WI: Britain backs Japan in 1905

In 1905, the Germans and the British will ally themselves against Russia and take their gains

The alliance of the Russians and the British against the Germans depends on whether Wilhelm II continues to be an idiot or stops saying things that make him seem a threat to all.

If he continues to be an idiot, the Russians and the British will reconcile again (why didn't they and they did it in OTL)

Germany was always the bigger threat had been since it's inception. That was always going to be the main issue in Europe. Britain built its alliances AGAINST Germany and had no interest in allying WITH Germany. The one thing that both Russia and Britain could agree on was that Germany was a threat and they acted accordingly.

I talked about a Russian-British alliance against Japan if they acted like Japan in 1940, which would never happen in 1905

The problem is that the British were well aware of the Japanese interest in Korea and in fact supported their eventual annexation as a "limiter" on Russian expansion in Asia. They themselves has no interest at all in the area and no reason to BE interested when Japan as a proxy would suffice. They certainly would not ally with Germany in the area as that would only serve German ambitions and allow German expansion, something that no one in Europe wanted.

Randy
 
I'm not sure you are correct regarding the Suez Canal. Rozhdestvenski split his fleet at tangier, and sent some older ships under Felkerzam on the shorter route through the Canal, aiming to rendezvous at Madagascar. I believe that Nebogatov's Third Pacific Squadron also took the short cut to catch the Baltic Fleet. Not sure why the major part of the fleet went around the Cape.

IIRC the British would not allow the more modern ships to transit the canal but allowed the shorter range and 'support' ships to do so so the Russians had no choice but to take the long way around. Again IIRC this was partially in 'response' to Dogger Bank as 'reprisal' for that and the Russians accepted it. I don't recall the circumstances for the Third Pacific Squadron. I'm pretty sure the British wouldn't let Kamchatka near the canal at any time :)

Randy
 
Germany was always the bigger threat had been since it's inception. That was always going to be the main issue in Europe. Britain built its alliances AGAINST Germany and had no interest in allying WITH Germany. The one thing that both Russia and Britain could agree on was that Germany was a threat and they acted accordingly.



The problem is that the British were well aware of the Japanese interest in Korea and in fact supported their eventual annexation as a "limiter" on Russian expansion in Asia. They themselves has no interest at all in the area and no reason to BE interested when Japan as a proxy would suffice. They certainly would not ally with Germany in the area as that would only serve German ambitions and allow German expansion, something that no one in Europe wanted.

Randy

There is no evidence for that


In 1871, everyone accepted to a large extent, except France, the unification and rise of Germany


In 1901 the British offered an alliance with the Germans, which the Germans rejected due to their lack of interest


The German-British hostility began after 1908 because of the very stupid statements of Wilhelm II, which everyone considered a threat


With a point of difference in 1905, German-British hostility would fade if they allied themselves against Russia because Wilhelm II was still popular with the British at that time.


So did Russia (the first German emperor is the brother of his father Alexander II and his son Alexander III did not become hostile to the Germans until Bismarck sided against Russia in the Treaty of Berlin)


The Germans were not a threat to anyone except France (the British, despite their hostility to the Germans during the First World War, were the most moderate towards Germany, while the most vengeful and cruel proposals were French)
 
There is no evidence for that

There is a ton of evidence for that in the history and writings of the time.

In 1871, everyone accepted to a large extent, except France, the unification and rise of Germany

No one could do anything about the unification of Germany at the time but everyone was well aware that the balance of power in Europe had been totally disrupted which was exactly what Germany had aimed for. No one was happy about it but there was nothing they could do either.

In 1901 the British offered an alliance with the Germans, which the Germans rejected due to their lack of interest

It wasn't lack of interest it was obviously a ploy to have Germany subserviently to Britain's interests or so the Germans saw it. In truth Britain offered it knowing full well Germany would not accept and yes they very much meant it as a means of controlling German ambition and scope.

The German-British hostility began after 1908 because of the very stupid statements of Wilhelm II, which everyone considered a threat

Britain was always 'hostile' towards Germany as it was a military and industrial powerhouse astride the center of Europe where it would always be a destabilizing and dangerous force in European affairs. Just like Germany WANTED to be from the start. Bismarck managed to paper that over for quite a while but he wasn't going to be around forever and Wilhelm II just took the role and ran with it.

With a point of difference in 1905, German-British hostility would fade if they allied themselves against Russia because Wilhelm II was still popular with the British at that time.

He was popular with the public but not the government and an alliance against Russia would put Britain at odds with the French whom they were already courting as a counter to Germany. There's no 'upside' to allying with Germany at this point as there's no plans for a general war against Russia. You have to keep in mind that it was not about defeating or removing Russia but JUST limiting its influence along the Asian coast. No one expected Japan to win the naval battles as well as they did (even Japan) but they would have cut back the Russian Far East naval forces and made inroads on-land that would trip back Russian influence. That was all that mattered to Europe in general and Britain specifically. No one wanted a major shift in European power and everyone still wanted Russia's massive army as a counter to Germany.

