What could bring 19th century Germany closer to the UK?

[wolf_brother]

Boulanger seizes power. The Franco-British entente disintegrates, especially once Boulanger begins to push an aggressive colonial policy in Africa and Asia, while Wilhelm II begins to adopt a more Bismarck-esque line of foreign policy - at least in relation to France. It helps that Wilhelm was an Anglophile to begin with.

 

[Eurofed]

There could ensue a situation where Eurasia would be devided between an Anglo-German and a Franco-Russian led alliance, with Italy switching sides.

In such a scenario, Italy would all but surely stay bound to the Anglo-German alliance, and plan to pick Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunis in a general war.

 

[Simon]

A liberal British ruler of Hanover could be offered the German throne by the Frankfurt Parliament.

Are you talking about Ernest Augustus I of Hanover or not ending the personal union when Wilhelm I dies? Ernest Augustus was hardly a liberal, although compared to the Prussians he and his offspring might well be, although he did seem to mellow with age somewhat whilst still possibly having the requisite dictatorialness to do the job. As Falastur mentioned the British government wouldn't want to be dragged into European affairs and I don't think the German states would be interested in a personal union as if you're unifying then you want an Emperor who's on the spot as it were.

Is there any way outside of Larry the Alien Space Bat that we could get Ernest Augustus invited to become German Emperor by the Frankfurt Parliament and make it stick? As that I think would make for a rather interesting timeline.

 

[Janprimus]

I agree with you there...having Frederick III last longer as Kaiser could draw Germany more liberal, and possibly lead to signing some kind of naval armament treaty to diffuse tensions from the UK. Let's say he lasts a decade or two, or assumes the throne earlier from his predecessor, what kinds of changes would you reasonably expect from him?
(...)

Well the OTL event that destroyed relations between the UK and Germany was Germany's attempts to one up their navy. If that didnt happen (and if you kill Wilhelm and replace him with someone less stupid) then Germany likely would maintain friendly relations with Britain.

Boulanger seizes power. The Franco-British entente disintegrates, especially once Boulanger begins to push an aggressive colonial policy in Africa and Asia, while Wilhelm II begins to adopt a more Bismarck-esque line of foreign policy - at least in relation to France. It helps that Wilhelm was an Anglophile to begin with.

Ironically Wilhelm II (and Friedrich III) was an Anglophile, and though he certainly wasn't a good diplomat, I wouldn't call him an idiot, at least no more than tsar Nicolas II and king George, he did have a different character, more bombastic and impetuous; in that regard he might embody a part of the only recently re-united German Empire, which partly felt they needed to make up for the time they lost. And like his cousins he could be vain too and listen to bad advisors.

Besides it wasn't only the navy build up, however entering a naval arms race with the super power, which power was based on the navy, wasn't smart.
Denying the German Empire a decent would be unwise and rather arrogant of the UK (that latter sentiment wasn't unique for the German Empire), some navy partity treaty could have been possible; at best the UK could tolerate a German Navy, which was the largest from continental Europe, yet smaller than the Royal Navy. Furthermore it wasn't just about size, but also about the types of ships and the distribution of these types.

Another point is the fact that the German Empire had also become an Economic Super Power with a more modern industry than the UK.

Possible. Although that raises the question why Germany wants to support Britain - as in, what does it get for this?

Would make an interesting timeline, I think.

This obviously is the important question, they will only support each other, if they both benefit from it. Just having the German Empire following the UK in issues like the navy and colonies, is very unlikely and unrealistic, if the German Empire doesn't get anything in return.

true but it was largly a result of his push for german unification...he may not have wanted it, but he did start it all

I disagree and agree with Elfwine, it were the Post-Bismarckian German policies, which lead to the position of the German Empire becoming increasingly isolated, something which Bismarck always wanted to avoid.
Furthermore Bismarck didn't push for German Unification, his hand was forced in order to ensure Prussian interests. Let's not forget, it was the age of nationalism, Italy was also only recently unified. These events did alter the balance of power, but that doesn't necessarily have turned out to be a bad thing.

