In OTL, the Fashoda Incident was the climax of a centuries-long rivalry between France and Britain. The event saw France attempt to wrangle the Sudan from Britain and almost resulted in full-scale war between the two powers. The French eventually backed down and warmed up to Britain in the face of the German threat. What events would need to take place for us to see a "World War I" where France and Britain are on opposing sides? What would the alliances in such a scenario look like?
A "World War I" where France and Britain are on opposing sides?
- Thread starter Abulabbas
- Start date
Avoid the Anglo-German naval race. W/o that, Germany would be seen as far less of a threat.
Jonathan1997
Banned
France was in second place to German and France was no longer strong enough to balance out a united Germany there was also population decline in France.
I think that only way it would be the British Empire VS the French Empire would be if Germany was a lot weaker than 0tl. I can also think the If Russia was looking to expand into Afghanistan and threaten the British Raj in India it would push the British away from France and towards Germany. I think world war one would be a lot bigger not being limited to primary being thought in central Europe.
I think that only way it would be the British Empire VS the French Empire would be if Germany was a lot weaker than 0tl. I can also think the If Russia was looking to expand into Afghanistan and threaten the British Raj in India it would push the British away from France and towards Germany. I think world war one would be a lot bigger not being limited to primary being thought in central Europe.
Perhaps a French victory in the Franco-Prussian War? How can that be achieved?
Jonathan1997
Banned
The Russians, Austria Hungarian or the British would have to get involved.
Otto von Bismarck managed twice to prevent European powers from intervening in the unification of Germany.
Have Germany join the Kontinental Bund, Russia and France begged it to join during the Boer War and then have Britain suffer the likely consequences of a diplomatic humiliation. This leads to resentment against Russia and France as the leaders of this block, especially against Russia because the mastermind behind this scheme was found on the Russian side. Such resentment would automatically demand a British response. The best chance for that would be the Russian-Japanese War.
With this change, the conflict between Japan and Russia could easily be allowed to escalate instead of being managed to be limited, like in OTL, by France and Britain. BAM! Britain has to join Japan and France follows Russia. It is really not that hard.
Another option is having one of the many diplomatic crises between France and Britain regarding Egypt turn hot, or the same in the context between Britain and Russia. There are more than enough examples till the rise of the Limps.
The nonsense regarding a weakened Germany is too close to British apologism. It completely changes the actual diplomatic circumstances at that time and turns the Liberal Imperialist like Grey and Asquith into Balance of Power politicians, which they were not. They explicitly turned against the "meandering and unsteady course" (their actual words) pursued by Salisbury and Balfour. They wanted a clear power block and this block had to be dominant. Balance of Power was not a factor in their decision-making.
Britain was not pursuing a reactive diplomatic course, but followed an active one. They intended to reduce the costs of an overstretched empire, secure it and strengthen their position for the inevitable war they, as social-darwinists, saw coming.
Contrary to the nonsense about German strength, they actually considered Germany weak and threatened on a strategic level. They saw the Double-Alliance(RU-FR) to be stronger than the Triple Alliance(GER-A-H-IT). Understandably from their perspective, because the numbers were clearly on their side. And Russia and France were empires, while Italy was a bad joke, A-H severely underestimated and Germany seen as greatly threatened by its direct neighbours.
They simply used the agitation against Germany(from the massively Germanophobic press) as a political tool to unite the quarrelling liberal factions and reduce animosity against Russia. Two times inquiries regarding the threat posed by the German Navy were made, and two times the proponents of the invasion threat were ridiculed for their absolute nonsense. For the first time, Balfour released the findings. For the second time, Grey did not, because it would discredit their supporters in the press and harm their attempts to come to accommodation with Russia. Balfour ripped Reppington apart and showcased how little these people actually knew and how ridiculous their statements were. Robertson was not even able to answer questions regarding some naval matters. A simple look at the massive quantitative and qualitative edge the British Navy had, made any real talk about the German Navy being a threat into a joke.
With this change, the conflict between Japan and Russia could easily be allowed to escalate instead of being managed to be limited, like in OTL, by France and Britain. BAM! Britain has to join Japan and France follows Russia. It is really not that hard.
Another option is having one of the many diplomatic crises between France and Britain regarding Egypt turn hot, or the same in the context between Britain and Russia. There are more than enough examples till the rise of the Limps.
