Greatest British Foregin Policy Disasters

What was Britain's greatest foreign policy disaster?

  • Entente Cordial

    Votes: 20 7.5%
  • Taking part in arms races

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Entering First World War

    Votes: 37 13.9%
  • Over reliance on US loans

    Votes: 21 7.9%
  • Appeasement

    Votes: 67 25.1%
  • Not forming a stronger Commonwealth Union

    Votes: 38 14.2%
  • The Suez Crisis

    Votes: 51 19.1%
  • Resisting European integration

    Votes: 13 4.9%
  • Intervention in Civil Wars (Greek, Russia, etc.)

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Attempting to maintain colonial relations over countries

    Votes: 6 2.2%
  • Other - please state

    Votes: 12 4.5%

  • Total voters
    267

BooNZ

Banned
My guess would be that those choosing it are at least sympathetic to the Ferguson Thesis that Britain need not and should not have fought alongside France and Russia in the First World War. Might even be channelling the Chris Clark Sleepwalkers idea that Britain's commitment to the Entente emboldened France and Russia to support Serbia while Grey's prevarications over whether Britain would join France left Germany willing to take the risk of invading Belgium.

Indeed I voted for the Entente and have both Sleepwalkers and The Pity of war on my bookshelf. I was equally influenced by Dreadnaught (R K Massie), which illustrates decisions are ultimately made by individuals, not a borg-like consciousness. The British decision to align with France and Russia had more to do with the Francophile views of a select few decision makers than any strategic logic.

OTL it was in the collective interest of both Britain and the CP powers to maintain the status quo in Europe. The same could not be said of France or Russia, which openly sought adjustments in A-L and the Balkans/ straights. Avoiding the Entente would mean Britain (and perhaps Europe) either avoid WW1 entirely, or alternatively, Britain is only required to perform light duties for the CP powers. Either way, Britain would emerge from an alternate WW1 stronger than before.

As far as overall negative impact on Britain and empire, no other foreign policy decision comes close - even appeasement.
 
Avoiding the Entente would mean Britain (and perhaps Europe) either avoid WW1 entirely, or alternatively, Britain is only required to perform light duties for the CP powers. Either way, Britain would emerge from an alternate WW1 stronger than before.

As far as overall negative impact on Britain and empire, no other foreign policy decision comes close - even appeasement.

Apart from the Channel coast being the frontline; a major colonial war in Africa; battles over Caribbean islands, Gibraltar, Malta etc; Quebec; the US having to choose between Britain and France...
 

BooNZ

Banned
Apart from the Channel coast being the frontline; a major colonial war in Africa; battles over Caribbean islands, Gibraltar, Malta etc; Quebec; the US having to choose between Britain and France...

The Royal Navy alone could clearly dominate both the French and Russian naval forces - throw in the HSF, the A-H navy and in all likelihood the Japanese and Italian navies... So essentially, Britain might need to fight a low intensity war in Africa with all its might against a few colonial French forces, cut off from France.

Given the above algebra, I imagine France would have the good sense not to back Russia in any Balkan antics.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
I hereby deny that choice made sense - done

So, over the closure of the prospect of colonial war with Russia [which it did] you believe the British in 1906-1914 should have chosen an alliance with Turkey, a state that was believed to be on its last legs [actually the old regime was]?
 

BooNZ

Banned
So, over the closure of the prospect of colonial war with Russia [which it did] you believe the British in 1906-1914 should have chosen an alliance with Turkey, a state that was believed to be on its last legs [actually the old regime was]?

The British were never in an alliance with the Russians. After the Russians were humiliated by the Japanese, the prospects of an Anglo-Russian war were not exactly intimidating. But yes, there was at least no prospect of the Ottomans dragging Britain into a continental war against the most effective army on the planet.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I find it bemusing to see how many people consider the Suez Crisis a greater Foreign policy disaster than 'not' preventing the rise of Nazi Germany by opposing it far earlier resulting in a smashed and divided Europe dominated by the USA on one side and Russia on the other and a bankrupted British Empire.

Suez was nothing compared to this.

Yes, in respect of the Suez, it appears to be a case of shooting the messenger. The decisions that cause the British decline are clearly of little importance.

In respect of the 'appeasement' option, I am bemused by the rationale - not so much sticking by Poland, but more sticking it to Nazi Germany before they got too strong. Curiously, in 1946 Nuremburg called wars of aggression (prima facie including pre-emptive and preventative wars) as 'the supreme international crime'.

Would it be appropriate to invoke Godwin's law? :D
 
Would it really have been possible to have both turkey and Russia as allies in ww1? Any more than France and Germany?

At least the neutrality was possible. Djemal Pasha is said to want an alliance with the French and the Sultan wanted to be neutral.
 
Top