Britain and Germany

By 1900 Britain felt isolated from Europe two great alliances. The Franco-Russian pact and the Austro-German alliance. It chose Germany and Austria and asked to join, the Kaiser turned Britain down, so Britain joined Russia and France instead.

What would have happened if Britain had been on the central powers side in wwi?
 
British policy with regard to continental Europe essentially had two aspects.

1. To ensure that no major power controlled Antwerp. From Antwerp, a power can exert a major influence on the Channel, which is an obvious threat to Britain. Ensuring Belgian neutrality was not intended to be nice to plucky little Belgium; it was intended to enable Britain to dominate the Channel more easily and thus protect Britain. Any Great Power that looked like being able to gain control of Antwerp automatically went into the "Bad Guys" file in the British policy makers mind.

2. To ensure that no major power dominated Europe to the exclusion of others. "Keep them squabbling" might summarise the gist of the policy. If Germany/Austria seemed more powerful than Russia/France, then Russia/France gets supported, and vice versa. Ideally, of course, British policy would have been to split up the two main alliances; lots of squabbling nations is easier to ensure that no one power comes out as clear Top Dog. Two big alliances is harder to keep balanced.
 
2. To ensure that no major power dominated Europe to the exclusion of others. "Keep them squabbling" might summarise the gist of the policy. If Germany/Austria seemed more powerful than Russia/France, then Russia/France gets supported, and vice versa. Ideally, of course, British policy would have been to split up the two main alliances; lots of squabbling nations is easier to ensure that no one power comes out as clear Top Dog. Two big alliances is harder to keep balanced.

 
By 1900 Britain felt isolated from Europe two great alliances. The Franco-Russian pact and the Austro-German alliance. It chose Germany and Austria and asked to join, the Kaiser turned Britain down, so Britain joined Russia and France instead.

What would have happened if Britain had been on the central powers side in wwi?

Far more fighting in Africa, Asia, the High Seas and the Quebecois Rebellion would make the Easter Rising look like football hooliganism.
 
British policy with regard to continental Europe essentially had two aspects.

1. To ensure that no major power controlled Antwerp. From Antwerp, a power can exert a major influence on the Channel, which is an obvious threat to Britain. Ensuring Belgian neutrality was not intended to be nice to plucky little Belgium; it was intended to enable Britain to dominate the Channel more easily and thus protect Britain. Any Great Power that looked like being able to gain control of Antwerp automatically went into the "Bad Guys" file in the British policy makers mind.

2. To ensure that no major power dominated Europe to the exclusion of others. "Keep them squabbling" might summarise the gist of the policy. If Germany/Austria seemed more powerful than Russia/France, then Russia/France gets supported, and vice versa. Ideally, of course, British policy would have been to split up the two main alliances; lots of squabbling nations is easier to ensure that no one power comes out as clear Top Dog. Two big alliances is harder to keep balanced.
Pretty sure British modus operandi concerning naval power was not just focused on Antwerp, but also on which power was trying to contest RN supremacy.

The decision by Germany to create a navy to rival London is what lead to Britain breaking its splendid isolation, in addition to the fact that Berlin was surpassing Britain in industry and technology.

If Britain joined the Berlin-Rome-Vienna pact, you might see far more naval and global struggles. Most European conflict would be relegated to the Germans, with a minimal dispatch of British troops into France as a minor distraction.
Italy might actually stay neutral, unsure of whether to act against France and seize Corsica/Tunis, or betray their alliance and follow irredentist goals in the Balkans. Probably the former, France is simply a weaker opponent.

The Ottomans would also be much more stable without the British incitement of Arab revolts.

In Asia, you'd see Japan attacking French Indochina and Russia, honoring its agreements with Britain.
Maybe some battles in northwestern India and Afghanistan. I am not aware of Russian military capabilities in the region.

Most importantly, the United States would remain neutral, although Pro-Central Powers. The OTL conflict between anglophiles and germanophiles does not exist, and German would remain a prominent language in America. ALSO, no propaganda against German brewers might translate into a later or nonexistent Prohibition, which butterflies the romanticization of American gangsters.
America might try to seize French territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific, but I don't know how likely this is.
 
Pretty sure British modus operandi concerning naval power was not just focused on Antwerp, but also on which power was trying to contest RN supremacy.

The decision by Germany to create a navy to rival London is what lead to Britain breaking its splendid isolation, in addition to the fact that Berlin was surpassing Britain in industry and technology.

But TheBrazilSpirit used the timeline of 1900. Germany was just starting their push at Navel parity with GB, so if GB and Germany were allied I don't think Germany would have been dumping all that money into their Navy. If fact with GB as an ally I think you would have seen Germany push their colonial policies much harder. French colonies in Africa and the Belgium Congo would have been prime targets. They also could have looked East against Russia.

The Dreadnought was launched in 1906 and for the next 10 years GB and Germany escalated their shipbuilding programs back and forth. Had that not happened.....
 
Top