Anglo-German War in 1899-1900 (Who Wins?)

[TFSmith121]

Yeah. Britain would definitely have destroying enemy navies on their to-do-list.

The thing is, all the Continental powers can use what they have to stretch Britain's capabilities, which in an era of coal-burning steam, is as vulnerable to being stretched as it was four decades later in an era of oil burners.

And if the definition of victory is territorial gain, all the Continental powers can "gain" at the expense of Britain, Austria, and/or Turkey without necessarily getting in each others' ways...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Sell arms and goods to both sides and make lots of $$$?

Only until the point where the British can mount a distant blockade of the continentals, at which point the British are the only open market, but yes.

Best,

 

[TimTurner]

The thing is, all the Continental powers can use what they have to stretch Britain's capabilities, which in an era of coal-burning steam, is as vulnerable to being stretched as it was four decades later in an era of oil burners.

And if the definition of victory is territorial gain, all the Continental powers can "gain" at the expense of Britain, Austria, and/or Turkey without necessarily getting in each others' ways...

Best,

Given you name Austria as an ally of the Brits, could you say that in the prelude to the war Germany kept its alliance with Russia and began getting distant with A-H?

 

[Reydan]

Not at all. Was responding to a post about a possible Franco-Russian-German coalition war against Britain. In that situation, do you really think that Italy and Spain would do anything but join the continent? What can Britain possibly offer them? How does the British fleet keep the French or the Germans out of Rome?

The British were terrified of a Franco-Italian-Spanish alliance The "Latin League" was seen as perhaps the most formidable coalition that Britain could face

The most difficult part is putting together such a coalition. France and Russia had plenty of quarrels with the British and were allied, so that's not hard. Germany is the wild card. The Germans cooperate with the French and Russians in numerous colonial disputes. The Congo and the Triple Intervention come readily to mind. The Germans don't, however, wish to see British power destroyed but only checked which is always the stumbling block in a Continental league. But once a shooting war starts, German attitudes might change

But this is what I mean - actually getting these nations to come together at this time is almost impossible. The original scenario of Anglo-German war was semi-plausible at best.

Currently you have, 1899, a France consumed by the anti-German hysteria of the Dreyfus Affair, a Spain that has just taken a serious drubbing at the hands of the USA revealing chronic problems with its navy and army and stimulating political turmoil at home, growing tensions between Germany and France over Morocco, and a United States preoccupied with dealing with the spoils of its last war (that many had been unsure about in the first place).

 

[martymcfly]

A Russo-Franco-German coalition would rout the British rather quickly as they can assure themselves of continental cooperation. Not that that would be hard in 1899 given the widespread dislike of the British-

This combination still wouldn't be able to set foot on Britain. They might be able to seize some of her colonies, but they wouldn't have permanent control of the seas to reinforce their control and their hold would be tenious. Russia would be in the best position if it is able to take any British possessions by land.

 

[TimTurner]

Only until the point where the British can mount a distant blockade of the continentals, at which point the British are the only open market, but yes.

Best,

I wonder if the Brits might have to restrain themselves a bit because of the American public's feelings regarding freedom of the seas.

 

[TimTurner]

This combination still wouldn't be able to set foot on Britain. They might be able to seize some of her colonies, but they wouldn't have permanent control of the seas to reinforce their control and their hold would be tenious. Russia would be in the best position if it is able to take any British possessions by land.

Yeah. If things are going terribly for the Brits the Alliance might help the Russians mount an invasion of British India. More likely they would pressure Persia and threaten British influence there.

 

[LordKalvert]

For real? I would say that a Franco-German-Russian alliance would be much stronger, although rather implausible due to the Alsace-Lorraine question.
Italy is totally dependant on coal imports, could France spare enough Coal for Italy? After 1881 and the "slap of Tunis" Italo-French relations were not at their best. What can Spain offer? Position yes, but could Gibraltar really be taken at the time? The naval balance should still be in British favour in such a scenario, especially after what little the Spanish had gets sunk by the Americans. A Latin league could also mean Germany siding with the UK against France.

Goschen certainly was afraid of it. The Two power standard was originally aimed at a French-Italian alliance.

A Franco-Italian-Spanish alliance might not threaten Britain but it would mean the end of her Mediterannean aspirations. Franco-Italian relations are troubled over Tunis and the Papacy especially. Crispi is virally anti-French. But after his fall, Rudini steers much closer to the French

By 1900, it's possible for such a coalition though difficult to achieve. However, if the objective is simply to chase the British out of the Mediterannean and divvy up the spoils- that might be possible

Have the Italians calculate that alliance with Britain brought nothing but disaster in Ethiopia and that the British fleet can't keep the French out of Rome so the alliance with Germany is more important.

These are more diplomatic coalitions at the time. War is a silent threat and most confrontations are simply showdowns. A Franco-Italian joint note that the "temporary" occupation of Egypt needed to end would be quite formidable

 

[TFSmith121]

Given you name Austria as an ally of the Brits, could you say that in the prelude to the war Germany kept its alliance with Russia and began getting distant with A-H?

Yep. Given the twists and turns of the politics that led to the rival alliances of 1914-15 as we know them, it's as least as possible as any other.

The thiing is, if the Germans and Russians agree to carve up the AH Empire, presumably with a Hungarian buffer/successor state in between, each powers' remaining ambitions can be potentially fulfilled in different directions, the Germans to the north and west and the Russians to the south and east. France could aid the Germans in the west and make up its own gains in the Med, as could the Spanish; the Italians can expand there and get their share of the AH Empire, as well. Same for the minor Orthodox nations in the Balkans, by tying up with the Russians against AH and/or Turkey.

