Was the fall of the British Empire inevitable?

[Simon_Jester]

A more accurate account would be that only the political and military knew Britain would have to take a side in Europe due to the so called 'Dreadnought Race' from 1905-14, if Germany lost a naval battle it wouldn't mean the defeat Germany itself, Britain was a maritime power and if it lost it's naval fleet it would had spelled the end.

This statement is ungrammatical enough that I'm honestly not sure what you mean.

"Only the political and military knew Britain would have to take a side in Europe..." How in Heaven's name does this mean Britain was compelled to fight Germany specifically? Your whole picture strikes me as nonsense- it ignores all the causes of tension on the continent, it ignores all the times Britain become involved in those tensions, it ignores the very existence of the Entente Cordiale... where are you getting this stuff from?

It was because of that event that made Britain make it's mind up and join the Franco-Russian side in the event of conflict. Germany were rivals in the past and upto 1914 Britain never had major confrontations with Germany in comparison to France,

Have you not heard of the Agadir Crisis? The Tangier Crisis?

not only did Britain still regarded france as the old enemy but that France had a old score to settle with Germany because of the franco-prussian war of 1870-1871 (victory of Prussia allowed the creation of germany, and gave Alsace-Lorraine to germany), so the idea that britain would go against Germany was still a shock, all the more so that despite the rivalry we were never at war with them beforehand.

Again, this is nonsense, as demonstrated by the widespread popular support in Britain for the war in the opening days. You're ignoring the entire period of 1900-1914, during which the British steadily grew closer to France. As colonial rivalries became less important, and Britain began worrying more and more about the balance of power on the continent, they invariably backed France and opposed Germany.

Note the word COULD, at the time there was no knowing if France or Russia would be able to beat germany or how the war may turn around, britan's no entry to the war opens a whole new questions of 'what ifs' something reserved more for those who still like to play risk board games then historians. Britain's no entry wouldn't had changed some things such as the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, the russian mobilisation was considerably understimated, had germany ploughed in any deeper into france during the early days of the war they may have prompted a even faster russian advance or found themselves over stretched too soon. Nonethless the Russians would had made things difficult for Germany.

And yet you behave as if it is a fact that the Allies could have won without Britain. You have no support for this, so far as I can see; the Russians and French both gave Germany their best shots, and failed.

Russia failed against the Central Powers even when Austria-Hungary was distracted by the entry of Italy and Romania into the conflict; these minor powers would not have entered had Britain remained neutral.

And France battered herself into exhaustion fighting Germany; by 1917 mutinies in her armies were leaving the nation on the brink of military collapse. Economic aid from the English-speaking countries was vital to allowing her to keep up resistance. As was the manpower supplied by the British Expeditionary Force, which covered much of northern France from German attacks the French would otherwise be hard pressed to handle. As was the security the Royal Navy granted France, which would otherwise lack the naval strength to stop Germany from cutting off her overseas commerce.

Or am I not understanding you, because of your unclear prose? Do you mean to talk about how in 1914, people might imagine France and Russia winning if the British stayed out? If so, why is this relevant? What is the point you are trying to make?