British-German Alliance Pre WW1?

[Lord Baal]

You know, I've never actually seen any evidence to indicate that the Zimmerman Telegram was actually legit. Seems an incredibly stupid thing to do.

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah. I knew about the Zimmerman telegram, I just couldn't remember how far that got. ie: Whether Mexico was seriously considering it.

 

[Dachs]

"Mexico" barely existed. It was kind of partly under American occupation at the time. And there was a small revolution in progress.

 

[Ajidica]

But hasn't Americas strength generaly been in war the fact we don't really need to keep troops for home defense?
If we did have an expedition into Mexico, the vigilante groups would have been a problem. Did we ever catch Pancho Villa?

 

[Gangor]

There's no such thing as a "balance of power principle".

Well considering that English/British foreign policy was decided using it for centuries (only really abandoned by Gladstone) I beg to differ.

Besides, how did the Bismarckian system in any way resemble a "balance" of power? What the hell does a "balance of power" even mean?

link

took 5 seconds

 

[Ajidica]

Wasn't the idea of BoP effectivly dead due to the German Unification? The idea basically originated with the War of Spanish Secession and was designed at preserving the status quo. The German Unification basicaly sent everything spinning out of alignment causing everyone to re-adjust their alliances to deal with a united Germany.

 

[Dachs]

But hasn't Americas strength generaly been in war the fact we don't really need to keep troops for home defense?

Uh, kind of? If you have a reeeally selective view I guess. Why?

If we did have an expedition into Mexico, the vigilante groups would have been a problem. Did we ever catch Pancho Villa?

No, we never did catch Pancho Villa.

Well considering that English/British foreign policy was decided using it for centuries (only really abandoned by Gladstone) I beg to differ.

It was essentially a catchphrase that amounted to a "scientific" cover for any policy the foreign ministry wished to pursue at the time. Even when it was sincere, the British belief that Europe was inevitably and invariably divided into armed camps that frequently went to war with one another, and that Britain could prevent any one from becoming stronger by lending its weight to the weaker side, arguably made war more likely than less. Take a look, for instance, at Palmerston's policy over Belgium in 1830.

Balance-of-power theory doesn't ever explain why wars don't or do happen, unfortunately. It's not a very useful formulation for that. The saner neorealists - and for this I almost miss Winner - don't even try to argue this, and instead state that a balance is something that naturally forms, and doesn't actually explain anything. This isn't very helpful either, but at least it, unlike the realist formula of "balance of power stops wars", is unfalsifiable.

link

took 5 seconds

I am incredibly uninterested in reading a Wikipedia link that doesn't really describe the situation. Why don't you explain why the European system from 1871 to 1890 was peaceful (assuming, of course, that you ignore the Balkans) and why that was due to some supposed "balance of power"? Preferably in your own words.

 

[Ajidica]

Uh, kind of? If you have a reeeally selective view I guess. Why?

It was just an idle observation. Basicaly having to fight a war at home in territory perfect for vigilantes and guerilla wars with a relativly undefined border would have sucked up a fair bit of troops and (if we went to war) distracted us from Germany.

 

[Dachs]

It was just an idle observation. Basicaly having to fight a war at home in territory perfect for vigilantes and guerilla wars with a relativly undefined border would have sucked up a fair bit of troops and (if we went to war) distracted us from Germany.

Hence why we pulled out before we fought the Germans.

 

[say1988]

Balance-of-power theory doesn't ever explain why wars don't or do happen, unfortunately. It's not a very useful formulation for that. The saner neorealists - and for this I almost miss Winner - don't even try to argue this, and instead state that a balance is something that naturally forms, and doesn't actually explain anything. This isn't very helpful either, but at least it, unlike the realist formula of "balance of power stops wars", is unfalsifiable.

