Could Britain have been as friendly to Germany as France 1900-14

archaeogeek

Banned
I thought I'd covered that with "Replace Wilhelm II by someone who actually does have a brain".
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but when you're surrounded by four superpowers,
1) you DON'T develop a habbit of careless talk,
2) you DO try not to go to war with three of them simultaneously,
3) you DO have your military strategists prepare for more than one option and
4) you DO make sure that you don't appear to be the aggressor.
IMHO, neglecting all (or even any) of theese rules is political and strategic idiocy - NOT only in hindsight, since Bismarck new all that very well.

No amount of hindsight will change the fact that a united Germany fucks the European balance of power.
 

Perkeo

Banned
No amount of hindsight will change the fact that a united Germany fucks the European balance of power.

Britain didn't have much to say against a united Germany at the time Germany did unite. Trouble began when Germany started an arms race with Britain. Neither does the course of war between 1914 and 1918 indicate unbalanced power.
 
Britain didn't have much to say against a united Germany at the time Germany did unite. Trouble began when Germany started an arms race with Britain. Neither does the course of war between 1914 and 1918 indicate unbalanced power.

Look at how powerful Germany is compared to France, England, and Russia separately.

From the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers

Figures are for WWI.

Total War Expenditure at 1913 prices for The British Empire (23 billion), France (9.3 billion), and Russia (5.4 billion): 37.7 billion.

Total mobilized forces (BE: 9.5, France 8.2, Russia 13.0): 30.7 million.

Germany alone: 19.9 billion and 13.25 million respectively.

Yes, it did fuck with the balance of power. The fact Germany failed to overwhelm a coalition that (not counting the US) out spent it and its allies by more than 3 to 2 (40.6 billion) and mobilized nearly half again many men men (37.9 million to 25.1 million) is not the work of a nation that isn't a major disruption to the old balance of power, even if it was contained.
 
The chance of that happening probably ended with the Boer War when the Kaiser was frustrated at not being able to help Kruger owing to the Royal Navy. Once the Kaiser attempted to build an ocean going fleet Germany was regrarded as the potential enemy although Britian actually had naval avisors on the opposite to to France and against Russia at Tsu-Shima in 1905.

Even without the Von Schliffen plan Britain had a secret Treaty with France that required us to support France in 1914. Without the short cut through Belgium there might have been a serious cabinet split delaying entry as Nail Fergusson had suggested but the war faction i.e Grey, Asquith and Churchill were in the majority and the coalition may have come earlier without the price of Churchill leaving the Admiralty. One minister who resigned Burns is alldged to have said in private that he opposed the war because we were supporting the wrong side that is about as far as any pro-German feelings went. The POD would have been shortly after we traded Heligoland.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Look at how powerful Germany is compared to France, England, and Russia separately.

From the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers

Figures are for WWI.

Total War Expenditure at 1913 prices for The British Empire (23 billion), France (9.3 billion), and Russia (5.4 billion): 37.7 billion.

Total mobilized forces (BE: 9.5, France 8.2, Russia 13.0): 30.7 million.

Germany alone: 19.9 billion and 13.25 million respectively.
Those figures do indeed show that Germany was top of the league, but they also show that Germany was NOT playing in a higher league than Britain ans Russia. Germany failed to outspend the British empire or to mobilize signifcantly more men than Russia.
Yes, it did fuck with the balance of power. The fact Germany failed to overwhelm a coalition that (not counting the US) out spent it and its allies by more than 3 to 2 (40.6 billion) and mobilized nearly half again many men men (37.9 million to 25.1 million) is not the work of a nation that isn't a major disruption to the old balance of power, even if it was contained.
I beg to insist that the ability to outspend Germany and its allies by more than 3 to 2 and to mobilize nearly half again many men proofs that the old balance of power was NOT disrupted.

Balance of power was never about preventing wars, was it? Balance of power didn't prevent the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. By the way, in both cases Prussia got deep in trouble due to the inherent danger of war on two or more fronts, which again relativizes the strength of the united Germany. Germany could survive in only two ways: So weak that no one bothers about them (als the HRE), or strong enough to contain more than one enemy.

However, the weakness of France made an Anglo-French alliance a logical consequence of the balance of power doctrine. Therefore, Germany should have forseen that there was no way Britain would accept a further German expansion to the west, unless Germany somehow managed to have Britain's blessing to do so - which would be VERY unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Top