If in 1904 britain had not signed the Entente Cordiale with france but had instead formed an alliance with germany (who despite rivalry at the time had ties and where traditionally alies) . How do you think world history would have progressed?.

Would there have still been a war in europe? or would the land power of germany plus the sea power of the royal navy made it impossible?.

Originally posted by ellie
If in 1904 britain had not signed the Entente Cordiale with france but had instead formed an alliance with germany (who despite rivalry at the time had ties and where traditionally alies) . How do you think world history would have progressed?.

Would there have still been a war in europe? or would the land power of germany plus the sea power of the royal navy made it impossible?. That was simply impossible. France and Britain shared common interests which were to defend their Empires.

Germany came too late in the show so they didn't have any colony, prussians were too busy in invading... sorry unifying Germany then. As a result, in 1904, Germany was pressuring everyone to grab few colonies which were of vital importance to sustain the economies of those times.

If France and Britain decided to unify, it was to mutually protect their colonies. Or more exactly, it wasn't in the interests of Britain to see Germany grabbing all French colonies because Germany which was already the 1st economical power in Europe, would have take the lead of the alliance instead of Britain.

There's a British tradition saying that an alliance is only valuable when Britain is the main partner.

EDIT : spelling correction.

As Marla says,

Britan allied with France to counter balance Germany. European foregin relations of the mid 19th century to WW1 were concerned with maintaining the balance of power, ensuring no one country dominated the contentient in GBs case.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
As a result, in 1904, Germany was pressuring everyone to grab few colonies which were of vital importance to sustain the economies of those times. I wonder about the economic necessity of those colonies... America had few, yet it was the one expanding, industrializing, developing the fastest in that era (?).

Even with all their colonial empires, it was Germany that was tops in the industrial rankings, rather than Britain, France or Russia...

Originally posted by XIII
I wonder about the economic necessity of those colonies... America had few, yet it was the one expanding, industrializing, developing the fastest in that era (?).

Even with all their colonial empires, it was Germany that was tops in the industrial rankings, rather than Britain, France or Russia... Yeah this is true, but ressources were still cheaper when you get them from your own colonies. America was too focused in develloping its own ressources to really bother about outside ressources.

About Germany, they were definitly looking for colonies for a long time. In 1912, Germany has threatened France of an attack if Paris didn't give Morocco to Berlin. As a result, France succeeded to give only Cameroon.

Actually, after the success of the German expedition in Paris in 1871, Germany had won Alsace-Lorraine and has condemned France to pay strong "reparations" then (i.e. Treaty of Frankfurt). We can decently consider that Berlin wanted to do the same in 1914, but now they wanted French colonies. Germans didn't expect to be blocked at the suburbs of Paris... and what I still don't understand is where was the interests for the Germans to insist during 4 long years...

I wonder about the economic necessity of those colonies... America had few, yet it was the one expanding, industrializing, developing the fastest in that era (?).

America has enough resources and importantly variety of resources to be able to support herself. When compared to the UK for example it's clear that really America didn't need colonies, the UK did. America could easily just subjugate another indian tribe and pinch their land if they found something useful there. :p

Yeah, been playing Victoria (which I highly recommend) which covered this exact period (1836-1920). :) You can check out the AARs I'd written for my games, in my sig.

Quite familiar with the era.

I disagree with Marla, partly at least. Germany didn´t have any colonial quarrel with Britain and didn´t want any. France, okay we had a big quarrel since the French were beaten in 1871. Although Germany made some bigger diplomatical errors in this time, the French were provoking both Marocco crisis. But that´s another theme. No, Marla, I know you disagree, but no discussion here!
To England, well when Victoria was alive UK was a German defacto ally. Wilhelm was her darling and grandson. He gave him the Kilimandscharo mountain as birthday present. And she died in his arms. He was also tolerating the German naval plans because she knew it was not against UK but France and Russia. In these days a war between these nations was not impossible. But then she died. Her son was hated Wilhelm as he hated his uncle. So it came to the divorce of the unsigned British- German alliance. With all consequences. The naval race for example. In 1911 however both governments began to come nearer. The Germans tried to solve Britain out of the treaty with France and Russia. This would have been successful in 1915. But then Gavrilo Princip murdered the Austrian Archduke...
No, becuase of the familiar troubles an alliance was impossible in this times. Only after the death of king Edvard VII (?) it was possible again.

Adler

That Wilhelm/Edward thing reminds me of something I read about them. They were both sitting in a horse drawn carriage one time on some parade or similar when one of the horses broke wind. Much embarassment, but nothing said. When it happened again though Edward appologised for the smell to Wilhelm. Wilhelm said there was no need, he thought it had been the horse :lol:

Proof that some germans really do have a sense of humour ;)

As for the morrocan crisis though, I do recall that the British were mostly on the side of the French at the time, I believe that we sent a rather large fleet into gibraltar to demonstrate the fact to the germans that even if they did somehow gain morroco, with Gibraltar nearby and British seapower at the time so much more powerful, they would have trouble supplying and defending it in a war. Mostly though I agree that for most of the 19th cent. Britain and Germany were friendly, IIRC wasn't Wilhelm officially an admiral in the RN or something? :crazyeye:

In other respects though, with Germany as the biggest land power looking to expand her territory and colonies, and Britain as the biggest naval power, clashes would have come sooner or later. Germany was after all supplying the Boers for example in their wars against the British empire. For all the friendship on the level of kings and emperors, sooner or later IMO, the clash would have occurred.

Originally posted by privatehudson
America has enough resources and importantly variety of resources to be able to support herself. When compared to the UK for example it's clear that really America didn't need colonies, the UK did. America could easily just subjugate another indian tribe and pinch their land if they found something useful there. :p

Japan does quite well without many resources or a large territorial base. Adam Smith was not too keen on the idea of colonies increasing economic growth either.

Yeah, been playing Victoria (which I highly recommend) which covered this exact period (1836-1920). You can check out the AARs I'd written for my games, in my sig.

Quite familiar with the era.

That is definitely an interesting game.