Plausible costs of a *primarily colonial* great power war, 1871-1945 ?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Particularly up until the establishment of the Triple Entente in 1907,
a great power war between Britain on the one side and either a
coalition of Russia and France, or one of the two individually, was
within the realm of plausibility. Africa and the oceans would have
been the main theaters of Anglo-French conflict, and Asia would have
been the main theater of Anglo-Russian conflict.

In a war with Russia and/or France, would it have been at all
plausible or probable that
military circumstances could lead to Britain losing:


908,400 military KIA
2,090,250 wounded
31,000 civilian casualties
$60 billion expenditure


...or more


In a war with Britain, would it have been at all plausible or probable
for Russian losses to equal or exceed these figures:


1,700,000 military KIA
5,000,000 wounded
2,000,000 civilian casualties
$26 billion expenditure


In a war with Britain, would it have been at all plausible or probable
for French losses to equal or exceed these figures:


1,358,000 military KIA
4,350,000 wounded
40,000 civilian casualties
$49 billion expenditure
 
Particularly up until the establishment of the Triple Entente in 1907,
a great power war between Britain on the one side and either a
coalition of Russia and France, or one of the two individually, was
within the realm of plausibility. Africa and the oceans would have
been the main theaters of Anglo-French conflict, and Asia would have
been the main theater of Anglo-Russian conflict.

In a war with Russia and/or France, would it have been at all
plausible or probable that
military circumstances could lead to Britain losing:


908,400 military KIA
2,090,250 wounded
31,000 civilian casualties
$60 billion expenditure


...or more


In a war with Britain, would it have been at all plausible or probable
for Russian losses to equal or exceed these figures:


1,700,000 military KIA
5,000,000 wounded
2,000,000 civilian casualties
$26 billion expenditure


In a war with Britain, would it have been at all plausible or probable
for French losses to equal or exceed these figures:


1,358,000 military KIA
4,350,000 wounded
40,000 civilian casualties
$49 billion expenditure

Are those figures from WWI or what?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes, these are WWI figures...

derived from a "World Atlas of Military History, 1861-1945"
 
The costs - human and monetary - of such a war would be utterly dwarfed by OTL World War One, much less Two. You can't kill that many people in naval battles, because you can't get that many onto the boats in the first place. You can't have a continuous bleeding stalemate because fleet actions are too decisive. The colonies can see many deaths, but the fighting will mostly be over very quickly - not long after the British get naval dominance and land in force.

If your POD is war breaking out, then Britain will win. Period. At no time in the period were the two combined capable of defeating Britain in the colonies or on the seas, which is where the war would take place. If you want to see a British loss, you need to arrange an earlier point of divergence.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
"The costs - human and monetary - of such a war would be utterly dwarfed by OTL World War One, much less Two."

Perhaps this is an illustration that for Britain, France and Russia, but especially Britain, embracing a policy of the Triple Entente, while simultaneously having no Entente with the Central Powers, was bloody costly."

Britain in large part moved to unconditionally support France and Russia in Europe because it did not want the Entente to collapse. But if it had collapsed, and turned on Britain, the resulting war could not have been as nasty for the UK as the real WWI. I think the same is true the other way around, ....assuming Germany stays our, France and Russia would not have gotten as hurt fighting Britain as they were hurt fighting Germany and Austria.

You can't kill that many people in naval battles, because you can't get that many onto the boats in the first place. You can't have a continuous bleeding stalemate because fleet actions are too decisive. The colonies can see many deaths, but the fighting will mostly be over very quickly - not long after the British get naval dominance and land in force.


Fair points, although in discussing this concept someone pointed out that air battles between Britain and France could get pretty nasty, depending on how much a fight escalates.



If your POD is war breaking out, then Britain will win. Period. At no time in the period were the two combined capable of defeating Britain in the colonies or on the seas, which is where the war would take place.

And it would beat Russia, France, or a combination, achieving more territorial gain at less cost than in OTL's WWI.

If the initial coalition is Franco-Russian versus British, with Germany neutral at the outset, how would both sides treat Germany?

ISTM that a Franco-Russian vs. Britain war, in which Germany manages to actually remain neutral, leaves Germany with alot of power potential after the war, but at the same time, with its continental enemies weak, it might not be that interested in overt aggression against anyone.


If you want to see a British loss, you need to arrange an earlier point of divergence.

that's not really my point.
 
Top