AHC: An Anglo-German alliance - Wilhelm's dream

[Prince of Orange]

The relation between Imperial Germany and Britain was turbulent at best. Both nations admired eachother, yet Germany felt Britain kept it from its place under the sun and Britain feared Germanies unnessecary fleet exoansion and threat to the balance of power. The mishandling of several diplomatic crises drove Britain ever closer to France and Russia.

Could a more consequent (or even sane) German foreign policy have led to Anglo-British detente, or even a fullblown alliance?

 

[Jotun]

One possible POD would be a longer-lived Friedrich III. His wife was British, he was an Anglophile and a noted Liberal. Just give him less of a taste for cigars and his cancer could occur decades later, if at all.

 

[Perkeo]

At the very least, Germany could have accomplished British neutrality by no naval arms race and no attack on Belgium. That probably would have been enough for a CP victory.

 

[Zheng He]

Make Wilhelm less insecure as a person. He desperately wanted his British cousins to accept and respect him and he thought a big fleet would get him that respect. Instead it just made the British feel threatened.

 

[Jotun]

Willy 2 was the way he was thanks to his crippled arm, his bitch of a mother and very likely a slightly damaged brain also sustained during his somewhat difficult birth.

Butterfly away the incompetent/overly squeamish to look at the Kaiserin "down there" doctor and you butterfly away Willy 2's crippled arm and thus the main reason for his inferiority complex.

 

[rast]

Could a saner British foreign policy have led to a detente? - After all, it was a rather small group of Germanophobes in the Foreign Office, who drove Britain into conflict with Germany (by-passing and deceiving the majority of the ruling party in cabinet and parliament).

With Britain clearly neutral, neither Russia nor France would have risked going to war. No Russian mobilisation in 1914, no Great War.

 

[Perkeo]

Could a saner British foreign policy have led to a detente? - After all, it was a rather small group of Germanophobes in the Foreign Office, who drove Britain into conflict with Germany (by-passing and deceiving the majority of the ruling party in cabinet and parliament).

With Britain clearly neutral, neither Russia nor France would have risked going to war. No Russian mobilisation in 1914, no Great War.

I blame the German decision to start a naval arms race. They should have been desperate to keep Britain out of the Entente rather than inviting them to join.

 

[Prince of Orange]

Willy 2 was the way he was thanks to his crippled arm, his bitch of a mother and very likely a slightly damaged brain also sustained during his somewhat difficult birth.

Butterfly away the incompetent/overly squeamish to look at the Kaiserin "down there" doctor and you butterfly away Willy 2's crippled arm and thus the main reason for his inferiority complex.

The Kaisers psyche will probably baffle psychologists for generations to come. It wasn't just the Kaiser though, who varied between antagonizing ant attempting to befried Britain. The government, and especially the Foreign Office appeared to be unable to make up their mind too. And don't forget admiral Tirpitz either.

Could a saner British foreign policy have led to a detente? - After all, it was a rather small group of Germanophobes in the Foreign Office, who drove Britain into conflict with Germany (by-passing and deceiving the majority of the ruling party in cabinet and parliament).

With Britain clearly neutral, neither Russia nor France would have risked going to war. No Russian mobilisation in 1914, no Great War.

Can you give some examples of these actions? To me British policy has always appeared to be geared towards the usual balance of power and naval supremacy.

 

[rast]

Can you give some examples of these actions? To me British policy has always appeared to be geared towards the usual balance of power and naval supremacy.

The balance of power in Europe was Germany/Austria-Hungary opposite Russia/France - and Britain neutral. - Once Britain sided with France and Russia, the balance was gone. Unfortunately, Britain kept that change secret (because Sir Edward, the foreign minister, was lying to his colleagues...).

British naval supremacy was compromised by Admiral Fisher. Before the dreadnought leap, British numerical superiority was unbeatable. After the dreadnought leap, the Germans suddenly had a naval programme that would build 60 dreadnoughts within the next twelve years. - Tirpitz would have been happy to continue building Deutschland class pre-Dreadnoughts, but Fisher forced him to build super-expensive Dreadnoughts. - As a consequence, the naval race was invented by the British and subsequently won (because there was no co-competitor, because the Germans were just executing their programme).

