WW1 doesn't happen How soon do alliances flip?
- Thread starter LeCHVCK
- Start date
Alliances
Even if WW1 does not happen, a communist uprising is still somewhat likely. If Kaiser Wilheim plays his cards right and is not really confrontational to Russia like he was IOTL, a new alliance or NAP could be struck with Soviet Russia.
Even if WW1 does not happen, a communist uprising is still somewhat likely. If Kaiser Wilheim plays his cards right and is not really confrontational to Russia like he was IOTL, a new alliance or NAP could be struck with Soviet Russia.
LordKalvert
Banned
Germany would desperately like a reconciliation with Russia. This would require some sacrifice of Austrian interests (or at least Franz Joseph's view of Austrian interests). Fortunately for the Germans, Franz Ferdinand had different views and also would have liked a reconciliation with Russia.
By around 1917, Russia should be in the market for a new diplomatic constellation. She would have been very strong on land and her fleet would be coming into being. The eleven dreadnaughts and battlecruisers she had on the stocks were first class and could turn the naval race on its head in a matter of minutes
So, assuming we butterfly away WWI by having FF live, then the alliance start to flip on November 21, 1916 with the ascension of FF. It will be difficult as the easy partitioning of the Balkan's may no longer be possible and the Russians might want to string along the British for a few more years but the tensions should have started to relax almost immediately
By around 1917, Russia should be in the market for a new diplomatic constellation. She would have been very strong on land and her fleet would be coming into being. The eleven dreadnaughts and battlecruisers she had on the stocks were first class and could turn the naval race on its head in a matter of minutes
So, assuming we butterfly away WWI by having FF live, then the alliance start to flip on November 21, 1916 with the ascension of FF. It will be difficult as the easy partitioning of the Balkan's may no longer be possible and the Russians might want to string along the British for a few more years but the tensions should have started to relax almost immediately
Deleted member 1487
The Anglo-Russian treaty was up in 1915 and no one planned on it being resigned, so an Anglo-German repproachment is very likely, especially after the Irish issue heats up. The Russo-German rivalry is beyond saving and will be the issue going forward. France will increasingly become an appendage of Russian foreign policy in Europe as the Russian industrialize and become the senior partner. As Russia starts to eclipse Germany militarily in terms of numbers and firepower, including their 1917 build up plan, then Britain is going to view them as the bigger threat, especially if the Great Game starts again in Asia.
I think Russian domestic issues may distract them from adventurism in the near abroad in the short term. They don't have much to gain by restarting the Great Game.
I also think people significantly overplay the amount of trouble the Irish Question will cause in the UK. I think the government would find some solution by which Ulster is excluded from Home Rule, and probably take steps to ensure that the army is muzzled afterwards.
I also think people significantly overplay the amount of trouble the Irish Question will cause in the UK. I think the government would find some solution by which Ulster is excluded from Home Rule, and probably take steps to ensure that the army is muzzled afterwards.
Last edited:
It is hard to see an Anglo-German rapprochement as long Wilhelm II is Kaiser and Germany continues to build up the High Seas Fleet. Kaiser Bill tried many times to detach Britain from the Entente in the previous decade, but he was so bad that he usually made the situation worse. Furthermore, out of national pride, the naval issue had assumed an importance in German domestic politics exceeding its actual value. Backing down on it now would alienate a core faction of support for the Kaiser.
Prior to the war, Britain was never fully committed to an alliance with France and Russia because of long standing British policy to maintain the balance of power. However, as long as Germany continued to antagonize Britain on a matter of vital importance (naval superiority), it's hard to see them ever backing away from France.
Germany can't make amends with Russia without selling out Austria-Hungary which also won't happen. Again, the Kaiser and the Tsar wanted to be friendly, but powerful domestic forces in both countries saw the other country as their enemy.
I think the alliances as is will continue for quite a while. The only change might be Italy officially leaving the Triple Alliance, although it will likely assume neutrality than join the Triple Entente. Until there is massive change at the top in Germany, the Germans don't have much room for diplomatic maneuvering.
Prior to the war, Britain was never fully committed to an alliance with France and Russia because of long standing British policy to maintain the balance of power. However, as long as Germany continued to antagonize Britain on a matter of vital importance (naval superiority), it's hard to see them ever backing away from France.