I'm not knowledgable on the specifics, but my assumption had always been that peace was not the reason for the British pushing their Balance of Power Policy, but merely a justification.
It always seemed more intent on keeping anyone from challenging Britain. Their interests were primarily outside of Europe, so keep the continental powers focussed on each other and from growing too much stronger and you keep them from threatening you.

 

[Dachs]

I'm not knowledgable on the specifics, but my assumption had always been that peace was not the reason for the British pushing their Balance of Power Policy, but merely a justification.
It always seemed more intent on keeping anyone from challenging Britain. Their interests were primarily outside of Europe, so keep the continental powers focussed on each other and from growing too much stronger and you keep them from threatening you.

That's very much how the British train of thought went. Unfortunately, it's also unnecessarily confrontational.

 

[Ajidica]

Hence why we pulled out before we fought the Germans.

I realize I am playing a what-if game, but if Mexico started conducting guerrila raids along our border, would we have entered the western front in time to demoralize the Germans? I remember reading that with the Eastern Front troops freed up, Germany had the resources to break the trench stalemate, but not enough to deal with American re-inforcements.

 

[sophie]

I realize I am playing a what-if game, but if Mexico started conducting guerrila raids along our border, would we have entered the western front in time to demoralize the Germans? I remember reading that with the Eastern Front troops freed up, Germany had the resources to break the trench stalemate, but not enough to deal with American re-inforcements.

I don't think so, considering the Germans made a big push just before the Americans arrived on the scene, and it failed. It wasn't so much the fact that American troops were particularly daunting, more that the prospect of fighting another major power, let alone one with fresh troops pouring in by the thousands was undoable, not so much that they could have taken France if America stayed out.

...or at least that's the sense I get.

 

[Ajidica]

more that the prospect of fighting another major power, let alone one with fresh troops pouring in by the thousands was undoable

Thats more of what I meant. Germany could have forced france into a surrender, but not with fresh American troops arriving by the boatload.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Thats more of what I meant. Germany could have forced france into a surrender, but not with fresh American troops arriving by the boatload.

Not by 1918 definitely, and probably not after the initial push solidified into trench warfare.

 

[Masada]

Thats more of what I meant. Germany could have forced france into a surrender, but not with fresh American troops arriving by the boatload.

The Spring Offensive would have failed much as it did anyway.

 

[sophie]

Thats more of what I meant. Germany could have forced france into a surrender, but not with fresh American troops arriving by the boatload.

You missed the rest of my post, methinks...

I don't think so, considering the Germans made a big push just before the Americans arrived on the scene, and it failed...not so much that they could have taken France if America stayed out

*EDIT* Crosspost

 

[say1988]

The only arguments I have seen, that I lend any credence to are that either:

a) No American involvement could have convinced Germany that it could still win (potentially with the Allies being mroe conservative, which I doubt since they were hardly conservative at any point) extending the war through 1919, which would have been horrendous for the German people, since the blockade would likely go on until 1920 and what resources they had would go to the front through 1919.

b) A lack of American involvement would cause the Allies to negotiate peace onmore equitable terms (instead of dictating hte peace to Germany), whihc I don't see happening, breaking the last German offensives in 1917 would likely convinve the Allies a full victory was possible, and without such offensives there would be no need for peace since the Germans would appear to still have no way to break the Allied lines and the Allied tank forces were building up.

I don't know if there is anything to back them up, I would be more inclined to believe that the results would have been quite similar, but perhaps with more harsh peace terms without the Wilson at the table, though extending the war another year or so would be quite reasonable.

 

[Dachs]

The Spring Offensive would have failed much as it did anyway.

Dunno about that. Zabecki (2006) makes a good argument that the British troops could conceivably have been pushed off the Continent, through artillery interdiction of the Hazebrouck chokepoint if nothing else. Not that that relies on Americans being there/not being there, but the Spring Offensives didn't necessarily have to end in a strung-out, overstretched, demoralized German Army.

 

[Masada]

obligatory disclaimer: ceteris parabis