A very different Great War

[Jerseyrules]

What if (not sure how) the United States, UK, and German Empire (probably Austria-Hungary too) join forces in a Grand Anglo-American-German alliance in the years (or even decades) leading up to World War I?  How would this be possible?  What are the long-term implications for such an alliance?

[Lumine]

I highly doubt the US would join forces with any European Power during the Belle Epoque, but the Anglo-German Alliance is a very interesting scenario. If Kaiser Wilhelm manages to halt the naval race then the UK will be interested in joining forces. Once the "Gran Alliance" is created, France becomes incredibly paranoid at the idea of going back to the 1870' isolation, so the alliance between Russia and France becomes a lot closer. Italy and the Ottoman Empire become irrelevant unless Russia decides to threathen the second one, in which case the UK gladly helps Abdul Hamid II. You might even have a situation in which France and the UK go to war thanks to the "Fashoda Incident" or the Boer War.

Now, should Franz Ferdinand be assassinated in 1914, you have two possibilities:

1- Russia and Serbia declare war on the "Grand Alliance" and France decides not to intervene, creating a limited eastern conflict in which Russia is utterly crushed. If the Germans release Lenin as in OTL you might have an earlier Russian Civil War, in which Rasputin himself will participate.

2- Russia, Serbia and France declare war on the "Grand Alliance", the UK deploys the Royal Navy to protect the Colonial Empire and Germany uses the Schlieffen Plan to defeat France (without British troops the Battle of the Marne is a German Victory, leading to a colapse of the French Army and the Fall of Paris). Then Russia is defeated, and the same Civil War scenario repeats.

The butterflies here would be massive:

1- No USA intervention in European Affairs, and a possible Republican Victory in 1916.
2- The French Republic colapses under the humiliation, and with Clemenceau and the Generals discredited (No Verdun = No Petain), and you might even see a new Bourbon restoration.
3- Earlier Russian Civil War, unless Lenin is not released into the country.
4- Poland might or might not be created, the same with Ukraine.
5- The Ottoman Empire survives. (Or at least Abdul Hamid II stays in power)
6- Austria-Hungary survives.
7- Alfonso XIII's Spain gets closer to the "Grand Alliance".
8- The British and German's colonial Empires get even stronger.
9- With a harsh peace with France, Austria Hungary could get some of the French colonies (I think).
10- Japan and China do not intervene in the short war, and Yuan Shi-Kai might be affected by the butterflies.
11- George V never changes his surname to "Windsor" and stays with "Saxe-Coburg Gotha".

And the list goes on, but the changes here are going to make this world a lot different: No Versailles, no Fascism, no USSR (?). I think someone should write a timeline for this.

[politicus]

The problem is that a crucial principle of British foreign policy was always to prevent one power from dominating continental Europe and in this scenario they are helping the Germans in doing just that. This makes it pretty unrealistic. They simply had to join forces with France in order to counterweight German dominance.
Generally you are putting too much emphasis on the naval rivalry and underestimating the basic strategic interests of the British in an anti-German coalition.

[Jerseyrules]

What if Prussia was successful in putting a Hohenzollern on the throne in Spain, which lasts for maybe a few weeks - Brits wait it out, but the French march in and lay waste to Madrid, forcing the King to abdicate?  The Franco-Prussian War still ends with German victory and the creation of a federalized German Empire, and the results are the same except for one - the Brits are wary of French jingoism.  They become nervous of French domination of the continent, and perhaps a more militarist Third Republic (or perhaps even a Fascist-ist "Republic" government) cause the Brits to distrust the French more?  Maybe even Austria has to join the war against France to keep the ITTL more powerful French army at bay?  This is just off the top of my head.

[Lumine]

The problem is that a crucial principle of British foreign policy was always to prevent one power from dominating continental Europe and in this scenario they are helping the Germans in doing just that. This makes it pretty unrealistic. They simply had to join forces with France in order to counterweight German dominance.
Generally you are putting too much emphasis on the naval rivalry and underestimating the basic strategic interests of the British in an anti-German coalition.

Hmmmm... You're right, that scenario would represent German Hegemony over Europe, but, what if instead of joining an Alliance with Germany the UK only remains neutral in 1914? My idea is that in case of an "Eastern War" which only involves Germany, Austria-Hungary, Serbia and Russia they would have remained neutral.

Now, if France declares war, the scenario changes, but let's say that General Boulanger takes control over France in 1890 and the country is a militaristic dictatorship (under any French general or directorate). With Anglo-French cooperation dead and with the choice between German Hegemony and French Hegemony, I think the UK will stay neutral just like in 1870. Take the UK out and Germany wins the "East Only" Scenario and it has better chances fighting France and Russia at the same time.