Germany can't make amends with Russia without selling out Austria-Hungary which also won't happen. Again, the Kaiser and the Tsar wanted to be friendly, but powerful domestic forces in both countries saw the other country as their enemy.
I think the alliances as is will continue for quite a while. The only change might be Italy officially leaving the Triple Alliance, although it will likely assume neutrality than join the Triple Entente. Until there is massive change at the top in Germany, the Germans don't have much room for diplomatic maneuvering.
Would a German-Russian reconciliation require a sacrifice of Turkish interests as well?
It would still seem that Russia would want Constantinople and the Straits and Armenia too.
Germany would still want its Baghdad railway. Oil discoveries around Kirkuk would only make rivalries worse. And Germany has its own imperial ambitions still and Turkey is a good base to mess with Britain.
if FF avoids getting shot in 1914. It seems that Turkey would be a good place for WW1 to break out a few years later. Armenia and Kurdistan were restive OTL. It seems Russia with these new ships launched and railways finished and industry expanded would likely flex their muscles in this area at the next opportunity of an Armenian revolt.
So how about a complicated 1917 Turkish war of:
Russia, France, Bulgaria
vs.
Germany, Britain, Turkey
Austria is neutral in this case - not interested in Turkey and seeking Russian reconciliation)
France is only fighting Germany.
Britain is only fighting Russia. (i.e. France and Britain not at war with each other)
-------------------------------
Smart Germany would sacrifice her Turkish interests because it would only help embroil Russia and Britain. I am not so sure how smart imperial Germany is though.
I love that there are several completely different suggestions so far, so let me put mine out there too.
Italy will actually be the first to flip, as tensions with Austria-Hungary over the Balkans become irreconcilable, and Italo-French ties grow ever stronger; this could happen by the end of 1914 even without a war. So that's what you'll see first.
1915 will certainly begin to see the cooling of Anglo-Russian ties; but unless Britain is persuaded of Germany being friendly -- and that pretty much takes a different German Kaiser and Foreign Office -- I don't think you'll see a new Triple Alliance forming. If the Liberals are out of power, and Sir Edward Grey gone from the Foreign Office, you're likely to see a significantly different British foreign policy in place, and which way they jump will depend on how the Russian Bear behaves, and there's a lot of variables in play there, depending on what comes out of St. Petersburg.
If there's no war, the Dutch may well have begun their intended naval program, so that could have interesting consequences and lead to closer Dutch-German ties.
The United States is almost certainly going to remain semi-isolationist, excepting their Pacific interests, unless someone's damn fool enough to poke them.
So by the end of the decade you'll see a new European balance of power, but I could make a case for a few different possibilities depending on specifics.
Italy will actually be the first to flip, as tensions with Austria-Hungary over the Balkans become irreconcilable, and Italo-French ties grow ever stronger; this could happen by the end of 1914 even without a war. So that's what you'll see first.
1915 will certainly begin to see the cooling of Anglo-Russian ties; but unless Britain is persuaded of Germany being friendly -- and that pretty much takes a different German Kaiser and Foreign Office -- I don't think you'll see a new Triple Alliance forming. If the Liberals are out of power, and Sir Edward Grey gone from the Foreign Office, you're likely to see a significantly different British foreign policy in place, and which way they jump will depend on how the Russian Bear behaves, and there's a lot of variables in play there, depending on what comes out of St. Petersburg.
If there's no war, the Dutch may well have begun their intended naval program, so that could have interesting consequences and lead to closer Dutch-German ties.
The United States is almost certainly going to remain semi-isolationist, excepting their Pacific interests, unless someone's damn fool enough to poke them.
So by the end of the decade you'll see a new European balance of power, but I could make a case for a few different possibilities depending on specifics.
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
The Anglo-German naval race ended in 1912:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race#The_race
Basically the British navy used the 'race' to get more funding after the advent of the Dreadnought made all other BBs useless. For the Germans it was more about establishing superiority over the Russian and French combined fleet, while ensuring they couldn't be close blockaded by anyone. By 1912 the Army League usurped the Navy League's position in German politics, so the navy ran out of support for any more naval expansion. The British government had an anti-German clique in charge after the events of the early 20th century, but as the German threat recedes in terms of a naval challenge and the Russians become more threatening, then the British government will become less anti-German, though rivalry in terms of economics would remain.
