a result, nationalist movements continued to thrive in and outside of Austria-Hungary. The Dual Monarchy also found itself embroiled in border conflicts with the new German-sponsored nations of Poland and Ukraine. In addition, numerous non-signatories such as Italy and Romania had their own claims and border disputes against Austria and Hungary that the treaty did not address. This, together with increasing instability in the empire, led in 1926 to the negotiated breakup of the Dual Monarchy, with Austria eventually joining the federal structure of the German Empire as the Kingdom of Austria. The Kingdom of Hungary, with German assistance, resorted to sometimes draconian measures as it sought to maintain its control over restive Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, south Slavs, Croats, Romanians, and others within its expanded borders.

The Ottoman Empire understandably chafed at being asked to sign a document that recognized the loss of its Arabian territories. However, since the Ottoman government saw little chance of retaining these territories in the foreseeable future, it eventually signed the treaty to restore valuable economic support from Britain and France. Dissatisfaction with this treaty was so high in Turkey, however, that it eventually led to the overthrow of Sultan Mehmed IV by a military coup. Later, Mehmed was returned to the throne as a figurehead monarch under a dictatorship headed by Mustafa Kemal.

Japan did not sign the treaty, seeing the requirement to negotiate with Britain and Germany regarding the final status of its conquests in the Pacific as yet another attempt by western powers to deprive it of its well-earned conquests in war. Japan refused to negotiate with either Germany or Britain regarding this matter. This in turn antagonized the United States, which saw the Japanese Pacific conquests as a threat to its own possessions in the western Pacific, particularly the Philippines and Guam. The Americans specifically demanded that German Micronesian and Pacific islands be demilitarized or placed under international control, neither of which the Japanese would agree to. Finally, the US sought to have the Anglo-German naval reduction codicil expanded to include at least the United States and Japan, with Japan limited to the same ratio vis-à-vis the US as the German-British ratio. This was unacceptable to both Japan and Britain. As a result, despite hosting the peace conference, the US also refused to sign the Washington Treaty, and the 1931-32 Pacific War was an inevitable result.
 
Last edited:

Ryan

Donor
this looks interesting :)

just a few things though,
-I don't think that AH was interested in annexing Serbia, after all it would just be yet more rowdy Slavs in their borders.
-japan had no problem with a naval treaty and recognition of pacific territories in otl, why do they here? did they capture more/different territory than otl?
-why would Britain have a problem with a naval treaty between US and Japan? it didn't otl either.
 
Interesting premisse for sure, but why does Britain enter the war if the west is calm?
The naval side of the tensions is slowly clearing up and a defensive Germany is not threatening the Chanel. So that would need some clarification.

The next point is the massively loopsided loss ratio. Maybe you should look that over as well. Yes the RN was bigger and all that but you are proposing what RN 4 vs. HSF 17 cap ship losses. Is that probable? Maybe someone with better understanding then me could clarify.

France is then a bloody mess. But that is possible Imo. Esp if the French and Russians bring each other into a spiral of helping offensive action for each other.


The results also sound somewhat forced. Esp A-H Imo would not want the next infusion of even more minorities. So maybe a reshuffling of boarders and rulers to bring the worst cases of conflict down. But outright anexiation of Serbia? Imo not that likely.

The dissolution is possible as there were problems. And as written the somewhat clean thing is likely. But the Czech for Hungary? Imo more likely a German puppet or outright "special zone" in the framework of the Kaiserreich.
 
Lot of good stuff but I doubt that A-H would annex much of Serbia (possibly the Bor region with its copper mine) as they really did not need more Slavs. A protected occupation with indemnities is more likely. Bulgaria is nowhere mentioned. Did it join the CP as per OTL? If yes it would get Serbian Macedonia.

Hmm no mention of submarines. So they did very little in this war?

