The thing is, if Britain loses in 1917, why do they want to get wrapped up again in Continental politics?
And how likely are the French going to be happy with an agreement that basically puts the burden of providing the cannon fodder on them?
Again, the Allies had won in 1918 and yet they spent most of the next two decades actively avoiding another alliance...
Best,
That's not entirely true now is it. France built up the 'Little Entenete' between the wars and the BEF immediately deployed to france upon war in 1939, so avoided is innacurate. I didn't say anything about cannon fodder, I'm talking about actual fodder which Britain lacks in exchange for things like coal which France lacks, i an attempt to have something close to autarky, that's the point od the question. As for Britain involving itself on the continent, given Germany now controls most of Central Europe Britain is in a analgous situation as it was in 1945 with the USSR and it responded with the BAOR and RAFG. Not that Im talking about troops, merely an economic agreement that reduces the vulnerabilities of both parties.