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?
I worked for a century. the strains of getting involved in WWI cost the UK it's empire.
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.
One wonders why Britain went to war anyway, if staying out was as simple as some assume.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
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.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.
Uh, if Germany wins big on land then Britain is pretty much impotent. Heck, the Germans have achieved their goal.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.So what if Britain had just done some sort of lend lease things for the Entente in WW1 instead of actually joining them?