The Triple Alliances

Let's say that the US does not get bitten by the Empire bug in the late 19th century remains isolated from alliances and interested on in enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine and trade only.

Might we see a world of three competing alliances instead of two - an Anglo-Japanese alliance with Japan having a free hand in the Philippines and North China/Manchuria, with mutual support elsewhere in China. Britain is navally dominant in the West and Japan in the East with neither vulnerable to invasion. The British cannot look to a more preferable friendship with the US.

We still have the Triple Alliance of Austria, Germany and Italy and the Dual Alliance between France and Russia.

France and Russia are the Anglo-Japanese competitors (in Africa, the Near East, the Middle East, the India frontier and in China). If Britain had a solid alliance with Japan which included an intervention in the Russo-Japanese war for example, ending hope of a rapproachment with Russia or France, how might Britain maintain a balance on the continent without it?
 
Having trouble with premise A - America is isolationist as regards alliances (as IOTL :confused:) leading to premise B - UK does not align with France and Russia.
 
Having trouble with premise A - America is isolationist as regards alliances (as IOTL :confused:) leading to premise B - UK does not align with France and Russia.

Alliance with Japan quickly began a liability as a looming confrontation between Japan and the US seemed likely (given the US interest in the Western Pacific because of the Philippines and the other former Spanish colonies). Britain sensibly picked not to piss of the US. If there was no pending US/Japanese conflict of interest in the Western Pacific (no Spanish-American War) then the Anglo-Japanese alliance had a lot to recommend it - at least in the early 20th century - and it might continue as a core British commitment...

That creates problems with Russia. But UK was split between continental concerns about Germany and its world wide conflicts of interest with France and Russia. I'm not sure whether an Anglo-Japanese alliance is enough to let British statesmen sleep at night.
 
Yes but the US' position on Japan did not impact UK decision making when US was aloof from alliances IOTL so why in an exactly similar timeline would it have a different impact?

UK might change its alliance structures if US was amenable to an alliance instead of Japan. It wouldn't be enough to prevent the UK alliance with France in my opinion (new triple alliance with France-USA-America?) but it might butterfly the alliance with Russia. Colonialism would be a stumbling point for the USA-UK-France alliance of course.

Might be enough to recreate the Three Emperor's?
 
Yes but the US' position on Japan did not impact UK decision making when US was aloof from alliances IOTL so why in an exactly similar timeline would it have a different impact?

UK might change its alliance structures if US was amenable to an alliance instead of Japan. It wouldn't be enough to prevent the UK alliance with France in my opinion (new triple alliance with France-USA-America?) but it might butterfly the alliance with Russia. Colonialism would be a stumbling point for the USA-UK-France alliance of course.

Might be enough to recreate the Three Emperor's?

If your ally is about to wake the US Giant you don't want to be standing next to him. If the US Giant is asleep and not around you are free to make friends.

The key to the OP here I think is that US has no interests in the Western Pacific with no Spanish American War so that reduces some of the inevitable tension between Japan and the US - maybe. Enough for Britain not to worry about a Japan/US confrontation in the near future.
 
Yes but the US' position on Japan did not impact UK decision making when US was aloof from alliances IOTL so why in an exactly similar timeline would it have a different impact?

UK might change its alliance structures if US was amenable to an alliance instead of Japan. It wouldn't be enough to prevent the UK alliance with France in my opinion (new triple alliance with France-USA-America?) but it might butterfly the alliance with Russia. Colonialism would be a stumbling point for the USA-UK-France alliance of course.

Might be enough to recreate the Three Emperor's?

An isolationist US does not make war on Spain and so has less interest in the Western Pacific. If Japan takes the Philippines it may sait Japan hunger for resources for a time. If there little obvious hostility between Japan and the US, Britain will feel happier maintaining and cultivating the Japanese alliance. If any future enemy is European (inc Russian) Britain can forget about everything between Singapore and Hawaii and leave it to the Japanese.

If your ally is about to wake the US Giant you don't want to be standing next to him. If the US Giant is asleep and not around you are free to make friends.