What if Prussia was successful in putting a Hohenzollern on the throne in Spain, which lasts for maybe a few weeks - Brits wait it out, but the French march in and lay waste to Madrid, forcing the King to abdicate?  The Franco-Prussian War still ends with German victory and the creation of a federalized German Empire, and the results are the same except for one - the Brits are wary of French jingoism.  They become nervous of French domination of the continent, and perhaps a more militarist Third Republic (or perhaps even a Fascist-ist "Republic" government) cause the Brits to distrust the French more?  Maybe even Austria has to join the war against France to keep the ITTL more powerful French army at bay?  This is just off the top of my head.

I could see that scenario happening, but the problem there is Spain. Prussia has won the war and the Hohenzollern King of Spain has abdicated, but, who gets the crown? If Alfonso XII or Amadeus of Savoy take the crown, then you have a balance of power. But taking the idea of Politicus, if Spain ends up with the Hohenzollern Prince again you have almost complete German Hegemony, France is threatened from both sides and the UK will distrust Germany.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

An Anglo-Prussian alliance might have worked if Queen Victoria had instead been King Victor of the United Kingdom and Hanover.  If that pesky Salic Law hadn't caused the British and Hanoverian crowns to diverge, then either a German Empire doesn't emerge or it's a heavily British influenced one.

Alternatively, suppose none of Victoria's sons have children. (Perhaps they get caught up in a Mumps epidemic and are rendered sterile.)  While King William V would be on the throne when the war starts if there are no other butterflies, the Kaiser Wilhelm II would be his heir presumptive. (Tho if the various royals all still die at the same times as in OTL, it wouldn't be Wilhelm II who gets to be William VI, but his son.)

[Jerseyrules]

TrueFederalist, on your point, I was actually thinking about British succession - what if none of Victoria's sons had children?  Would Victoria be able to choose her successor?  If so, as the eldest grandson (?), and if he had a better relationship with his grandmother, and was slightly more constitutionalist, what are the chances Victoria chooses Wilhelm to succeed her on the British throne?  If he is the only heir with a continuing bloodline?
Also, how would Europe react to this?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wilhelm's father was likely allowed to marry the Princess Royal because she had four brothers ahead of her in the line of succession and thus was unlikely to inherit.  He was the eldest grandson even if don't butterfly the issue of those four, of whom two would be kings as Edward VII and William V respectively.  (I doubt Prince Arthur would dare reign as King Arthur, so I assume he'd use his second name just as his eldest brother did.  Conversely if the brother between Princes Albert and Arthur, Prince Alfred, had come to throne, I doubt he'd use his second name and reign as King Ernest, tho I would hope he would. )

If you want to have closer cooperation between Britain and Germany, you'd likely have to have Fredrick III stay on the German throne more than the mere 99 days fate allowed him.  That would be the case regardless of whether or not his son Wilhelm II ever became the British heir presumptive.

[Jerseyrules]

Wilhelm's father was likely allowed to marry the Princess Royal because she had four brothers ahead of her in the line of succession and thus was unlikely to inherit.  He was the eldest grandson even if don't butterfly the issue of those four, of whom two would be kings as Edward VII and William V respectively.  (I doubt Prince Arthur would dare reign as King Arthur, so I assume he'd use his second name just as his eldest brother did.  Conversely if the brother between Princes Albert and Arthur, Prince Alfred, had come to throne, I doubt he'd use his second name and reign as King Ernest, tho I would hope he would. )

If you want to have closer cooperation between Britain and Germany, you'd likely have to have Fredrick III stay on the German throne more than the mere 99 days fate allowed him.  That would be the case regardless of whether or not his son Wilhelm II ever became the British heir presumptive.

If Fredrick III stays on the throne, what do you invision for Germany?  I'm not very informed on the subject, but from what I understand he was a reformer, and had plans to liberalize Germany.  Had he done so, would this alone help build friendly relations with the UK?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While it would have liberalized Germany slightly, the main benefits to improved Anglo-German relations would have come from a weakening of the military's control of the government and a less belligerent foreign policy.  Also, while Wilhelm II would still likely be a reactionary bastard, a decade or two of his father's rule might well have taught him some tact and kept him from making some of the blunders he did.

It doesn't need to be a major change.  Simply keeping the tensions low so that the British never plan properly for a BEF would be sufficient.  If the Germans don't support the Boers during the Second Boer War, then it goes more smoothly for the British and they see no need for the Haldane reforms.  An ineffective or absent BEF means France falls in 1914.