LordKalvert
Banned
There are plenty of possibilities and that's an interesting one. The British however had pretty much given up on the straits as important to their defense. The near complete withdrawal from the Mediterranean and having France concentrate there is solid proof of that.
The Entente was by no means dead between the two. Certainly the friction over Persia was acute as the internal situation there made prior agreements difficult but the Entente had other advantages to both and a new agreement based on the new realities
Russia really had little interest in Armenia- they turned down an English offer to occupy it in 1894-96. They might change that opinion if Armenian upheavals spread to their own land but I doubt it. All they would be doing is going to war to get some people who would promptly rebel against Russia
FF certainly wanted better relations with Russia but I'm not sure what Austria could offer by the time he got to the throne. The Balkans for Italy perhaps?
However, if Russia felt that they had Austria safely contained and could handle a German threat, she might be inclined to return to the Far East. A bargain of some sort with Germany would then be possible
More just throwing out possibilities and thoughts. There might just be an easing of continental tensions under FF with everyone favoring the status quo
LordKalvert
Banned
Interesting choice with Italy- she does actually defect in the end.
How about we add a little twist to it though- in September 1914 King Carol of Romania dies. He had long pursued a policy of alliance with Austria and Germany but kept the treaty a secret because of domestic opposition. Without him, I doubt if Romania would long pretend friendship with the Central Powers so a joint Italian-Romanian flip is possible (in which case the Austrians are done) but that would make the alliance aggressive- not sure if anyone was ready for that but it might not matter what FF wanted, the Russians might feel like taking out Austria once and for all with that level of support
It seems the worst case scenerio for Austria once Italy and Rommania flip is the there is an agreement that Russia does what ever she wants in the Balkans, Turkey and the Pacific but Austria's borders are guaranteed by Russia.
Which is not too bad for Austria and great for Russia.
Russia pushing harder to take out Austria means Germany is going to invovled too. And in this case Germany/Austria have the sympathy of the world, can import stuff, etc. I don't know if anybody sanely would just aggression attack such a warlike country with such a military rep as Germany.
1915. A year is all it takes.
First of all, I should say that I'm dealing with two imaginable scenarios for why WW1 doesn't break out from the July Crisis.
(A) Gavrilo Princip gets food poisoning on the way to Sarajevo. Franz Ferdinand finds that the 28th June, 1914, is nothing more than the day of a rather boring state visit. The July Crisis never happens at all.
(B) Franz Ferdinand still gets shot, but at a certain fateful time in the summer of 1914, Emperor Wilhelm II is not on a cruise (as he was IOTL) but, rather, in Berlin. So when Wilhelm II reads Serbia's response to Austria-Hungary's ultimatum, decides that it's enough for him to count it as a victory and war is therefore unnecessary, and writes a letter to Emperor Franz Josef of Austria to express this opinion, Wilhelm doesn't send the note via his foreign minister Jagow who then decides not to send it (which is what happened IOTL), Wilhelm sends the note straight to Franz Josef. Austria-Hungary doesn't dare to go to war against Serbia without German support.
The situations produce rather different outcomes.
_________________
In Case A, the United Kingdom and Russia drift apart over the issue of Persia and the Anglo-Russian Convention is not renewed when it comes up for renewal or expiry in 1915. This does not mean that the UK is now Germany's best friend, only that it's Russia's rival. The UK sells its ships to the Ottoman Empire, and, after the expiry of the Anglo-Russian Convention, starts to prop up the Ottoman Empire against the Russians.
France is now in the difficult position of being very friendly with the UK and very friendly with Russia, at a time when the UK and Russia are very definitely not at all friendly with each other.
Serbia is still sending in nationalist agents to stir up dissent against the Austro-Hungarian authorities in Bosnia, and Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire are still really annoyed at the outcome of the Balkan Wars. So a Balkan catalyst leading to war, in this situation, is still quite probable.
We now have two possible outcomes. If the UK isn't dragged in straight away, the UK will have no interest in helping Russia, but if Germany attacks Belgium or if Germany looks like it might use its naval might against France, the UK will still act against Germany to prevent that. That gives an OTL-esque outcome in terms of who is allied with whom. But it's also possible that the war starts off in South Asia or East Asia, with the Anglo-Russian clashes there. In that case, the UK will be opposed to Russia from the start. So we could see a war of UK + Ottoman Empire + Japan vs Russia, with France, Germany and Austria-Hungary neutral.
