WW1 alliance between Germany and France against Britain possible?

I understand the logic behind this post, but why would Russia choose Britain rather than France and Germany, bearing in mind that back then Russia and Britain were main rivals in central Asia?

France and Russia began to approach each other after the Franco-Prussian War. In the case that Prussians were smarter and didn't annex A-L for some reason, why would France and Russia create an alliance in the first place?

Of course, there is a question how were Balkan problems solved and who controls what. What happened to Ottomans and Italy?

Because the second Britain withdraws from the main zones of contestation to a degree acceptable to one of the powers within the Alliance it's going to immediately fall apart and everybody knows it. It has too much power divided between superpowers with differing interests to be passively stable, and can only be held together by mutual hostility to the continued British hegemony.
 
But the problem is that Germany and France have completely opposed interests regarding Ottoman Empire. Germany needs Iraqi oil controled by Ottomans back then.
This endangers British and French interests on Middle East and futher more in Far East. So, how would France and Germany solve this problem?

The second problem is that the Russians will not allow cash inflow to the Ottomans from selling oil and attachment to German technology, which jeopardizes Russian interests in the Caucasus.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
But the problem is that Germany and France have completely opposed interests regarding Ottoman Empire. Germany needs Iraqi oil controled by Ottomans back then.
This endangers British and French interests on Middle East and futher more in Far East. So, how would France and Germany solve this problem?
The second problem is that the Russians will not allow cash inflow to the Ottomans from selling oil and attachment to German technology, which jeopardizes Russian interests in the Caucasus.
A partition of Turkey ...
1 - Russia gets Straits and Armenia
2 - let us not over estimate the importance of oil - this is 1914 ...
3 - France gets more or less - probably slightly - what it got in OTL 1918/20
4 - Germany gets something - Anatolia? Assyria?

This requires Germany to go against A-H, though - but then again, three of the five Great Powers acting in concert can be very persuasive.
 
Because the second Britain withdraws from the main zones of contestation to a degree acceptable to one of the powers within the Alliance it's going to immediately fall apart and everybody knows it. It has too much power divided between superpowers with differing interests to be passively stable, and can only be held together by mutual hostility to the continued British hegemony.

OK, that makes sense.
 
A partition of Turkey ...
1 - Russia gets Straits and Armenia
2 - let us not over estimate the importance of oil - this is 1914 ...
3 - France gets more or less - probably slightly - what it got in OTL 1918/20
4 - Germany gets something - Anatolia? Assyria?

This requires Germany to go against A-H, though - but then again, three of the five Great Powers acting in concert can be very persuasive.

1. Russia would give it all for it.
2. Perhaps oil wasn't the key reason for the war, but it was already known that oil is going to be a strategic resource for the future. Didn't the Germans and Brits have oil cooperation before the war?
3. OK.
4. Instead of Lawrence of Arabia, history remembers Ludwig of Arabia who promised Arabs a united state?

If Russia gains Straits and Armenia, Russia also renounces on Serbia and her claims.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Britain has historically been almost unbelievably effective at shutting down hostile traffic in the English Channel. Enemy forces have managed to transit it exactly once since the Anglo-Dutch Wars (the WWII Channel Dash). Even with friendly French ports, that raises the question of how exactly significant German surface assets are going to get into them. U-Boats are the biggest threat, but to be really effective the WWI ones had to be used in the unrestricted fashion, which is going to bring in the U.S. eventually. At that point, France and Germany's chance of winning goes to flat zero.
OTL Britain did an unbelievable job of burning through almost its entire foreign reserves before the end of 1916. OTL Britain was also facing a wider fuel and shipping crisis, which required a greater proportion of goods to be sourced from North America, due to proximity. In this scenario, if Britain is cut off entirely from continental trade, the burden on British shipping would be brutal even without U-boats, thier french equivalents and bases relating thereto. It should be remembered Britain imported over half its calories.