The nonsense regarding a weakened Germany is too close to British apologism. It completely changes the actual diplomatic circumstances at that time and turns the Liberal Imperialist like Grey and Asquith into Balance of Power politicians, which they were not. They explicitly turned against the "meandering and unsteady course" (their actual words) pursued by Salisbury and Balfour. They wanted a clear power block and this block had to be dominant. Balance of Power was not a factor in their decision-making.
Britain was not pursuing a reactive diplomatic course, but followed an active one. They intended to reduce the costs of an overstretched empire, secure it and strengthen their position for the inevitable war they, as social-darwinists, saw coming.
Contrary to the nonsense about German strength, they actually considered Germany weak and threatened on a strategic level. They saw the Double-Alliance(RU-FR) to be stronger than the Triple Alliance(GER-A-H-IT). Understandably from their perspective, because the numbers were clearly on their side. And Russia and France were empires, while Italy was a bad joke, A-H severely underestimated and Germany seen as greatly threatened by its direct neighbours.
They simply used the agitation against Germany(from the massively Germanophobic press) as a political tool to unite the quarrelling liberal factions and reduce animosity against Russia. Two times inquiries regarding the threat posed by the German Navy were made, and two times the proponents of the invasion threat were ridiculed for their absolute nonsense. For the first time, Balfour released the findings. For the second time, Grey did not, because it would discredit their supporters in the press and harm their attempts to come to accommodation with Russia. Balfour ripped Reppington apart and showcased how little these people actually knew and how ridiculous their statements were. Robertson was not even able to answer questions regarding some naval matters. A simple look at the massive quantitative and qualitative edge the British Navy had, made any real talk about the German Navy being a threat into a joke.
its even easier than all this going back and making big changes like weaker Germany or not having the Anglo-German Arms Race, simply just make France invade Belgium instead of Germany. the only reason Britain got involved in WW1 was because they were bound to protect Belgian Neutrality. They were sympathetic to the Entente, but were more than happy to be like the US and just be daddy lend-lease to the French and whatever.
Belgium was an excuse, germany threatend the balance of power on europe. Which was the primary goal of british foreign politics
I think if you want Britain and France on opposite sides of a "World War One" it makes more sense/is more straightforward to have a war where Britain's goals and/or alliances and France's are in conflict than try to "as OTL, but write 'France' for 'Germany' and vice-versa for the major events."
Take, say, the Ottoman Empire. If Russia does something there and France is allied to Russia, you only really need a reason Britain is willing to fight a war to stop Russia there and for this to explode into a conflict of interlocking alliances/the various powers to court different powers as allies (Germany might very well be more interested in fighting Russia than with Russia here, say), I think.
"Germany was strong/Germany was seen as weak" OTL may not be relevant at all.
Take, say, the Ottoman Empire. If Russia does something there and France is allied to Russia, you only really need a reason Britain is willing to fight a war to stop Russia there and for this to explode into a conflict of interlocking alliances/the various powers to court different powers as allies (Germany might very well be more interested in fighting Russia than with Russia here, say), I think.
"Germany was strong/Germany was seen as weak" OTL may not be relevant at all.
If you can avoid the demographic collapse and maybe get France that juicy Belgian industrial base, she will remain number one on the continent.
Of course in those circumstances you'd be hard pressed to get a unified Germany so idk
Of course in those circumstances you'd be hard pressed to get a unified Germany so idk
When Nappy III declares war on Prussia in 1870, France was viewed as having the strongest army in the world. The legacy of the Napoleonic Wars was still strong. Nappy buying his own Uncle's legend decides to invade Belgium along with fighting Prussia. As a result, the UK declares war on France, and this version of "World War I" begins.
What precise diplomatic humiliation could a Konrinental Bund inflict on Britain and how?
This happened twice. 7 years war and the Napoleon episode.
But for real, you need a big demographic explosion in France to maintain its hegemon status. Maybe unifying all the French speaking peoples would be a way to go?
If France and Russia decide to preemptively contain the German empire and attack aggressively then again the UK may seek to redress the balance.
But for real, you need a big demographic explosion in France to maintain its hegemon status. Maybe unifying all the French speaking peoples would be a way to go?
If France and Russia decide to preemptively contain the German empire and attack aggressively then again the UK may seek to redress the balance.
That runs into the thing that France, unlike Germany, is not an ethnonationalist nation.
It is based on a civic nationalism, like the USA, which isn't bound by the person of the monarch but by the Revolution.