So did Russia (the first German emperor is the brother of his father Alexander II and his son Alexander III did not become hostile to the Germans until Bismarck sided against Russia in the Treaty of Berlin)

Russia and Germany had pretty good relations at the time even if most of it was 'secret' and behind the scenes. The major problem was any 'actual' relationship was enough to cause the other nations in Europe to look to actively stopping such a relationship. War being very much on the table. Bismarck was very much NOT in the minority towards assuring Russia didn't get all it wanted out of that treaty.

The Germans were not a threat to anyone except France (the British, despite their hostility to the Germans during the First World War, were the most moderate towards Germany, while the most vengeful and cruel proposals were French)

No Germany due to it's size, military and industry were seen as a threat by everyone in Europe since they unified. The British always considered them a threat to European peace and stability, specifically since they were demanding expansion rights with so little available territory to expand into. Again the main reason everyone supported the US take over of Spanish colonies was because that kept them out of the hands of the Germans.

Randy
 
There is a ton of evidence for that in the history and writings of the time.



No one could do anything about the unification of Germany at the time but everyone was well aware that the balance of power in Europe had been totally disrupted which was exactly what Germany had aimed for. No one was happy about it but there was nothing they could do either.



It wasn't lack of interest it was obviously a ploy to have Germany subserviently to Britain's interests or so the Germans saw it. In truth Britain offered it knowing full well Germany would not accept and yes they very much meant it as a means of controlling German ambition and scope.



Britain was always 'hostile' towards Germany as it was a military and industrial powerhouse astride the center of Europe where it would always be a destabilizing and dangerous force in European affairs. Just like Germany WANTED to be from the start. Bismarck managed to paper that over for quite a while but he wasn't going to be around forever and Wilhelm II just took the role and ran with it.



He was popular with the public but not the government and an alliance against Russia would put Britain at odds with the French whom they were already courting as a counter to Germany. There's no 'upside' to allying with Germany at this point as there's no plans for a general war against Russia. You have to keep in mind that it was not about defeating or removing Russia but JUST limiting its influence along the Asian coast. No one expected Japan to win the naval battles as well as they did (even Japan) but they would have cut back the Russian Far East naval forces and made inroads on-land that would trip back Russian influence. That was all that mattered to Europe in general and Britain specifically. No one wanted a major shift in European power and everyone still wanted Russia's massive army as a counter to Germany.



Russia and Germany had pretty good relations at the time even if most of it was 'secret' and behind the scenes. The major problem was any 'actual' relationship was enough to cause the other nations in Europe to look to actively stopping such a relationship. War being very much on the table. Bismarck was very much NOT in the minority towards assuring Russia didn't get all it wanted out of that treaty.



No Germany due to it's size, military and industry were seen as a threat by everyone in Europe since they unified. The British always considered them a threat to European peace and stability, specifically since they were demanding expansion rights with so little available territory to expand into. Again the main reason everyone supported the US take over of Spanish colonies was because that kept them out of the hands of the Germans.

Randy
Once again, nothing has been proven


If Britain really saw Germany as a threat, they supported Napoleon III in 1870, so your argument is weak


An alliance with France was out of the question. It was all due to the influence of Edward VII, who was influenced by his German-hating wife.



(The same with Alexander III, whose wife was the sister of Edward VII's wife and hated the Germans)


(Queen Victoria's stature ensured a strong position for germanophiles in government)



Franco-British relations were almost destroyed more than once during the Fashoda crisis and the Franco-Siamese War



The British feared that Thailand would become more of a French protectorate than Germany



Once again a weak argument, the pretext for the Spanish-American war was not Germany, but rather the imperialist ambitions of the United States.



This was helped by the fact that Spain was a fierce and unstable fire



Germany only wanted the Philippines and Africa, Cuba, they never thought of it because it could not be taken



A stable Spain forbids any cause for a Spanish-American war, and even if it did, the British would have less reason to support America



Assuming that Germany joined the side of the British and the Japanese, Britain would not suddenly switch sides to support Russia


This will make the British unreliable and everyone will antagonize them, even France and Russia


Your arguments should be substantiated instead of speaking as if you have germanophobia
 
The amount of people saying that Germany was going to ally Britain during the Russo-Japanese war is simply frustrating to read. Neither side was cordial to one-another at this point and Wilhelm was actively courting Russia; between familiar ties and the Russian government's historical hostility to Britain. The Entente Cordiale between Britain and France did not contain a military agreement, but only served to reduce the mutual danger of war. Although the Franco-Russian alliance was expressly directed against Germany, it would have collapsed if France had remained silent towards Britain. On October 27th, Wilhelm even offered up the idea of a Russo-German alliance against Britain. Germany was very much preparing war for Britain and Japan.
 
The amount of people saying that Germany was going to ally Britain during the Russo-Japanese war is simply frustrating to read. Neither side was cordial to one-another at this point and Wilhelm was actively courting Russia; between familiar ties and the Russian government's historical hostility to Britain. The Entente Cordiale between Britain and France did not contain a military agreement, but only served to reduce the mutual danger of war. Although the Franco-Russian alliance was expressly directed against Germany, it would have collapsed if France had remained silent towards Britain. On October 27th, Wilhelm even offered up the idea of a Russo-German alliance against Britain. Germany was very much preparing war for Britain and Japan.