Oh Britain was highly dependant on its colonies for just about every resource in fighting for a war. But the incredible prowess of their navy would assure that they could get grain from India or beef from Argentina (not a colony but still) without much worry; especially if their entire war effort depended on it. So this worry of coastal ports at least in the short term is not much. Its in a generation that the worry will be there. But in 1922? No issue.
The Royal Navy was not the problem - it was the OTL shortage of merchant shipping, which was relatively benign compared to this scenario.

1 - No OTL war in 1914 probably means that Wilson does not get re-elected. He was very pro-Entente and anti-Central Powers.

Not really. Towards the end of 1916 a jilted Wilson prodded the SEC to issue warnings to US creditors about advancing unsecured credit to the Entente cause, which saw its access to credit almost disappear overnight. So OTL without the USW and a certain telegram, Wilson alone might have brought the Entente war effort to its knees.

Plus a President with a hate-boner for Willie and US Big Bussines that'd be fucked if the Entente lost ...

Up until the end of 1916 the vast majority of US credit advanced to the Entente was secured against realisable assets, so no real conflicts of interest. Indeed, with the French and British running out of cash, US Big business might have increasingly seen the OTL British blockade as an impediment to US business interests/opportunies on the continent.
 
Between 1900 and 1904 the French sent spies to Ireland to examine the possibility of a landing in Ireland in the event of a war between France and Britain:

Indeed, two boxes of documents in the French military archives near Paris reveal that some French officials seriously toyed with the idea of attacking Britain through Ireland at a time when the British army was away in distant South Africa (incidentally, there are no documents about a German invasion in the German military archives in Freiburg im Breisgau). Between 1900 and 1904, several French intelligence agents were sent to Ireland to explore the possibility of a landing. Ireland was of course a historic ally of France. The agents sent back very precise reports to the Deuxième Bureau (military intelligence) in Paris about topography, quality of the roads, British coastal defences, strength and morale of British troops, estimations of strength and quality of various nationalist and unionist organisations and so on. The agents had reached the conclusion that the southern coast in County Cork would be the best place to land. They were in touch with Irish republicans who gave them a detailed invasion plan in September 1902.

While a landing in Ireland by the French and Germans probably wouldn't be possible and would be blockaded by the Royal Navy they would be able to get weapons and possibly advisors into Ireland to aid an Irish uprising.
 

hipper

Banned
Between 1900 and 1904 the French sent spies to Ireland to examine the possibility of a landing in Ireland in the event of a war between France and Britain:



While a landing in Ireland by the French and Germans probably wouldn't be possible and would be blockaded by the Royal Navy they would be able to get weapons and possibly advisors into Ireland to aid an Irish uprising.

They did in OTL, it was put down.
 
They did in OTL, it was put down.
OTL the weapons and supplies on the Aud failed to be delivered due to communication difficulties with the IRB and was captured, and as a result Eoin MacNeill ordered the rising to be called off causing it to be confined to Dublin with only around 1,000 of the expected 15,000 men taking part. A rising with outside supplies that wasn't countermanded would be a very different affair, especially if they were to focus on guerrilla tactics.
 
Maybe a stretch but the Fachoda crisis errupt and kill the "entente cordiale" in the womb.
The French continue to support the Russian as a counter-weight, but the socialist and Jores come in power and are successful at convincing the German on a referendum on Alsace-Lorraine. Eventually the French and German loose their antagonistic attitude toward eachothers and realize, with the Russian, that their main colonial rival is Great-Britain.
 
From my readings, A-L was not the break on relations it is often painted as - French governments might be seeking to recover all or part of A-L by diplomacy for decades to come, but by the 1890s, it wouldn't stop the two getting on if other factors were in place.

The reason why we remember A-L as being such a big issue is because of WW1, which not only inflamed France's existing grievances, but also made the French search for ways to motivate their armies to keep fighting in a difficult war. So French propaganda inflated the issue even more, to be the second most important goal of the country behind pure self defence.

Would an World war 1 alliance between Germany and France against Britain have been possible?

