Great Britain and Germany, with the exception of the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty, were largely antagonistic with each other. They called each other despots and imperialists, yet they shared much in common. Germany had the potential of Great Britain, but repressed itself to minor colonial expansion and continental politics. So, what if, through any means possible, Great Britain and Germany became allies in the quest towards world domination. I've seen scenarios like this before in timelines where WWI starts later and Great Britain is pushed into Germany for the sake of the balance of power (because of the growing power of Russia). I've also seen timelines like this that stem from the Fashoda War, or the Russo-Japanese War, which are based around France and Great Britain going to war.

Could you please come up with a timeline wherein Great Britain and Germany willingly ally for the sake of their mutual growth? Perhaps involve the planned Anglo-German partition of the Portuguese Empire?
 
Joseph Chamberlain was pushing for an alliance and in the wake of the collapse of the Dreikaiserbund and before the Entente, things seemed possible. Most of the problem was the Kaiser himself. So you would need to, er, remove him.

The Crown Prince would only just attain his majority in 1900, but coming to the throne then his grandmother, Queen Victoria's daughter Victoria, would still be alive (widow of Frederick III).

William III, as he would be, would probably throw far less spanners into the works, not least because his uncle and cousins would be advising him, and you could see a British government during the Boer War, afraid of a potential French Copenhagen, reach out and agree an alliance with a Germany that is not whipping up bombastic propaganda against them
 
Why does Britain even need to share out-of-Europe resources with Germany at all?
The British policy in the 1800s was to do their best to hamper anyone, including the French, in out-of-Europe ventures. The British policy since time immemorial, additionally, was to favor even less a continental power that seemed heading towards continental hegemony, and after 1871 that's Germany.
Germany, in turn, has its own fish to fry in Europe, on all sides.

One or another crowned head might make things worse, yes, but making them better against these well-established and sound principles - I don't think so.
 
Why does Britain even need to share out-of-Europe resources with Germany at all?

Britain does not have to share anything with Germany, the two great powers just have to agree not to fight each other.

France was the one with the second largest colonial empire, and a chance at partitioning that empire is better than getting no chance to stab at it at all
 
Britain does not have to share anything with Germany, the two great powers just have to agree not to fight each other.

France was the one with the second largest colonial empire, and a chance at partitioning that empire is better than getting no chance to stab at it at all

Perhaps if France was able to colonize more of Africa, especially by gaining the Congo, Britain would have more of a motive to be antagonistic towards France and subsequently become friends with Germany. Also, have Russia do better in the Great Game, exerting more influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and Britain would be even more wary of allying with the Tsar.
 
You would need Germany to not be so threatening to France. The French public was incensed by the Fashoda Affair but the French government recognized they had no choice but to secure British friendship to counteract the ever present Germany threat.
 
Replace French republic with an empire and German empire with a republic of confederate states and Britain then might be more willing to ally with due to threat of French continatal domination.
 
Britain does not have to share anything with Germany, the two great powers just have to agree not to fight each other.

Do not think that "sharing" means territorial control only. It also means allowing economic penetration.

France was the one with the second largest colonial empire, and a chance at partitioning that empire is better than getting no chance to stab at it at all

Exactly. France was allowed to have that by the Royal Navy, because by 1871 France was not the leading continental country. Glad that you see the second point.
 
Why does Britain even need to share out-of-Europe resources with Germany at all?
The British policy in the 1800s was to do their best to hamper anyone, including the French, in out-of-Europe ventures. The British policy since time immemorial, additionally, was to favor even less a continental power that seemed heading towards continental hegemony, and after 1871 that's Germany.

Agreed. I think to get a Anglo-German alliance at this point would require a French victory somehow in the Franco-Prussian war, especially if it can be tied in to a tighter Franco-Russian alliance so that Britain fears French hegemony more than German.