More significantly, if groundwork was not laid out for what became the Entente, it is possible that the Great War breaks out in 1904.  France was nominally the ally of Russia and Britain the ally of Japan.  It would not be implausible for them to come to blows then instead of a decade later.

[Jerseyrules]

While it would have liberalized Germany slightly, the main benefits to improved Anglo-German relations would have come from a weakening of the military's control of the government and a less belligerent foreign policy.  Also, while Wilhelm II would still likely be a reactionary bastard, a decade or two of his father's rule might well have taught him some tact and kept him from making some of the blunders he did.

It doesn't need to be a major change.  Simply keeping the tensions low so that the British never plan properly for a BEF would be sufficient.  If the Germans don't support the Boers during the Second Boer War, then it goes more smoothly for the British and they see no need for the Haldane reforms.  An ineffective or absent BEF means France falls in 1914.

More significantly, if groundwork was not laid out for what became the Entente, it is possible that the Great War breaks out in 1904.  France was nominally the ally of Russia and Britain the ally of Japan.  It would not be implausible for them to come to blows then instead of a decade later.

Sorry BEF?

Also, what about Wilhelm's younger brother?  Is there any chance he would be more liberal?

And finally, what about a unified Germany including all of Austria-Hungary ruled by Habsburgs?  Now the final one is the most tricky to do but from what I understand Franz Josef was very pragmatic - let's say somehow a unified Germany is created earlier than otl, and includes AH.  Because the balance of power would be thrown out of whack from such a move the possibility of a British-German alliance is even slimmer.  However what if Napoleon III showed signs of as much military aggression as his uncle?  Is it possible the seeds of alliance are sown by Britain declaring support for German unification in order to check French expansion, then the relationship grows from there?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sorry BEF?

British Expeditionary Force  Even tho they got creamed in the process, they delayed the Hun long enough at Mons to allow them to be stopped at First Marne.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prince Henry was more liberal and more diplomatic than his older brother, but he also was a naval officer by profession and temperament.  If you're thinking of him taking the German throne because of some mischance happening to Wilhelm, I'm doubtful it would lead to improved Anglo-German relations because of the Navy being the sorest spot between the two Empires.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea that the Hapless Habsburgs could create a united Germany in the 19th century is extremely far fetched.  It wasn't until the aftermath of losing the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 that they took even limited steps to realistically address the rising tide of nationalism within their multinational state and even that didn't really go far enough.  Not that I blame the Habsburgs too much.  It's hard to see how they could have done much better than they did under the circumstances.

[Jerseyrules]

Sorry BEF?

British Expeditionary Force  Even tho they got creamed in the process, they delayed the Hun long enough at Mons to allow them to be stopped at First Marne.

Sorry; I don't really have a lot of knowledge on specific battles

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prince Henry was more liberal and more diplomatic than his older brother, but he also was a naval officer by profession and temperament.  If you're thinking of him taking the German throne because of some mischance happening to Wilhelm, I'm doubtful it would lead to improved Anglo-German relations because of the Navy being the sorest spot between the two Empires.
[/quote]
From the sounds of it he really didn't have much interest in ruling anyway.  But what surprises me the most is how growing up with liberal parents and Grandma Victoria Wilhelm still ruled as an autocrat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea that the Hapless Habsburgs could create a united Germany in the 19th century is extremely far fetched.  It wasn't until the aftermath of losing the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 that they took even limited steps to realistically address the rising tide of nationalism within their multinational state and even that didn't really go far enough.  Not that I blame the Habsburgs too much.  It's hard to see how they could have done much better than they did under the circumstances.
[/quote]

What about if rights were given to different ethnic groups or something caused national unity to placate them; allowing peace at home maybe allows time to think about a unified German state?

[LastVoter]

You also have to consider how the effects of this on Germany's revolution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What about if rights were given to different ethnic groups or something caused national unity to placate them; allowing peace at home maybe allows time to think about a unified German state?

If they did that, which I don't think they could have, even if inclined to do so, the Hungarians would have been most upset with that.  In many ways, the Hungarians were even more chauvinistic than the Austrians.  Plus it wasn't really in the interests of the Prussians, Russians, or Austrians to let the Poles have any sort of effective autonomy.  The Poles were in many ways the Kurds of the 19th Century.