I'm not saying that assimilating the Romands and Wallons wouldn't be easier... but it would not form the key political objective of the French state, unlike Germany.
France and Russia were allies, so a war between Britain and Russia would result in Britain being at war with France.
I guess if Germany doesn't focus on its navy (so no Triple Entente) and the Russo-Japanese War causes Britain to declare war with Russia to help Japan (as Britain and Japan were allies), we could see a WWI with Britain and Japan fighting France and Russia. IOTL, Britain made a deal with France that Britain wouldn't side with Japan in return for France not siding with Russia. ITTL with worse Anglo-French relations, this deal doesn't happen and Britain and France are dragged into war by their allies.
Germany would then side with Britain and Japan to take advantage of a weak, distracted France. Austria and the Ottomans would also join in on the Japanese side to take advantage of Russia being distracted.
Team Japan: Japan, Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire
Team Russia: Russia, France
Major neutral players: USA, Italy, Spain, Portugal
Most likely result: Japanese victory.
I guess if Germany doesn't focus on its navy (so no Triple Entente) and the Russo-Japanese War causes Britain to declare war with Russia to help Japan (as Britain and Japan were allies), we could see a WWI with Britain and Japan fighting France and Russia. IOTL, Britain made a deal with France that Britain wouldn't side with Japan in return for France not siding with Russia. ITTL with worse Anglo-French relations, this deal doesn't happen and Britain and France are dragged into war by their allies.
Germany would then side with Britain and Japan to take advantage of a weak, distracted France. Austria and the Ottomans would also join in on the Japanese side to take advantage of Russia being distracted.
Team Japan: Japan, Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire
Team Russia: Russia, France
Major neutral players: USA, Italy, Spain, Portugal
Most likely result: Japanese victory.
We have an example with the US, which used the war to change the agreement with Britain regarding the canal linking the Pacific and the Atlantic. Before that they were
It differs on goals and how well the partners of such a coalition could use it. For example, the 2nd Boer War would not end with an absolute victory for Britain but through pressure from the three it is changed into a mediated solution granting the Boer complete independence. A likely scenario would be a call for a conference and there Britain is completely isolated. Such a position would lead to a bad result for them and likely bring the British government down. In the end, this would take the Horn of Africa out of British hands down the line.
Then there is the Egyptian Question and here France could gain some concession. Any reduction in power in Egypt would be a slap in the face for Britain. France either getting an equal standing in some questions regarding Egypt or changing the convention of 1898 into their favor are both likely scenarios. With their stronger focus on Egypt, I would see them angling into that direction more than otherwise. The British de facto occupation had no legal leg to stand upon and enough pressure, as the French tried to bring upon till the Entente Cordiale, could easily make them back down if the situation looks bad enough. A continental alliance was the worst nightmare that British diplomats could think of, so it is unlikely for them to go for brinkmanship instead with an already escalated Boer War on their hands.
For Russia, at the time, it had a stronger focus on the Asian theater instead of the Balkan. Therefore, concession in that area are the most likely. From seemingly useless ones, like a harbor at the Gulf to concessions in Afghanistan, Persia and China. They can reach from drawing a favorable demarcation line to putting Russia into a position similar to after the Boxer Rebellion. Allowing them to fortify their position in Mandschuria and leading them towards a confrontation with Japan.
Russia had often been contained or hamstrung in their expansion or projects by their Southern neighbors, Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They could not start quarrels with them and also deal with Great Britain in Asia. Therefore, they always tried to keep the area where they are not focused upon quiet. With the Balkan Entente with A-H, they had postponed any disagreements between the two powers into the future. When Germany would instead of being an interfering factor be a supportive one, like in the Triple-Intervention in 1895 against Japan, they could get away with much. I would easily see them as the greatest immediate benefactor of such an alliance, but in the long-term they could easily suffer the most.
For Germany, most likely are arrondations of colonial territory, either through France as payment for diplomatic support or from Britain itself. Africa is the most likely region for that. Also in China there could be a new treaty reducing the monopoly position Britain held for most of it. I think Samoa re-emerged from being a non-entity into the focus at that point, which would maybe lead to a better settlement for Germany. For Germany, I would see less direct benefits, but far bigger long-term gains.
It could do with the right POD. The France we know is civic due to the nature of the revolution, but it could easily have been otherwise. Even IOTL some advocated for France to assume her natural borders along the Rhine.
- Avoid the Sarajevo assassination.
- Willy falls down the stairs.
- Wait.