My only personal favorite POD for an Anglo-German hegemony is about a century and a half earlier, and relies on the curious fact that for a while Frederick the Great was something like fourth or fifth in line to the British throne (his mother, Sophia of Hannover, was George I's sister). You don't need that many unfortunate accidents to get Britain and Prussia (and Hannover) united in personal union under Frederick, after which wackiness ensues.
 
My only personal favorite POD for an Anglo-German hegemony is about a century and a half earlier, and relies on the curious fact that for a while Frederick the Great was something like fourth or fifth in line to the British throne (his mother, Sophia of Hannover, was George I's sister). You don't need that many unfortunate accidents to get Britain and Prussia (and Hannover) united in personal union under Frederick, after which wackiness ensues.

So... Anglo-German House of Hohenzollern vs. French Capetian Dynasty vs. Austrian House of Habsburg?
 
Some months ago on a different thread I posted this, which largely achieves the OP's aims:

British foreign policy has been consistently to preserve the balance of power in Europe and prevent one country from dominating the continent and upsetting said balance. At the dawn of the 20th century, it was logical for Britain to side with France and Russia against Germany, as it was clear that Germany posed a direct threat to global peace and intended to upset said balance. So how do we ensure that Germany is no longer a threat to the balance of power in Europe, thereby making it easier for Britain to ally herself with Germany, while France instead becomes a clear threat to the balance of power? Well, it isn't too hard for an Anglo-German alliance to arise, as there were certainly prominent British politicians who argued for such a pact - most notably Joseph Chamberlain. The problem lies on the German side, where Kaiser Wilhelm II, so erratic and obsessed with outshining all of his relatives, consistently torpedoed relations between the two Empires, culminating with the German naval buildup. Consequently, it is clear that, if we are to establish a Central Powers Britain, we must remove Wilhelm II from the equation or modify his policy as Emperor.

The easiest way to do this would simply to avoid the complications Wilhelm II endured at birth, but since you have specified no PODs prior to the Franco-Prussian War, that is out of the equation. So, if we cannot remove Wilhelm II, let's ensure that he is on the backseat when Germany is crafting its foreign policy, shall we?

Our POD shall be March 1878 - an attempted assassination attempt on Wilhelm I succeeds and the German Emperor falls to the floor dead. His son, Frederick III, ascends to the throne ten years earlier than in our timeline and so has plenty of time to oversee his reign before succumbing to his cancer. During said reign, Frederick III fights a long and arduous battle to liberalise Germany which he eventually wins - Bismarck resigns when it becomes clear that his and the Kaiser's views are incompatible, while the power of the Junkers is significantly reduced. Meanwhile, the power and authority of the Reichstag increases to the extent that, by the end of Frederick III's reign, Germany is a liberal constitutional monarchy along similar lines to Britain. And, speaking of Britain, the British Government looks upon Frederick III's reforms in Germany with approval, fostering close relations between Britain and Germany which are enhanced by the fact that Frederick III, unlike Bismarck in our timeline, does not pursue colonial ambitions in Africa, meaning that Britain secures control of the territories which became German colonies in our timeline. Therefore, Britain is able to go ahead with the Cape-to-Cairo railway without any obstacles, while it is clear to London that Germany does not pose a threat to the British Empire. Upon Frederick III's death, Wilhelm II ascends to the throne much like in our timeline, yet it is soon clear that the Kaiser has far less power upon his ascension to the throne than his father. Several attempts are made by Wilhelm II to overrule the Reichstag and the Chancellor and determine German policy, yet all of these fail and so Wilhelm II begrudgingly fits into the role of a constitutional monarch (a role which he performs poorly, constantly voicing his own opinions in public).

