AHC/WI: Anglo-German Alliance vs Franco-Russian Entente

I'm certain that this has been done before. Not sure if this is better here or in After 1900 due to the late 1890s PoD

Been reading The Great War in England in 1897 on and off for a little while. If you haven't heard of it (doubtful in these parts) it's a novel from 1894 that depicts Britain being invaded by an alliance of France and the Russian Empire. Britain is backed up by an alliance of Central European powers, including Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary.

So, with a PoD no earlier than 1894, find a way to bring about the rise of a Franco-Russian and an Anglo-German-Austro-Hungarian-Italian alliance. Would such alliances be plausible?


Where do the Ottomans fall in this alternate European order? In the novel, despite major fighting in the Mediterranean, Turkey is depicted as largely irrelevant; the Russians are able to secretly convert Eastern Orthodox monasteries on Mount Athos into a major naval base, and the Sick Man of Europe is depicted as too feeble to do anything about it. I suspect that things would be considerably different in reality, considering how the Turks performed in WW1 and the centuries of Russo-Turkish antagonism. I would bet that in this scenario, Turkey joins the Anglo-German alliance for many of the same reasons as they joined the Central Powers IOTL. What of the rest of Europe? Who do non-European powers like America and Japan lean towards (I would think both would lean toward Britain as IOTL, but still)?

Assuming WWI still breaks out in the mid-1910s, how does the war go? I would think that the situation is a bit more “even” than OTL, as while Germany and Austria-Hungary are are still hemmed in to the East and West by France and Russia, their alliance with Italy and Britain frees up their southern flank and gives them a naval advantage. Is a French invasion of Britain probable, or is the inverse more likely?
 
Last edited:

Redcoat

Banned
This sounds almost exactly the same as an idea for a TL of mine. It's actually not that hard...

Avoid ww1 for a couple of years. Britain had a foreign policy of keeping no one European nation from getting too powerful right? OTL they sides with France, a nation they fought like 20 wars with, because Germany was a greater threat. Well France is allied with Russia which is growing stronger by the year. U.K. thinks that Russia is a stronger threat then Germany and soon loosens the Entente or ends it altogether. Russophobia was high back then. And get France to be the aggressor in war. Is that good enough?
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I always did find late 19th century British Invasion literature fascinating.

Maybe if the Russians maintain a more hostile policy in Central Asia and the great game continues-with France competing with Britain more actively in Africa and Asia-perhaps with some clashes that nearly result in war-fashoda esque sort of incidents that war is only avoided by quick diplomacy.

Have British ties to Germany remain stronger and more cordial-with less German interest in competing with Britain navally.

If the French and British are more hostile towards one another and Franco Russian ties are blooming...

By the 1910s I could see war between this alliance configuration being possible.

It would likely be an Anglo-German victory.

Unless the French and Russians coordinate a decisive push into Germany and break the Germans early British naval power would blockade France while the German army defeated France and then Russiaz
 
There are a few points of geopolitics on which British-German and British-Russian relations could take a pretty decisive shift, if we assume France is willing to sacrifice some of her own geopolitical initiative to back Russia even at the risk of ticking off Britain. IOTL, France managed to claw her way back from a position of material weakness relative to and threat from Germany by playing a much better diplomatic game and exploiting the opportunities available to her by Berlin's missteps and gaffs under Wilhelm II; a policy which by 1914 was what was holding the otherwise impossible cohalition of rivals together. Have France fail to reconcile between the two and have Germany take a more Bismarkian approach; patiently focusing on building up a good reputation rather than grasping at every available "Place in the sun", and getting Russia to be seen as the Big Bad in London is easy as pie.

One of the reasons Russia's rapidly rising naval potential and ambitions were seen as less of a threat than their German counterparts was that her fleets were effectively isolated from one another, and so could never concentrate enough force at a decisive point at any one time to pose a mortal threat to the Isles/Royal Navy and could be defeated in detail. This was sustained by Britain working to align and support weaker but strategically important states who surronded Russia to "contain" her and force her to divide her naval attention: The Anglo-Japanese alliance and her long-time policy of supporting the Ottoman Empire being examples of this. If France can be coerced into pushing for a policy of getting Russian control of the Straits and her ambitions in North China and Japan, than the Entente could be seen as an active threat that needs to be contained with another Great Power who has an interest in seeing the Franco-Russian alliance contained: of which Germany is the only real option.
 
IOTL king Edward worked hard to make the Triple Alliance possible. Don't know about his motivation, but as said, before France and Russia were enemies of Britain.