The key to the OP here I think is that US has no interests in the Western Pacific with no Spanish American War so that reduces some of the inevitable tension between Japan and the US - maybe. Enough for Britain not to worry about a Japan/US confrontation in the near future.

TKI stop reading and go do some writing!!! This is basically what I am talking about.
 
I think that the US still would want to trade in China but lets put that aside.

About tree separate allied groups:
Its essential that Brittains main concern isnt Germany or have some unsolvable difference with either France or Russia.

The first: the german fleet plans make it sure that they are the number one enemy of the Brittish. Butterfly away the german fleet and have a Germany focused in Europe were it has no problem with the British. It wont ally with the british because it has no intention going into war with France and Russia because of british interest (not before he feels treatened by the growth of russian military but than its not only a british interest).

For number two: make Russia win the Russo-Japanese war and annex Manchuria and maybe Korea. This puts the british in a really dificult position in the far east: They have a defeated and so practically useless Japan as an ally and they still want to check Russian expansion in China but have no way to really do it. This might be enough not to make an entente with Russia.

So in the first case you have three allied groups - two of them hostile to the third but because of really different reasons which makes it so they wont merge to a single group.

The second case is evryone against everyone.
 
That's a good point. Once you butterfly away the High Seas Fleet and make Germany a Bismarckian Continental power they and Britain have a lot of reasons to get cosy - see the Anglo-German Treaty for the division of Portugal's Empire in the event of debt default.

However Britain is still going to have an Antwerp/Belgium obsession. If France and Germany are playing for control of Belgium then Britain has a good reason to see that no body wins.

I am not sure you need a Russian victory in the Russo-Japanese War. Just an excuse for Britain to get involved. It is hard to underestimate British paranoia about Russia invading Afghanistan/India even though its the Sealion of the Victorian/Edwardian age!
 
But you run into the problem that Colonies are the "Cool" thing to have at that moments. So a Germany that has more people, more industry and a rising prestige will also want colonies.
And with colonies goes the fleet... I think someone had done something like that, let me think... oh, yes the British and their Empire!

So you see the problem. The times favored the colonial grabbing by the big players. So how do you suppose to get the Germans out of it?

On the other hand, the German Navy may be a thing that the British can influence directly! Simply do not do the stoopid thing and threaten a rising Great Power with blockade :eek:.
In that you could construct an understanding with Germany to limit its expansion. To what degree is open for negotiation. But a vailed pointer towards France and Russia may do the trick.


Then to Russia. Winning the naval part with Japan Imo is realy hard. But freaky things happen in RL. So some more training better inteligence or whatever. That would Imo also influence the land side of things.
So when the Russians come back to Europe with the Victory, be it tactical or strategic, they would realisticaly focus more on the asian side of things. But still the Pan-Slav-Question may bring conflict with A-H and Germany.
And thus a viable road for France to get a Entente.


With the Japanese with a slight loss vs. Russia I think they would focus again onto the Alliance. Esp. if Britain intervened diplomaticaly for them. Thus it would lose the early impetous for the Asian Domination thing. Maybe not forever. But probably for some time (the Japanese got into the deep end after WWI and later Imo).
Thus you Butterfly the US interest with them. Regardless of the Philipines. So they could be in the isolationist state longer.
 
The colonies equals big navy argument is an interesting one. I accept without reservation that far flung colonies require a certain size of navy as a bare minimum for defence. However they do not require the High Seas Fleet.

Belgium holds the Congo, Portugal has holdings of the west and east coasts of Africa, India, Macao and Timor, the Dutch have the East Indies, West Indies and Suriname. What were the comparative sizes of their fleets by comparison. The High Seas Fleet seems an excessive force for colonial defence. Its only concievable purpose is a direct confrontation with the Royal Navy in its home waters. I think we just need to redirect some German martial energy away from their Navy.
 
No doubt Belgium and Portugal had smaller navies. They were smaller in population and industry too.
On he other hand again iggnored is the fact that the British themself "forced" the Germans into the navy bussines. Threats towards blockading ones coast do that, you know.

