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?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?