Britain in the Triple Alliance

I was just thinking about what might have happened in ww1 if Britain, her empire and her common wealth had decided to side more with Germany and Austria before ww1. I do feel that the British and Germans had a lot in common, they were both fairly liberal by the standards of the time, both constitutional monarchies, both Protestant and both industrial and colonial powers. While the later two put them in competition the same could be said to some extent for Anglo-French the relationship. Additionally the Russians and British were in competition in Asia meaning their alliance was quite a reluctant one. Plus wars between the French and us are practically traditional.

The first step in towards making this a reality direction could be the Boer wars not happening as German volunteers and the unofficial German support for the rebels helped to begin souring the British people's relationship with the Germans. Alternatively if significant numbers of Frenchmen volunteered to fight with the Boers that might have damaged Anglo-French relations. Secondly lets also reverse the German naval arms race with Britain to be a French making the British feel threatened by the French. Some Tension between the British and French over the control of Egypt and the Suez canal might also reduce the chance of an alliance between the two. So what ever combination of reasons the British feel more threatened by the French than the Germans and the Entente Cordiale never happens. Mean while in Asia either us or the Russians make a more serious attempt at conquering Afghanistan or Tibet making the other feel threatened causing the Russians to never ally with us. Additionally if the British decided to assist the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war this could harm British Russian relations.

Now lets say that ww1 starts much the same way but knowing that Britain has a very real chance of either staying out of the war or joining on their side Germany does not go through Belgium. This results in less success on the western front in the initial few months of war but due to it Britain stays neutral initially. Mean while Russian has the same initial success against the Austro-Hungarians while doing poorly in the north against the Germans.

I believe with Britain not in the war there's a good chance Italy would decide that Germany and the AHE is the right horse to back and either joins straight off or with the first year or two of the war due to offers of land in the north and Adriatic from the Austrians+ maybe the chance to capture some of French territory in north Africa. Similarly seeing Britain may well join after a few years of war seeing the occupied and exhausted French and Russians as an easy target and a way to gain more colonial land. Britain primarily acts as a sea power and in the colonies as it did in the Napoleonic wars. Protecting German shipping, disrupting French shipping and attacking its navy and fighting the French in North Africa and Asia. Mean while as an ally of Britain and enemy of Russia following the Russo-Japanese war Japan attacks Russia and French colonies in Asia hoping to take French ports in China, the Kuril Islands and some land in French Indo-China. If Italy has not already joined Austria and German I believe it would at this point. France and Russia would be forced to split their forces. France would most likely quickly loose their territory in French India and would be at a disadvantage in French Indo China and to some extend in North Africa. Mean while Russia would most likely lose to the Japanese in the east. With their forces split the western front would remain a stalemate or even shift in the German's favour while the Germans would be able to deploy even more troops to the eastern front assisting the Austrians in much the same way. In much the same way it did in real life the Russian empire would collapse under the pressure after 3 or 4 years. The French would most likely last longer but when German forces concentrated on the western front without British and common wealth forces to help and with more troops being deployed in the colonies and Africa the French would begin to lose as their economy struggled to cope without the connection to their colonies. I don't think its likely that the British could succeed in a major landing in France itself without taking heavy losses but British and common wealth troops coming via Italy or German might be able to help on those fronts.
Its hard to say if the Ottoman's distrust for the British or their friendship with the Germans would win out.


Eventually the French lines would either be broken or the French would be forced to sign an unfavourable peace treaty as the cost of the war rose. Like at the end of ww1 in real life I don't believe that France or Russia would be completely destroyed but both would be a lot weaker. Frances colonial territories would be split primarily between Britain, Germany and Japan but some might be made independent or given to Italy. Russia would lose the Kuril Islands but more importantly some of the new countries might be snapped up by Germany or the Austro-Hungarian empire rather than the USSR. Poland would never reform as Germany and Austria would take Russian Poland as well as the bits they already had. The Austro-Hungarian empire would still be weakened by the war but it would survive and expand as it split Serbia with Bulgaria due to the fact the Germans would be able to send more troops to help them. As a result Yugoslavia would never form. Germany would be much larger and stronger keeping parts of Poland southern Jutland and a larger colonial empire. It might still suffer in the Great Depression but the Kaisers and their government would continue to rule it to this day maintaining a similar position to many other monarchies in European countries such as Denmark and Britain. If the Ottomans remained neutral or joined with Germany they might have lasted another 50 years but would continue to shrink, the nature of the countries formed in its absence is hard to predict. I also think the USSR would form but would likely be smaller. How it would interact with the rest of the world is hard to predict. Japan would likely grow slightly faster in the interwar period but would still likely lose most of that territory post ww2.

