Hypothetical World War One WI: Britain and France on different sides

Not entirely true, there were talks about the naval buildup during this period (For instance IIRC 1906-1907, but by that point the relationship between Britain and Germany was already bad.) Obviously Germany would have to accept a larger Royal Navy, but Germany, if they negotiate well, could be allowed to have the largest fleet of continental Europe. Furthermore as an ally, Britain might be more willing to allow Germany, some of the colonies they so desperately wanted.
Not only the naval buildup, but also colonial ambitions, caused tensions between Britain and Germany. Both these policies were popular in Germany, but they also made Britain suspicious.
Britain felt threatened and Germany became increasingly frustrated* by the fact, that they couldn't fullfil their ambitions. (*=Italy, the other New European Great Power had similar problems)

Maybe a better and earlier diplomacy could take away some of these problems. The best way to go is a POD as early as possible, because both sides got entrenched in their own views. So this might take a POD before 1900.

So what you're saying is is that I'm right but you're just feeling pedantic, so you're going to assume an unspecified pre 1900 POD that somehow with "better and earlier diplomacy" would somehow invalidate my arguments.

Simply put, most of Germany's long term goals were exactly what Britain didn't want. They wanted to be the sole superpower on the continent, something Britain could not stand for, the entire british diplomacy at the time was for maintaing the balance of power on the mainland. Germany wanted a strong navy, that could fight the RN, something Britain obviously wouldn't stand for. They wanted colonies, again something that Britain wasn't pleased with.
 
So what you're saying is is that I'm right but you're just feeling pedantic, so you're going to assume an unspecified pre 1900 POD that somehow with "better and earlier diplomacy" would somehow invalidate my arguments.

Simply put, most of Germany's long term goals were exactly what Britain didn't want. They wanted to be the sole superpower on the continent, something Britain could not stand for, the entire british diplomacy at the time was for maintaing the balance of power on the mainland. Germany wanted a strong navy, that could fight the RN, something Britain obviously wouldn't stand for. They wanted colonies, again something that Britain wasn't pleased with.

If you want a year, it could be in 1888 with two scenarios. Either Frederick III survives, who was liberal and could have improved German-British relations. The other scenario is Wilhelm II, who always had a really complicated love-hate-relation with Britain. He loved (he could be considered a Anglophile), admired, but also envied the British Empire.
His love for the navy, actually was stimulated by his British mother (eldest daughter of queen Victoria). Furthermore Britain became more opposed to these German ambitions, when the reign of Wilhelm II progressed. Early on during the reign of Wilhelm II, Germany and Britain were considering an alliance as an option.

About the pedantic part, the main problem is the no navy of any significance part; denying Germany a Navy was unacceptable for Germany and this British attitude wasn't appreciated in Germany (really an understatement). The same goes for the colonial part. The other European Great Powers also didn't like these British policies; it wasn't an uniquely German complaint.

Anyway any hope for such an alliance would mean a more modest Germany, but also British concessions. They have to meet each other somewhere in the middle, to make this possible; which admittedly isn't likely, but it is required to make such an alliance possible.

Finally most of the British colonial problems with Germany, also apply to France and Russia; the Russian ambitions in Central- and East Asia conflicted with the British interests and Britain and France had some colonial issues in Africa. So Britain and Germany growing closer together, which initially was quite popular among a lot of Germans and Britons, is not impossible either.
The naval build up is another thing, but since the German army also felt that the German navy got a to large share of the defense budget, an arrangement could be made. IIRC the British foreign office seemed to have suggested to Wilhlem II (in IIRC 1906/1907) a parity of 5 Royal Navy ships for 3 German ships (IIRC this suggestion was made by Hardinge), however Wilhelm II angrily claimed that Britain exaggerated about the size of the German navy. Which can partly be explained by the fact that both sides didn't trust eachother anymore, to much had happened between 1888 and 1907.
 
