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

[Veiovis]

It worked, if not perfectly, but why should they change policy?

WW1 ended with the empire financially drained, the seeds of its disintegration were lain, and Britain had lost both the financial and politcal ability to really influence the continent, which came to bite it when this caused WW2, which first led to a german hegemon, and the destruction of the empire as price for battling germany down, with Britain being relegated a very distant third (if that!) post WW2.

With hindsight, any and all British policy which only slightly increases the chances to end up in a WW1 like conflict are clearly catastrophic policy failures.

 

[snerfuplz]

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.

The Germans may be fighting a two front war regardless. I guess it depends how willing France is to sacrifice its colonies to focus on Germany which I think they would be willing to do. I doubt Britain would be able to land in Northern France without being pushed back and the British would settle for augmenting the German lines instead

 

[Marc]

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.

I'm mildly familiar with game theory. I've often recommended Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey by Luce and Raiffa - a first rate, very understandable, introduction to the field.
However, going by the thread's starting point:
"Did Britain fucked up when they didn't ally themselves with Germany in the late 19th century?"
My understanding was that the British were already becoming alarmed by Wilhelmine Germany, particularly after the dismissal of Bismark who they saw as being sensible. Along with Germany becoming an enormous economic rival (they had enough to deal with the United States in the regard).
Fundamentally, they didn't want any single state to become that powerful in Europe, alliance's can be broken, single great powers are another matter.

 

[Femto]

The Germans may be fighting a two front war regardless. I guess it depends how willing France is to sacrifice its colonies to focus on Germany which I think they would be willing to do. I doubt Britain would be able to land in Northern France without being pushed back and the British would settle for augmenting the German lines instead

Wouldn't the moral in Paris crumble when they lose Algeria and Corsica?

 

[snerfuplz]

Wouldn't the moral in Paris crumble when they lose Algeria and Corsica?

Good question. I'd imagine the answer is no but I also don't know how attached France were to both areas in the 1910s

 

[Marc]

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

Ah, but even retrospectively, it's not a good choice, or fit, for the British Empire - an earlier putting down of Germany on the other hand...

 

[Femto]

Good question. I'd imagine the answer is no but I also don't know how attached France were to both areas in the 1910s

It would be like the Brits losing India.

 

[Femto]

Ah, but even retrospectively, it's not a good choice, or fit, for the British Empire - an earlier putting down of Germany on the other hand...

Of course, they should've supported AH and Mexico before the Germans and the Americans rise.

Leaving this aside, I believe that even leaving Europe to the Imperial German Hegemony is better than fighting WW1 and WW2, I like Nial Ferguson argument about this. Britain lost a lot in both wars and considering what happened in WW2, it's fair to say that WW1 was fought for nothing.

 

[Marc]

Of course, they should've supported AH and Mexico before the Germans and the Americans rise.

Sadly precognition isn't a talent that humans possess. And elites are rather crappy at doing basic forward induction reasoning...

 

[Femto]

Sadly precognition isn't a talent that humans possess. And elites are rather crappy at doing basic forward induction reasoning...

In the German unification case I can see why they abstained themselves from acting but letting the Americans rip off half of Mexico was a stupid policy even by that day standards.

 

[Avrorrange]

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.

Russia was always much scarier in terms of it’s size and population. As a policy maker, you are meant to look at not just today, but what happens tomorrow as well. The British establishment demonstrated remarkable short-sightedness in their alliance with France and Russia. If everything proceeded according to their plan(short, decisive victory), the Russian Empire might have become far stronger than the Soviet Union of our time.

 

[wcv215]

In the German unification case I can see why they abstained themselves from acting but letting the Americans rip off half of Mexico was a stupid policy even by that day standards.

No it wasn’t. It would have been stupid to intervene against a friendly country half a world away over a bunch of undeveloped desert for no reason whatsoever.

That sort of aggression is what gets other countries, particularly ones right next to you, looking at you sideways and whispering in dark rooms about what happens if you turn toward them next.

 

[snerfuplz]

Also what were the German states going to do to intervene in the Mexican-American War? Sail over in their non-existent navy?

I am sure if the German states were somehow realistically be able to intervene the most likely result would be the Prussian King crawling away on his belly from Berlin months earlier than OTL

 

[JackLumber]

Also what were the German states going to do to intervene in the Mexican-American War? Sail over in their non-existent navy?

I am sure if the German states were somehow realistically be able to intervene the most likely result would be the Prussian King crawling away on his belly from Berlin months earlier than OTL

Who was suggesting they'd intervene? why would they? There is nothing to be gained.

 

[funnyhat]

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

Properly, the "entente" was the agreement ("entente cordiale") between France and Britain. The alliance between France and Russia didn't have a special name, it was just an alliance.

 

[JackLumber]

Properly, the "entente" was the agreement ("entente cordiale") between France and Britain. The alliance between France and Russia didn't have a special name, it was just an alliance.

I'm aware, I used it because in the context of the thread I was confident I could use it as a shorthand for France and Russia and no one would get confused.

 

[Femto]

No it wasn’t. It would have been stupid to intervene against a friendly country half a world away over a bunch of undeveloped desert for no reason whatsoever.

That sort of aggression is what gets other countries, particularly ones right next to you, looking at you sideways and whispering in dark rooms about what happens if you turn toward them next.

They could bluff to discourage the US about annexing half of Mexico or starting the war in the first place, they didn't need to really intervene, that would help to keep the balance of power in North America and few people in Europe would be wary of this act. France would probably back this.

 

[wcv215]

They could bluff to discourage the US about annexing half of Mexico, they didn't need to really intervene, that would help to keep the balance of power in North America.

Why would they? This is the part of Mexico that is EMPTY. The valuable parts were California and Texas. Of those Texas had already been annexed by the US and California was hardly the economic center it is today. The rest was filler between those too.

So either Britain is making an easily callable bluff, in which case their credibility is shot, or they are actually serious about just kind of deciding out of thin air to dictate to another country through force whether they are allowed to pay for territory from a country they’ve just beaten in a war, that the other side shot first in. Neither of those is a smart move.

 

[Femto]

Why would they? This is the part of Mexico that is EMPTY. The valuable parts were California and Texas. Of those Texas had already been annexed by the US and California was hardly the economic center it is today. The rest was filler between those too.

So either Britain is making an easily callable bluff, in which case their credibility is shot, or they are actually serious about just kind of deciding out of thin air to dictate to another country through force whether they are allowed to pay for territory from a country they’ve just beaten in a war, that the other side shot first in. Neither of those is a smart move.

To keep the US out of the Pacific and with less strength. Keeping the semblance of a balance of power between the United States and Mexico is in Britain's best interests.

 

[Femto]

This is the part of Mexico that is EMPTY.

Like South Sudan?