Is there anything I've missed? Anything you disagree with? Please tell me down bellow.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
I was just thinking about what might have happened in ww1 if Britain, her empire and her common wealth had decided to side more with Germany and Austria before ww1. I do feel that the British and Germans had a lot in common, they were both fairly liberal by the standards of the time, both constitutional monarchies, both Protestant and both industrial and colonial powers. While the later two put them in competition the same could be said to some extent for Anglo-French the relationship. Additionally the Russians and British were in competition in Asia meaning their alliance was quite a reluctant one. Plus wars between the French and us are practically traditional.

The first step in towards making this a reality direction could be the Boer wars not happening as German volunteers and the unofficial German support for the rebels helped to begin souring the British people's relationship with the Germans. Alternatively if significant numbers of Frenchmen volunteered to fight with the Boers that might have damaged Anglo-French relations. Secondly lets also reverse the German naval arms race with Britain to be a French making the British feel threatened by the French. Some Tension between the British and French over the control of Egypt and the Suez canal might also reduce the chance of an alliance between the two. So what ever combination of reasons the British feel more threatened by the French than the Germans and the Entente Cordiale never happens. Mean while in Asia either us or the Russians make a more serious attempt at conquering Afghanistan or Tibet making the other feel threatened causing the Russians to never ally with us. Additionally if the British decided to assist the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war this could harm British Russian relations.
If you want an Anglo-German alliance, a good way to do this might be to have Kaiser Bill die young (before 1881) and to thus have his younger brother Heinrich become German Kaiser in 1888. Given Heinrich's lack of impulsiveness, Anglo-German relations probably wouldn't deteriorate as much as they did in our TL and thus an Anglo-German alliance would become more likely--especially after the completion of the Russian Great Military Program in 1917.

Now lets say that ww1 starts much the same way but knowing that Britain has a very real chance of either staying out of the war or joining on their side Germany does not go through Belgium. This results in less success on the western front in the initial few months of war but due to it Britain stays neutral initially. Mean while Russian has the same initial success against the Austro-Hungarians while doing poorly in the north against the Germans.

Why would Russia and France be willing to go to war in 1914 if Britain is on the side of their enemies, though? I mean, I could understand this in 1940 or 1950 once Russia is stronger, but in 1914?

I believe with Britain not in the war there's a good chance Italy would decide that Germany and the AHE is the right horse to back and either joins straight off or with the first year or two of the war due to offers of land in the north and Adriatic from the Austrians+ maybe the chance to capture some of French territory in north Africa.

Agreed; indeed, Italy certainly won't join the Franco-Russian side since 90% of its coal imports came from Britain.

Similarly seeing Britain may well join after a few years of war seeing the occupied and exhausted French and Russians as an easy target and a way to gain more colonial land. Britain primarily acts as a sea power and in the colonies as it did in the Napoleonic wars. Protecting German shipping, disrupting French shipping and attacking its navy and fighting the French in North Africa and Asia. Mean while as an ally of Britain and enemy of Russia following the Russo-Japanese war Japan attacks Russia and French colonies in Asia hoping to take French ports in China, the Kuril Islands and some land in French Indo-China. If Italy has not already joined Austria and German I believe it would at this point. France and Russia would be forced to split their forces. France would most likely quickly loose their territory in French India and would be at a disadvantage in French Indo China and to some extend in North Africa. Mean while Russia would most likely lose to the Japanese in the east. With their forces split the western front would remain a stalemate or even shift in the German's favour while the Germans would be able to deploy even more troops to the eastern front assisting the Austrians in much the same way. In much the same way it did in real life the Russian empire would collapse under the pressure after 3 or 4 years. The French would most likely last longer but when German forces concentrated on the western front without British and common wealth forces to help and with more troops being deployed in the colonies and Africa the French would begin to lose as their economy struggled to cope without the connection to their colonies.

Agreed with all of this.

I don't think its likely that the British could succeed in a major landing in France itself without taking heavy losses but British and common wealth troops coming via Italy or German might be able to help on those fronts.

Britain can help on the Western Front by sending its troops to Germany and then having its troops be sent to the front.

Its hard to say if the Ottoman's distrust for the British or their friendship with the Germans would win out.

Weren't the Ottomans historically friendly with Britain, though?

