Why didn't Britain set up anti-French alliances and beat the hell out France during late 19th c?

There was the "Invasion Scare" of 1859-60 when elements of the British public seriously feared a war with France. Tennyson wrote "Form Riflemen Form," and volunteer rifle companies were established across the country.

This brings up an important point: in the event of war with France, Britain always had to prepare for the threat of French invasion, as well as the possibility of a French landing in Ireland. The Channel isn't that wide - at its narrower points, you can see the other side on a clear day. Crossing the Channel with an invading army is of course quite difficult, as history has shown. But it was not out of the realm of possibility. If Britain could avoid this possibility by not going to war with France, that would be in its best interests.

Conversely, Germany (if it hasn't occupied any of the countries to the west) would have a logistically more difficult time striking directly at Britain, and Russia would have almost no chance of doing so.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
There was the "Invasion Scare" of 1859-60 when elements of the British public seriously feared a war with France.
what the heck caused this scare? Palmerston, Nap III and Victoria were on the same page for much of this decade, with the British and French working as allies against both Russia and China, and also both having a pro-Italian inclination.

Had the French ... more actively supported the Sepoy Mutiny

The French supported the Sepoy Mutiny? That's news to me.
 

Oceano

Banned
19th century France was a shadow of itself. Britain was far superior.

Napoleon emptied the French magazine.
 
I would like to recommend to you The Sleepworkers from Clark. He come up with a really interesting idea about english - german antagonism.

In short he states that the main objective for Brittain was to secure her colonial Empire. He also states that the main threat to this were the French and the Russians - especially after they allied. Because of this the british turned to the enemy of their enemy, that is Germany (around 1900). But Germany refused to risk a two front war against Russia and France for British interest and thus London took the other option. By the entente with Russia and France Britain managed to secure the Empire. However a grouping like this was necesserily anti-german. So he conludes that Britain became anti-german because it "joinend" the alliance against it and not the other way around.

Im inclined to believe him.

This also answers the question of the OP:
After Franco-Russian alliance its too risky. A war like that would rage all ower Africa, likely in Persia and possibly in China and India. Even if they win it would be a huge mess. They had also trouble finding allies. The only one whom they could turn to was Germany. Austria and Italy are weak and allies of Germany anyways, and the only other option would be Spain... So they turned to Germany and reached an agreement regarding China in 1900. But Germany refused to support the British in accordance with this agreement during the early part of the Manchurian crisis. 3 years later the British made the entente with France.
Clark's book (the Sleepwalkers, if you'll pardon me correcting your typo or autocorrect ) is very good as background to the causes of WW1. And on how diplomats on all sides messed up defusing the July 1914 crisis. I'm not fully convinced of this part of his work as there were by 1900 reasons for the UK to fear German global ambitions just as much as the French and Russian. And of course from the British perspective while the colonial empire is one core priority, so is ensuring no Power dominates the Continent and can threaten to invade the UK. The price the Germans wanted to support the UK against a Franco-Russian alliance would have risked the UK facing a German dominated continent afterwards. Germany was also a stronger competitor industrially than France in British markets. There may simply have been no good option for the UK in 1900.

Despite these reservations, an Anglo-German alliance might IMHO have been a serious possibility in 1890 or even 1895, and would still in some ways have been logical in 1900. But by then the British establishment distrusted its German equivalent and perhaps vice versa too. Which party was most to blame is a live topic in academia and very much so here too of course!

Given that British wealth and power in the late 19th century derived as much from its earnings from foreign investments worldwide, not just in its Empire, and shipping related services as from the direct "looting" of colonies, I wonder if the UK would have been better off not joining the "Scramble for Africa" after 1878. But concentrating on just a few key sites for coaling stations, naval bases and communications sites. It's probably ASB to imagine it could refrain from letting the flag follow trade and/or missionaries but it would have interesting consequences,

I can recommend John Darwin's The Empire Project for a good analysis of the drivers for British imperial acquisitions (or choice not to seek to acquire) in the Victorian age. As well as providing a description of the Empire's evolution and why it could not be maintained. Finance and economics rule, as always!
 

ben0628

Banned
As to the Op's original question, I could see a Fashoda incident going badly instead of being solved. The French are already pissed about the British being solely in charge of the Suez Canal and arent the happiest in regards to British dominance in most of Africa. The Fashoda incident was a huge embarrassment to the French government and with a couple of pods, I could see the French refusing to back down.

Now, as to how this would play out. I would see Chancellor Bismarck taking advantage of the Situation to form a British German alliance. This is followed by Russia siding with France if a war breaks out. Once Russia comes into play, Germany and Great Britain bringing in both Austria and the Ottomans. In response to the Ottomans joining, Russia gets Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, and Greece to form an earlier Balkan league and fight the Ottomans and Austrians. At the same time, France persuades Italy to join on their side with the promise of Ottoman Libya, British Somaliland, parts of Austria, and maybe Ethiopia. At this point, the British decide to go with an oriental strategy and get Japan to fight Russia while China does nothing.

So in the end, GB, Germany, Austria, the Ottomans, Ethiopia, and Japan are fighting France, Italy, Russia, and a Balkan League that includes Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania.

No German invasion of Belgium (since GB wouldn't allow it) most likely means stalemate on the Western front. Unless Spain joins up with the British, the Mediterranean will probably remain in French-Italian control. Ottomans and Austrians probably get fucked will Germany slowly pounds Russia to a pulp as Japan goes after Russian territory in the east. Victor of the war will decide on whether or not Germany survive on the continent and who does better in Africa.
 
Top