Anglo-French superpower

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.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Reference was to an Anglo-French or Franco-British alliance

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.

Reference was to an Anglo-French or Franco-British alliance, obviously; there's also the minor difference your POD is an Entente defeat in 1917, not a victory in 1918 (or 1945, for that matter).

If the British put all the blood and treasure they did historically into the BEF in 1914-17 and still lose, you really think they will want to sign on again? The BEF was the first time the British really tried to deploy and sustain an army on a continental scale on the Continent; if they lose, they aren't likely to want to try it again.

Likewise, if the British and French do everything they do historically in 1914-17 and still lose, why, exactly, would the French want to sign on with the losers (Britain) and not the winners (Germany)?

Best,
 
Likewise, if the British and French do everything they do historically in 1914-17 and still lose, why, exactly, would the French want to sign on with the losers (Britain) and not the winners (Germany)?

For the same reason France didn't get the German alliance she desired in the 1890s perhaps? (i.e. Germany fluffs up her diplomacy and loses a potential ally to the British without even noticing the chance they missed.)

fasquardon
 
Reference was to an Anglo-French or Franco-British alliance, obviously; there's also the minor difference your POD is an Entente defeat in 1917, not a victory in 1918 (or 1945, for that matter).

If the British put all the blood and treasure they did historically into the BEF in 1914-17 and still lose, you really think they will want to sign on again? The BEF was the first time the British really tried to deploy and sustain an army on a continental scale on the Continent; if they lose, they aren't likely to want to try it again.

Likewise, if the British and French do everything they do historically in 1914-17 and still lose, why, exactly, would the French want to sign on with the losers (Britain) and not the winners (Germany)?

Best,

Where exactly would Britain get its food from in time of trouble if Germany won WW1? As it was convoying by itself reduces imports by 1/3 and naval action reduces it still further and shipping from the US and Canada was hideously vulnerable to naval action in both wars. In contrast a large food exporting nation with enduring strategic interest alignments is a few hours steaming away to the south and incidently lacks secure sources of certain things that Britain exports such as coal.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
1890 predates the Western Front...

For the same reason France didn't get the German alliance she desired in the 1890s perhaps? (i.e. Germany fluffs up her diplomacy and loses a potential ally to the British without even noticing the chance they missed.)

fasquardon

1890 predates the Western Front and a pretty significant number of Frenchmen being plowed under, however.

If it's 1917 and Clemenceau is facing a Germab occupation of Paris for the second time in less than 50 years, one expects the national strategy for the next go-round will be signing on with the British again.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Why after losing to the Germans would the British

Where exactly would Britain get its food from in time of trouble if Germany won WW1? As it was convoying by itself reduces imports by 1/3 and naval action reduces it still further and shipping from the US and Canada was hideously vulnerable to naval action in both wars. In contrast a large food exporting nation with enduring strategic interest alignments is a few hours steaming away to the south and incidently lacks secure sources of certain things that Britain exports such as coal.


Why after losing in this posited 1914-17 war would the British or French think another go-round would be a good idea?

Best,
 
Why after losing in this posited 1914-17 war would the British or French think another go-round would be a good idea?

Best,

They're not looking for a go round, but given the circumstance the go round might come looking for them. What they're looking for is a bit of resource security, particularly given the recent war showed how vulnerable the French are to having their key industrial area occupied and the British to having their food cut off by naval action.


Of course they could go cap in hand to Germany and ask for security garuntees, but that would be odd behaviour from a couple of great powers with extensive metropolitan and colonial resources still to call on.
 
Of course they could go cap in hand to Germany and ask for security garuntees, but that would be odd behaviour from a couple of great powers with extensive metropolitan and colonial resources still to call on.

Well, because if France lose WWI they will be lucky to retain Algeria and Germany will want them gut with reparation so as a Great Power they are basically history.

The UK while will not become a fascist or communist dictatorship will be greatly affected by all the treasure and blood spent in vain against Germany so we will get a long period of rebuild and introspection and everyone who event say a single word about continental alliance will be tarred, feathered and sent in exile.

Maybe if the Germans highjack the Hapsburg peace proposal and accept the loss of their colonial empire in exchange of OTL B-L and Belgium (plus throw away A-H and using it as a bargain chip while retaining the better parts and maybe the same for Ottoman Empire) we can have a scenario where the stalemate obtained and the fact that both side are not so devastated both economically and politically, can be an encouragement to create a permanent alliance between UK and France to counter Germany and her MittelEuropa
 
If Germany wins (even if it "wins small" in the West), the balance of power is shot -- the Franco-Russian alliance (and Tsarist Russia itself) is gone.

If Britain is still willing to be involved in Europe at all -- and it just possibly might not be, if German leaders are willing to limit themselves by not taking measures particularly threatening to Britain, such as occupying the Belgian ports and coast -- then an actual alliance (not the limp, waffling and destabilizing thing Grey pursued) with France is the obvious course of action.

Sure, France will be weakened for some time. But history shows that it's fairly hard to permanently cripple a large, modern nation; and two is greater than one.

How Britain and France will resolve their many differences would be interesting to speculate on, but I'm pretty sure they could do it.
 
Best means for an Anglo-French superpower is to keep the political union of the Angevin Empire alive for an additional 800 years!
 
1890 predates the Western Front and a pretty significant number of Frenchmen being plowed under, however.

If it's 1917 and Clemenceau is facing a Germab occupation of Paris for the second time in less than 50 years, one expects the national strategy for the next go-round will be signing on with the British again.

Best,

Why would there be a second round? If Germany wins it's establishing a proto-EU on the continent while France and Great Britain are on their way towards bankruptcy due to war debt and harder economic environment in the future due to the continental free trade zone.
 
Top