Eventually the French lines would either be broken or the French would be forced to sign an unfavourable peace treaty as the cost of the war rose. Like at the end of ww1 in real life I don't believe that France or Russia would be completely destroyed but both would be a lot weaker. Frances colonial territories would be split primarily between Britain, Germany and Japan but some might be made independent or given to Italy. Russia would lose the Kuril Islands but more importantly some of the new countries might be snapped up by Germany or the Austro-Hungarian empire rather than the USSR.

Agreed with all of this.

Poland would never reform as Germany and Austria would take Russian Poland as well as the bits they already had.

Actually, a German-puppet Poland is likely to be created.

The Austro-Hungarian empire would still be weakened by the war but it would survive and expand as it split Serbia with Bulgaria due to the fact the Germans would be able to send more troops to help them. As a result Yugoslavia would never form. Germany would be much larger and stronger keeping parts of Poland southern Jutland and a larger colonial empire. It might still suffer in the Great Depression but the Kaisers and their government would continue to rule it to this day maintaining a similar position to many other monarchies in European countries such as Denmark and Britain. If the Ottomans remained neutral or joined with Germany they might have lasted another 50 years but would continue to shrink, the nature of the countries formed in its absence is hard to predict. I also think the USSR would form but would likely be smaller. How it would interact with the rest of the world is hard to predict. Japan would likely grow slightly faster in the interwar period but would still likely lose most of that territory post ww2.

Is there anything I've missed? Anything you disagree with? Please tell me down bellow.
I agree with most of this but I strongly doubt that a victorious Germany would allow the USSR to survive due to the threat of revolution that it would pose to Germany. Also, it's an open question as to whether or not Austria-Hungary breaks up after the end of World War I in this TL.
 
"Why would Russia and France be willing to go to war in 1914 if Britain is on the side of their enemies, though? I mean, I could understand this in 1940 or 1950 once Russia is stronger, but in 1914?"

  • So I wasn't thinking that Britain would joined Germany right at the start of the war rather would have been drawn into the war as it expanded and France became weakened, maybe a year or so into the war. With a war between Russia and France vs German and AHE I think the Russians and French would have believed they could have won and would have been eager to weaken Germany after the Franco-Prussian war and the general amenity between France and Russian along side an overestimation of the value of Russian manpower and Nationalism to some extent clouding all leader's minds into believing they could win a quick and clean war. I don't think many expected the war to grow into such a monster after all.
"Britain can help on the Western Front by sending its troops to Germany and then having its troops be sent to the front."
  • They may send many of their troops to the front but I think that the majority would go to the colonies and France's economy and army was much more invested in its larger colonies and than Germany's was, plus historically its how we have preferred to fight in European conflicts with the 7 years war being a primary example and similar situation.
"Weren't the Ottomans historically friendly with Britain, though?"
  • I was under the impression the Ottomans had felt threatened by us since we vassalised Egypt but I might have been wrong about that. In which case the Ottoman empire would have almost certainly joined on the German and British's side.
"Actually, a German-puppet Poland is likely to be created."
  • I'm not an expert of German Polish relations so i'll have to take your word for that, if you have any further reading on the subject i'd appreciate it. Although when you say Poland i'm assuming that doesn't include Eastern Prussia?
"I agree with most of this but I strongly doubt that a victorious Germany would allow the USSR to survive due to the threat of revolution that it would pose to Germany. Also, it's an open question as to whether or not Austria-Hungary breaks up after the end of World War I in this TL."
  • Even if Germany had won the war I think it would still have to spend a while to replenish and rebuild before trying to penetrate deep enough into Russia to properly stamp out Russia, after all fighting along Russia's boarders and taking its territories is quite a different task to penetrating into its interior far enough to be able to annex it or change its government. Even with British support this would still be a several year long war, given how large a percentage a population Germany drafted another war would have little public support straight after the first war but given them maybe 10 years and they might do it.
  • Its not clear cut if Austro-Hungary would have survived but I do think the war would have put significantly less pressure on them under the circumstances as.
  1. They wouldn't have to worry about the Italian front.
  2. The Balkans front would have been easier as Britain would not be assisting Serbia and a British blockade would have prevented the French from doing so.
  3. Russia would have has to send troops and reources to its east to fight the Japanese in Manchuria.
  4. The Germans would have been able to send more troops and resources to the eastern front as. They wouldn't have to face British, British Colonial and Commonwealth forces on the western front. They may have some British and co direct support in the continent. French forces would have had to fight British and Japanese forces in its colonies. They may have had to fight Italy in Europe and Africa. The German economy would have been stronger and the French weaker as the British would have been blockading the French not Germans.
Then after the war the victory would have meant the AHE could have gained more money from reparations and loot and having just won the war rebels would have been less willing to challenge imperial authority.