If Russia is a mess the OE might be able to grab Baku.
 
this looks interesting :)

just a few things though,
-I don't think that AH was interested in annexing Serbia, after all it would just be yet more rowdy Slavs in their borders.
-japan had no problem with a naval treaty and recognition of pacific territories in otl, why do they here? did they capture more/different territory than otl?
-why would Britain have a problem with a naval treaty between US and Japan? it didn't otl either.

Regarding Serbia, this CP-victorious treaty treats Serbia as a "rogue state" that lost its right to national sovereignty by instigating the Great War. You are right, A-H might not have been that interested in annexing rowdy Serbians - and this is one of the factors that led to the eventual breakup of the Dual Monarchy. Austria (including the Sudeten Germans) federates with the German Empire, while Hungary takes over the rest of the Empire. Hungarians don't mess around.

In this TL (It might not be clear in the excerpt), Japan's seizure of the German colonies in the Pacific is considered merely provisional. They would be forced to negotiate a separate treaty with Germany and Britain to finalize the status. In a changed world where Germany has negotiated away a large ocean-going navy, the British (or more accurately Australia and New Zealand) would rather the colonies be returned to Germany than they be held by a slightly untrustworthy up-and-coming naval power that is seen to be a potential enemy in the future. BTW, the Anglo-Japanese alliance is not renewed in 1920.

As in our TL, the US would insist on virtual naval parity with Britain, something that the "Victors of Jutland" will not negotiate, especially since the US and Britain were not allies in the Great War. Also, Japan will not accept a limitation of its fleet to 50% of the US, seeing this as insufficient to maintain possible equivalence in the Pacific. Also, the naval treaty is not a stand alone treaty as OTLs Washington Treaty...it is a codicil to the Great War peace treaty, which was negotiated primarily to conclude the Anglo-German war.
 
Here's some more excerpts that may answer a few questions, or stimulate more.

...Although often referred to as a “World War”, the 1914-17 conflict actually involved only a handful of European nations (plus Japan as essentially an extension of British naval aims in the Pacific) and the Ottoman Empire. After some dithering, Italy opted not to enter the war as a belligerent, despite its prewar alliances with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Bulgaria and Romania remained neutral Other than Serbia, which was quickly defeated by Austria-Hungary in 1914, the Entente added no new allies other than rebellious Arabs in the Ottoman Empire and a variety of nationalist terrorists in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The United States made its intention clear to remain neutral and President Woodrow Wilson offered his offices to help mediate peace, an offer that was eventually accepted by most of the warring powers in 1917.

This neutrality was tested in late 1914 when Germany announced its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. Had the 1915 attack on RMS Lusitania carrying a large number of US passengers to Britain resulted in the ship’s sinking, this could have led ultimately to US involvement. However, only one torpedo struck the stern of the ship and apparently failed to detonate. Nonetheless the attack was universally condemned in the US press and in Congress as reckless piracy. In response to US protests, Germany abandoned its “sink on sight” policy and, after a few months, the potential crisis was forgotten.

As anticipated – or more accurately hoped – by the Germans, Russian forces were soon in full retreat in Poland, Kurland, Belorussia, and the Ukraine. However, ultimate German victory in the east was only assured after the January Revolution of 1916 in St. Petersburg forced the Czar and his family to abdicate and flee through Finland to Sweden. Several coups and counter coups between royalists, socialists, and nationalists followed. During this period of chaos, Russian military resistance essentially ceased, and Germany was able to seize much of western Russia and forge a direct link through the Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire. This gave the German Empire vast swathes of land, some of which was actually of little interest to Germany and was bargained away in 1917 to the newly established, but unstable, Federated Russian Republic in the Treaty of Warsaw.