_________________
In Case B, Austria-Hungary is outraged, though not entirely surprised (in this era IOTL they were worried about how lukewarm German support for them was), by Germany's failure to support it in what it considers a matter of the highest possible importance. (A Serb killed the heir to the throne when the Emperor is the main thing holding Austria-Hungary in the first place and when the Emperor is very old and will die soon; it's difficult, from that perspective, to see it as anything other than a threat to Austria-Hungary's very existence.) Austria-Hungary is exceptionally unhappy with Germany, but still unfriendly with Russia too, for obvious reasons.
The Anglo-Russian Convention expires, as in Case A, and the UK props up the Ottomans, as in Case A. There is now an Anglo-Ottoman bloc opposing Russia and its Serbian client state. Austria-Hungary is likely to join this bloc; the United Kingdom is Austria-Hungary's natural ally if both of them see Russia as their great enemy. I don't think it takes much of a stretch to see the UK propping up Austria-Hungary as a bulwark against Russian expansion (Russian expansion, especially in Europe but also in Asia, was viewed really badly by the British). In the case presented here, there's an extra benefit: the UK was really not fond of the Serbian regicides, and, without the breakout of WW1 changing things, is likely to be sympathetic to Austria-Hungary and antagonistic towards Serbia.
Germany has just monumentally screwed up and lost its only major ally, and France and Austria-Hungary are obviously not options. So who can Germany turn to? It can turn to the United Kingdom, but that'll probably fail for the same reasons why Anglo-German alliance failed IOTL. Alternatively, it can turn to Russia. The fall of Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary ends the main reason for the Franco-Russian Alliance; Russia has little interest in opposing Germany for its own sake.
Russia may stay loyal to the Franco-Russian Alliance anyway; it certainly had plenty of supporters in important places in Russia. In that case, Germany is isolated but is unlikely to go to war against anyone; colonial issues were largely settled by this time and France, though wanting Alsace-Lorraine back, isn't just going to invade without a casus belli. A Balkan, South Asian or East Asian war between the Anglo-Austro-Ottoman bloc and Russia is quite possible, but in that case France has no real reason to get involved on either side; France will probably bow out. Russia would almost certainly lose such a war. As for what happens beyond that, someone can write a TL about it if they want to; I'm not going to go that far into the future of this brief idea (unless asked to).
Russia may, alternatively, ditch France in favour of Germany (there were supporters of this course of action in important places in Russia IOTL as well). In that case, France finds itself on the side of the UK, the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary and Japan, opposed to a Germano-Russian bloc. Italy wants territory from both France and Austria-Hungary, but an Anglo-Austro-French alliance leaves the Mediterranean so unambiguous that Italy would never attack them until/unless the war is already pretty much decided in favour of the Germans and Russians.
Admittedly not having read the Wikipedia article, I presume the gross simplification is Wikipedia's fault and not yours.
Describing the British government in 1914 as an "anti-German clique" is very much a stretch. Sir Edward Grey could definitely be described as anti-German, but not so much the rest of the government, including the Prime Minister. It was a very particular set of events that allowed Sir Edward's view to prevail over the views of many others in the Cabinet.
Nor did the new advances in naval technology, with dreadnoughts and battlecruisers, make all existing battleships useless (though I've seen this idea many times elsewhere). Indeed, I'd pick a pre-dreadnought battleship over a battlecruiser any day; the battlecruisers performed abysmally, at least how they were used. And dreadnoughts, though superior to pre-dreadnought battleships, weren't so superior to pre-dreadnought battleships that just a few of the former could destroy literally dozens of the latter—which is what would be necessary to make the UK's existing naval advantage "useless", rather than just "somewhat reduced". That especially counts for the dreadnoughts which were around early in the dreadnought era; obviously the later dreadnoughts were superior to pre-dreadnought battleships by a larger margin than the earlier dreadnoughts were.