If you liked this i'm creating a more complete timeline (and possible novel) based on a similar scenario based on a POD where the Fashoda incident ended in a war between England and France back in 1889. In that I hope to predict the course of such a war in much greater detail and try to create a seasonal timeline I.E. Spring of 1890 xxx happens. However i'm waiting for the summer holidays to start as it will take more research.
 
I agree that the Franco-Russian alliance wouldn't go to war against Germany if it looked like Britain would side with Germany, or even if the British looked like they would be neutral. In fact the prospect of Britain staying neutral caused a good deal of consternation in the French and Russian governments in 1914.

I'm interested on how you could get a situation where France and Russia do go to war with Britain and Germany. I've thought of a two PODs:

1. For whatever reason, Austria-Hungary (or just Austria if the POD is before 1867) is allied with Russia against Germany, so Britain is Germany's (or Prussia's) only ally, a sort of Seven Years War situation. I'm not sure how to make it work. You might do it with a POD before 1870. Or a POD after 1913 might work, Germany does NOT back Austria-Hungary up in the July Crisis, but the German and British governments continue to improve relations. Austria-Hungary breaks from Germany and throws in with Russia, maybe after Franz Josef dies.

2. The Russians avoid an early revolution, which they were actually heading for when the war breaks out, and Russia's military build up gets to the point where they militarily really are as powerful as the later twentieth century USSR, at least on paper.

You could of course combine these, and really get a Seven Years War scenario in 1917.
 
A possible POD would be no Russo-Japanese War, or better still, a Russian victory. This likely puts Russia on its path towards being seen as the next European hegemon, add in a better diplomacy on the part of Germany, and you can plausibly have the British at minimum neutral if not possibly in a stronger relationship with Germany and A-H. This should also ensure Italian neutrality if not alliance and might give you a stronger Ottoman "alliance" given both Germany and UK are looking to exploit oil, develop markets and bolster the Ottomans under Russia's belly. And I would see Japan drawn in deeper to the British "alliance" aimed at containing Russia in Asia. China stays an exploited game board on the balance between the great powers with Japan getting something.

Here the French are only in alliance to deter Germany but are in an untenable situation, they should stay defensive, rather than going over to the offensive versus Germany, and if Russia gets too full of itself might seek some new détente or accommodation with the British first, then the Italians and finally Germany to "end" hostility. Russia here might get further down its development path but still has deep domestic issues that could either propel her to war (as distraction) or spark off a revolt to get reform. Africa would gain new prominence for competition and we might see the Anglo-German partition of Portuguese colonies happen. This could improve development or plunge Africa into a brush fire war abyss. Choose your own adventure there.

The USA would shy from Russia, might gravitate towards the British and German combine, especially if the British lead Germany into more free trade propensities. Overall I think it might spell a rather quiet 20th Century, if a war is to be it should be closer to mid-century, but we just might see the peace to end (all) wars.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
2. The Russians avoid an early revolution, which they were actually heading for when the war breaks out, and Russia's military build up gets to the point where they militarily really are as powerful as the later twentieth century USSR, at least on paper.
To be honest, I don't think that having a revolution would necessarily harm Russia. Indeed, it might even be an improvement if Tsar Nicholas II is replaced by a more competent government.
 
If Italy sided with the French and the Russians in a hypothetical war where Britain was allied with Germany, could Italy get its coal from France?
It depends how far the Germans manage to penetrate into France without outflanking them through Belgium, a lot of Frances coal fields are the east of the country, I.E. right where the war was being fought. If the front ended up in Germany or only just into France they might be able to access it but if the Germans managed to penetrate as far into France as they did in real life I don't think France would have enough coal to spare.
 
To get a Anglo-german alliance you would have to go back much earlier to the Armenian crisis of 1894-96. British agitation for the Armenians convince the Germans that the British are no longer of any use- that they couldn't be counted on in a confrontation with Russia. It is the last act in Britain's long estrangement from the Ottomans. In any case, the British lack of an army meant that the fighting would fall to Germany and Austria. This is reinforced when the British refuse to help Italy during the Ethiopian War. The Germans conclude, rightfully, that the British are really trying to use them as a bargaining chip against Russia. That Austria and Germany would be pushed into conflict with Russia to force Russian concessions and then Austria and Germany would be faced holding the bag. The Germans want nothing of it.