And the other two powers, eg. France and Russia, had navies themself. The German one was overblown for both, esp. after the Kaiser Wilhelm Kanal was build. But you know Nationalism and such...
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Then to Russia. Winning the naval part with Japan Imo is realy hard. But freaky things happen in RL. So some more training better inteligence or whatever. That would Imo also influence the land side of things.
So when the Russians come back to Europe with the Victory, be it tactical or strategic, they would realisticaly focus more on the asian side of things. But still the Pan-Slav-Question may bring conflict with A-H and Germany.
And thus a viable road for France to get a Entente.


With the Japanese with a slight loss vs. Russia I think they would focus again onto the Alliance. Esp. if Britain intervened diplomaticaly for them. Thus it would lose the early impetous for the Asian Domination thing. Maybe not forever. But probably for some time (the Japanese got into the deep end after WWI and later Imo).
Thus you Butterfly the US interest with them. Regardless of the Philipines. So they could be in the isolationist state longer.


Getting Russia to win the naval war is difficult but not impossible. They had made many mistakes, many of them correctable especially pre-war.

1) They didn't immediately begin building up their navy after the Sino-Japanese War when Japan emerged as a threat to their interests but waited until 1898

2) Stretched out the completion of the program until 1905 from its scheduled conclusion in 1903

3) cut back on training of the Pacific fleet to save money They also didn't buy telescopic lenses for the fleet resulting in their poor gunnery

4) Didn't buy the new melenite shells when the French came up with them (their shells had about a 1/6th of the power of a Japanese shell)

5) Didn't buy two Argentine armored cruisers that the Argentines offered them and let Japan buy them instead

As for the actual fighting- let's say the Petropavlosk doesn't hit a mine saving Admiral Makarov and the Japanese lose the Shikishima in May when the three battleships run into the minefield instead of just the two. This should allow the Russians to make good their escape from Port Arthur. Vladivostok is ice bound for four months but its unblockadable, so the Russians are going to make Japan's life hell if they get there. More likely Makarov would be doing a lot of interference prolonging the siege.

The Asahi hits a mine in December and with luck she could go down as well.

Of course, if Kuroptkain wasn't so cautious, the Russians would have won a crushing victory at Liaoyang and the siege would have been lifted ensuring the safe arrival of the Baltic Fleet

This requires a lot to go right for Russia but not so much as to make it ASB
 

LordKalvert

Banned
The diplomatic situation before the Russo-Japanese War is a disaster for the British. They had at least begun to climb down from their ridiculously overextended position- accepting American domination of the Western Hemisphere was the first

But in the Old World, she is in real bad shape. The continental powers had pretty much reconciled themselves and tensions were minimal. Austria and Russia had reached an accord over the Balkans, France and Italy were moving closer together having settled their North African disputes. A Franco-Italian alliance would have meant the end of the British presence in the Mediterranean (especially as Spain was openly hostile- which might be muted if there hadn't been a Spanish American War) The Sultan had moved to the rather interesting position that he was likely to help the Russians and the French against the British but the Germans and the Austrians against the Russians

The Boer war had sunk British German relations to the pits and the Germans had little use for the British at this point (they had no desire to fight the French and the Russians to promote British interests)

The response was clever but chancy- first, they sought to contain the Russians in the Far East and hopefully draw them back into Europe to put pressure on the Germans while at the same time detaching France from Russia

This works only because Japan wins the war in the East. Britain can't really help the Japanese by intervening. If the Russians were victorious, they couldn't risk a war with France as that would disturb the balance of power of Europe and they are likely to pay a high price without German support. The Germans would be delighted to let the French, Russians and British have a war- the ideal situation from Tirpirtz's point of view

France would never abandon a victorious Russia. Only Russian weakness by defeat and revolution allows the Entente to occur. Otherwise, the Russians will get the French to sign off on Bjorko- any French statesman is going to pick the 100 Russian divisions over the six British ones

As for an Anglo-Japanese counter- even if Japan isn't defeated, her position in the Far East is collapsing- which is why she goes to war in 1904. Wait a year, and the Borodino class battleships are finished, the circum Baikal link is built and the Russians have secured themselves

The "let's all unite, sink the British fleet and divvy up her Empire" crowd on the continent might become quite loud
 
Top