The Royal Navy used the race to get more funding, but that had nothing to do with the dreadnought or with Germany; it had everything to do with the Royal Navy's habits as they have lasted for a very long time, i.e. pick an enemy country and inflate their capabilities so that they sound like a great threat, in order to get more funding. Just look a little earlier than the naval scare about the German navy in the British press and you will see a remarkably similar naval scare about the French navy in the British press. (This, by the way, is why it's so foolish to draw the conclusion that the Anglo-German naval arms race made war between the UK and Germany inevitable; no, it didn't, it was just typical behaviour, and we only tend to ascribe more significance to it than we do to other instances of the same behaviour because we know that IOTL the UK and Germany did go to war.)
The Germans conceding the arms race is true to an extent, but only somewhat; Germany's naval construction was obviously not equal to the UK's, but it's not as if they stopped producing dreadnoughts. Germany wanted to be able to concede victory in the naval arms race to the UK so that it wouldn't have to spend so much money on battleships (in exchange for British diplomatic concessions to Germany elsewhere) and tried to make an agreement with the UK to that effect; it didn't work, so that didn't happen.
First of all, I should say that I'm dealing with two imaginable scenarios for why WW1 doesn't break out from the July Crisis.
(A) Gavrilo Princip gets food poisoning on the way to Sarajevo. Franz Ferdinand finds that the 28th June, 1914, is nothing more than the day of a rather boring state visit. The July Crisis never happens at all.
(B) Franz Ferdinand still gets shot, but at a certain fateful time in the summer of 1914, Emperor Wilhelm II is not on a cruise (as he was IOTL) but, rather, in Berlin. So when Wilhelm II reads Serbia's response to Austria-Hungary's ultimatum, decides that it's enough for him to count it as a victory and war is therefore unnecessary, and writes a letter to Emperor Franz Josef of Austria to express this opinion, Wilhelm doesn't send the note via his foreign minister Jagow who then decides not to send it (which is what happened IOTL), Wilhelm sends the note straight to Franz Josef. Austria-Hungary doesn't dare to go to war against Serbia without German support.
The situations produce rather different outcomes.
_________________
In Case A, the United Kingdom and Russia drift apart over the issue of Persia and the Anglo-Russian Convention is not renewed when it comes up for renewal or expiry in 1915. This does not mean that the UK is now Germany's best friend, only that it's Russia's rival. The UK sells its ships to the Ottoman Empire, and, after the expiry of the Anglo-Russian Convention, starts to prop up the Ottoman Empire against the Russians.
France is now in the difficult position of being very friendly with the UK and very friendly with Russia, at a time when the UK and Russia are very definitely not at all friendly with each other.
Serbia is still sending in nationalist agents to stir up dissent against the Austro-Hungarian authorities in Bosnia, and Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire are still really annoyed at the outcome of the Balkan Wars. So a Balkan catalyst leading to war, in this situation, is still quite probable.
We now have two possible outcomes. If the UK isn't dragged in straight away, the UK will have no interest in helping Russia, but if Germany attacks Belgium or if Germany looks like it might use its naval might against France, the UK will still act against Germany to prevent that. That gives an OTL-esque outcome in terms of who is allied with whom. But it's also possible that the war starts off in South Asia or East Asia, with the Anglo-Russian clashes there. In that case, the UK will be opposed to Russia from the start. So we could see a war of UK + Ottoman Empire + Japan vs Russia, with France, Germany and Austria-Hungary neutral.
_________________
In Case B, Austria-Hungary is outraged, though not entirely surprised (in this era IOTL they were worried about how lukewarm German support for them was), by Germany's failure to support it in what it considers a matter of the highest possible importance. (A Serb killed the heir to the throne when the Emperor is the main thing holding Austria-Hungary in the first place and when the Emperor is very old and will die soon; it's difficult, from that perspective, to see it as anything other than a threat to Austria-Hungary's very existence.) Austria-Hungary is exceptionally unhappy with Germany, but still unfriendly with Russia too, for obvious reasons.
The Anglo-Russian Convention expires, as in Case A, and the UK props up the Ottomans, as in Case A. There is now an Anglo-Ottoman bloc opposing Russia and its Serbian client state. Austria-Hungary is likely to join this bloc; the United Kingdom is Austria-Hungary's natural ally if both of them see Russia as their great enemy. I don't think it takes much of a stretch to see the UK propping up Austria-Hungary as a bulwark against Russian expansion (Russian expansion, especially in Europe but also in Asia, was viewed really badly by the British). In the case presented here, there's an extra benefit: the UK was really not fond of the Serbian regicides, and, without the breakout of WW1 changing things, is likely to be sympathetic to Austria-Hungary and antagonistic towards Serbia.
