WI United Kingdom and Germany are on the same side in both world wars?

Um, not necessarily. To be "allies" requires a considerable level of military co-planning and co-operation. The US and UK, in the North Atlantic and Europe anyway, worked together extremely closely (though not without bickering), in what is basically the beginning of NATO. The US and USSR only barely met the qualifications of "allies". For an example of co-belligerants that are not allies in any real sense, I present Germany and Japan (of course one could argue that Japan wasn't even a co-belligerant to Germany, just an opportunist who happened to fight some of the same enemies). Two states fighting the same enemy but not coordinating their efforts are not allies.

You are right of course, what I meant by same side was working together. I consider two nations fighting the same opponent but with no cooperation with each other to be on different sides: their own. And while the USA and USSR were barely allies, that is my point, they did plan together and the USA give significant support. A black sheep is a black sheep, just because it is a lighter black then another black sheep does not mean it is a white sheep.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Balance of power, anyone? Britain didn't just fight France for the hell of it - she fought because France posed the strongest threat to her sovereignity. Her usual strategy was to side with the second strongest Continental power. After the French demographic slowdown of the nineteenth century, the Franco-Prussian war, and the Kaiser's Fleet Acts, the first position was filled by Germany, and the second by France. Why would Britain aid a natural enemy against a natural ally?

For almost the whole 19th century, France and Russia were the natural enemies of Britain, well after the Franco-Prussian War, and their combo makes a credible alternative to Germany as stronger continental power bloc. Scrap the German Fleet Acts, make Russia win the Russo-Japanese War, have the Fashoda crisis settle in a way that leaves France and Britain a bit more antagonistic, and Britain and Germany can progress from the friendly neutrality they had during 19th century to an alliance.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Italy would probably either stay neutral or be on the UK/Germany side,

In case of an Anglo-German alliance, Italy is absolutely not going to fight the strongest land power and the strongest naval power on the side of France, no matter how much Paris waves Trento and Trieste in the face of Rome. We would instead surely get a lot mindful of how much we deeply felt the lack of Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunisia, and cling to the Quadruple Alliance like dear life.

Now, in such an alliance lineup, it becomes a good question what could ever motivate the Franco-Russian alliance to fight the Anglo-German-Italian-Austrian Alliance, especially given that France would be exposed to encirclement and swift defeat.
 
For almost the whole 19th century, France and Russia were the natural enemies of Britain, well after the Franco-Prussian War, and their combo makes a credible alternative to Germany as stronger continental power bloc. Scrap the German Fleet Acts, make Russia win the Russo-Japanese War, have the Fashoda crisis settle in a way that leaves France and Britain a bit more antagonistic, and Britain and Germany can progress from the friendly neutrality they had during 19th century to an alliance.

Wrong. First, comparing blocs to Powers is misleading. You should be comparing France + Russia to Germany + Austro-Hungary, a comparison which strongly favours the latter. Secondly, diplomacy depends on power, and power depends on economics. By 1900, Germany has the strongest economy on the continent, and is therefore the strongest Power on the continent. Britain's natural interest is therefore to oppose Germany.

In case of an Anglo-German alliance, Italy is absolutely not going to fight the strongest land power and the strongest naval power on the side of France, no matter how much Paris waves Trento and Trieste in the face of Rome. We would instead surely get a lot mindful of how much we deeply felt the lack of Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunisia, and cling to the Quadruple Alliance like dear life.

Now, in such an alliance lineup, it becomes a good question what could ever motivate the Franco-Russian alliance to fight the Anglo-German-Italian-Austrian Alliance, especially given that France would be exposed to encirclement and swift defeat.

Your second post contradicts your first. If France and Russia are to form a credible bloc, they would have to be an even match for any other bloc. They clearly wouldn't be. Therefore, they would do their best not to antagonize Britain, and instead try to draw her into alliance. An Alliance which Britain should accept, unles they wish to see Germany dominate the continent.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
You need a early PoD, before 1900. A German- British alliance would easily beat the opponents. If there even is a 2nd war is uncertain.
 
For almost the whole 19th century, France and Russia were the natural enemies of Britain,

Russia? Yes. It took three disasters for Russian policy (Crimea, Bulgaria, Manchuria) for us to stop worrying about their Wicked Plan, and that was only because they were no longer in any position to actually implement it.

But France? Our relations with Napoleon III varied between decent (as in, hardly worse than our present relations with Sarko) and intimate. We made sure not to allow France to die out as a great power after the F-P war.

There was a period late in the century when between colonial tensions and the Franco-Russian alliance, we could just about have gone to war if everything had gone wrong at once (see Fight and be Right), but immediately after Fashoda the honeymoon started and after Tsushima we were getting closer and closer. Once colonial conflicts had blown over and we had lost our fear or Russia, we had every reason to move closer to France, and vice-versa. "Almost the whole"? Nah.

I would agree that a Russian victory in the Far East leaving Japan as a British semi-dependency - plus Franco-Russian allies in the Ottomans and Italy - could at the right date (1915-16, with a reformed Ottoman army, 3-year conscription, and Russian railways) give Germany and Austria a run for their money. Direct British involvement would close the question, but at a stretch you might have Britain become involved at the last minute

And while we're speaking of Fight and be Right, let's make Britain Unionist to boot. Hardline attitudes to India, Ireland, and socialism. By the 30s, Britain is struggling with internal problems throughout the empire, dealing with unethusiastic dominion, and increasingly dependent on a Germany that has slipped ahead on all fronts. Defeated France is too weak to try anything, but lets its sympathies with the alliance of the United States, the Republic of China, and the Socialist Federal Republic of Russia against the Weltreich be known. Japanese crackdown against guerillas in Manchuria - No Surrender!, says General Zhang. Another round of Irish bombings - American fuse mechanisms. How were they acquired? The Home Secretary, for one, thinks he knows. Then a Latvian youth with ties to the Russian secret service blows up the Duke of Kurland. We will stand by the forces of international democracy, says the president. Alliances go into action. History repeats...

Behold, my sketchy submission.
 
Last edited:
Top