Also, as expected, France bled itself dry by repeated assaults on entrenched German armies along the German border. French commanders never lost their belief that their poilus fortified with elan and an offensive spirit could eventually overcome German machine guns, barbed wire, and mortars. By the fall of 1916, France had lost nearly 2,000,000 men in in such attacks, far more than suffered by all other combatants in the Great War, with the possible exception of Russia. Although the Germans did occasionally give ground in the face of these mass charges, it was the French who suffered. Troop morale dropped and revolutionary sentiments multiplied. Finally, in April 1916, French troops across the front mutinied when given yet another order to charge the German lines. News of this rebellion spread to Paris, leading ultimately to the political collapse of the 3rd Republic. Backed by nationalist elements, units commanded by a young army officer named Charles de Gaulle seized power in Paris on the pretext of preempting a radical socialist revolution and ending the war. Having achieved all of its possible aims in the east, Germany offered de Gaulle’s people very favorable terms: no territorial claims against France or its colonial empire, surprisingly modest reparations, and a joint agreement to permanently demilitarize the Franco-German border. De Gaulle’s self-styled “Fourth Republic” (actually a military junta), signed a separate armistice with Germany on this basis on June 6, 1916. Because unofficial German war aims widely discussed in the press and Reichstag were much more draconian, De Gaulle’s junta was able to present this armistice to the French public as a victory.

With both allies dead or dying by the end of 1916, the British government began to consider making peace. This was certainly helped by the peace offered to France by Germany, which both preserved the independence and power of France as a western European bulwark against Germany and avoided any border changes in the west (such as German occupation zones in France) that would more directly threaten Britain...
 
Interesting premisse for sure, but why does Britain enter the war if the west is calm?
The naval side of the tensions is slowly clearing up and a defensive Germany is not threatening the Chanel. So that would need some clarification.

The next point is the massively loopsided loss ratio. Maybe you should look that over as well. Yes the RN was bigger and all that but you are proposing what RN 4 vs. HSF 17 cap ship losses. Is that probable? Maybe someone with better understanding then me could clarify.

QUOTE]

I think Britain would enter the war in 1914, but without the invasion of Belgium, her participation would be more limited and possibly less firm, allowing a negotiated peace after the massive victory at Jutland.

Regarding the German losses at Jutland, I do not think this is that unlikely if Jellicoe had been able to trap the HSF. The British massively outnumbered the Germans, especially when considering that the German BCs had already been bloodied somewhat by the earlier BC action and had expended considerable amounts of ammunition as well. The pre-dreadnoughts were dead meat. Also, once the entire force of the Grand Fleet finally engages, it is with ships and crews that are fresh and fully supplied with ammunition. The Germans, particularly the BCs will be damaged and (as in OTL) will be expended in a (in this TL) futile attempt to screen the main fleet as it attempts to turn away. Many of the German losses are not actually directly sunk by the RN, but are left as damaged hulks that eventually surrender to the British. Many British battleships are damaged, some severely, but only one is sunk. I think in the tactical situation faced by the Germans in OTL, a failure to successfully avoid the RN main body could lead to such a lopsided outcome, especially when one considers that the British will be in possession of the battlefield facing large numbers of damaged and near sinking German vessels.
 
Remember the vast BC and cruiser losses he'd take from that stupid armor flaw that sunk so many in OTL Jutland and later.

Sure he'd win?

Also, why he didn't was that he already dominated the North Sea. Why care about more?
 

marathag

Banned
led in 1926 to the negotiated breakup of the Dual Monarchy, with Austria eventually joining the federal structure of the German Empire as the Kingdom of Austria.

The one thing that that the various bits of the A-H Empire could agree on, was not liking or being a part of Germany. The most Pro-German Habsburg, Franz-Ferdinand, didn't want that.

Core of the Austrian half of the Empire, had always been a Duchy, with the Habsburgs ruling over many of the other Areas as Kingdoms.

Now OTL, after the War was lost, Charles wanted a Federal Union of Austria and Hungary with the Czech and Slovakian, Croat/Slovene, and East Galician Ukrainian areas as States, and shedding off West Galicia and Transylvania as lost causes.

By time of Jutland, the Germans and Austrians had been doing well against the Romanians and Russians, with only Moldavia occupied by Allied troops.