I'm going to point out there's only ONE (1) person here advocating a German/British alliance :)

Germany would very much have liked to have Russia on-side but it wasn't going to happen given the differences in objectives they had. Yes France was in a rough spot and frankly them coming out against Britain was both expected and accepted (and partly used as a 'reason' to not get actively involved in the war despite Dogger Bank) as Britain right saw Germany as the more immediate threat.

Randy
 
The amount of people saying that Germany was going to ally Britain during the Russo-Japanese war is simply frustrating to read. Neither side was cordial to one-another at this point and Wilhelm was actively courting Russia; between familiar ties and the Russian government's historical hostility to Britain. The Entente Cordiale between Britain and France did not contain a military agreement, but only served to reduce the mutual danger of war. Although the Franco-Russian alliance was expressly directed against Germany, it would have collapsed if France had remained silent towards Britain. On October 27th, Wilhelm even offered up the idea of a Russo-German alliance against Britain. Germany was very much preparing war for Britain and Japan.
This offer of alliance, which was invoked by many, was aborted by the German and Russian governments (the Russians do not want to betray France and the Germans hate France).


Simply put, no one in the German government will care what Wilhelm II will say because the strong person here is the chancellor and the ministers (which is von Bülow and his clique, who are anti-Russian).


The government of Germany is very Prussian and is ruled by the anti-Russian Prussian elite with interests in Eastern Europe (the Baltics and the rest of Eastern Europe).


When the opportunity to crush France and Russia simultaneously is before you, even Wilhelm II, if he were an absolute king and loved his cousin, would take this opportunity to end France once and for all.


(Because France will be forced to join the Russians, which means a German-British alliance)


And even if the British will pursue a hostile policy towards the Germans later on


With France completely crippled and becoming a second-class power, and Russia, which hated the British as much as the Germans


The British will be alone because no one will attempt to defeat Germany and thus avoid a devastating war in 1914. With a swift war in 1905, Germany has established themselves as a dominant power.


Also, a Russian-German alliance would require Germany to sell Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, which would not happen because the Germans invested a lot in the two countries. The latter will gladly join the war on the side of Germany and Britain


(Wilhelm II loved Franz Ferdinand more than his Russian cousin)


There is such a thing as opportunism and realpolitik


Italy was originally supposed to be a central power, but it joined the Entente (opportunist)
The Allies allyed with the Soviets despite their hatred of communism to crush the Nazis (realist politics)


The Germans would help the British in return for forever crushing France, crippling Russia, and dominating Europe (opportunism)
The British accept the Germans' help even though they see them as a threat to defeat Russia (realpolitik)


If we talk about Wilhelm II's desire for Russia's friendship, he can be merciful and demand Poland only as a buffer state between the Russians and the Germans.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to point out there's only ONE (1) person here advocating a German/British alliance :)

Germany would very much have liked to have Russia on-side but it wasn't going to happen given the differences in objectives they had. Yes France was in a rough spot and frankly them coming out against Britain was both expected and accepted (and partly used as a 'reason' to not get actively involved in the war despite Dogger Bank) as Britain right saw Germany as the more immediate threat.

Randy
That is why the Germans will join Britain in crushing the Russians, because France will most likely fulfill their obligations to the Russians
Because the Russians are the continental power that in their view can defeat the Germans, unlike the British


Betrayal of the Russians and not joining leaves France in the worst possible situation because it makes them untrustworthy in front of the Russians and they will not ally themselves with them again and Germany stands in their neck


Thus, there is no war in 1914, which is a net gain for all except France, which will never recover Alsace-Lorraine
 
Once again, nothing has been proven

Only because you're ignoring the actual history of the period.

If Britain really saw Germany as a threat, they supported Napoleon III in 1870, so your argument is weak

"Germany" didn't exist at that point it was (after all) the Franco-PRUSSIAN war not the Franco-German war. Prussia used the victory to declare the German Empire which was what started the whole mess in the first place. Britain (and Europe) could handle the German Confederation it could NOT handle a untied German Empire.

An alliance with France was out of the question. It was all due to the influence of Edward VII, who was influenced by his German-hating wife.

Uh, no the King had very little actual governmental power so who he (or his wife) hated mattered very little. The problem was you went from small and mostly disorganized German "statelets" to a single, fully organized German Empire in less than a decade. And that Empire was very military, very expansionist and very Prussian. All of which are problems when it's surrounded by now very nervous European nations. (One of whom they have already violently taken territory from)

Once again a weak argument, the pretext for the Spanish-American war was not Germany, but rather the imperialist ambitions of the United States.

No the reason was removing European influence from the Americas which America was tired of dealing with. The "pretext" was freeing Cuba from Spanish oppression, and more importantly removing the danger of Spanish domination of the Caribbean. A goal that most of Europe supported since it interfered with their own interests which the American's being in charge served better.

In the Pacific the Americans were favored over the Germans who most of Europe knew at that point could take Spain in a fight and which was feared to be in the works. Germany wanted overseas colonies and were looking to take them from whomever was the weakest.

