Did the British policy of maintaining the European Balance of Power pay dividends?

Did the vast sums of material that Great Britain, and later the British Empire, expended to keep the European balance of power justify the cost?
 
Did the vast sums of material that Great Britain, and later the British Empire, expended to keep the European balance of power justify the cost?

Enormously until the early 20th century. In the 20th century (I am refering to the first half with WW1 and WW2), It was no longer profitable. It became hugely costly but It was a vital necessity : not paying these costs would have been even more costly.
 
Did the vast sums of material that Great Britain, and later the British Empire, expended to keep the European balance of power justify the cost?

Yes. It allowed Britain to focus on its colonial empire without worrying about a war that would probably cost more than those vast sums of material.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
...it depends on the war-

WWI and WWII were necessities, even if back-breaking. Napoleonic was a necessity. 7 Years war saw colonial profit. Maybe Britain could have sat the WOTAS out. WOTSS was essential. The Crimean War was unnecessary and unrewarding.
 
Well it did mean that until 1914 there was never a country that could have the power to utterly destroy the British Empire, so something muct have been working.

- BNC
 
basically, it paid off every time until that one time when it didn't pay off, in 1914. Whose overreach cost them the whole ball game.

After the Armada, when Britain was still weak and small compared to the powers on the continent and could have been strangled in her cradle before industrialisation, the Empire and the Royal Navy, they fought like crazy to prevent a united Europe. They viewed neutrality to European geopolitics as 'helping the wolf and hoping he eats you last', so they connived to prevent a powerful rival while hustling their trading and colonial ventures on the side. They eventually got to be the sole superpower for 100 years because of this, and had one of the most fondly remembered epochs of recent history named after their sovereign. Pretty big dividend.

Unfortunately for them, imperial arrogance brought them come unstuck in the end, and they failed to realise that for the first time in a long time their demographic, military and (relatively recent) industrial weakness was not overmatched by their financial & commercial, colonial, naval and organisational strengths. Germany was a rival that had the potential to overtake Britain in some metrics, but she was not an existential threat to the British way of life in a more civilised age than in early-modern Europe, when the threat of an invasion of England was serious and deeply feared. They failed to make that distinction, and so their perception of threat to national security - and their priority setting - got all screwed up.

They failed to see that no matter what, Germany was destined to overtake them economically short of a profligate expenditure of human life and treasure. They should have sat WWI out, but their egos were too big. So in a way, the policy and mindset of brooking no strategic rival and supporting the weaker coalition backfired hugely with incalculable butterflies for the British Empire, since that was the beginning of the end of a lot of their gains.
 
Last edited:
The strategy only works if Euro-Alliance 1 plus Britain has a big enough edge over Euro-Alliance 2 that Britain does not get bled white in achieving victory. WW1 did not meet that criteria so Britain got bled white.

It would have been even worse if Euro-Alliance 1 plus Britain had been weaker than Euro-Alliance 2. On OTL that did not happen and I would hate to devise an AH in which it did. In that case the British could always cut and run. The English Channel would probably be enough to avoid complete disaster. Their former allies would not be very happy though.
 
The strategy only works if Euro-Alliance 1 plus Britain has a big enough edge over Euro-Alliance 2 that Britain does not get bled white in achieving victory. WW1 did not meet that criteria so Britain got bled white.

It would have been even worse if Euro-Alliance 1 plus Britain had been weaker than Euro-Alliance 2. On OTL that did not happen and I would hate to devise an AH in which it did. In that case the British could always cut and run. The English Channel would probably be enough to avoid complete disaster. Their former allies would not be very happy though.

Pretty much like 7YW, which in a narrower sense was the only other potential time the strategy backfired, in that the way the British comported themselves in the peace constituted a rare exception to the general rule of thumb that British governments demonstrated exceptional diplomatic discipline and judgement. By cutting and running when the going was good, they exposed the deeply cynical realpolitik of their alliances and their lack of long-term regard for their allies, who they would abandon at the drop of a hat. The diplomatic and military blowback was pretty serious, since it was a rare moment when all of Europe finally caught on like dopey Elmur Fudds - "Hey, wait a minute..." - that Britian was toying with them all, and it cost them America.

It takes a lot to unite Holland and France and Spain together on the same side in a conflict in the 18th Century, purely out of a mutual desire to see you brought down a peg, but Britain managed it in the ARW in large part because of the 7YW. Now that is some seriously bad diplomacy!

The good news for Britain if they nope out of WWI and leave the French and Belgians taking grenades, is that the French will be far too weakened afterwards to conspire against them
 

longsword14

Banned
The continent always was fractured with no single hegemon undistracted long enough to finally turn to the seas. This fact has remained more or less true since the Hapsburg decline. Britain exploited it about as well as it can be expected.
That said the term 'superpower' is not that could be applied to Britain.
The good news for Britain if they nope out of WWI and leave the French and Belgians taking grenades, is that the French will be far too weakened afterwards to conspire against them
One wonders why Britain went to war anyway, if staying out was as simple as some assume.
The next conlict faced by Britain would be against the new and improved Kaiserreich.
 