This would have made the Hungarians happy to being able to control this area.

without the losses of 1917, A-H is in much better shape to stay intact, and with the butterflies, Charles probably won't die in 1922
 
This looks very interesting!

Such a victory at Jutland isn't impossible, although it would take a bit of handwaving. You could imagine Scheer being killed by a lucky shell before being able to issue his turn-away order, but I don't think his flagship actually took any damage. Or have the Grand Fleet remain in contact during the night, so dawn sees the HSF short of torpedos and forced to fight its way home.
 
Remember the vast BC and cruiser losses he'd take from that stupid armor flaw that sunk so many in OTL Jutland and later.

Sure he'd win?

Also, why he didn't was that he already dominated the North Sea. Why care about more?

1. In this TL, all the British BC and CA losses in OTL still occur. But in the main fleet action, one can surmise that Beatty's BCs will not stand in the battle line after what happened to them in the "run to the south". They may not have any more chances to explode.

2. Yes, I'm sure that in a fleet action involving the entire RN vs the entire HSF, Jellicoe would win a major victory. Scheer obviously thought that as well which is why he spent most of his effort OTL trying to run away.

3. Are you saying the Jellicoe/Britain would be happy to just turn around and claim a draw when the opportunity to decisively eliminate the HSF as a potential threat presented itself? Really?

The biggest reason that Jellicoe might be conservative is the reason he himself gave: U-boats. The biggest reason that Jellicoe might not stay around to pound German BBs to floating hulks to capture the crews is the risk that his ships would be torpedoed. So, he might sail away and a number of the crippled German ships might still make it home under tow...and possibly not be repaired for a year.
 
This looks very interesting!

Such a victory at Jutland isn't impossible, although it would take a bit of handwaving. You could imagine Scheer being killed by a lucky shell before being able to issue his turn-away order, but I don't think his flagship actually took any damage. Or have the Grand Fleet remain in contact during the night, so dawn sees the HSF short of torpedos and forced to fight its way home.

Either, or a combination of the two would work. OTL, the German battleships (other than the slow pre-dreadnaughts that shouldn't have even been there) barely got their guns hot and absorbed little damage. Imagine a situation in which the fleet turn about (there were two actually) got screwed up or Jellicoe stayed in contact thru the night, the Germans are in a world of hurt. They are vastly outnumbered, their BCs are smashed up and no real help, their overall fleet speed is inferior to the British, and after dawn the British 15 inch and 13.5 inch guns outrange the Germans.
 
Just found that you seriously underestimated the British human losses. In OTL they lost about 6100 dead. And that is without an all holds brocken all guns blazing duell. And that by loosing one battleship less...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland

Point taken, I presumed that British losses would be roughly equivalent to OTL (6000) which is my mistake. I will need to revise the figure upward. To be honest I have also probably underestimated German human losses as well.
 
The one thing that that the various bits of the A-H Empire could agree on, was not liking or being a part of Germany. The most Pro-German Habsburg, Franz-Ferdinand, didn't want that.

Core of the Austrian half of the Empire, had always been a Duchy, with the Habsburgs ruling over many of the other Areas as Kingdoms.

Now OTL, after the War was lost, Charles wanted a Federal Union of Austria and Hungary with the Czech and Slovakian, Croat/Slovene, and East Galician Ukrainian areas as States, and shedding off West Galicia and Transylvania as lost causes.

By time of Jutland, the Germans and Austrians had been doing well against the Romanians and Russians, with only Moldavia occupied by Allied troops.

This would have made the Hungarians happy to being able to control this area.

without the losses of 1917, A-H is in much better shape to stay intact, and with the butterflies, Charles probably won't die in 1922

I admit to using modest amounts of handwavium in the Balkans.
 
Well overall 40.000 is not that insignificant. And without clear names and numbers the thing will always be rather nebolous.

The British number just jumped into my eye as I reread the paragraph and looked it up in OTL. That and you yourself agreed that the RN got also somewhat pounded in the scuffle :)
 
Top