 

[Grey Wolf]

A Willy who dies at birth might do it - of course it would butterfly almost everything else, but Heinrich is not going to have Wili's inferiority complex and the way that Wilhelm manifested his defiance of his disability.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Know Nothing]

An early POD where somehow France gains the entirety of Belgium or it is partitioned between Netherlands and France would ensure the continuation of the Franco-British rivalry. Then if Prussia can still pursue the same path to German unification that it did in OTL, a long-term arrangement between Britain and Germany may be plausible.

 

[JJohnson]

Grey Wolf, good point on Prince Henry. Ditto wolf_brother on Boulanger. Two people I didn't know about, and would need to research.

How about Wilhelm II not surviving, leading Heinrich to ascend the throne, following a longer and possibly earlier serving Frederick III, along with Boulanger getting the Presidency of France? Could something happen to Wilhelm I to give the throne to Frederick?

Heinrich sounds like a much better choice for Kaiser, and from the wiki article, sounded like a much more popular person in northern Germany. Perhaps he, then a surviving Prince Sigismund to follow, would be the way to go Kaiser-wise.

I'm hoping to start the POD around 1848 at the absolute earliest. Perhaps something where the Frankfurt Convention fails, but leaves an impression later with Heinrich and Sigismund somehow, through their staff who were at the convention, who raise the boys day-to-day? (I'm not 100% up on how royalty raises their children). Perhaps the freedoms and rights of the convention seep into the boys' upbringing and help guide them more towards the British model of governance, while Boulanger stews, schemes to ally with Russia, and uses some excuse to ignite a 'great war' by the 20th century some time?

Kaiser-wise, perhaps something like this?
-Wilhelm I, 1871-1879*
-Frederick III, 1879-1899*
-Heinrich I, 1899-1929
-Wilhelm II, 1929-1945
-Sigismund, 1945-1978
-no idea afterwards

 

[Citizen Samuel]

I think fundamentally, there's very little one could do.

Germany by the turn of the 20th century had an economy bigger than Britain. German elites saw a large colonial empire and navy as only appropriate for a country of their size and influence. I don't know how you could avoid conflict without Germany having unnecessarily small ambitions.

 

[wietze]

How about the Fashoda incident cause a true conflict?It might not make the british think less friendly about the germans, but there is a big chance it might stimulate them forming an alliance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashoda_incident

 

[Detlef]

I think fundamentally, there's very little one could do.

Germany by the turn of the 20th century had an economy bigger than Britain. German elites saw a large colonial empire and navy as only appropriate for a country of their size and influence. I don't know how you could avoid conflict without Germany having unnecessarily small ambitions.

Concerning colonies:
- By 1890 to 1900 the race for colonies was practically over.
- Not all of the German elites were that fond of colonies. Bismarck in the 1880s would be an example. The simple point is that the German colonies did cost money and never attracted much German settlement (IIRC only Togo shortly before WW1 even managed a balanced budget.).
Which is one reason why the Reichstag in the early 1900s finally lost patience. Till then responsibility for colonies had been divided between several government departments (foreign minister, navy, army...). Only in 1907 IIRC was an independent colonial department created to have one authority responsible to the Reichstag. And finally coordinating things in the colonies.

Simply put, yes , colonies will happen. But I don´t think the British saw the German colonies ever as a threat? French colonial ambitions in Africa or Russian ambitions in Asia however...
(Which seems to be one reason why some British politicians favored an alliance with France+Russia?)

Cooperation with friendly powers, even an exchange of colonies certainly is possible. Especially with an Emperor like Frederick III or Heinrich I.

Concerning the navy:
- A larger navy will certainly happen. Germany won´t want a repeat of 1864 or 1870/71 when the Danish or French navy would have been able to blockade Germany.
- Without Wilhelm II however some of the "urge" for a really large navy will be gone. Both the conservative parties and the Social Democrats after all initially opposed the Tirpitz naval laws. With Frederick III or Heinrich I some sort of formal / informal agreement with the British might be possible. Some of the saved (naval) money might be used to enlarge the army?
Of course that depends partly on the British too.