Right, so now we have a Germany which is friendly to Britain, making forging an alliance between the two easier. But even with a Germany which will not threaten the British Empire or Britain's maritime dominance, we must still establish France as a threat to the European balance of power before Britain decides that it must seek peacetime alliances. To do this, we shall escalate the Fashoda Crisis - a skirmish takes place between Kitchener's and Marchand's forces which results in Britain and France declaring war upon one another. Such a war, probably known as the Fashoda War, immediately turns in Britain's favour - the Royal Navy quickly establishes a blockade of metropolitan France while landing British troops to occupy French colonies in the Caribbean, Pacific, Indian Ocean and Africa. Meanwhile, Russia makes it clear that it will not start a war with Britain over the colonies and so France quickly finds herself isolated and losing, eventually suing for peace. The result is France recognising British control of Egypt and the Sudan and transferring a few colonies (Senegal and probably several islands) to Britain - a decisive British victory has been won.

However, the age-old flames of Anglo-French rivalry have arisen once more, and, in France, there is bitter resentment at their defeat - the Third Republic is eventually replaced by an Orleanist restoration, while, recognising that Britain's victory came about primarily through naval superiority, the new French Government orders a major expansion of France's navy. Such a move disturbs Britain as it becomes clear to the British Government that the French threat to the balance of power has re-emerged, and this spurs the Government of Prime Minister Joseph Chamberlain (who succeeds Lord Salisbury as Prime Minister in this timeline, rather than Arthur Balfour) to sign the Anglo-German Verstehen, which, while short of a formal alliance between Britain and Germany, establishes a clear friendship between the two Empires.

So we have achieved a Central Powers Britain - but how do we ignite conflict in Europe? Well, let's delay the Russo-Japanese War by a decade to allow the new British-German friendship to solidify itself while France continues to make provocative moves which threatens both countries. Then, in 1914, conflict breaks out between Japan and Russia in the Far East - Japanese forces are quick to move from Korea into Russian-occupied Manchuria, while the Russian Baltic fleet is mobilised and begins to move around the world to the Pacific. However, mid-voyage, the Russian fleet encounters British trawlers in the North Sea and, mistaking them for Japanese vessels, opens fire - there is outrage in London and, after several weeks of poor diplomacy, Britain declares war on Russia in defence of their Japanese ally. The Royal Navy is quick to crush its Russian counterpart while Japan continues to advance through Manchuria, yet the war soon escalates as France, sensing an opportunity to secure its revenge, issues an ultimatum to the British Government demanding that Britain cease hostilities with Russia. When the ultimatum is ignored, France declares war on Britain, followed by Germany declaring war on France in defence of Britain. Russia then declares war on Germany and Austria-Hungary and attacks them from the east, while France manoeuvres through Belgium to attack Germany, triggering outrage in Britain at the violation of Belgian neutrality.

Fast forward two years and the Franco-Russian alliance has been decisively defeated by the Central Powers - British victories at sea and in the colonies and a German push-back of the initial attack culminates in late 1916 with British forces landing in Normandy and linking up with their German allies to march on Paris, forcing the French Government to surrender while, on the Eastern Front, Central Power naval superiority allows Britain to land forces in the Baltic to strain the Russian army and allow the Central Powers to advance, eventually forcing Tsar Nicholas II to sue for peace in order to preserve his own rule. The subsequent peace treaties would almost certainly be starkly different to the ones the Central Powers envisaged in our timeline - Britain will not want to exchange an attempted French dominance of continental Europe for a German dominance (furthermore, the absence of Prussian militarism probably means that Germany does not want such a peace anyhow). So, in Eastern Europe we'll see Poland and the Baltic States separated from Russia, yet completely independent rather than under German influence. In Western Europe, France is required to pay reparations to Britain and Germany and cede the Channel Ports to Belgium. Overseas, Japan gains territory in the Far East, while French possessions are partitioned between Britain and Germany.

Following the conclusion of the Great War, Britain returns to Splendid Isolation, having seen off another attempt to disrupt the balance of power and secure with no other nation posing a threat to Britain's maritime or colonial interests, while France returns to republican government and keeps its head down, Germany continues to maintain friendliness with Britain so as to maintain the strong position it has found itself in, Austria-Hungary probably implodes several decades down the line and, in Russia, the monarchy remains in place as Nicholas II faces unrest akin to the 1905 Russian Revolution which is eventually put down through concessions (such as the establishment of the Duma).
 
