Britain and Germany.

Toltec

Ad Honorem
Apr 2008
7,923
Hyperborea
By 1900 Britain felt isolated from Europes two great alliances. The Franco-Russian pact and the Austro-German alliance. It chose Germany and Austria and asked to join, the Kaiser turned Britain down, so Britain joined Russia and France instead.

What would have happened if Britain had been on the central powers side in wwi?




In wwii many Tories supported Germany. Churchill when he gave speaches to the houses of parliament was jeared by his own party and cheered by the labour opposition. what would have happened if the tories ousted Churchill and supported Hitler?
 

Lucius

Forum Staff
Jan 2007
16,363
Nebraska
By 1900 Britain felt isolated from Europes two great alliances. The Franco-Russian pact and the Austro-German alliance. It chose Germany and Austria and asked to join, the Kaiser turned Britain down, so Britain joined Russia and France instead.

What would have happened if Britain had been on the central powers side in wwi?
That's an interesting question. I assume we're talking about the British Army conducting operations as allies of the Germans against the French Army.

I suppose German/British war aims would have included a division of the bulk of the French overseas empire(maybe Germany gets Belfort, Epinal, etc - it hardly matters). And each would have granted a "free hand" to the other regarding Turkestan and the western Russian Empire, respectively.

The Hapsburgs would be fobbed off with Serbia, and the Turks with Baku, etc.

But, what then? Everybody lives happily ever after?
 

Lucius

Forum Staff
Jan 2007
16,363
Nebraska
Carrying on with the speculation ...

Even with France knocked out of the war early, Nicholas would not (I think) have submitted to such a precipitous surrender. Rather, that's what all that space is for - to trade away for time. But he might well have come to his senses before it was too late - before the casualties had radicalized the proletariat - before the Germans snuck Lenin into St. Petersburg. Even a modified version of Brest-Litovsk would have been a bitter pill - combined, as it would have been, with cessations of territory to the Turks and the British. He probably would have felt compelled to abdicate in favor of his son, with Count Witte serving as Regent.

But think about what was going on in China at the time in question. The European powers were content to recognize each other's spheres of influence there so as not to upset the profitability of the concessions. In school, we were taught that the Japanese wanted the whole of China for themselves - whether as parts of the Empire, or governed through some form of puppet regime. We were taught that the US wanted a united China with free trade for all (the so-called Open Door Policy), so that US interests could penetrate throughout without having to bribe dozens of "warlords" (or however they styled themselves) and dominate the whole, unfettered by "spherical arrangements" by virtue of the size of it's economy.

Obviously, the Chinese communists learned about the "historical inevitability of dialectic materialism" the same way the Russians did. They read about it at the library. They didn't need Mikhail Borodin to explain it to them. But without a Russian Revolution, events in China post-1914 would have unfolded very differently.

Is it possible that a more, uh, muscular, Anglo-German policy in general would have led to a military/naval reaction to the 1931 Japanese seizure of Manchuria? Perhaps even in conjunction with Russia? Perhaps the Japanese would have reckoned that they had enough on their plate in China without bombing Pearl Harbor too? Perhaps the US would have horned in on the action even without the invitation?

This is all assuming that this Anglo-German alliance would have lasted that long. I'm not sure what the upshot of it all would have been. I'm guessing the Japanese would have gotten out of "WWII" a lot better off.

Another "upshot" would have been that the atom bomb would have been invented in Germany, nicht wahr?