Time would be on the Franco-Russian side here, no? So, why spark a World War in, say, 1914 when you could wait until, say, 1940 or 1950 to do so, when your own side will be stronger relative to your enemies?
No partition?
AH Challenge- After armistice day 1918, Britain decides on and sticks w/ a policy of lockstep cooperation with France?
- Thread starter raharris1973
- Start date
Time would be on the Franco-Russian side here, no? So, why spark a World War in, say, 1914 when you could wait until, say, 1940 or 1950 to do so, when your own side will be stronger relative to your enemies?
No partition?
sillygoose
Well-known member
Maybe not. Seems like that was more the result of extremism caused by the war and demand for immediate decolonization, which wouldn't have been the case in a world with no world wars.
raharris1973
Well-known member
Time is on the Russian side sure- but it is a long, long wait to overmatch Britain and Germany combined.
Time isn't on France's side. As an independent contributing factor, France isn't growing much over this time. It's becoming more irrelevant and dispensable in comparative perspective.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Eh, they were liable to get stuck in the middle income trap and never be able to overcome Britain and Germany.
How exactly do you know that? Russia has a lot of natural resources, sure, but it also has a high average IQ, just like both Britain and Germany have. It isn't some tinpot Third World dictatorship that lacks a lot of human capital.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Its an issue of geography and historical quirks that resulted in the development of a rather toxic culture of governance in the country. IQ can be the highest in the world, but with problems of lack of decent leadership/government and the geography to make it viable to export and exchange ideas the country won't be competitive internationally.
Middle income trap - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Russia lacked the internal consumption growth or industry (or geography) to export anything (other than raw materials and food) by 1914, plus had a brewing political/revolutionary problem that was going to come to a head eventually and result in violence. So they'd fall more and more behind the technical trends of the world and get stuck with cheap manufacturing and resource extraction. There was the illusion of growth leading up to the war due to all the military spending (financed by France at high interest rates), but they weren't exporting arms, they were importing them; they weren't exporting anything in large amounts but raw materials; and technologically they weren't on the forefront of anything nor were there prospects that they would take the lead in any category of technology. The education system was a mess, most people were illiterate and living hand to mouth existences, and the political system refused to change and adapt to the 20th century western standard due to it meaning they'd have to give up their power and empower the masses politically. The revolution in 1905 didn't happen for no reason. Things of course weren't as bad as the Soviets later made out, but they weren't great in terms of Russia becoming a high tech economy competitive with western europe.
Very interesting thanks. I wouldn't totally agree with the suggestion in the article that Chamberlain only gained political power because of his wealth. It was largely his role in revitalizing Birmingham council and its activities that was the basis of his power, as well as his arguments for economic reform. I've often wished that Gladstone had retired or died earlier as that could well have meant that sooner or later Chamberlain and his radicals would have led the Liberal Party in a considerably different path.
However agree that as a businessman and probably somewhat impatient as he greatly favoured a deal with Germany, his failure to understand the 'diplomatic' terminology and the disastrous initial interaction with von Eckardstein set things on the wrong path that the mistrust of the professional German diplomats came to the wrong conclusion and worsened the issue further.
It does sound like a deal could have been worked out that could have drastically changed history if there had been better communication and less mistrust by the professional diplomats. WWI would either have been avoided or greatly changed and probably occurring later and been markedly shorter and loss costly for all involved. There would still have been issues with Tirpitz if he had tried challenging the RN but he's likely to get sacked in such a scenario. Some sort of deal would probably have been made over influence over the Ottoman empire and as Chamberlain suggested protection of China and both powers interests there again Russian encroachment. Quite likely French as well in the south. It might have ended up butterflying the Anglo-Japanese alliance given Wilhelm's outspoken hostility towards East Asians but then Japan is going to be mainly concerned with Russia, which will be at odds with Britain here.
We might be thinking of different things when we use that term. I'm not saying there was some sort of plan for Indian independence, albeit that at Congress and some of the more liberal elements of British society would have considered the idea as an eventual aim. However with the spread of western ideas and education I think there's no doubt that at least dominion status, which from 1931 would have moved from ~60% independence to about 90% was being considered as an aim and probably achievable within a couple of decades. It was really the collapse of the Liberal party, leaving the Tories with too much domination of British politics during the period ~1915-1945 that delayed matters as much as it did I think.
Bascially I'm saying that - short of Nazi/19thC US levels of ethnic cleansing/mass slaughter which wouldn't be physically practical in India, let alone any moral issues - British rule over India would end probably by some time between 1930-1960. The longer it lasting probably more likely the bloodier the ending.
I wouldn't necessarily say that early, but very likely by 2000, Yes.
I doubt it would last until 2000 without something really crippling Indian independence desires but British rule could have lasted past 1960. However very likely at heavy costs to all involved.
Note that was what some British officials thought prior to WWII and one Indian person said - whether he believed that or not - prior to WWI. They might genuinely think that but it doesn't mean their going to be right.
If somehow WWII was avoided or won very quickly by the allies then Britain has more military and economic strength than OTL. Also the Tories may not be such a spent force in ~1945 but how long can Britain hold onto India by military forces when there is no longer broad acceptance of that position in India?
Princes in india have independent states,and do not wonted united India.That would be enough to hold at least part of it.
raharris1973
Well-known member
One thing that was used to bind together French and West German interests after WWII was economics, in particular Germany's need for iron ore (which France had in abundance), and France's need for coal (which Germany had in abundance).
Could Britain, France, and Belgium (and Luxemburg) have built tighter economic ties from 1919 onward based on a similar set of interests, considering France's abundance of iron ore, and Britain and Belgium's abundance of coal. An early 'Atlantic' or 'West' European Coal and Steel Community, possibly leading also to greater geopolitical cooperation? If Anglo-French economic cooperation broadened, bolder proposals could move beyond their homelands to include colonial interpenetration agreements, opening their imperial markets to each other.
Could Britain, France, and Belgium (and Luxemburg) have built tighter economic ties from 1919 onward based on a similar set of interests, considering France's abundance of iron ore, and Britain and Belgium's abundance of coal. An early 'Atlantic' or 'West' European Coal and Steel Community, possibly leading also to greater geopolitical cooperation? If Anglo-French economic cooperation broadened, bolder proposals could move beyond their homelands to include colonial interpenetration agreements, opening their imperial markets to each other.
Possibly but you have the problem of economics in Britain with its commitment to free trade. As such its got nothing to offer to the other powers as they already have full access to British and imperial markets [other than self-governing areas such as the dominions and after WWI India which had their own tariffs] in return for British access to French and Belgium markets.
1947 suggests differently. There was only one place where the new Indian government made any concessions to a princely state - that was because an Hindu ruler agreed to a Muslim state [Kashmir] joining India rather than Pakistan. Elsewhere some of them tried to stay independent - have a feeling Hydrabad was one and the Indian army quickly ended that.
Why not include the Netherlands in this arrangement as well? And maybe Italy too?
There are possibilities but the Dutch might see it as an 'allied' grouping and hence undermining their neutrality which they would have seen as protecting themselves [largely] from WWI.
Italy might seem a suitable addition but again would it give up its protective tariffs given its relatively weak industrial base plus barring significant good butterflies its going to have an attack of Mussolini fairly soon which would greatly complicate matters. If such a grouping was set up including Italy, which would take some time what happens if Italy becomes a dictatorship? Is its membership suspended or does the organisation try to ignore that?
Becouse England betrayed them.With british support,they would hold.