AuroraBorealis said:
This is not mean't to be a ganging up on you but....
Anglo - American Animosity in TTL is not new.....The British will be keenly aware of their vulnerabilities with respect to a potential war with the Americans and taken steps, probably well before the election of Mitchell, to deal with this eventuality.
Animosity isn't new, but outright war is. The USA has, since 1837, backed away from war with Britain rather than pushing for it. This included abandoning filibuster attempts on *Hawaii, for example. The question is whether this would trump free trade, which was a pillar of British policy throughout the later half of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. I'm suspecting not.
They would have reduced their dependence on American supplies well before this for a start. Obviously, the US cannot be totally replaced though, thus Diplomatic avenues would have been pursued to deal with this eventuality in the event of war.
Not all politicians have an intuitive grasp of logistics...
More seriously, there weren't that many alternatives to American grain. Not without abandoning free trade or massive government intervention. Even then, the necessary building of silos (about the only option) would have taken a lot of time - yes, more than 4 years to get the necessary storage facilities and have the grain to put in them.
With the election of Mitchell it would have become the equivalent of a diplomatic full court press, in the various capitals of Europe to make sure that Britain can ensure its supplies from alternative 3rd countries. Their own supplies or them buying the grain elsewhere and then reselling to Britain.
I am expecting Britain to do some of that. ("Leakage" is the usual term when applied to embargos). But given the agricultural technology of the time, there simply aren't that many other places to buy from besides the USA and Russia. No-one else has the necessary surpluses.
You will have to remind me again exactly what the diplomatic situation in Europe is at this time and where the major players have aligned. You have already stated that their is essentially an alignment of Germany and Britain but relations are strained over the Boer war. I suspect though that Germany ITTL needs Britain in the same way that Germany needed A-H in OTL. They are their only reliable Ally and they cannot afford to abandon them or they will have no ally when they need them.
Britain and Germany were the big winners in Napoleonic Wars II, and have since had something of a falling out. France was a big loser and has for now given up on the military game... its army is geared for defence but it isn't doing any big posturing. Russia is more of a rival of Britain than of Germany. Most of the rest of Europe either dances to Germany's tune (Italy, the Balkans) or is strictly neutral and isn't threatening anyone (Scandinavia). The Iberian Peninsula is divided and not full of nations looking to start wars.
The short version is that Germany will back Britain in some circumstances, but it would depend exactly what Russia does. Yes, an overt declaration of war would bring a German response. Squeezing them for concessions over Turkey, most likely not.
British diplomacy will most certainly have determined by now what concessions would be necessary to ensure the supply of grain from Russia in the event of War with the US of A. They will also have determined what the Germans are likely to have tolerated in that regard.
They will
find out quite quickly what Russian demands are, but remember that Russia isn't even a major supplier of grain to Britain at the moment. (Most British grain came from North America, Russian grain tended to go to countries around the Med). What Russia is effectively saying is 'you're at war, fine, but we won't bail you out by selling grain to you'.
They will most certainly have determined what concessions would be necessary for Germany to declare war on Russia if the Russian demands are excessive.
This is difficult, since Germany doesn't have a unified diplomatic voice at the moment. The Holy Roman Emperor has different views on where things should go from what the Diet has. The one thing Britain can count on is that a DoW from Russia would be followed by one from Germany on Russia. Past that... not much.
A Russian embargo for instance would be an act of war in light of Britain's vulnerability in a war with the US.
An embargo isn't an act of war, and would not be considered at the time (or today, come to that) as a legitimate causus belli. Any more than the American embargos of Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars were treated as acts of war.
Even if undeclared, every other European state would see this action for what it was and act accordingly.
They would indeed see it for what it is, taking advantage of a distracted opponent. That doesn't mean that they'd treat it as a DoW, because it isn't.
There are only a few realistic ways for the Br. Honduras incident to progress....
1. Britain caves and agrees to sell their interests there to the US because they cannot avoid the consequences at home. Diplomacy is a two way street.....If the Germans are unwilling to go to war with Russia if Russia embargoes Britain then Britain will lose its leverage with Russia to prevent such an embargo. Britain will have no choice to back down. We have sufficient precedent from our OTL to support this view.....
Fashoda...and the 2nd Balkan War of 1912.
Britain didn't back down during Fashoda. France did. Britain would most likely have gone to war if pushed far enough.
2. War occurs, but it is limited to the Americas, food supply is not an issue
because adequate supplies are available from Russia or 3rd countries.
I'd put 2b in here: War occurs and is limited to the Americas, while Britain is forced to make concessions to Russia. As I've said previously in this thread, Russia is not pushing for war, but seeing how much they can squeeze Britain for. "Concessions as the price of neutrality" are a familiar concept in diplomacy of the period.
3. A General European War will be an outgrowth of the incident the moment Russia decides to embargo Britain.
I disagree with this, for the reasons given above. A general European war would result from a Russian invasion of Turkey, not from an embargo.
if General European War results.....Japan will not be idle....they will be active against the American interests in the Pacific and their allies where they are vulnerable.
If there is a general European war, and Britain and Germany were on the same side against Russia, then I'd agree that Japan would join in. If it's just Britain against the USA, then no, I don't see it. Too little to gain and too much risk if they lose.
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