This was helped by the fact that Spain was a fierce and unstable fire

Exactly, at that point it was well understood that 'someone' was going to try. That it was the American's was a bit of a shock as everyone expected the Germans to try but once done America was seen as the better option.
Germany only wanted the Philippines and Africa, Cuba, they never thought of it because it could not be taken

Everyone knew the Spanish Empire was in trouble. It was large but unwieldy and not up to modern standards. America dared and won (again surprising everyone but in context no one had actually been paying much attention to the American naval building plan which was very modern) so they were given "Great Power" status. Germany as you note WANTED to try but were well aware that going against Spain would draw in other European powers so were cautious about it. They were in a position to try and grab the Philippines but British and French forces stayed their hand.

A stable Spain forbids any cause for a Spanish-American war, and even if it did, the British would have less reason to support America

Not really, America was at the point they were ready to try and kick the Europeans, (and specifically Spain) out of the Americas and the British and French both supported that outcome because the American's were easier to deal with that the Spanish.

Assuming that Germany joined the side of the British and the Japanese, Britain would not suddenly switch sides to support Russia

You're the only one 'assuming' that point though and it's not based on anything from that time period. Britain was opposed to German expansion as was most of Europe so there's no reason to let them get involved. Britain had no interest in getting directly involved in the war because it would gain them nothing so they proxied Japan in order to trim back Russian influence. Worked out vastly better than they'd hoped and kept the Japanese in their sphere of influence so win/win.

Had Germany tried to get involved through Russia everyone in Europe would have pounced on Germany, diplomatically and trade wise if possible but if it came to having to go to war...

This will make the British unreliable and everyone will antagonize them, even France and Russia

Again, outcomes all based on your initial flawed assumption.

Your arguments should be substantiated instead of speaking as if you have germanophobia

Do you read history? The records and histories of the day bear out that Germany was considered the main 'threat' in Europe and around the world in the day. It was simply logistics and European history. Germany at that point could have been truthfully called "Greater Prussia" (it was in many cases) as it was well understood that the German Empire was going to be controlled and run by the Prussians above all else. And they made no bones about being expansionist (having missed out on most of the "colonization" period's better prizes) militaristic. And they had the industry and organization to back it up. Otto von Bismarck spent most of his time between the establishment of the Empire and his retirement from politics trying to downplay those factors, and smooth things out, but it was always going to be in the background and he could never get the actual Prussian run government (or King) to tone it down enough to be believed.

Randy
 
That is why the Germans will join Britain in crushing the Russians, because France will most likely fulfill their obligations to the Russians
Because the Russians are the continental power that in their view can defeat the Germans, unlike the British

The Germans are going to fight a two front war (note historically they lost both times they tried and they weren't going to do better any earlier) on the off chance that Britain will NOT join in against them when Britain is VERY clear they oppose German expansion?
And again, Britain gets nothing out of the deal here by going active, ESPECIALLY should Germany make any noises about getting involved. France and Russia are aligned AGAINST Germany which is what Britain wants.

And all that's before we even address that Russia and France combined can take down Germany and THEN turn and move against Britain and the British can do NOTHING to stop it. The Royal Navy can control the Channel and the North Sea but France literally doesn't have to do anything as sea in this case. This is a LAND war and there's not a thing that Britain can do to effect that.
(Worse here is Japan gets put on the 'back burner' and held in place while France and Russia pound Germany to dust and THEN get to face them on land where they will most certainly lose)

Betrayal of the Russians and not joining leaves France in the worst possible situation because it makes them untrustworthy in front of the Russians and they will not ally themselves with them again and Germany stands in their neck

Which isn't even close to what historically happened. Russia fully understood that Germany was the main 'problem' and frankly they (and everyone else) thought they could handle Japan at least on land. (The naval victories were a shock but the land war could still continue if Russia so desired since they could still put more men and materials into the theater than Japan could it would just take longer) Russia had no problem with France NOT joining the war as it kept their European flank safe.
Again France and Russia were allied against GERMANY, not Japan or Britain.

Thus, there is no war in 1914, which is a net gain for all except France, which will never recover Alsace-Lorraine

Actually by your measure there is a general European war in 1905 which pretty much leaves the only survivor as America so ya I guess that's a win :)

Again the problem here is that Britain (and most of Europe) wants to contain Russian influence in Asia but they don't want to get into a war with Russia which would free up Germany to act up. So they support Japan, France remains essentially neutral and everyone keep an eye on Germany. That Japan won as big as they did surprised everyone but it didn't cause Russia to fall (which was important) and it didn't allow German expansion so win/win. Britain was all about the balance of power in Europe, not Asia.

Randy
 
Only because you're ignoring the actual history of the period.



"Germany" didn't exist at that point it was (after all) the Franco-PRUSSIAN war not the Franco-German war. Prussia used the victory to declare the German Empire which was what started the whole mess in the first place. Britain (and Europe) could handle the German Confederation it could NOT handle a untied German Empire.