But even if they were somehow to do all that, you're still left with the problem that Austria is effectively doomed to lose the Austro-Prussian War without rewriting a whole lot more history. At a minimum, you'd have to scrap the Congress of Vienna and have something else put in its place after Napoleon's final downfall.  (Assuming there is a final downfall.)

[Jerseyrules]

What about if rights were given to different ethnic groups or something caused national unity to placate them; allowing peace at home maybe allows time to think about a unified German state?

If they did that, which I don't think they could have, even if inclined to do so, the Hungarians would have been most upset with that.  In many ways, the Hungarians were even more chauvinistic than the Austrians.  Plus it wasn't really in the interests of the Prussians, Russians, or Austrians to let the Poles have any sort of effective autonomy.  The Poles were in many ways the Kurds of the 19th Century.

But even if they were somehow to do all that, you're still left with the problem that Austria is effectively doomed to lose the Austro-Prussian War without rewriting a whole lot more history. At a minimum, you'd have to scrap the Congress of Vienna and have something else put in its place after Napoleon's final downfall.  (Assuming there is a final downfall.)

What about Prussia turning the Austro-Prussian War into a War of Conquest, conquering all Habsburg lands?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What about if rights were given to different ethnic groups or something caused national unity to placate them; allowing peace at home maybe allows time to think about a unified German state?

If they did that, which I don't think they could have, even if inclined to do so, the Hungarians would have been most upset with that.  In many ways, the Hungarians were even more chauvinistic than the Austrians.  Plus it wasn't really in the interests of the Prussians, Russians, or Austrians to let the Poles have any sort of effective autonomy.  The Poles were in many ways the Kurds of the 19th Century.

But even if they were somehow to do all that, you're still left with the problem that Austria is effectively doomed to lose the Austro-Prussian War without rewriting a whole lot more history. At a minimum, you'd have to scrap the Congress of Vienna and have something else put in its place after Napoleon's final downfall.  (Assuming there is a final downfall.)

What about Prussia turning the Austro-Prussian War into a War of Conquest, conquering all Habsburg lands?

The Prussians weren't that crazy.  If it had been feasible to take just Austria and Bohemia, then just maybe.  Or perhaps have Maximillian or Karl Ludwig instead of Franz Joseph be named King of Bohemia when their uncle Ferdinand abdicated in 1848.  (They were a little young, but their father Franz Karl could have served as a regent to oversee the orderly breakup of the Habsburg empire into nation states as a result of the 1848 revolution.)

[Franknburger]

Getting back to the original question: The main cause for German-British tensions was not the German naval programme - the British quickly clarified during WW I whose Navy was stronger.

The key conflict lay with Germany closing the competitiveness gap against Britain in key industry sectors (steel, railways, machine-building, cars), but lacking world market access due to  prevailing protectionism, and few own colonies. German attempte to overcome these constraints, most notably the construction of the Istanbul-Bagdad railway, were, rightly or wrongly, understood as attempt to counteract British maritime supremacy, and as a threat to Suez canal control, which was vital for the British Empire.

Under these conditions, Germany's heavy industry had a lot to win (short-term: armament deals, long term: export market access, access to energy sources like Belgian coal and middle-east oil) and (at least so they thought) little to lose from war. I don't know how the British perspective was in this respect, but I suppose there were also a number of industrialists that saw war, or at least armament, as a good business opportunity, and a chance to get rid of these nasty German competitors.

For an Anglo-German alliance to emerge and work, incentives for war would have had to be substantially reduced, while the opportunity cost of war would have had to be increased. In practical terms: Britain would have needed to open its markets, especially the colonies, to German exports, while Germany would have needed to allow (probably even to promote) British takeovers of German "technology leaders". Why should Britain have done so at the height of its colonial power ? And which German "technology leader" - typically second-generation family enterprises -  would have been interested in and open to British investment ?

As to a possible US-German alliance, things look a bit different. There have been substantial German capital exports to the US, notably the US railway sector (e.g. Northern Pacific), brokered by Jewish German American companies such as Lehmann Brothers and Kuhn, Loeb & Co, as well as trans-atlantic family businesses (Steinway / Steinweg). As such, there was no interest or reason for Germany entering war against the US. On the other hand - why should the US have allied with any European power, instead of just staying neutral, and focusing on exploiting the huge domestic potentials for economic development and growth?

[Citizen Hats]

In practical terms: Britain would have needed to open its markets, especially the colonies, to German exports

I'm not sure I follow. Britain followed a Free Trade and Capital policy for itself and in it's non-self governing colonies until the 1930s (The dominions were often ruled by protectionists like Sir John MacDonald). Foreigners were free to invest in India and Africa