Last edited:
All of this would take a POD *well* before 1900 and probably before the mid-1880s. One thing that might have led to a France-Austria alliance from the mid-19th. century on would have been if Napoleon III & Archduke Maximillian's Mexican venture, which was meant to be the first step in a France-Austria-Spain Catholic alliance to challenge Anglo-American domination in the New World and Prussian dominance of Europe, had been more successful. Now, how you would make that venture succeed I have no idea, as it was one of the less well thought out and more doomed to failure projects in history, but if it had and the Franco-Austria alliance not been stillborn, it's probable that the European Alliances, and therefore any big European war of the late 19th-early 20th. century would have looked a lot different. Perhaps if the Civil War had turned out differently, leaving the USA in less of a position to challenge Maximillian and equip Juarez's revolutionaries. Assuming that the Maximillian scheme had succeeded, you'd see an Alliance system something like this, with more of a split along religious lines:

Catholic Entente:
France & Empire
Austria-Hungary & Empire
Spain
Irish Republicans (whose rebellions would be financed & supplied by the Franco-Austrian alliance)
Mexico
Any other New World Entente colonies
Russia (join in Alliance against Germany, Japan & Ottoman Empire)

Protestant Alliance:
Great Britain & Empire
Germany
USA
Japan (ally of Britain in Pacific as in OTL, also could challenge Spain in Pacific)
Ottoman Empire (join against Russia)
Italy (desire for territory from Austria & France trumping religion)

The CSA would be a wildcard in this timeline, assuming they survived in some form. They might join the French alliance against the USA, but then it's also possible that the USA & CSA could mend fences & unite against Mexico, possibly even with the promise of new slave states being carved out of Mexican territory for the CSA.

Well, that's a complex timeline with a lot of changes, but among others it does accomplish the goal of putting Britain and France on opposite sides of the alliance system, even though WWI would have been a lot different in this TL (if Maximillian had survived, I don't even know if Franz Ferdinand would have been the heir to the Hapsburg throne, let alone have been assassinated). Probably the Anglo-German alliance would still come out on top.

A simpler POD from the 1870s-1880s would be to have Germany's ruler have more of a desire to simply dominate Europe without looking to be a Naval/Colonial power on level with Britain, while France focuses on building up their Navy and Empire. That way, you'd get a naval arms race between Britain and France, while Germany would be a logical ally for Britain on the continent.
 
The problem for a pre 1900 POD comes with the year 1901, when Edward is crowned. He was very much against any kind of alliance with Germany and he severly disliked Wilhelm, who he saw as a warmonger, and once the Entente Cordiale was signed in 1904, the chance of a anglo-german alliance was dead.

Even if the British and the Germans sign something before Edward becomes king, it's still a long time until the war, it's unlikely the alliance will hold to the double blow that would be Edward on the throne and the 1904 treaties, that settled without war all the issues between France and Britain in Africa.
 
The problem for a pre 1900 POD comes with the year 1901, when Edward is crowned. He was very much against any kind of alliance with Germany and he severly disliked Wilhelm, who he saw as a warmonger, and once the Entente Cordiale was signed in 1904, the chance of a anglo-german alliance was dead.

Even if the British and the Germans sign something before Edward becomes king, it's still a long time until the war, it's unlikely the alliance will hold to the double blow that would be Edward on the throne and the 1904 treaties, that settled without war all the issues between France and Britain in Africa.

Where did you hear that about Edward? I ask because I've read that he & Wilhelm were quite friendly, at least in their youth. Also, since any alliance between Germany & Britain would naturally antagonize France, it's unlikely that the 1904 treaties would have gone ahead had there been an Anglo-German alliance. For a France-Britain war around the time of WWI, there has to be a definite POD in the mid to late 19th. century, and then pretty much everything has to happen differently after that. The war probably wouldn't even be WWI as we know it, but Europe was due for a major war by the beginning of the 20th. century.
 
Where did you hear that about Edward? I ask because I've read that he & Wilhelm were quite friendly, at least in their youth. Also, since any alliance between Germany & Britain would naturally antagonize France, it's unlikely that the 1904 treaties would have gone ahead had there been an Anglo-German alliance. For a France-Britain war around the time of WWI, there has to be a definite POD in the mid to late 19th. century, and then pretty much everything has to happen differently after that. The war probably wouldn't even be WWI as we know it, but Europe was due for a major war by the beginning of the 20th. century.

Wilhelm could get along quite well with Edward, but they also had their differences. The problems got worse with Wilhelm and George, since they were totally different characters. However OTOH the British Royals never had the same level of influence on the policies of their country as their continental cousins, but they didn't like admitting that. In short a strong German chancellor* and a successful British prime minister could bring and keep those countries together, even when the relations between the Royal families become worse. Besides they already had one thing in common, where they could talk about;): how to clean up the mess of a monarch:p. (*= Difficult with a kaiser like Wilhelm II)
 
Last edited:
To change the late German Empire you need a longer reign of Friedrich and/or a not handicapped Wilhelm (and so loved by his mother).
 