Uh, no the King had very little actual governmental power so who he (or his wife) hated mattered very little. The problem was you went from small and mostly disorganized German "statelets" to a single, fully organized German Empire in less than a decade. And that Empire was very military, very expansionist and very Prussian. All of which are problems when it's surrounded by now very nervous European nations. (One of whom they have already violently taken territory from)



No the reason was removing European influence from the Americas which America was tired of dealing with. The "pretext" was freeing Cuba from Spanish oppression, and more importantly removing the danger of Spanish domination of the Caribbean. A goal that most of Europe supported since it interfered with their own interests which the American's being in charge served better.

In the Pacific the Americans were favored over the Germans who most of Europe knew at that point could take Spain in a fight and which was feared to be in the works. Germany wanted overseas colonies and were looking to take them from whomever was the weakest.



Exactly, at that point it was well understood that 'someone' was going to try. That it was the American's was a bit of a shock as everyone expected the Germans to try but once done America was seen as the better option.


Everyone knew the Spanish Empire was in trouble. It was large but unwieldy and not up to modern standards. America dared and won (again surprising everyone but in context no one had actually been paying much attention to the American naval building plan which was very modern) so they were given "Great Power" status. Germany as you note WANTED to try but were well aware that going against Spain would draw in other European powers so were cautious about it. They were in a position to try and grab the Philippines but British and French forces stayed their hand.



Not really, America was at the point they were ready to try and kick the Europeans, (and specifically Spain) out of the Americas and the British and French both supported that outcome because the American's were easier to deal with that the Spanish.



You're the only one 'assuming' that point though and it's not based on anything from that time period. Britain was opposed to German expansion as was most of Europe so there's no reason to let them get involved. Britain had no interest in getting directly involved in the war because it would gain them nothing so they proxied Japan in order to trim back Russian influence. Worked out vastly better than they'd hoped and kept the Japanese in their sphere of influence so win/win.

Had Germany tried to get involved through Russia everyone in Europe would have pounced on Germany, diplomatically and trade wise if possible but if it came to having to go to war...



Again, outcomes all based on your initial flawed assumption.



Do you read history? The records and histories of the day bear out that Germany was considered the main 'threat' in Europe and around the world in the day. It was simply logistics and European history. Germany at that point could have been truthfully called "Greater Prussia" (it was in many cases) as it was well understood that the German Empire was going to be controlled and run by the Prussians above all else. And they made no bones about being expansionist (having missed out on most of the "colonization" period's better prizes) militaristic. And they had the industry and organization to back it up. Otto von Bismarck spent most of his time between the establishment of the Empire and his retirement from politics trying to downplay those factors, and smooth things out, but it was always going to be in the background and he could never get the actual Prussian run government (or King) to tone it down enough to be believed.

Randy
I see you keep saying things without proving which one of them didn't bring even a single document to support your argument.


Intentionally ignoring that France was the aggressor in 1870, not Prussia


Wrong The soft power of the British king is strong and has been proven many times


Despite his lack of political power, the evidence that Edward VII hated Wilhelm because of his treatment of his sister, who is Wilhelm's mother, and Alexandra's hatred of the Germans, and his numerous relationships with French women played a role in strengthening the Entente.


Once again, you ignore that the United States was just shouting loudly about the Monroe Doctrine, which was actually implemented by the British, and if Spain was stable, there was no fear of a German takeover of their colonies.


The Americans can do nothing if Britain does not support them


We are in the midst of an alternate reality talking about what if Britain had intervened directly, not trying to force an OTL answer when we were actually talking about a different scenario.


You also assume that Britain will fight Germany and Russia together and forget that the Germans will be opportunists and will fight Russia and France and support Britain


Speaking of Bismarck, Germany during the early days of the reign of Wilhelm II was not threatened by everyone until 1908, when the scandal of Wilhelm II's statements occurred, which is the point of no return.


In 1905 there was hope for an improvement in British-German relations


So either you support your argument with tangible evidence or it's over
 
The Germans are going to fight a two front war (note historically they lost both times they tried and they weren't going to do better any earlier) on the off chance that Britain will NOT join in against them when Britain is VERY clear they oppose German expansion?
And again, Britain gets nothing out of the deal here by going active, ESPECIALLY should Germany make any noises about getting involved. France and Russia are aligned AGAINST Germany which is what Britain wants.

And all that's before we even address that Russia and France combined can take down Germany and THEN turn and move against Britain and the British can do NOTHING to stop it. The Royal Navy can control the Channel and the North Sea but France literally doesn't have to do anything as sea in this case. This is a LAND war and there's not a thing that Britain can do to effect that.
(Worse here is Japan gets put on the 'back burner' and held in place while France and Russia pound Germany to dust and THEN get to face them on land where they will most certainly lose)



Which isn't even close to what historically happened. Russia fully understood that Germany was the main 'problem' and frankly they (and everyone else) thought they could handle Japan at least on land. (The naval victories were a shock but the land war could still continue if Russia so desired since they could still put more men and materials into the theater than Japan could it would just take longer) Russia had no problem with France NOT joining the war as it kept their European flank safe.
Again France and Russia were allied against GERMANY, not Japan or Britain.