So why couldnt Germany and Brittain by allies? In the end imo it boils down to: Because Germany didnt want to.

The real game changer was the franco-russian alliance. It was directed on Germany and A-H, however both participating power were traditional enemies of Great Brittain with existing conflicts. This forced Brittain ou of its splendid isolation. Even if their fleet reigned supreme - and there was a naval challenge as well from France and Russia - they couldnt be content with that. A war with France and Russia could be fighting all ower the world: In most of Africa against France and in China, India and Persia against Russia. The british fleet cant protect the british interest in these territories and the british army was woefully inadequate to dealing with both france and Russia alone especially if the 2 said states werent engaged in fighting in Europe in the same time. So to secure the Empire Brittain needed an ally: either Germany in Europe who (with its allies) was the only capable power to stand up to Russia and France or alternativly to join the latter.

So seeminly both had problems mainly with the Franco-Russian alliance. Why didnt the enemy of my enemy is my friend principle work?

Germany was not keen on the idea of a british alliance. It didnt seemed to add much landpower which they would mainly need in the fight and would also bring a lot of extra possibilities of conflict. The prospect of fighting a two front war of life and death for british colonial interest was understandably not an alluring one for Germany. Brittain in their hand could sit safely on its island and pick up the colonies of the french which they would be too busy to concentrate on while the war in Europe raged. So Germany would take the great risk and do the heavy lifting for Brittain likely to take most of the spoils of a victory. On the british part they too werent thrilled by the possibility to be involved in a global war that started out in the Balkans between Austria and Russia.

So though they had possible common enemies but not common interests. So fighting those common foes would be not for common interests. And both - especially the germans - were loath to be involved in an any case huge and very costly - both in life and material - conflict that started for the interests of the other party.
 
Many good points there, but in the end, with:

On the british part they too werent thrilled ...

you correct the initial statement that it was Germany who didn't want the alliance. The British did not want it either, and for the reasons already mentioned.

One thing I disagree with you on is that the Russian bid for naval power was meaningful, or worrisome for the British. As long as Russia had the badly positioned seaports it had, it could build all the warships it wanted, it was no real threat.
 
Many good points there, but in the end, with:



you correct the initial statement that it was Germany who didn't want the alliance. The British did not want it either, and for the reasons already mentioned.

One thing I disagree with you on is that the Russian bid for naval power was meaningful, or worrisome for the British. As long as Russia had the badly positioned seaports it had, it could build all the warships it wanted, it was no real threat.

IMO the german were more reluctant than the british but yeah neither side was thrilled to fight a war on the probable scale for interest other than their own.

In regards of the franco-russian naval challenge: I didnt want to downplay it and specifically mentioned it. Sorry if it didnt came across like that but im no english native. It was actually more dangerous to british naval supremacy than the german fleet building ever. The point I wanted to make was that even without the naval challenge a war between the franco-russian alliance and Brittain would have been a global war nearly impossible to cordinate and wage successfully especially if said powers werent involved in a european war at the same time. It would have been incredibly risky. Though im not sure how serious was the threat of a russian attack on India but the brits took it very seriously and thats what matters when discussing the reasons for diplomacy.
 
Exactly. France was allowed to have that by the Royal Navy, because by 1871 France was not the leading continental country. Glad that you see the second point.

Except that until the war of 1870, France was generally assumed to be stronger than Prussia. Still, France conquered Algeria, southern Vietnam, Cambodia, New Caledonia and Polynesia during that time, and built the Suez Canal in Egypt.

Germany’s whole colonial expansion happened after 1871, when (according to this reasoning) the British should have been afraid of them. This thinking is too simplistic. The UK was not a world policeman. It could coexist with the other powers as long as its own empire (centered on India) was secure. In fact during the 1871-1900 period, they often got along better with Germany than with France. The Entente cordiale was not necessarily the inevitable outcome we see it to be now.
 
Last edited:
Top