Given the British are tied down with the South Africans and just came within inches of a conflict with the French over Africa and the Germans over the Kruger Telegram and the Jameson Raid a few years earlier, it's certainly closer to the realm of possibility than many "what ifs" regarding European power politics in this era.

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

I wonder if the Brits might have to restrain themselves a bit because of the American public's feelings regarding freedom of the seas.

If the Americans do complain, the British just bring out their giant book of Things The Americans Did In The Civil War. I've seen it suggested that the whole point of the British not bothering to make an issue of the legally questionable Union blockade was because they wanted ammunition for a situation exactly like this (i.e. Britain as imposer of blockade).

 

[TimTurner]

Goschen certainly was afraid of it. The Two power standard was originally aimed at a French-Italian alliance.

A Franco-Italian-Spanish alliance might not threaten Britain but it would mean the end of her Mediterannean aspirations. Franco-Italian relations are troubled over Tunis and the Papacy especially. Crispi is virally anti-French. But after his fall, Rudini steers much closer to the French

By 1900, it's possible for such a coalition though difficult to achieve. However, if the objective is simply to chase the British out of the Mediterannean and divvy up the spoils- that might be possible

Have the Italians calculate that alliance with Britain brought nothing but disaster in Ethiopia and that the British fleet can't keep the French out of Rome so the alliance with Germany is more important.

These are more diplomatic coalitions at the time. War is a silent threat and most confrontations are simply showdowns. A Franco-Italian joint note that the "temporary" occupation of Egypt needed to end would be quite formidable

Would the British see the "temporary" occupation as being absolutely needed if they are to keep Suez?

 

[TFSmith121]

I wonder if the Brits might have to restrain themselves a bit because of the American public's feelings regarding freedom of the seas.

Certainly a consideration; all those British payments in specie and then whatever else can be scraped up will probably ease the pain, however. They did in 1914-17 and 1939-40.

Another interesting aspect of this is whether the US simply remains neutral or even considers allying with the British....

Best,

 

[TimTurner]

If the Americans do complain, the British just bring out their giant book of Things The Americans Did In The Civil War. I've seen it suggested that the whole point of the British not bothering to make an issue of the legally questionable Union blockade was because they wanted ammunition for a situation exactly like this (i.e. Britain as imposer of blockade).

Ah true. Point taken.

 

[TimTurner]

Certainly a consideration; all those British payments in specie and then whatever else can be scraped up will probably ease the pain, however.

Best,

Don't they also have a huge debt to the British too?

 

[TimTurner]

Yep. Given the twists and turns of the politics that led to the rival alliances of 1914-15 as we know them, it's as least as possible as any other.

The thiing is, if the Germans and Russians agree to carve up the AH Empire, presumably with a Hungarian buffer/successor state in between, each powers' remaining ambitions can be potentially fulfilled in different directions, the Germans to the north and west and the Russians to the south and east. France could aid the Germans in the west and make up its own gains in the Med, as could the Spanish; the Italians can expand there and get their share of the AH Empire, as well. Same for the minor Orthodox nations in the Balkans, by tying up with the Russians against AH and/or Turkey.

Given the British are tied down with the South Africans and just came within inches of a conflict with the French over Africa and the Germans over the Kruger Telegram and the Jameson Raid a few years earlier, it's certainly closer to the realm of possibility than many "what ifs" regarding European power politics in this era.

Best,

Could Germany, say, preserve Austria as a rump puppet state?

 

[TFSmith121]

Don't they also have a huge debt to the British too?

If this truly develops into a "Great War" type of conflict with Britain and several marginal Continental proxies against a strong Continental alliance, such debts would be among the things that could be "scraped up" to help pay for iron, steel, copper, wheat, manufactured goods, etc. from the US.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Could Germany, say, preserve Austria as a rump puppet state?

Certainly a possibility. Austria and Austrian Central Europe did have manpower and economic resources the Germans saw as useful, of course. Whether they are more efficient inside or outside of the Reich is an interesting question.

Best,

 

[TimTurner]

If this truly develops into a "Great War" type of conflict with Britain and several marginal Continental proxies against a strong Continental alliance, such debts would be among the things that could be "scraped up" to help pay for iron, steel, copper, wheat, manufactured goods, etc. from the US.

Best,

That is what they did in otl WWI too, I think.
Of course it would depend on the length of the war. If the Continental Alliance was truly out for blood, it would definitely last longer.

 

[Ryan]

so an Anglo-German colonial conflict in 1899 means that the whole of Europe unites against the British and whilst they're at it they partition Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire?

 

[Saphroneth]

Ah true. Point taken.

For your interest, here's the "book" in question:

https://archive.org/details/historicalaccoun00bernrich

I remain amused by this, it's like a great big stone bucket.

so an Anglo-German colonial conflict in 1899 means that the whole of Europe unites against the British and whilst they're at it they partition Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire?

Everyone hates the British, of course. Alsasce-Lorraine is nothing compared to the terrible fury awakened in the heart of a contemporary Frenchman by the mere mention of les Îles de la Manche, and the Italians have never forgotten Boadicea. Wilhelm's love for his grandmother is a mere frippery behind his true motives, and Russia... well, Russia might actually have a point.