Did Britain fucked up when they didn't alied themselves with Germany in the late 19th century?

[Femto]

Would they have had an easier time in the 20th century if only they had made a pact with Germany and didn't partake with the Entente? Maybe if Britain stays by Germany side they can avoid WW1 by use of her influence in Berlin, and Moscow and Paris would be more careful about going to war by fear of going up against Germany and Britain together.

If Russia stays stable by the mid-twentieth century they would be a monster(even democratic Russia would be a threat if they avoid the Great War), and then any resentment about London playing second fiddle to Berlin would probably be overtaken by the growing necessity of containment against the Russian bear.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

It wasn't like they had a really tough 20th century - they won both world wars and had a big role at the negotiating table for both.

And why would Britain do a 180 on a two century long foreign policy of allying with the perceived underdog on the continent in order to preserve the balance of power? It wasn't like France had the capability to challenge Germany on land or the Brits at sea by herself at the same time.

 

[Dominic]

An Anglo-German alignment is certainly not impossible, but what is it supposed to achieve? France was no real threat, and competition in Africa is not really on the same level as being a European rival. Russia was scary, but not as scary as Germany. IMO though if WW1 does not breakout in 1914 an Anglo-German detente becomes increasingly likely as Russia does indeed become more threatening. Still far from inevitable.

 

[Femto]

It wasn't like they had a really tough 20th century - they won both world wars and had a big role at the negotiating table for both.

And why would Britain do a 180 on a two century long foreign policy of allying with the perceived underdog on the continent in order to preserve the balance of power? It wasn't like France had the capability to challenge Germany on land or the Brits at sea by herself at the same time.

Was Germany really capable of fighting Russia and France together in the eighteen nineties? If they weren't then isn't really a given they were in the best position at the time of the would-be alliance.

 

[Femto]

An Anglo-German alignment is certainly not impossible, but what is it supposed to achieve? France was no real threat, and competition in Africa is not really on the same level as being a European rival. Russia was scary, but not as scary as Germany. IMO though if WW1 does not breakout in 1914 an Anglo-German detente becomes increasingly likely as Russia does indeed become more threatening. Still far from inevitable.

I'm asking more in the lines of what would be the right choice looking at things retrospectively.

 

[JackLumber]

The issue with people saying Britain had to ally with the entente to contain Germany ignores the fact that the entente was generally viewed as the stronger alliance, Britain didn't join the containment crew they joined what people thought would be the winners.
Germany was more of an economic rival to Britain than France or Russia was, if you want Britain to join the Germans than you need the French and Russians to act more aggressively and pose more of a strategic threat to Britain, more posturing in Africa and central Asia.

 

[Femto]

The issue with people saying Britain had to ally with the entente to contain Germany ignores the fact that the entente was generally viewed as the stronger alliance, Britain didn't join the containment crew they joined what people thought would be the winners.
Germany was more of an economic rival to Britain than France or Russia was, if you want Britain to join the Germans than you need the French and Russians to act more aggressively and pose more of a strategic threat to Britain, more posturing the Africa and central Asia.

Could a bloodier Fashoda Incident work?

 

[snerfuplz]

There is an argument to be made that Great Britain would have done better to keep out of inter-European conflicts. It was the wealth drain during World War 1 that led New York instead of London to become the financial capital of the world

Of course, being left alone in a German dominated Europe has some significant downsides as well

 

[Femto]

There is an argument to be made that Great Britain would have done better to keep out of inter-European conflicts. It was the wealth drain during World War 1 that led New York instead of London to become the financial capital of the world

Of course, being left alone in a German dominated Europe has some significant downsides as well

That's why the best outcome would be using her influence in Berlin to avoid going to war. But if war happens regardless Britain would fight a naval and colonial war against France, and they would lose fewer men and money than OTL.

AH would stay by Germany side and Italy would support Germany/Britain. The odds are so much better that I imagine that France and Russia would back off at any crisis, resulting in a lesser chance of triggering World War One.

 

[snerfuplz]

That's why the best outcome would be using her influence in Berlin to avoid going to war. But if war happens regardless Britain would fight a naval war against France, and they would lose fewer men and money.