It's actually really easy. The French were seeking such an alliance in the 1890s. We forget now but before about 1905 (and the first Morocco crisis) the disruptive power in Europe was not seen as being Germany or Russia or Austria-Hungary, but Britain, who was merrily waltzing across the globe bagging colonies and seeking to cut off the other powers at their knees whenever possible. Britain was very good and very lucky in OTL to out-maneuver the Germans in this sensitive period. I suspect that had Germany been the nimble diplomat, not the Brits, Britain would have faced an alliance of France, Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary come alt-WW1. (Russia was, for a long time, also seeking to forge an anti-British alliance with the Germans.)

EDIT: Though of course, Austro-Hungarian/Russian relations will be a continued source of FUN!

fasquardon
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
It's actually really easy. The French were seeking such an alliance in the 1890s. We forget now but before about 1905 (and the first Morocco crisis) the disruptive power in Europe was not seen as being Germany or Russia or Austria-Hungary, but Britain, who was merrily waltzing across the globe bagging colonies and seeking to cut off the other powers at their knees whenever possible. Britain was very good and very lucky in OTL to out-maneuver the Germans in this sensitive period. I suspect that had Germany been the nimble diplomat, not the Brits, Britain would have faced an alliance of France, Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary come alt-WW1. (Russia was, for a long time, also seeking to forge an anti-British alliance with the Germans.)

The French got an alliance early in the 1890s in the form of Imperial Russia, explicitly to help defend itself from Germany. It was actually the French who were proven to be the masters of diplomacy in the late 19th and early 20th century. From diplomatic isolation following the Franco-Prussian war, France secured Russia as an ally and then secured Britain as a friendly power - both at the expense of Germany. This would probably not have been possible without grossly inept diplomacy by both Britain and Germany.

How exactly were the British good and lucky during this period? Essentially Britain ended up getting dragged into a war against a traditional ally to defend the interests of Britain's two traditional rivals, effectively ending centuries of British global dominance and losing Britain its empire. What is your definition of stupid or unlucky? It was the Germans who dropped the Russians in the early 1890s. What makes you think the Germans ever preferred the company of Russians to the British? Let alone the French...

If Germany had been the nimble diplomat, you would have likely seen a Anglo-German alliance - or at the very least a solid understanding.
 
More British dickisch moves against everyone else within a few short years, all things that "nearly" happened:

Russian fleet shooting at British ships while going to fight Japan? Shoot back!
France contesting some colonies in Africa? Take them and some extra by force!
Germany building a fleet? Koppenhaagen it!

That should make a grand coalition against them possible, with France and Germany as allies despite their own problems with each other.
 
How exactly were the British good and lucky during this period? Essentially Britain ended up getting dragged into a war against a traditional ally to defend the interests of Britain's two traditional rivals, effectively ending centuries of British global dominance and losing Britain its empire. What is your definition of stupid or unlucky? It was the Germans who dropped the Russians in the early 1890s. What makes you think the Germans ever preferred the company of Russians to the British? Let alone the French...

What, you mean the way the British cleverly hoodwinked the French into fighting and dying to defend the English Channel? And managed to manoeuvre the threatening Russian juggernaut into smashing itself against Germany? Managed to decisively remove France, Germany AND Russia as naval competitors for the next 50 years? (Maybe more like 60 years - it took some time for the Soviet navy to grow larger than the British RN.)

When you drill down into the treaty of Versailles, most every clause was tilted in the favour of British views and interests. I tell you, that doesn't look to me like Britain went in to WW1 to defend the interests of France and Russia.

And when you look at the very real strong anti-British sentiments across the continent and in the USA before WW1, the fact that governments in France and Russia DID in fact try to see if Germany might be open to an anti-British alliance and the German government at least tried to feel out the Russians about becoming allies again. Yes. It seems to me that the alternative to a war to contain Germany was a war to contain Britain.

If Germany had been the nimble diplomat, you would have likely seen a Anglo-German alliance - or at the very least a solid understanding.