Of course, TTL WW1 will be won by the CPs. Maybe if the British politicians say "eh, A-H will fall apart soon after Franz Joseph's death, their victory will be short-lived", they'll accept it.
 
IOTL king Edward worked hard to make the Triple Alliance possible. Don't know about his motivation, but as said, before France and Russia were enemies of Britain.
Whores, specifically French whores and brothels, There Is no secret in this, as a young man The King Edward loved yo go yo The French brothels, cabarets, and Night live, to the Point he was and preferential client yo various French brothels, from this experience he recomendado francophilic, and did everything in his hands to make both Countries close
 
Of course, TTL WW1 will be won by the CPs. Maybe if the British politicians say "eh, A-H will fall apart soon after Franz Joseph's death, their victory will be short-lived", they'll accept it.

An Anglo-German victory vs France and Russia would leave Germany the dominant power on the continent which I don't think the British would be pleased by. British policy for a long time had been to prevent any one power from dominating Europe which is why they were lenient towards Germany and suspicious of France post-WW1 OTL.
 
An Anglo-German victory vs France and Russia would leave Germany the dominant power on the continent which I don't think the British would be pleased by. British policy for a long time had been to prevent any one power from dominating Europe which is why they were lenient towards Germany and suspicious of France post-WW1 OTL.

And a Franco-Russian victory vs. Germany and A-H leads to a repeat of the situation in 1807 with the Double Entente dominant on the continent, with the added problem over Germany of the alliance being a major rival and threat on the Imperial front and being in a far better position to keep the vanquished down. The ideal for Britain is to not allow either side to get into a position where they can enforce a harsh settlement, which if relations are cooler with either France or Russia very well could mean securing a defensive understanding with Germany.

Now, it's a weaker alliance that you make clear isent to support agression.
 
I think the closest we can get to this scenario happening as a war would be due to the Dogger Bank Incident, at the start of the Russo-Japanese War, going out of control and causing Britain to declare war on Russia alongside Japan.
At the same time, Germany was considering a preemptive strike against Russia. I doubt Austria-Hungary would help Kaiser Bill, as the Austro-German Alliance's terms did not obligate an Austrian entry in case of an offensive war, but they could help.
As a result of this situation, France will find itself in a dilemma -- stay safe and away and risk alienating the Russians, or join the war on Russia's side to save them and bring the wrath of Britain and Germany upon Paris.
But that's after 1900.
 
I'm certain that this has been done before. Not sure if this is better here or in After 1900 due to the late 1890s PoD

Been reading The Great War in England in 1897 on and off for a little while. If you haven't heard of it (doubtful in these parts) it's a novel from 1894 that depicts Britain being invaded by an alliance of France and the Russian Empire.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly this invasion could happen if the French navy was noticeably inferior to British and Russian simply weak (and bottled in the Baltic and Black seas)? At most, this could be a colonial war.

Then, of course, what would be a motivation for such an invasion? Just for fun? Neither Russia nor France had at that time serious territorial (or any other) conflict with Britain so initiative would be British. Perhaps over the British assumption that the Russians may want to conquer some places in the Central Asia which the Brits also may want to conquer in undefined future. ;) OTOH, the last conflict in the Central Asia was Panjdeh Incident, 1885, which resulted in an agreement regarding the border between Russia and Afghanistan thus pretty much ending the whole circus.


Britain is backed up by an alliance of Central European powers, including Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary.

Realistically, it would be other way around: the Central Powers are fighting with a minimal British involvement in the geographically peripheral regions.
The Central Powers are most probably winning thanks to the Germans. Russian army is seriously behind technologically and suffers from a number of the bad ideas dispelled only during the Russian-Japanese War.

So, with a PoD no earlier than 1894, find a way to bring about the rise of a Franco-Russian and an Anglo-German-Austro-Hungarian-Italian alliance. Would such alliances be plausible?

Franco-Russian alliance became a reality in 1892, soon after Wilhelm II did not renew Reinsurance Treaty (1890). This, basically, opens a possibility for Germany (and Austro-Hungary) to get closer to Britain. However, for this thing to happen Wilhelm would have to arrange for a public execution of von Tirpitz in 1897, after he presented a memorandum on the makeup and purpose of the German fleet to the Kaiser. (;)) Implementation of his naval program made British-German alliance impossible because the whole idea was a successful German naval competition with Britain.