Actually by your measure there is a general European war in 1905 which pretty much leaves the only survivor as America so ya I guess that's a win :)

Again the problem here is that Britain (and most of Europe) wants to contain Russian influence in Asia but they don't want to get into a war with Russia which would free up Germany to act up. So they support Japan, France remains essentially neutral and everyone keep an eye on Germany. That Japan won as big as they did surprised everyone but it didn't cause Russia to fall (which was important) and it didn't allow German expansion so win/win. Britain was all about the balance of power in Europe, not Asia.

Randy
Here, on the contrary, the Germans have an advantage (the Russians in 1905 are weaker than 1914) and many scenarios made the early war give an advantage to the Germans


Italy will join in 1905 as a central power and not with the Entente and will lead to making France scattered between the Germans and the Italians, which will improve the situation of the Germans


(Austrian-Italian relations did not become bad until 1908, when Bosnia, Tunisia, Corsica, Savoy and Nice were annexed, tempting the Italians, unlike if they joined in 1911 when Austrian-Italian relations became very bad)


Romania will join as a central power (Carol I is still alive and can strongly persuade the Francophone Roman elite to take back Bessarabia and the Romanians are just as hostile to Russia as to Austria-Hungary)

So the French and the Russians are still in bad shape (worse for France)

Even if the war with Japan was quickly settled, and war was declared on Germany



The Germans still had the advantage here even if von Scheleffen's original plan (invasion of Holland and Belgium) was carried out, increasing the number of entente by one (Netherlands)


And if the Ottomans continued to join the Central Powers, which would add three allies to entente (Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria)


Italy and Romania, as central powers, are still improving the situation of the Germans and Austrians, and making the situation of France and Russia worse.


(Without an Italian front, Austria could focus on the Russians, and a southern front in France distract them from the Germans, and with an Ottoman presence in the Balkans, and without an Italian-Turkish war, could Regia Marina and the Austrian army
The Roman army assisted the Ottomans in crushing the Bulgarians, Serbs, and Greeks)


So in both cases the Germans win


I doubt that the Germans will even implement von Scheleffen's plan in 1905 as long as the British, in their view, are on their side.
 
Can you please stop chopping up your dialogue every sentence? It's very jarring to read coherently.

Besides that, Bulow was in favor of the alliance--as he was the one who drafted the treaty, Wilhelm's contribution only came from broaching the idea. It failed not because of some lack of willingness by either side but because the matter of the treaty was of impulse and the actual content of the treaty was rather vague. Bulow's advisers and senior diplomats were, in the majority, opposed because they questioned Russia's capabilities as an ally. Even with this general opposition, the Kaiser's position and relationship with his officers, in service or retired, was direct and personal. Considering Wilhelm's high feudalistic concepts of loyalty, the junkers would ultimately stand behind Wilhelm, the foreign ministry's services were irrelevant at the end of the day.

You're really exaggerating the "anti-Russian" sentiment within the German government. The reality is that such a force was a fringe group--even if we look at the Septemberprogramm, it laid nothing out for Russia other than a highly vague buffer state, because dismantling Russia was never a goal and the length of the war exacerbated their initial desires. And Germany was not going to do an unprovoked attack on France had they joined; you're really making Wilhelm look like some comically evil caricature. Staying out of the war and laughing as a third party was far more desirable. France could not risk war against Britain because Russia was fighting in East Asia and with the withdrawal of the 2nd Pacific Squadron, no larger naval forces were available in Europe. So France would have had to fight the Royal Navy alone. There's 0 need for Germany to end up getting involved in this situation because France would be ruined in this war alone.

You're mistaking "alliance" as some blanket term for any act of aggression. The provisions of the alliance revolve around British aggression, not Balkan of Asia Minor shenanigans. There's no need to ""abandon"" Austria-Hungary, and Ottoman relations were only very recently, they were by no means an important ally. Italy being a central power was entirely nominal, the Treaty of Nice made clear of that. It only looks "opportunistic" if you think Italy had any real desire to be aligned with Germany at this point (and it wasn't just because of Austria-Hungary.)

You keep talking about the German government's unwillingness to align with Russia because of ""Prussian interest"", while simultaneously ignoring said interest against Britain. Do you not see your own irony? The same government that unanimously agreed to fund the Kaiserliche Marine to dislodge British hegemony, the same government that willingly approved of the Hamburg America Line to continue giving coal to Russia despite being a complete breach of neutrality against Britain and Japan. The British government was extremely suspicious of Russo-German relations, and the British government and it's ministers were all generally opposed to any relation with Germany. Sir Francis Bertie, the British ambassador to Paris wrote a letter to his friend Louis Mallet, an assistant clerk at the Foreign Office: "Your letter of the 2nd breathes distrust of Germany and you are right. She has never done anything for us but bleed us. She is false and grasping and our real enemy commercially and politically." The rumors alone of Russo-German cooperation were enough to trigger concern from Germany. If Britain attacked Russia, she might also attack Germany and use the occasion to rid herself of German mercantile and naval competition. It was far more logical to align with Russia than Britain, or not get involved at all if it could.
 
Can you please stop chopping up your dialogue every sentence? It's very jarring to read coherently.