So far as I know, there was no interest in Britain or Germany in such an alliance. I'd be interested to hear if there were any abortive attempts by either or both parties that I don't know about.

fasquardon
 
1. Russia would give it all for it.
2. Perhaps oil wasn't the key reason for the war, but it was already known that oil is going to be a strategic resource for the future. Didn't the Germans and Brits have oil cooperation before the war?
3. OK.
4. Instead of Lawrence of Arabia, history remembers Ludwig of Arabia who promised Arabs a united state?

If Russia gains Straits and Armenia, Russia also renounces on Serbia and her claims.

Why would Russia do so given their traditional role of protector of (orthodox) christian nations in Balkan?
 
Why would Russia do so given their traditional role of protector of (orthodox) christian nations in Balkan?

Geopolitics. Yes, Russia is acting like protector, but would you rather have landlocked Serbia or Straits? If Russia gains Straits, Austria gains influence over Serbia because Austria considered Balkans as their playgroaund. Furthermore, Bulgaria is more important to Russia then Serbia.
 

BooNZ

Banned
What, you mean the way the British cleverly hoodwinked the French into fighting and dying to defend the English Channel?
Defend the English Channel from whom? The Germans certainly had no interest in such matters and the German mitteleuropa proponents remained wary of the need for British approval, including the role Belgium would play in the structure - even after Belgium was under German occupation.

And managed to manoeuvre the threatening Russian juggernaut into smashing itself against Germany?
With Nicky in charge and conflicting Russian aspirations in the Balkans, scarcely a surprising outcome.

Managed to decisively remove France, Germany AND Russia as naval competitors for the next 50 years? (Maybe more like 60 years - it took some time for the Soviet navy to grow larger than the British RN.)
The French navy had ceased to be a threat for over a century, the Germans were stared down in 1912 and whatever the Russians were building needed to be divided by three.

When you drill down into the treaty of Versailles, most every clause was tilted in the favour of British views and interests.
Britain was the least broken of the European powers and on the winning side, so scarcely surprising - as far as investments go, Versailles would have represented pennies in the pound as a return.

I tell you, that doesn't look to me like Britain went in to WW1 to defend the interests of France and Russia.
On paper, the British went to war to defend Belgium neutrality and secure the Channel coast. The need to do so arose from British (mis)calculations that the Franco-Russian alliance represented more of a threat than Germany i.e. the British foreign office was pursuing a policy of appeasement.

And when you look at the very real strong anti-British sentiments across the continent and in the USA before WW1, the fact that governments in France and Russia DID in fact try to see if Germany might be open to an anti-British alliance and the German government at least tried to feel out the Russians about becoming allies again.
Really? Would you like to provide a reference to support this fiction? Let me guess, perhaps the Kaiser wrote some bad things about the British in the margins while he was in a bad mood? Historically the closest the Germans ever got with Russia was a non-aggression pact, which is a long way from the conspiracy theory you are stitching together.

Yes. It seems to me that the alternative to a war to contain Germany was a war to contain Britain.
Nope, the most likely alternative was the status quo, also supported by Germany and A-H, which had resulted in over 40 years of European peace prior to the Balkan wars. What would any European power hope to gain by picking a fight with Britain? OTL the original intent of the German risk fleet was to force British friendship, not a diabolic plan of world conquest.

So far as I know, there was no interest in Britain or Germany in such an alliance. I'd be interested to hear if there were any abortive attempts by either or both parties that I don't know about.
As previously stated, the most recent opportunity for an understanding was when Wilhelm attended his Grandmother's funeral (1902?)and ditched his brash demeanor. He was under strict instructions by the Germany diplomats to rebuff any feelers from the British, not because of any Anglo-German enmity, but because the Germans calculated an understanding between Britain and Germany was inevitable and Germany should not sell itself short.

The above is still a long way from an Anglo-German alliance, but at that point Anglo-German relations remained stronger than Anglo-French relations. It should be remembered after over a decade of "putting out", France had still not secured an alliance with the Britain by 1914.
 
Top