 

[NoMommsen]

The balance of power in Europe was Germany/Austria-Hungary opposite Russia/France - and Britain neutral. - Once Britain sided with France and Russia, the balance was gone. Unfortunately, Britain kept that change secret (because Sir Edward, the foreign minister, was lying to his colleagues...).

... but Britain felt, that the balance - on the continent - was tipping in the direction of Germany/Austria-Hungary. Therefore siding with Russia/France to cut Germany/Austria-Hungary back to smaller size. Not necessarily with waging truly a full war ... a bit of shooting between some balkaneses, a bit of backroom diplomacy, some territorial compromises, in the balkan region as well as in the colonies (worked quite well in the numerous crises' before).

Then ofc departing the alliance with Russia/France with the former balance on the continent reestablished. That at least was - most likely - the plan.

 

[Matteo]

Could a saner British foreign policy have led to a detente? - After all, it was a rather small group of Germanophobes in the Foreign Office, who drove Britain into conflict with Germany (by-passing and deceiving the majority of the ruling party in cabinet and parliament).

There is a little problem : the tooth fairy was already dead then.

The point is that british public opinion was strongly germanophobic. And the reason that Germany was a tough competitor that had already toppled Britain as an industrial power and that wanted to dominate continental Europe.

End of the story. From 1688 on, this meant merciless war, whatever the family links between 2 german dynasties. The dynasty reigning in Britain anglicized its name when WWI broke out. Having 2 first cousins or stepbrothers as king never prevented 2 countries waging war against each other when them had serious reason for conflict.

 

[rast]

And the reason that Germany was a tough competitor that had already toppled Britain as an industrial power and that wanted to dominate continental Europe.

That was/is the wet dream of the British Germanophobes/Europhobes. But it wasn't true at that time, and it isn't true today. Germany's nightmare was Russia, which from the German perspective was unconquerable and thus unbeattable.
Therefore, any perception that Germany alone might be able to dominate the continent was bonkers from the start. - Russia might side with Germany (the absolute British nightmare), then the two of them (with Russia in the lead) would dominate Europe (and some other important pieces of real estate).
To prevent this imagined horror, the British rather sided with France and Russia and abandoned the good old balance of power.

 

[Zheng He]

Russia might side with Germany (the absolute British nightmare), then the two of them (with Russia in the lead) would dominate Europe (and some other important pieces of real estate).

Ah yes, Sir Halford Mackinder....

 

[1940LaSalle]

Then it would seem the key would be to get Great Britain to recognize that Russia-a long-standing British nemesis, recall-was also Germany's nemesis. Get Grey et. al. to realize / recognize that, and things should fall into place.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

British naval supremacy was compromised by Admiral Fisher. Before the dreadnought leap, British numerical superiority was unbeatable. After the dreadnought leap, the Germans suddenly had a naval programme that would build 60 dreadnoughts within the next twelve years. - Tirpitz would have been happy to continue building Deutschland class pre-Dreadnoughts, but Fisher forced him to build super-expensive Dreadnoughts. - As a consequence, the naval race was invented by the British and subsequently won (because there was no co-competitor, because the Germans were just executing their programme).

If Fisher doesn't start the dreadnought leap, someone else does - either the Japanese Satsuma or the American South Carolina-class are the most likely first 'dreadnoughts'. If for whatever reason the British don't launch the first all-big-gun warship, someone else does and the British find themselves behind. Besides, you can't say the British invented the naval race when the very cornerstone of Tirpitz's naval construction (both pre- and post-dreadnought) was to build a fleet large enough to threaten the British into neutrality (the 2/3 risk theory).

 

[Zheng He]

If Fisher doesn't start the dreadnought leap, someone else does - either the Japanese Satsuma or the American South Carolina-class are the most likely first 'dreadnoughts'. If for whatever reason the British don't launch the first all-big-gun warship, someone else does and the British find themselves behind. Besides, you can't say the British invented the naval race when the very cornerstone of Tirpitz's naval construction (both pre- and post-dreadnought) was to build a fleet large enough to threaten the British into neutrality (the 2/3 risk theory).