Russian interests are more easily aligned with Germany's than with Britain in any case. The Germans are interested in expansion overseas and the Russians are willing to help. All that Germany needs is to shift Russia's interests to the East and away from the Balkans. This is just the opposite of what Britain wants. They want to focus the Russians on Europe and thus force the Germans and Russians into conflict and thus take care of two rivals at once.

British policy is not just a balance of power on the continent but conflict between the European states- not warfare but rivalry. If the Continental states unite, it doesn't matter if there is balance between the Continental states if they are allied against Britain. This is why Britain's international position declined before the Japanese war. After, Britain promotes Franco-Russian interests in Morocco and the Balkans to promote tensions there. The British interests is to turn Russia's focus from India towards the Balkans and French tension with Germany in Africa

So to get the Anglo-Germans to align, you would need to keep Russia focused on the Balkans without the conflict exploding and convince the Germans the British are reliable. A continuation of the Anglo-French colonial rivalry is also needed but again, that is nearly impossible to do after the French back down at Fashoda Once the French realize they are beat, they come to terms with the British. This will happen with the inevitable end of the scramble for Africa as the last remnants of Africa are divided. That the Anglo-French accord is made at the expense of German interests in Morocco and leads to tension on the continent is a bonus for Britain
 
To be honest, I don't think that having a revolution would necessarily harm Russia. Indeed, it might even be an improvement if Tsar Nicholas II is replaced by a more competent government.
Nichloas is a far more complex ruler than that. The early Nicholas before the Manchurian War is too infatuated with his father and tries only to do what he thinks his father wants. Once he dumps that attitude, realizes that Russia needs reforms and rids himself of his fathers ministers he actually does quite well. The post 1906 reforms transform society and brings the nation back from the brink

Russia is by no means headed towards revolution before the war. the only real problem is some growing nationalism is some of the border areas. Nothing that can't be managed
 

CaliGuy

Banned
To get a Anglo-german alliance you would have to go back much earlier to the Armenian crisis of 1894-96. British agitation for the Armenians convince the Germans that the British are no longer of any use- that they couldn't be counted on in a confrontation with Russia. It is the last act in Britain's long estrangement from the Ottomans. In any case, the British lack of an army meant that the fighting would fall to Germany and Austria. This is reinforced when the British refuse to help Italy during the Ethiopian War. The Germans conclude, rightfully, that the British are really trying to use them as a bargaining chip against Russia. That Austria and Germany would be pushed into conflict with Russia to force Russian concessions and then Austria and Germany would be faced holding the bag. The Germans want nothing of it.

Russian interests are more easily aligned with Germany's than with Britain in any case. The Germans are interested in expansion overseas and the Russians are willing to help. All that Germany needs is to shift Russia's interests to the East and away from the Balkans. This is just the opposite of what Britain wants. They want to focus the Russians on Europe and thus force the Germans and Russians into conflict and thus take care of two rivals at once.

British policy is not just a balance of power on the continent but conflict between the European states- not warfare but rivalry. If the Continental states unite, it doesn't matter if there is balance between the Continental states if they are allied against Britain. This is why Britain's international position declined before the Japanese war. After, Britain promotes Franco-Russian interests in Morocco and the Balkans to promote tensions there. The British interests is to turn Russia's focus from India towards the Balkans and French tension with Germany in Africa

So to get the Anglo-Germans to align, you would need to keep Russia focused on the Balkans without the conflict exploding and convince the Germans the British are reliable. A continuation of the Anglo-French colonial rivalry is also needed but again, that is nearly impossible to do after the French back down at Fashoda Once the French realize they are beat, they come to terms with the British. This will happen with the inevitable end of the scramble for Africa as the last remnants of Africa are divided. That the Anglo-French accord is made at the expense of German interests in Morocco and leads to tension on the continent is a bonus for Britain
So, was the massive expansion of Britain's army during World War I completely unexpected?

Nichloas is a far more complex ruler than that. The early Nicholas before the Manchurian War is too infatuated with his father and tries only to do what he thinks his father wants. Once he dumps that attitude, realizes that Russia needs reforms and rids himself of his fathers ministers he actually does quite well. The post 1906 reforms transform society and brings the nation back from the brink

Russia is by no means headed towards revolution before the war. the only real problem is some growing nationalism is some of the border areas. Nothing that can't be managed
To be fair, though, the Poles are a large pain in the ass for Russia.
 
Top