I don't think the British would be able to prevent war if history progress as in OTL. By 1914, France, Germany, and Russia viewed war as inevitable and wanted to fight the war on their terms. The Germans in particular wanted to fight the war soon because of Russia's speedy recovery from the Russo-Japanese War and the 1905 Revolution

 

[Hood]

Realistically speaking an alliance doesn't make sense until the 20th century dawns and indeed that was seemingly what both parties were moving towards immediately prewar (see Anglo-German partition of Portuguese colonies 1913)
By that stage it is clear Russia is industrialising and that will be a huge threat if they decide to be.
In the 19th century it's throwing out the relations that have been slowly built up with france for little reason. Maybe a more aggressive france and/or Russia but otherwise it seems unlikely.
Indeed it was brought up several times in Britain but put down with what was then reasonable sound arguments against it. (One particular british politician made a strong case against it, maybe disraeli or gladstone? Can't remember)
Basically far more likely post 1900, especially if the Russians screw up any more than otl at dogger bank.

 

[Dominic]

I'm asking more in the lines of what would be the right choice looking at things retrospectively.

Well, hard to say. WW1 was not exactly likely even in 1914; any change that butterflies it is a good thing. A World War that ended more quickly, and which did not create an unstable strategic system that allowed WW2 to occur, is also better. Or perhaps an Anglo-German alignment leads to a British defeat in some major conflict, a rather worse outcome than OTL.

 

[Femto]

The Germans in particular wanted to fight the war soon because of Russia's speedy recovery from the Russo-Japanese War and the 1905 Revolution

Would the Germans by that worried if they had Britain covering their backs?

 

[Avrorrange]

An Anglo-German alignment is certainly not impossible, but what is it supposed to achieve? France was no real threat, and competition in Africa is not really on the same level as being a European rival. Russia was scary, but not as scary as Germany. IMO though if WW1 does not breakout in 1914 an Anglo-German detente becomes increasingly likely as Russia does indeed become more threatening. Still far from inevitable.

No, Russia was definitely scarier. We saw how strong Russia can become post-WW2. WW1 merely postponed this outcome. Germany with Brest-Litovsk could have in no way become a threat as strong as the Soviet Empire.

 

[snerfuplz]

Would the Germans by that worried if they had Britain covering their backs?

Maybe not as worried but the Germans did have a low opinion of the British Army. Since most of the land fighting would have to be done by the German Army, by their estimation, they would be looking to start the war on their terms.

 

[Dominic]

No, Russia was definitely scarier. We saw how strong Russia can become post-WW2. WW1 merely postponed this outcome. Germany with Brest-Litovsk could have in no way become a threat as strong as the Soviet Empire.

Russia was scarier in the late 1800's? I do not agree. Germany was much more powerful, and would soon start the naval race. Russia certainly had far more potential, but policymakers have to work in their immediate environment. By the 1920's the balance would likely have switched, though.

 

[Femto]

Maybe not as worried but the Germans did have a low opinion of the British Army. Since most of the land fighting would have to be done by the German Army, by their estimation, they would be looking to start the war on their terms.

They were considering a two-front war scenario where they would be fighting Russia and France with AH support only, but in this case France would be getting all their colonies conquered by Britain and Russia would've no way of supplying their army and industry with machine parts and things like that, this would screw even more the logistical situation of the Russian army even if you delay the war a decade.

 

[JackLumber]

Could a bloodier Fashoda Incident work?

Potentially but not for certain, you need the entante to be consistently hostile to British imperial interests

 

[Marc]

Maintaining a balance of power in Europe so that no state becomes predominant and therefore a threat was largely a core philosophy for the British since Waterloo.
It worked, if not perfectly, but why should they change policy?

 

[Femto]

Maintaining a balance of power in Europe so that no state becomes predominant and therefore a threat was largely a core philosophy for the British since Waterloo.
It worked, if not perfectly, but why should they change policy?

That's not necessarily a change in policy. If France and Russian crushed Germany really good and earlier they would be a threat to British interests, the key to Britain is to avoid war entirely. Germany only becomes a real threat to the British Isles if war happens, and they win, but by allying itself with them Britain can arguably avoid war more easily. Game theory-level shit.