Since this is primarily about Britain vs. France, how about a novel idea: Germany plays the role of the USA, staying neutral for most of it and then joins one side or the other 1 year before the war is over?
 
How about something similarly strange; Germany and France team up (after some post-1871 rapprochement and some solution regarding A-L) against Britain?

- Kelenas
 
To change the late German Empire you need a longer reign of Friedrich and/or a not handicapped Wilhelm (and so loved by his mother).

How 'bout just have him die before he gets married, and have his brother Henry come to the throne instead?
 
How about something similarly strange; Germany and France team up (after some post-1871 rapprochement and some solution regarding A-L) against Britain?

- Kelenas

Now that is even more strange than a British German alliance, which actually was popular among some Germans and Britons; for some groups it was even important that the English and Germans both have a Germanic origin.
Germany and France, would never be as close, especially because of Alsace-Lorraine, but the Germans also had some bad memories about the French in previous centuries. However a common enemy and goal can make an alliance possible, but only as long as it serves both their interests.
 
Last edited:
France and Britain in different alliance camps? Unlikely the war would even start. France only felt the confidence to take Germany on in WWI after seeing it had both Russian and British support. Now Im not saying war wouldnt happen; it might with the right allingement of diplomatic conditions, but France in 1914. is inferior to both Britain and Germany in warmaking capabilities. The war would be short.
 
Since this is primarily about Britain vs. France, how about a novel idea: Germany plays the role of the USA, staying neutral for most of it and then joins one side or the other 1 year before the war is over?

Ooh, now that is a very interesting idea. :D Unfortunately, it'll probably require a different cause for WWI.

To change the late German Empire you need a longer reign of Friedrich and/or a not handicapped Wilhelm (and so loved by his mother).

Yeah, either would probably be quite beneficial. ;)

Now that is even more strange than a British German alliance, which actually was popular among some Germans and Britons; for some groups it was even important that the English and Germans both have a Germanic origin.
Germany and France, would never be as close, especially because of Alsace-Lorraine, but the Germans also had some bad memories about the French in previous centuries. However a common enemy and goal can make an alliance possible, but only as long as it serves both their interests.

Actually, not necessarily. Technically, both France and Germany are something like splinter states of the Charlemagne's Frankish empire, and the south German states (in particularly Bavaria) had been friendly with France across large stretches. However, with the developments of the 19th century, especially the Franco-Prussian War, a French-German alliance is virtually impossible, unfortunately. If you include changes prior 1870/71, the chances are unfortunately this may butterfly away WWI as we know it. But, I must say, a French-German alliance would be something like a "dream team" for me in WWI, but it just doesn't work out... ;)
 
The bad German memories I was referring to, was the fact that France, in the course of their history, had expanded westward taking over parts of the empire; furthermore some may even have felt that France had diplomatically supported the division of and in Germany.
Most reasons seem rather silly to us nowadays, but this was the age of nationalism. Why do you think that Alsace-Lorraine was important to both French and Germans, even though the German also had strategic (military) motives.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Need a PoD before 1900. For an Anglo- German alliance Friedrich III must live longer.

But I could see an interesting WW1 be something like this:

Entente:
France
Italy
Russia
Serbia
Romania

Allies:
Britain
Germany
Japan
Austria- Hungary
Bulgaria
 
How 'bout just have him die before he gets married, and have his brother Henry come to the throne instead?

Heinrich was more modest and friendly than Wilhelm, but no one should forget that even Wilhelm was influenced by a lot of flattering, which wasn't uncommon with monarchs. People also tended to treat the British Royal family differently.
So depending at which age Heinrich becomes the heir and on his personality, this will have an effect on his development. However Heinrich was more popular with his foreign Royal relatives including the British Royal family.

Furthermore Heinrich is probably more willing to leave a larger part of the governing to his chancellor.
 
Last edited:
One interesting question would be what happens if Wilhelm and Heinrich's younge brothers lived.What effect would they have on them? And perhaps more intriguingly what role would they play in the state? Heinrich was admiral in charge of the Baltic, maybe one of the others would have become a general? If you look at Bavaria, for example, you had not only the Crown Prince leading an army group, but also his uncle. Maybe you could have that here? And maybe the fact that his younger brother is a general woujld have some bearing on Wilhelm's thought processes...


Just an idea

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top