 

[JJohnson]

Another side effect would be the Windsor last name would still be 'von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha' and German and British royalty would still hold titles in one anothers' lands.

So, let's say we get Frederick III, then Heinrich I instead of Wilhelm II.

Germany still grabs colonies, perhaps trading Tanganyika for the northeast portion of Mozambique to give the "Cape-to-Cairo" line to the UK that they were looking for (perhaps in the Heligoland–Zanzibar Treaty), but still giving them a post on the east for their ships. The Tirpitz laws never pass, and they agree to some sort of 3:2 deal on the naval size until 1920 or so, and copying Théophile Delcassé, the German foreign minister tells the British that the German navy's purpose "was to secure and develop colonial enterprise," and he "deprecated all attempts to rival the British fleet."

What would the UK give Germany in exchange? Construct rail lines to German Southwest Africa to give them markets for their resources in the east?

Maybe Fashoda could turn up the temperature in Europe a bit, the French occupy the area around the fort a little longer, there actually does involve some fighting, a few French casualties that get sensationalized in French Press, pushing France away from any possible rapprochement with the UK, but negotiations ultimately lead to a British diplomatic victory. Delcassé, listed as very anti-German and keen to build an alliance with Russia and Italy, could aid a possible Entente Cordiale between France, Russia, and Italy, opposing what this timeline's French would see as the Anglo-German alliance.

 

[David S Poepoe]

And the big naval arms race is post-Dreadnought (completed December 1906), so it wouldn't do that much good unless it does.

That is completely wrong. The Anglo-German Naval Rivalry culminated in the Dreadnought, but originated in the German Naval Law of 1900, and the subsequent additions and was a continuation of the 'naval scares' the Royal Navy cooked up thru out the mid to late 19th century, first against France, then Russia and now Germany, in order to get its funds from Parliament.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Concerning the navy:
- A larger navy will certainly happen. Germany won´t want a repeat of 1864 or 1870/71 when the Danish or French navy would have been able to blockade Germany.
- Without Wilhelm II however some of the "urge" for a really large navy will be gone. Both the conservative parties and the Social Democrats after all initially opposed the Tirpitz naval laws. With Frederick III or Heinrich I some sort of formal / informal agreement with the British might be possible. Some of the saved (naval) money might be used to enlarge the army?
Of course that depends partly on the British too.

Very important points, and I'll add this one:

-The Germans also have to face, at least until 1905, the possibility of the combined might of the Franco-Russian fleet in blockading both the North Sea and Baltic ports of Germany. Until the completion of the Kiel Canal the Germans have to maintain a sizeable naval force in both areas.

 

[Eurofed]

Maybe Fashoda could turn up the temperature in Europe a bit, the French occupy the area around the fort a little longer, there actually does involve some fighting, a few French casualties that get sensationalized in French Press, pushing France away from any possible rapprochement with the UK, but negotiations ultimately lead to a British diplomatic victory. Delcassé, listed as very anti-German and keen to build an alliance with Russia and Italy, could aid a possible Entente Cordiale between France, Russia, and Italy, opposing what this timeline's French would see as the Anglo-German alliance.

Really, No. In case of an Anglo-German alliance, Italy would all but surely stick to it, and simply refocus its irredentist-expansionistic ambitions against France, even if A-H sticks to Germany.

Italians were nowhere psychotic enough to side against the most powerful sea power and the most powerful land power at once for the sake of Trento and Trieste; and France, too, had stuff we coveted. There are reasons why Italy joined the Triple Alliance in the first place.

 

[JJohnson]

Really, No. In case of an Anglo-German alliance, Italy would all but surely stick to it, and simply refocus its irredentist-expansionistic ambitions against France, even if A-H sticks to Germany.

Italians were nowhere psychotic enough to side against the most powerful sea power and the most powerful land power at once for the sake of Trento and Trieste; and France, too, had stuff we coveted. There are reasons why Italy joined the Triple Alliance in the first place.

