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.
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: