What if the Fashoda Incident broke into war?

RNG

Banned
What if the Fashoda Incident of 1898 broke into war? What if Britain and France went to war because a settlement could not be agreed? Which nations would back which side and who would win? What implications for the early twentieth century would the war have? What future wars meant be fought as a result? Would the war just bring many of the events of the twentieth century forward or would there be entirely new events? How would such a war affect America and the German Empire? Would a Russian revolution be successful, fail, or never happened as a result of the war? What about fascism? Would the Japanese still try and expand? What do you think?
 
France and Russia aren't going to start a war with the rest of Europe over a few acres of sand. Going to Germany and Austria cap in hand is impossible. France is going to have to recruit Italy (without promising Austrian territory), and then convince Russia and the Ottomans to work together, which will be almost impossible.

Even then, France still loses. Their best opening gambit is to seize total control of the Suez Canal. Ship troops and materials to hopefully conquer Egypt and Sudan before the British fleet blockade leaves the French, Russian, and Ottoman troops cut off and starving.

Instead of an Entente Cordiale, Britain makes closer ties with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russia and France will be the outsider alliance, with Italy outside that. And Britain will almost certainly enforce Hapsburg suzerainity over the Balkans. If that doesn't butterfly the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, WWI will not be WWI.
 

RNG

Banned
France and Russia aren't going to start a war with the rest of Europe over a few acres of sand. Going to Germany and Austria cap in hand is impossible. France is going to have to recruit Italy (without promising Austrian territory), and then convince Russia and the Ottomans to work together, which will be almost impossible.

Even then, France still loses. Their best opening gambit is to seize total control of the Suez Canal. Ship troops and materials to hopefully conquer Egypt and Sudan before the British fleet blockade leaves the French, Russian, and Ottoman troops cut off and starving.

Instead of an Entente Cordiale, Britain makes closer ties with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russia and France will be the outsider alliance, with Italy outside that. And Britain will almost certainly enforce Hapsburg suzerainity over the Balkans. If that doesn't butterfly the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, WWI will not be WWI.
So your saying if there was any escalation would it just be a skirmish which would turn World War One on it's head or just butterfly the war entirely
 
So your saying if there was any escalation would it just be a skirmish which would turn World War One on it's head or just butterfly the war entirely
Any war would likely be short, as German war plans are going to focus on Russia and leave Britain to deal with France. France won't dare attack through Belgium and can't break through Alsace-Lorraine.

Of course in the event of an assassination, Britain will insist on a thorough investigation which may prove Russian and Serbian government involvement, which means the war is over before it starts.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
UK destroys French fleet and cuts it off from its colonies.
Britain might recruit Italy to its side.
Russia either sits this out or makes a move on the Ottomans while the UK is distracted.
Germany stays neutral.
Austria might be bought by the UK to move against Russia to save the Turks or dogpiles the Ottomans.
Fun times :)
 
Is there a possibility that the Germans, emboldened by alliance with the British decide to meddle in the Spanish American War thus enfolding that conflict into the escalating world maelstrom and bringing Spain into the Anglo-Germano-Austro-Japanese (Ottoman, Italian?) alliance and the USA into the Franco-Russian camp?
 
UK destroys French fleet and cuts it off from its colonies.
Britain might recruit Italy to its side.
Russia either sits this out or makes a move on the Ottomans while the UK is distracted.
Germany stays neutral.
Austria might be bought by the UK to move against Russia to save the Turks or dogpiles the Ottomans.
Fun times :)
Which is why OTL France backed down. This is a fun WI, but there are too many factors against it.
 
Any war would likely be short, as German war plans are going to focus on Russia and leave Britain to deal with France. France won't dare attack through Belgium and can't break through Alsace-Lorraine.

What do you mean? In OTL Germany thought that in the long run, France and Russia had triple the "military capability" (I'm not sure what OHK meant by this, I assume it means troop numbers adjusted for fighting ability) or Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (largely because they thought the Italians were of low military value and it's true). However in the short run, they considered that the French had leadership problems and Russia had mobilization problems. The knock-out blow though Belgium was supposed to solve this problem.

They did consider a war like the Crimean war and they thought they would lose a war of attrition even if their own divisions were stronger than their French and Russian counterparts. France also is closer to self sufficiency on food, gunpowder, and coal, despite the deposits in the Rhine region for Germany. All this says the long war kills them.

An alliance with Britain means respecting Belgian neutrality. The knockout blow can't happen, otherwise Germany loses its strongest ally. Britain's infantry emphasized quality over quantity, so the ability to deal with France other than a naval blockade is limited to a supporting role. Unless you agree with Paradox Initiative logic that Britain can recruit 3.25 million Indians and land them in Germany to shore up their defenses or a Normand invasion.

TL;DR, in OTL Germany decided it couldn't win a long war and an alliance with Britain guarantees a long war.

France and Russia aren't going to start a war with the rest of Europe over a few acres of sand.

Lots of Frenchmen wanted said war and a poll had 75% of them demand Britain be punished.

UK destroys French fleet and cuts it off from its colonies.

Algeria is largely self-sufficient. (luxury goods traded around aren't necessary, I'm talking about food, fuel, and shot). French Guina was largely self sufficient (it had less people back then). French Indochina is self sufficient, unless you count Cambodia as part of it.

No. Simply no.
There are too many things which I consider to be wrong with your premise for me to list.

Not helpful to the OP whatseoever.

What future wars meant be fought as a result?

Too many butterflies to tell. Wre don't even know if the Fashoda war would last long.

Would the war just bring many of the events of the twentieth century forward or would there be entirely new events?

Yeah, and that's why predicting beyond a war is too hard.

Would a Russian revolution be successful, fail, or never happened as a result of the war? What about fascism?

We don't know I Russia gets involved. If it does, they likely would call it quits sooner than OTL. Fascism is basically super-nationalism, it is inevitable. Whether any form of it gets a genocidal streak I unknown.

Insufficient details to answer the OP information. Either the OP or someone else needs to supply a plausible list of events in this "Fashoda war" to make any further predictions.
 
What do you mean? In OTL Germany thought that in the long run, France and Russia had triple the "military capability" (I'm not sure what OHK meant by this, I assume it means troop numbers adjusted for fighting ability) or Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (largely because they thought the Italians were of low military value and it's true). However in the short run, they considered that the French had leadership problems and Russia had mobilization problems. The knock-out blow though Belgium was supposed to solve this problem.

They did consider a war like the Crimean war and they thought they would lose a war of attrition even if their own divisions were stronger than their French and Russian counterparts. France also is closer to self sufficiency on food, gunpowder, and coal, despite the deposits in the Rhine region for Germany. All this says the long war kills them.

An alliance with Britain means respecting Belgian neutrality. The knockout blow can't happen, otherwise Germany loses its strongest ally. Britain's infantry emphasized quality over quantity, so the ability to deal with France other than a naval blockade is limited to a supporting role. Unless you agree with Paradox Initiative logic that Britain can recruit 3.25 million Indians and land them in Germany to shore up their defenses or a Normand invasion.

TL;DR, in OTL Germany decided it couldn't win a long war and an alliance with Britain guarantees a long war.



Lots of Frenchmen wanted said war and a poll had 75% of them demand Britain be punished.



Algeria is largely self-sufficient. (luxury goods traded around aren't necessary, I'm talking about food, fuel, and shot). French Guina was largely self sufficient (it had less people back then). French Indochina is self sufficient, unless you count Cambodia as part of it.

We don't know I Russia gets involved. If it does, they likely would call it quits sooner than OTL. Fascism is basically super-nationalism, it is inevitable. Whether any form of it gets a genocidal streak I unknown.

Insufficient details to answer the OP information. Either the OP or someone else needs to supply a plausible list of events in this "Fashoda war" to make any further predictions.

OTL France backed down, despite public opinion. They aren't going to fight, unless they have a better chance to win.

As far as the subsequent war, Britain blockading France instead of Germany buys Germany time in the East. Assuming that France doesn't violate Belgian neutrality. Then ugly is probably unavoidable.
 
Top