Hmm. Makes sense looking at it again. So, let's say UK, Germany, Italy, and France/Russia make their alliances. Where would Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans line up? Around when do you think a war between the two sides might break out?

 

[wolf_brother]

Really, No. In case of an Anglo-German alliance, Italy would all but surely stick to it, and simply refocus its irredentist-expansionistic ambitions against France, even if A-H sticks to Germany.

Italians were nowhere psychotic enough to side against the most powerful sea power and the most powerful land power at once for the sake of Trento and Trieste; and France, too, had stuff we coveted. There are reasons why Italy joined the Triple Alliance in the first place.

I'm sorry, but no. There's no way in hell that Rome is going to be a staunch ally for Vienna when the latter still holds Italia irredenta. Doing so would be political, and possible literal, suicide for any Italian politician.

The Triple Alliance was worth less than the paper it was signed on as far as Rome was concerned. When the shooting actually started Italy swiftly backed out feigning neutrality, and then switched to the other side.

 

[Eurofed]

I'm sorry, but no. There's no way in hell that Rome is going to be a staunch ally for Vienna when the latter still holds Italia irredenta.

Irredenta (Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia) were in French hands too.

Doing so would be political, and possible literal, suicide for any Italian politician.

Sorry, no. Italy was never that kind of psychotic about the irredenta. We were never going to love Austria, but if the best way to affirm Italy's status as a great power was an opportunistic alliance with Vienna, so be it.

The Triple Alliance was worth less than the paper it was signed on as far as Rome was concerned.

Sorry, no. Italy expected to fight France in a general war during the 1880s-1890s. Crispi was a big supporter of the Triple Alliance, and certainly it didn't harm his stay in power any significantly.

When the shooting actually started Italy swiftly backed out feigning neutrality, and then switched to the other side.

Don't forget Austria was bound by treaty to give compensations to Italy ever since it annexed Bosnia, more so since it started the conflict by attacking Serbia, and Vienna stubbornly refused.

Anyway, this is beside the point. The main foreign-policy concern of Belle Epoque Italy is to affirm its great-power status, more so if it can do so by cutting down one or another of its traditional rivals, Austria and France. They are going to do so from an opportunist stance, and an Anglo-German alliance is surely the superior one. To recover the irredenta is important, but nowhere so much they are going to pick the weaker side, and besides, they got them on either side.

 

[Kooluk Swordsman]

Concerning colonies:
- By 1890 to 1900 the race for colonies was practically over.
- Not all of the German elites were that fond of colonies. Bismarck in the 1880s would be an example. The simple point is that the German colonies did cost money and never attracted much German settlement (IIRC only Togo shortly before WW1 even managed a balanced budget.).
Which is one reason why the Reichstag in the early 1900s finally lost patience. Till then responsibility for colonies had been divided between several government departments (foreign minister, navy, army...). Only in 1907 IIRC was an independent colonial department created to have one authority responsible to the Reichstag. And finally coordinating things in the colonies.

The Berlin Conference was just six years prior to 1890. During the last decade of the 1800's, the colonial race actually heated up.

True, but Berlin made sure they got colonies nonetheless, and when rebellion stuck those colonies they put it down hard. A POD could get the Germans more interested in colonial affairs.

 

[Elfwine]

That is completely wrong. The Anglo-German Naval Rivalry culminated in the Dreadnought, but originated in the German Naval Law of 1900, and the subsequent additions and was a continuation of the 'naval scares' the Royal Navy cooked up thru out the mid to late 19th century, first against France, then Russia and now Germany, in order to get its funds from Parliament.

The problem is that until Dreadnought, we're not seeing both powers essentially focused on building up their fleets against each other with one of the major players (Tripitz) making it clear in no uncertain terms it was about the other. I'm not saying Dreadnought being launched suddenly turned things from warm to cold, but it certainly started the build up that sees the German navy specifically built against Britain (because honestly, if Germany was not concerned about Britain, why is it refusing to accept/offer any compromises relative to the power of the Royal Navy?)

