Fashoda and an Anglo-German Alliance

There was an incident between the British and the French involving colonial claims in Sudan and expeditions came to encounter each other at a place called Fashoda

Now, this was resolved peacefully. But what if the two expeditions shot each other and the French declared war?

Let's say for argument that the war is short... say 3 years because the French quickly throw in the towel and the British public are getting annoyed at the war bill for something very far away.

At this time, Britain was shopping around for a continental alliance. Spanish? French? Germans? Well, we just crossed one off the list.

In OTL, the British were offended by the violation of Belgian neutrality.

In TTL, it's probable that the assassination that started the WW1 simply won't happen. I mean, it was a comical event of coincidences and failed attempts before an accidental success. A pre-1900 POD means even if the couple visits there, the traffic conditions will be ever so slightly different and since the assassination was a spur of the moment coincidence, this alone will likely throw it off balance.

But let's suppose that the Serbian Government harbors the Black Hand and it commits several anti-Hapsburg acts of terrorism such as blowing up buildings, railroads, electrical stations, and expensive stuff. At some point the Austrians are going to be fed up and make an ultimatum, say three years after OTL WW1.

The Germans and the British might persuade the Belgians to just let the Germans stroll through their territory (heck, it's almost a 20 year POD, I'm sure they can change the king's mind). Since the OTL British Casus Belli is gone and they have a recent war with the French, while probably have been courting the Germans for 17 years, do we see the British helping the Germans win a world war?

Or not? I'm assuming for the sake of argument the war starts thanks to the Balkans.
 
The French would have to be insane to declare war.Their navy at this stage was a complete wreck,and a war with Britain would just mean losing most of their colonies.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The idea of an Anglo-German alliance really isn't that far-fetched, but there are easier PODs to get it than a Fashoda War between France and Britain.
 
Fashoda is too late for an Anglo-German alliance. Germany quite obviously became the strongest military power in continental Europe, and so naturally Britain grew to oppose it. And so, Britain decided to ally with France.

In order for Britain to ally with Germany, you need for it to view France as an enemy. The best way to do this is by having Boulanger come to power and undergo an aggressive campaign of colonialism, naturally causing many disputes with Britain, as well as having a military buildup that scares Britain into deciding to restore good relations with Germany.
 
(Putting aside how unlikely a Fashoda War is and how fine tuned the PoD would need to be) 3 years is not a short war, 3 years of war between two Great Powers is going to totally upset the balance of power in Europe. Even without the extraordinary destructiveness of a continental war, which could not occur in this scenario, the financial drain, disruption of trade, and general economic ruin basically hands European hegemony to Germany on a platter. There is no way that the UK would ally with such a Germany.

If the war is much shorter however, say 6 months to a year, IMO it is still likely that the European situation of the early 20th century will largely resemble OTL. It's worth remembering that the UK-France alliance as never that close, while the geographic reality that Germany on the channel is a massive threat to Britain has not changed. IMO Britain will take a much colder stance towards France but fundamentally will not do anything to strengthen Germany directly. The more fun time will come a little bit later; OTL prior to WW1 trends suggested that by the 1920's the UK may have come to fear Russia more than it did Germany. ITTL with an already bad Anglo-French relationship this will be even more possible.

EDIT: As an aside war in Europe was always fairly unlikely to begin with. The idea that WW1 was inevitable is ridiculous 1920's propaganda. The working assumption with any late 19th C PoD should always be that without deliberate construction of a PoD to start a war it is unlikely that war will break out.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
On the one hand, supporting a strong country in expanding its power in northwest Europe seems out of character given traditional interpretations of Britain's balance of power policy.

On the other hand, I would not put it entirely beyond the pale of possibility, given the strangeness of their support for the potentially powerful Franco-Russian combination in OTL.
Some interpret British policy pre-WWI as motivated by the opposite of balance of power. Rather it represented appeasement of Russia and France, the other European powers (besides Britain) with the most robust global reach and interests, because keeping them happy was safer than causing Germany to become unhappy..
 
Some interpret the British actions post Crimea as no longer looking for balance of power, but wanting to pick the winning side.

Also, what's implausible about the Black Hand blowing things up if they can't get the assassination off?
 
(Putting aside how unlikely a Fashoda War is and how fine tuned the PoD would need to be) 3 years is not a short war, 3 years of war between two Great Powers is going to totally upset the balance of power in Europe. Even without the extraordinary destructiveness of a continental war, which could not occur in this scenario, the financial drain, disruption of trade, and general economic ruin basically hands European hegemony to Germany on a platter. There is no way that the UK would ally with such a Germany.

If the war is much shorter however, say 6 months to a year, IMO it is still likely that the European situation of the early 20th century will largely resemble OTL. It's worth remembering that the UK-France alliance as never that close, while the geographic reality that Germany on the channel is a massive threat to Britain has not changed. IMO Britain will take a much colder stance towards France but fundamentally will not do anything to strengthen Germany directly. The more fun time will come a little bit later; OTL prior to WW1 trends suggested that by the 1920's the UK may have come to fear Russia more than it did Germany. ITTL with an already bad Anglo-French relationship this will be even more possible.

EDIT: As an aside war in Europe was always fairly unlikely to begin with. The idea that WW1 was inevitable is ridiculous 1920's propaganda. The working assumption with any late 19th C PoD should always be that without deliberate construction of a PoD to start a war it is unlikely that war will break out.

You said UK would never ally with a hegemon Germany. Why is that? Is Willhiem II that much of a deal killer? I'm sure the German ministers after a 3 year Fashoda war would see advantages in courting the British, even granting trade concessions. Just don't interrupt trade with channel ports and the British are fine with that right?

On the other hand, a 6 month Fashoda war (if this is what a short war is... I mean seriously 3 years is shorter than WW1 and War of Austiran Succession and barely longer than the Crimean War which was little more than a big expensive adventure from the British PoV), I can sort of seeing the 20th century resembling OTL. The Archduke assassination might be butterflied away, but the nationalists are not. With a Fashoda POD, I guess the only chance the Germans have it to court the Belgian king? There is another thread about the probability of the king letting them stroll through and the consensus was "not likely but possible." That was with a 1911 POD, I'm sure a Fashoda POD makes it more likely.

Also, what's wrong with the Black Hand blowing stuff up and the Austrians giving the Serbians an ultimatum? The nationalism is there. The Black hand is there. Austrian internal affairs is kind of weak. Seems plausible to me with a Fashoda POD. It doesn't have to happen, but it could.
 
You said UK would never ally with a hegemon Germany. Why is that? Is Willhiem II that much of a deal killer? I'm sure the German ministers after a 3 year Fashoda war would see advantages in courting the British, even granting trade concessions. Just don't interrupt trade with channel ports and the British are fine with that right?

One can overstate how good the British actually were at 'balance of power' politics, but one thing that is certain is that Britain had absolutely no desire for a European power to be able to focus its military resources beyond the continent, which is what a German hegemon could do. Even adroit German diplomacy cannot change this. This does not mean that relations have to be bad, Britain just is not going to support Germany's bid to dominate the region as that directly undermines their own interests. The real trick for an Anglo-German alliance is to find a scenario in which their interests align, which is not actually hard but it's a different process to just souring British relations with France.

On the other hand, a 6 month Fashoda war (if this is what a short war is... I mean seriously 3 years is shorter than WW1 and War of Austiran Succession and barely longer than the Crimean War which was little more than a big expensive adventure from the British PoV), I can sort of seeing the 20th century resembling OTL. The Archduke assassination might be butterflied away, but the nationalists are not. With a Fashoda POD, I guess the only chance the Germans have it to court the Belgian king? There is another thread about the probability of the king letting them stroll through and the consensus was "not likely but possible." That was with a 1911 POD, I'm sure a Fashoda POD makes it more likely.

Also, what's wrong with the Black Hand blowing stuff up and the Austrians giving the Serbians an ultimatum? The nationalism is there. The Black hand is there. Austrian internal affairs is kind of weak. Seems plausible to me with a Fashoda POD. It doesn't have to happen, but it could.

3 years of industrial war is an extremely long time. 3 years into WW1 and the European powers were already almost spent. A Fashoda war would not be that intense, but still sufficiently damaging that those powers that did not take part would be in a very good position.

It's never going to be 'likely' for the Belgian King to do that, but it's not impossible either. You'd just need to carefully construct the scenario. I don't see anything implausible as such in the Black Hand committing any given act of terrorism, but I just would not overstate how necessary it is for the broader scenario. Depends what story you want to write to be honest. It's not hard to make a scenario wherein early 20th century Europe goes to war, it just requires a bit of care. Fundamentally Europe did not want to go to war and only did when 2-3 powers perceived it as being absolutely necessary to their interests, which in turn only occurred after a very specific crisis. Certainly replicable, but it just needs to be constructed.
 
Top