Besides that, Bulow was in favor of the alliance--as he was the one who drafted the treaty, Wilhelm's contribution only came from broaching the idea. It failed not because of some lack of willingness by either side but because the matter of the treaty was of impulse and the actual content of the treaty was rather vague. Bulow's advisers and senior diplomats were, in the majority, opposed because they questioned Russia's capabilities as an ally. Even with this general opposition, the Kaiser's position and relationship with his officers, in service or retired, was direct and personal. Considering Wilhelm's high feudalistic concepts of loyalty, the junkers would ultimately stand behind Wilhelm, the foreign ministry's services were irrelevant at the end of the day.

You're really exaggerating the "anti-Russian" sentiment within the German government. The reality is that such a force was a fringe group--even if we look at the Septemberprogramm, it laid nothing out for Russia other than a highly vague buffer state, because dismantling Russia was never a goal and the length of the war exacerbated their initial desires. And Germany was not going to do an unprovoked attack on France had they joined; you're really making Wilhelm look like some comically evil caricature. Staying out of the war and laughing as a third party was far more desirable. France could not risk war against Britain because Russia was fighting in East Asia and with the withdrawal of the 2nd Pacific Squadron, no larger naval forces were available in Europe. So France would have had to fight the Royal Navy alone. There's 0 need for Germany to end up getting involved in this situation because France would be ruined in this war alone.

You're mistaking "alliance" as some blanket term for any act of aggression. The provisions of the alliance revolve around British aggression, not Balkan of Asia Minor shenanigans. There's no need to ""abandon"" Austria-Hungary, and Ottoman relations were only very recently, they were by no means an important ally. Italy being a central power was entirely nominal, the Treaty of Nice made clear of that. It only looks "opportunistic" if you think Italy had any real desire to be aligned with Germany at this point (and it wasn't just because of Austria-Hungary.)

You keep talking about the German government's unwillingness to align with Russia because of ""Prussian interest"", while simultaneously ignoring said interest against Britain. Do you not see your own irony? The same government that unanimously agreed to fund the Kaiserliche Marine to dislodge British hegemony, the same government that willingly approved of the Hamburg America Line to continue giving coal to Russia despite being a complete breach of neutrality against Britain and Japan. The British government was extremely suspicious of Russo-German relations, and the British government and it's ministers were all generally opposed to any relation with Germany. Sir Francis Bertie, the British ambassador to Paris wrote a letter to his friend Louis Mallet, an assistant clerk at the Foreign Office: "Your letter of the 2nd breathes distrust of Germany and you are right. She has never done anything for us but bleed us. She is false and grasping and our real enemy commercially and politically." The rumors alone of Russo-German cooperation were enough to trigger concern from Germany. If Britain attacked Russia, she might also attack Germany and use the occasion to rid herself of German mercantile and naval competition. It was far more logical to align with Russia than Britain, or not get involved at all if it could.
I apologize for that

But all I'm trying to say is that it depends on whether France intervened or not

If you intervene on behalf of the Russians (which will inevitably happen), the Germans will join the British

If the opposite happens, but the Russians are fighting Germany as well

The Germans still have the advantage (Italy in 1905 will be a central power because the Bosnia crisis did not occur and Romania is also a central power because King Carol I, loyal to the Germans, is still alive)

These two things can greatly improve the situation of the Germans and Austrians

So in both cases, the Germans are the winners
 
I apologize for that

But all I'm trying to say is that it depends on whether France intervened or not

If you intervene on behalf of the Russians (which will inevitably happen), the Germans will join the British

If the opposite happens, but the Russians are fighting Germany as well
If France intervened and Russia was ultimately unwilling to sign any treaty with Germany, they would not get involved. Period. There is very little reason to get involved when your main adversary got shoe-horned into a war against the global hegemon. This alongside Britain's current rampant German skepticism coupled with German antagonism toward Britain makes any cooperation extremely unlikely between the two. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very weak and illogical base.

The Germans still have the advantage (Italy in 1905 will be a central power because the Bosnia crisis did not occur and Romania is also a central power because King Carol I, loyal to the Germans, is still alive)

These two things can greatly improve the situation of the Germans and Austrians

So in both cases, the Germans are the winners
Italy's role in the Central Powers was entirely defensive, if Germany attacks France/Russia, they will not join as they did in 1914. Romania joining is entirely dubious.
 
If France intervened and Russia was ultimately unwilling to sign any treaty with Germany, they would not get involved. Period. There is very little reason to get involved when your main adversary got shoe-horned into a war against the global hegemon. This alongside Britain's current rampant German skepticism coupled with German antagonism toward Britain makes any cooperation extremely unlikely between the two. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very weak and illogical base.


Italy's role in the Central Powers was entirely defensive, if Germany attacks France/Russia, they will not join as they did in 1914. Romania joining is entirely dubious.
France and Russia have an alliance against the Germans. If the Germans start fighting Russia, the French will

They did not join in 1914 because their relations with Austria were very bad, and the agreement gave them a lot on paper, and also because the king intervened against the parliament's desire to be neutral in the first place.

In 1905, Austrian-Italian relations are still very good and have not worsened yet. Tunisia, Corsica, Savoy, Nice and Djibouti are very tempting.