I'm not saying Germany didn't have the right to build a navy because they did as much as anybody else but if they don't build the fleet and keep their naval power limited, will Britain feel all that threatened? To a certain extent, that is the crux of the whole thing.

 

[BooNZ]

There is a little problem : the tooth fairy was already dead then.

The point is that british public opinion was strongly germanophobic. And the reason that Germany was a tough competitor that had already toppled Britain as an industrial power and that wanted to dominate continental Europe.

End of the story. From 1688 on, this meant merciless war, whatever the family links between 2 german dynasties. The dynasty reigning in Britain anglicized its name when WWI broke out. Having 2 first cousins or stepbrothers as king never prevented 2 countries waging war against each other when them had serious reason for conflict.

Sorry Matteo, I am afraid you are the one in fairy land. The key reason German diplomacy of the period appears so clumsy was that Germany could not conceive that Britain could reconcile with either of its traditional and hated foes (France and Russia). The Germans had concluded an Anglo-German alliance was Britain's only option and were determined to extract a 'fair' price for German participation.

As Rast has mentioned, there were a small minority of well placed German-phobic Brits (incl Crowe, Churchill, Grey) who were determined not to align with Germany - no matter the cost. That was not representative of British public opinion, which had no love of either the French or Russians. Notwithstanding the above, something resembling an Anglo-German alliance was probably still on the table as late as 1902.

 

[Matteo]

The people, the british public opinion, was strongly anti-german at the beginning of the 20th century. That a historical fact which can't be denied and for which Churchill, still a vaguely famous adventurer-reporter can't be blamed.

You are indeed dreaming if you think that if the british political leader could ignore the public opinion based on rampant conflict over so vital and multisecular interests of Britain (trade, economy, navy, balance of powers on the european continent).

Even without Belgium's invasion, Britain would have had a strong incentive to enter WWI in order to prevent a german triumph.

 

[Riain]

I see the Versailles war guilt clause and the horror of the holocaust come out in these discussion , particularly in the idea that it is not a legitimate course of action for Germany to build a powerful navy. Would it be legitimate to suggest Britain drastically reduce the size of its army during the haldane reforms of 1908 because the only reason to have a reserve of 640,000 trained troops is to wage war on the continent and threaten Germany ?

 

[rast]

If Fisher doesn't start the dreadnought leap, someone else does - either the Japanese Satsuma or the American South Carolina-class are the most likely first 'dreadnoughts'. If for whatever reason the British don't launch the first all-big-gun warship, someone else does and the British find themselves behind. Besides, you can't say the British invented the naval race when the very cornerstone of Tirpitz's naval construction (both pre- and post-dreadnought) was to build a fleet large enough to threaten the British into neutrality (the 2/3 risk theory).

Actually, Fisher was not aiming at HMS Dreadnought, a slow all-big-gun battle wagon, but at HMS Invincible, a fast all-big-gun battle cruiser, and her sisters (see: Lambert, N.A.: Sir John Fisher's naval revolution).
That was a totally different concept, which, however, most of his contemporaries didn't understand - and rather embarked on building clumsy Dreadnought-type battleships galore.

When Tirpitz started his programme, the Royal Navy counted something like 150 capital ships. Thus, the modest German naval build-up didn't really bother the Brits. - But after Fisher had devaluated the pre-dreadnoughts, the Brits suddenly realised they had a problem, because Tirpitz - reluctantly - had also switched to building dreadnoughts - and was going to construct about 60 of them within the next decade.

Now, the Brits had one of their frequent naval scares - and invented the Dreadnought Race to catch up. However, for a race you need at least two competitors. But Tirpitz couldn't run, he was tied to the naval laws, tight funding and insufficient manpower. (When he had a window of opportunity for building three or four ships per year, the fleet became querulous, because they could barely handle two new big ships per year - and not three or even four.)