And given the importance of the Royal Navy to Britain's security, that Germany acted the way it did is a surefire way to ensure not-so-friendly feelings last as long as Germany is seen as a potential threat.

Not necessarily open war - but it's the opposite of "bringing Germany closer to the UK".

Add in excruciatingly bad German diplomacy, and you get a recipe for OTL - unlike how for instance France's issues with Britain and vice-versa were dealt with more deftly.

I'm not saying Germany was the big bad aggressor - just the clumsy, ambitious newcomer who upset all the existing arrangements just by being large and powerful within Europe, and seemed like it was out to do the same elsewhere.

 

[wolf_brother]

Irredenta (Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia) were in French hands too.

France was a historical (in the modern sense) ally though, and a much stronger opponent than the teetering Austro-Hungarian empire.

Sorry, no. Italy was never that kind of psychotic about the irredenta. We were never going to love Austria, but if the best way to affirm Italy's status as a great power was an opportunistic alliance with Vienna, so be it.

The Italian people, or rather a significant section of the populace, were in fact die-hard nationalists. The final defeat of the Hapsburgs and the end of the irredenta were a major part of late 19th century/early 20th century Italian politics, you can't deny this.

Sorry, no. Italy expected to fight France in a general war during the 1880s-1890s. Crispi was a big supporter of the Triple Alliance, and certainly it didn't harm his stay in power any significantly.

The Italians also expected that they could confirm their status as a European great power by taking Libya and Ethiopia, and look how that turned out.

Don't forget Austria was bound by treaty to give compensations to Italy ever since it annexed Bosnia, more so since it started the conflict by attacking Serbia, and Vienna stubbornly refused.

Anyway, this is beside the point. The main foreign-policy concern of Belle Epoque Italy is to affirm its great-power status, more so if it can do so by cutting down one or another of its traditional rivals, Austria and France. They are going to do so from an opportunist stance, and an Anglo-German alliance is surely the superior one. To recover the irredenta is important, but nowhere so much they are going to pick the weaker side, and besides, they got them on either side.

All the more reason for Rome to spurn a close relationship with Vienna. Neither party truly believed in the Triple Alliance, it was only German conservatives who flocked to Bismarck's ideal of 'containing' France that believed it would ever truly work. Remember that the alliance only came about after the League of the Three Emperors fell apart; indeed the Germans, both in Germany and Austria-Hungary, cared not a twit for Italy, they were only interested in having a useful pawn to gather leverage against France - and the Italians knew it.

The supposed Anglo-German-Hapsburg one is definitely the weaker choice for the Italians. They'll be fighting the French along the mostly open Franco-Italian border and in the Tyrrhenian Sea, the Central Mediterranean, which is going to be dominated by the French navy, and, depending on the time of the war, also in North Africa, where the French will certainly win out; where as a fight against the Austrias, as in OTL, will see fighting from in the mountainous Austro-Italian border over Trento, and in the Adriatic, which is fairly easy to bottle up, especially considering the Austrians only viable access to the water is Trieste, and possibly Fiume, though again this will be easy for Rome to counter. Beside all of that though, Vienna is clearly the weaker target, militarily, economically, socially, and geographically, the one that is the historic enemy, therefore the one that the Italian people will be more enthusiastic about fighting, and the one that has more defined and guaranteed goals and rewards with much smaller risks and investments. If Italy joins any side in an European alliance system, especially one with France and Germany as rivals, she's going to be on the bleeding edge of the fighting, but at least aligned with France (and Russia, and potentially Turkey going by your scenario), she'll be in the side that offers her more advantages and the potential for greater gains. In short from a strategic and a tactical point of view fighting the Austrians simply makes more sense.

I know we've had this discussion before Eurofed, but honestly I just don't see your much vaunted scenario of a reborn & greater HRE via an Anglo-German-Austrian-Italian alliance taking place without a POD at least as far back as the 1830s. After 1848 there simply isn't really much chance at all for all the pieces to fall into place to get all four powers to align just right, let alone the other states you intended for them to dominate.