(Austria had softened to cede parts of Austria's Trento and Friuli to Italy, in contrast to 1914, when they stubbornly did not want to give them anything.)

Romania is possible (if the Germans seem to be doing well and Carol I succeeds in persuading the Romanian elite to support the Germans, then it is possible)

But, realistically, neutrality would be possible

But in general Italy in 1905 is more inclined to central forces than 1914 and this alone will make a big difference to central forces
 
France and Russia have an alliance against the Germans. If the Germans start fighting Russia, the French will

They did not join in 1914 because their relations with Austria were very bad, and the agreement gave them a lot on paper, and also because the king intervened against the parliament's desire to be neutral in the first place.

In 1905, Austrian-Italian relations are still very good and have not worsened yet. Tunisia, Corsica, Savoy, Nice and Djibouti are very tempting.

(Austria had softened to cede parts of Austria's Trento and Friuli to Italy, in contrast to 1914, when they stubbornly did not want to give them anything.)

Romania is possible (if the Germans seem to be doing well and Carol I succeeds in persuading the Romanian elite to support the Germans, then it is possible)

But, realistically, neutrality would be possible

But in general Italy in 1905 is more inclined to central forces than 1914 and this alone will make a big difference to central forces
Like I said before, Germany is not going to declare an unprovoked war against either France or Russia. The Franco-German enmity has always been somewhat one-sided. Because, unlike French politicians, German ones didn't see France as an evil to destroy. Their policies revolved around containment, and because of that, an unprovoked war is completely unreasonable to assume. Any preemptive strike is frankly unnecessary at the time.

Also, I do not know what sources you are reading but Austro-Italian relations were never good. In 1870 Victor Emmanuel II tried to ease tension because of fear of a French attempt to restore Rome to the Pope, but when this danger faded after 1875, there arose strong pressure to acquire the Italian areas of Austria. Even on the Austria side, there was extensive skepticism that in 1868 regarding Italy, they took no time to commission a plan of defense for Tyrol and Carinthia. There were even considerations of war against Italy in 1876 to deal with them before they became a nuisance. These preemptive measures toyed around between 1878-1879; it was a very real possibility. The Triple Alliance did not measurably improve Austro-Italian relations at all and apprehension about the potential danger from Italy persisted. And while Umberto I was suspicious of France and generally more pro-German, Victori Emmanuel III was quite the opposite. By 1902, even Germany could not be sure of Italy regarding any commitments they may have to them. Go read Rothenberg's The Army of Francis Joseph if you really want to know how paranoid Austria was. It really just sounds like you're pulling stuff out of a hat at this point.

Romania, afaik, was not ready for a war of this magnitude.
 
Like I said before, Germany is not going to declare an unprovoked war against either France or Russia. The Franco-German enmity has always been somewhat one-sided. Because, unlike French politicians, German ones didn't see France as an evil to destroy. Their policies revolved around containment, and because of that, an unprovoked war is completely unreasonable to assume. Any preemptive strike is frankly unnecessary at the time.

Also, I do not know what sources you are reading but Austro-Italian relations were never good. In 1870 Victor Emmanuel II tried to ease tension because of fear of a French attempt to restore Rome to the Pope, but when this danger faded after 1875, there arose strong pressure to acquire the Italian areas of Austria. Even on the Austria side, there was extensive skepticism that in 1868 regarding Italy, they took no time to commission a plan of defense for Tyrol and Carinthia. There were even considerations of war against Italy in 1876 to deal with them before they became a nuisance. These preemptive measures toyed around between 1878-1879; it was a very real possibility. The Triple Alliance did not measurably improve Austro-Italian relations at all and apprehension about the potential danger from Italy persisted. And while Umberto I was suspicious of France and generally more pro-German, Victori Emmanuel III was quite the opposite. By 1902, even Germany could not be sure of Italy regarding any commitments they may have to them. Go read Rothenberg's The Army of Francis Joseph if you really want to know how paranoid Austria was. It really just sounds like you're pulling stuff out of a hat at this point.

Romania, afaik, was not ready for a war of this magnitude.
If we want a neutral Italy in 1914


The attempt to assassinate Victor Emmanuel III by an anarchist in 1912 must succeed because Parliament will take over the guardianship of the child Umberto II and Parliament is pro-neutral. We will see a neutral Italy during World War I


As for Italy, it seemed to me that they were opportunists in the first place, so if they saw that the Germans were too advanced, they would jump for the spoils.


There is more than one way to anger the Italians to make them become loyal to the Germans or make them less confident of betraying the Germans, such that France does not sign a secret treaty with Italy in 1902 and France decides to take Libya itself


Or an Ottoman victory in the 1911 war on Libya leaves Italy the humiliation to remain with the Germans
 
The Russian Empire would remember this and during the Great War it would make a separate peace with the Central Powers before the Tsar was overthrown.
Which damages Russia more than Britian. For a separate peace it would have to give up 34% of its population, 54% of its industrial land, 89% of its coalfields, and 26% of its railways and pay 300 million gold marks because Germany would settle for nothing because of being too confident of victory. Even if Nicholas proposed it his generals would overthrow him. Lenin only signed it because he already lost those territories
 
Top