Longwy-Briey annexed in 1871

[Dave Bender]

1898. Original German naval law. 16 battleships. Battleships replaced after 25 years.

1900. British cruisers detain three German mail steamers during the 2nd Boer War.
Britain abologized but the damage was done. 2nd naval law passed with little opposition. 38 battleships. Still replaced after 25 years.

1902. Anglo-Japanese military alliance.
1902. Secret agreement between Italy and France.

1904. Anglo-French Entente.

1905. France invades Morocco. Britain backs France.
From this point onward there was little doubt that Britain was hostile towards German interests.

1906. 3rd Naval Law.
1908. 4th Naval Law.
1912. 5th Naval Law.

If Britain does not turn hostile after the death of Queen Victoria I doubt the Reichstag would approve the 3rd, 4th and 5th naval laws. That would leave Germany with the below fleet:
24 pre-dreadnought battleships. Cannot start replacement until 1915.
14 dreadnought battleships.
No battlecruisers.

If Anglo-German relations remain good I would expect a new 1915 naval law which states that the 24 pre-dreadnought battleships will not be replaced. The KM battle fleet would stabilize at 14 dreadnoughts.

[Baltasar]

Historically, Bismark didn't want to annex large parts of France and opted for only Alsace Lorraine as those had a fairly large German minority. Other parts did not and to make matters worse, those areas were largely catholic. Annexing more catholic population into the protestant Prussia or the eventually formed German Reich could dramatically shift the balance of power towards undesirable edges. As citizens of the Reich, the ethnic French population would be allowed to cast their vote.

Also, how would Britain react in 1870/71 if the newly founded major power Germany not only dramatically shifts the status quo on the continent but also bites off a fairly important part of France?

[Dave Bender]

That's a major issue. Britain was happy to see France defeated but they didn't want newly created Deutsches Reich to become an economic giant.

There is an alternative which Britain would almost certainly like better. Longwy is right on the border with Belgium. Expand that buffer nation a bit. An economically more powerful Belgium would be more capable of defending itself.

[Futurist]

Was it? Eventually perhaps, but it had a poorly managed economy that developed as quickly as it did because of French loans. In the absence of these Russia will develop more slowly, which allows Austria-Hungary a chance to continue their very high rate of growth, while German control of one of the largest ore deposits in the world makes it that much richer vis-a-vis historically.

What about having Russia try to acquire loans from other countries instead, though? After all, with Germany being so strong in Europe, could Britain have been willing to give a lot of loans to Russia? Likewise, could the U.S. have given a lot of loans to Russia if Russia would have gotten rid of its extremely anti-Jewish policies such as the Pale of Settlement? Also, could some German businessmen have invested in Russia due to the high economic potential that they could have seen there (after all, I think that Lenin said that capitalists have no home country)?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

[Futurist]

That's a major issue. Britain was happy to see France defeated but they didn't want newly created Deutsches Reich to become an economic giant.

There is an alternative which Britain would almost certainly like better. Longwy is right on the border with Belgium. Expand that buffer nation a bit. An economically more powerful Belgium would be more capable of defending itself.

What about if Germany will refuse to agree to this, though?

[Futurist]

WW1 is butterflied away, especially if Germany is the premier power on the continent militarily.

Or perhaps delayed by, say, two to four decades in comparison to real life.

[SpicyJuan]

That Russia would become the continents premier military power was inevitable.

No.

[Futurist]

That Russia would become the continents premier military power was inevitable.

No.

Disagreed--for demographic reasons.

[SpicyJuan]

That Russia would become the continents premier military power was inevitable.

No.

Disagreed--for demographic reasons.

?

[Futurist]

That Russia would become the continents premier military power was inevitable.

No.

Disagreed--for demographic reasons.

?

Russia had more people than Germany, a situation which was certainly not going to change in the future. More people means a stronger economy and a strong military in the long(er)-run.

[SpicyJuan]

That Russia would become the continents premier military power was inevitable.

No.

Disagreed--for demographic reasons.

?

Russia had more people than Germany, a situation which was certainly not going to change in the future. More people means a stronger economy and a strong military in the long(er)-run.

Yet it doesn't always turn out so. You need more than just people to have a strong industry, military, and economy.

[Futurist]

No.

Disagreed--for demographic reasons.

?

Russia had more people than Germany, a situation which was certainly not going to change in the future. More people means a stronger economy and a strong military in the long(er)-run.

Yet it doesn't always turn out so. You need more than just people to have a strong industry, military, and economy.

True, but these other issues can generally be successfully dealt with in the long(er)-run.

[SpicyJuan]

True, but these other issues can generally be successfully dealt with in the long(er)-run.

Yes, but that means it's no longer "inevitable", rather "potential".

[Futurist]

True, but these other issues can generally be successfully dealt with in the long(er)-run.

Yes, but that means it's no longer "inevitable", rather "potential".

Actually, one can argue that it is inevitable that all countries will get good and competent leaders sooner or later.

[SpicyJuan]

True, but these other issues can generally be successfully dealt with in the long(er)-run.

Yes, but that means it's no longer "inevitable", rather "potential".

Actually, one can argue that it is inevitable that all countries will get good and competent leaders sooner or later.

No one can argue that it is inevitable since there is no solid proof that it will happen. At most you could say it's "plausible".