What would have happened if Britain remained neutral in WWI?

Germans would have obtained a French surrender by the end of 1915. The Russian Empire would have been partitioned as it was historically in 1916 instead of 1917.

>>1795463
I doubt the French would have held on. It wouldn't be a defeat on the scale of 1871 or 1940 but Paris would fall eventually.

I also doubt as many countries would've jumped on the bandwagon and joined in favour of the Allies. Italy might even be persuaded to join the Central Powers if the war goes especially bad for the French in the early stages.

Tough call. Some sort of a Marne would still happen. Some sort of a pre-1918 German victory with Germany coming on top from a conflict of attrition, not strangled by the blockade and with a numerical advantage over the French forces.

Home Rule crisis sparks a civil war

>>1795503
>>1795514
>>1795521
Ok, a better question: What would have happened to Britain in the decades after the war, if she had stayed neutral, and the central powers won?

>>1795463
They would have never done that as that would go against the British doctrine of dividing the powers of Europe against each other so that one never becomes dominant. British society at the time was very Germanophobic and clearly saw the Germans as a threat (and vice versa in Germany). In a way the invasion of Belgium was very convenient as it gave the British a good excuse for war that made them look heroic.

>>1795529
Depends, does Germany take French colonies as part of a peace settlement?

If yes then they can wage war against Britain by both land and sea, while the Kaisers navy wasn't big enough to wage such a war in 1914 against the Royal Navy, it could expand in order to do so. Throw in the Ottomans and such a conflict isn't likely to go well on land for the British Empire, but Central Powers victory would depend upon defeating the Royal Navy.

If they don't occupy French colonies, there isn't anything to gain from going to war with an Empire that can't be attacked by land. I'd say they wouldn't be stupid enough to start a war in this situation, but they did march into Belgium to begin with.

Would the peace terms of the war have been as bad if the war had of ended within a year or two?

>>1795463
>reads "fight for the dear oldfag"
I must stop visiting this website...

>>1795529
literally no way of knowing and a scenario magnitudes more retarded than the original one and that is saying something

>>1795619

Dont worry it will be shut down soon

>>1795521
>Tough call. Some sort of a Marne would still happen

Brits were irrelevant as shit in the First Marne
France held the entire Western Front almost alone until the Somme
I'd say that without Britain, France would lose in early 1917

>>1795463
Probably would have collapsed into Civil War over the Home Rule crisis.

>>1795597
>>>>>>>>>>

Versailles was not harsh enough

Like others have said, germany would relatively quickly, i assume the Ottomans wouldn't join in since they didn't have the whole warship fiasco and not much to gain from the war, germany would likely annex Belgium and some industrial coastal areas of France and basically turn remaining France into puppet state. Germany would likely carve large areas out of Russia, hard to say what happens to remaining Russia, perhaps the whites win the civil war (if it occurs- if it doesn't we might see lots more turmoil in Russia and possibly a revanchist nationalist government take power in the future.) Germany would likely take some french colonies for mittelafrika, also the Congo. I assume Austria Hungary and the Ottoman empire would continue to hang on after the war in some fashion.

Depression wouldn't be nearly as bad since there aren't as many debts and loans and the war was a much smaller conflict.
I see Germany dominating Europe for the foreseeable future, the u.s and Britain would likely strengthen their relations to counter germany. Probably a more stable interwar period than what we had.