Where do the Ottomans fall in this alternate European order? In the novel, despite major fighting in the Mediterranean, Turkey is depicted as largely irrelevant; the Russians are able to secretly convert Eastern Orthodox monasteries on Mount Athos into a major naval base, and the Sick Man of Europe is depicted as too feeble to do anything about it. I suspect that things would be considerably different in reality,

Yes, starting from the well-known weakness of the Russian navy and technical impossibility of the "conversion" you mentioned.

considering how the Turks performed in WW1 and the centuries of Russo-Turkish antagonism. I would bet that in this scenario, Turkey joins the Anglo-German alliance for many of the same reasons as they joined the Central Powers IOTL.

Don't forget that in the war of 1877-78 the Brits were posing as the Ottomans' defenders.
Assuming WWI still breaks out in the mid-1910s, how does the war go?

I would think that the situation is a bit more “even” than OTL

With the Brits on their side the Central Powers are going to win. Not because of the added military value on land but due to a much better supply situation. In OTL situation was more or less "even" (with Russia losing a considerable territory and not being able to stay in the war till its end) so shifting British economic potential to the other side makes it less even in a favor of the Central Powers. British participation also makes impossible French help to Russia with the strategic supplies.
 
I think the closest we can get to this scenario happening as a war would be due to the Dogger Bank Incident, at the start of the Russo-Japanese War, going out of control and causing Britain to declare war on Russia alongside Japan.
At the same time, Germany was considering a preemptive strike against Russia.

IIRC, exactly at that time Wilhelm offered Nicholas to sign a mutual defense agreement.
 
Just out of curiosity, how exactly this invasion could happen if the French navy was noticeably inferior to British and Russian simply weak (and bottled in the Baltic and Black seas)? At most, this could be a colonial war.
Then, of course, what would be a motivation for such an invasion? Just for fun? Neither Russia nor France had at that time serious territorial (or any other) conflict with Britain so initiative would be British.

I never said it was realistic, mind you. It seems primarily to have been written as a way to agitate for more military funding, as well as rail against perceived enemies both foreign and domestic. The novel gives the invasion's motivation as being an attempt to frustrate the newfound alliance between Britain and the Central Powers (seems contradictory, as the attack only strengthens the alliance) as well as take advantage of Britain's "weakened" state. In the space of just three years France and Russia are depicted as being able to muster formidable armies and navies, while Britain is depicted as having declined into a second-rate power.
 
I never said it was realistic, mind you. It seems primarily to have been written as a way to agitate for more military funding, as well as rail against perceived enemies both foreign and domestic. The novel gives the invasion's motivation as being an attempt to frustrate the newfound alliance between Britain and the Central Powers (seems contradictory, as the attack only strengthens the alliance) as well as take advantage of Britain's "weakened" state. In the space of just three years France and Russia are depicted as being able to muster formidable armies and navies, while Britain is depicted as having declined into a second-rate power.

Thanks for the explanation. Of course, ANY country developing at that time a powerful navy would automatically became an enemy of Britain and it is written before Germany started its naval buildup so alignment of the foes makes sense if one adopts a paranoid perception of a reality, like Russian ability to build a navy capable of competing with the British. Was author at least a little concerned with the trifles like general level of economic/industrial development of the "bad guys"?

OTOH, to be fair, nowadays, variations of this specific subject are seemingly popular in the Russian alt-history "literature": I bumped into few books dealing with this issue (can't say that I managed to read any of them) and "solution" usually involves some modern Russian naval group being transported into the mid-/late XIX, sinking the British ships and going all the way to a direct invasion, etc. :) Basically a version of ASB scenario.
 
The Spanish-American War is avoided and Japan either annexes or puppets the Philippines after a brief war with Spain. Japan gets bogged down there and the Russo-Japanese War is butterflied away.

Russia builds up its position in Manchuria and brings Korea into its orbit, and during the Mongolian Revolution she annexes Mongolia and Dzungaria. Britain flips out over this perceived threat to India.

Between this and the fact that Russia hasn't been shown to be a paper tiger in a failed war with Japan the Russophobia in Britain is at a fever pitch when the 1910s roll around.
 
If you're having PODs that change the nature of alliances there's no reason to say that both France and Russia would be handily defeated by the German army as in OTL.
 

Redcoat

Banned
Germany by playing a much better diplomatic game and exploiting the opportunities available to her by Berlin's missteps and gaffs under Wilhelm II; a policy which by 1914 was what was holding the otherwise impossible cohalition of rivals together.
This pisses me off a lot. I feel like the century would be a million times better without the stupidity of the Kaiser destroying so much of what Bismarck worked tirelessly for
 
Top