One wonders why Britain went to war anyway, if staying out was as simple as some assume.
The next conlict faced by Britain would be against the new and improved Kaiserreich.
Not Exactly, by the end of the war, with or without britain, Germany would be hurt a lot and wanting peace simply due to the manpower and material cost of fighting a trenches war. If Britain interfered on the peace deal they could impede germany from making heavy gains, principally if they manage to rope some other power to back them in such an action.
 

longsword14

Banned
Not Exactly, by the end of the war, with or without britain, Germany would be hurt a lot and wanting peace simply due to the manpower and material cost of fighting a trenches war. If Britain interfered on the peace deal they could impede germany from making heavy gains, principally if they manage to rope some other power to back them in such an action.
Uh, if Germany wins big on land then Britain is pretty much impotent. Heck, the Germans have achieved their goal.
They can now do what they want unmolested for the next couple decades.
As with all scenarios it must be asked why did things happen the way they did.
So why did Britain break its streak of isolation to join the other two powers?
Looks like they were not so confident.
 
Uh, if Germany wins big on land then Britain is pretty much impotent. Heck, the Germans have achieved their goal.
They can now do what they want unmolested for the next couple decades.
As with all scenarios it must be asked why did things happen the way they did.
So why did Britain break its streak of isolation to join the other two powers?
Looks like they were not so confident.
Indeed, you're right, but you're assuming that Germany wins big on the land war, frankly a WW1 without Britain does not necessarily equates to an easy win for Germany.
But i do not believe, with what we know today, that Germany would be able to start another european war any time soon, simply because, even if they win, they would not leave the war intact, this is still an trenches conflict.
Britain entered the war due to assumptions that seemed true in the time period, that does not mean that they were true, principally that with the WW1 done, unless Germany wins by an landslide, they would still have threats in the continent, minor, yes, but enough of a threat that they cannot just start a naval building program out of the blue. The British still had the greatest navy of the world.
Also Britain would reap the same economic benefits that the US and Japan reaped in WW1 historically, simply because Germany would not be able to compete with Britain for markets while under the war, a their industrial production would be directed towards the conflict. If Britain does not enter the war all that they could lose would be the title of greatest power, and even then they would still be recognized as an power because they would still be intact.
Tl;dr Even if Britain does not enter WWI, Germany would still have just fought it's worst war in a century and would in no way be ready to start another war.

In answer to the author's question, i do not believe that the policy reaped benefits for Britain after the industrial revolution.
 

longsword14

Banned
@Moikan Yoloko
We were dealing in reasons and motivations for Britain's actions. Before outbreak of hostilities Britain could not have made the predictions that we can.
Britain chose the option which looked to be meaningful at the moment.
Britain was not the United States that it would feel assured of its complete supremacy in matters of material.
Britain never faced this situation. What if a decade or two later a Germany strongly recovering decides to out-build them?
No one new just how bad the next general European conflagration would be so no one would bet on letting the stronger side go away based on fuzzy assumptions.
 
Not Exactly, by the end of the war, with or without britain, Germany would be hurt a lot and wanting peace simply due to the manpower and material cost of fighting a trenches war.

Possibly, but then again things got pretty dicey for the Allies at certain points in 1914. It's possible that, without British involvement, the Germans would be able to defeat the French army and force a peace on them. (Yes, I know the BEF was small, but when you're fighting to defend your capital from enemy occupation every little helps.)

Plus, whilst with hindsight we know WW1 turned into a trench-filled slogging match, nobody expected this before the war. Indeed, all the recent major European conflicts had been decided very quickly, often in one or two battles. Given what was known at the time, neither Britain nor any other country had much reason to expect that the war would be as exhausting and destructive as it turned out.
 
basically, it paid off every time until that one time when it didn't pay off, in 1914. Whose overreach cost them the whole ball game.

After the Armada, when Britain was still weak and small compared to the powers on the continent and could have been strangled in her cradle before industrialisation, the Empire and the Royal Navy, they fought like crazy to prevent a united Europe. They viewed neutrality to European geopolitics as 'helping the wolf and hoping he eats you last', so they connived to prevent a powerful rival while hustling their trading and colonial ventures on the side. They eventually got to be the sole superpower for 100 years because of this, and had one of the most fondly remembered epochs of recent history named after their sovereign. Pretty big dividend.

I would advance it a century and say this was true from 1688 onward. During the 1588-1688 century England didn't necessarily have a coherent strategy for the European continent, tending to shift course from one conflict to another, or even within the same conflict (as in the Dutch War). From William III onward, though, we see a more straightforward "balance of power" strategy.
 
So what if Britain had just done some sort of lend lease things for the Entente in WW1 instead of actually joining them?
 
So what if Britain had just done some sort of lend lease things for the Entente in WW1 instead of actually joining them?
It's unlikely that with only lend-lease the war would end in french favor, if the british do some kind of embargo though... But that's a completely different can of worms.
Regardless, i stand by the point that even if Germany wins Britain would be pretty safe from being sidelined if they do not enter the war, the problem is, as they pointed out above, having the british think like this without hindsight.
 
Top