Germany has just monumentally screwed up and lost its only major ally, and France and Austria-Hungary are obviously not options. So who can Germany turn to? It can turn to the United Kingdom, but that'll probably fail for the same reasons why Anglo-German alliance failed IOTL. Alternatively, it can turn to Russia. The fall of Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary ends the main reason for the Franco-Russian Alliance; Russia has little interest in opposing Germany for its own sake.
Russia may stay loyal to the Franco-Russian Alliance anyway; it certainly had plenty of supporters in important places in Russia. In that case, Germany is isolated but is unlikely to go to war against anyone; colonial issues were largely settled by this time and France, though wanting Alsace-Lorraine back, isn't just going to invade without a casus belli. A Balkan, South Asian or East Asian war between the Anglo-Austro-Ottoman bloc and Russia is quite possible, but in that case France has no real reason to get involved on either side; France will probably bow out. Russia would almost certainly lose such a war. As for what happens beyond that, someone can write a TL about it if they want to; I'm not going to go that far into the future of this brief idea (unless asked to).
Russia may, alternatively, ditch France in favour of Germany (there were supporters of this course of action in important places in Russia IOTL as well). In that case, France finds itself on the side of the UK, the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary and Japan, opposed to a Germano-Russian bloc. Italy wants territory from both France and Austria-Hungary, but an Anglo-Austro-French alliance leaves the Mediterranean so unambiguous that Italy would never attack them until/unless the war is already pretty much decided in favour of the Germans and Russians.
Admittedly not having read the Wikipedia article, I presume the gross simplification is Wikipedia's fault and not yours.
Describing the British government in 1914 as an "anti-German clique" is very much a stretch. Sir Edward Grey could definitely be described as anti-German, but not so much the rest of the government, including the Prime Minister. It was a very particular set of events that allowed Sir Edward's view to prevail over the views of many others in the Cabinet.
Nor did the new advances in naval technology, with dreadnoughts and battlecruisers, make all existing battleships useless (though I've seen this idea many times elsewhere). Indeed, I'd pick a pre-dreadnought battleship over a battlecruiser any day; the battlecruisers performed abysmally, at least how they were used. And dreadnoughts, though superior to pre-dreadnought battleships, weren't so superior to pre-dreadnought battleships that just a few of the former could destroy literally dozens of the latter—which is what would be necessary to make the UK's existing naval advantage "useless", rather than just "somewhat reduced". That especially counts for the dreadnoughts which were around early in the dreadnought era; obviously the later dreadnoughts were superior to pre-dreadnought battleships by a larger margin than the earlier dreadnoughts were.
The Royal Navy used the race to get more funding, but that had nothing to do with the dreadnought or with Germany; it had everything to do with the Royal Navy's habits as they have lasted for a very long time, i.e. pick an enemy country and inflate their capabilities so that they sound like a great threat, in order to get more funding. Just look a little earlier than the naval scare about the German navy in the British press and you will see a remarkably similar naval scare about the French navy in the British press. (This, by the way, is why it's so foolish to draw the conclusion that the Anglo-German naval arms race made war between the UK and Germany inevitable; no, it didn't, it was just typical behaviour, and we only tend to ascribe more significance to it than we do to other instances of the same behaviour because we know that IOTL the UK and Germany did go to war.)
The Germans conceding the arms race is true to an extent, but only somewhat; Germany's naval construction was obviously not equal to the UK's, but it's not as if they stopped producing dreadnoughts. Germany wanted to be able to concede victory in the naval arms race to the UK so that it wouldn't have to spend so much money on battleships (in exchange for British diplomatic concessions to Germany elsewhere) and tried to make an agreement with the UK to that effect; it didn't work, so that didn't happen.
LordKalvert
Banned
I think your right that Russia would be satisfied with reducing Austria to a protectorate. The Austrians might be willing with a hostile Italy, Romania and Serbia with the knives out. Replacing German protection with Russian isn't that bad or trying to be a joint protectorate of the two.
Austria could do a lot for Russia (help on the straits or with the Japanese Navy if the Russians are interested)
But, perhaps, the Italians, Serbs and Romanians take it upon themselves to bring down Austria whether the Russians and Germans like it or not (sort of what happened OTL with the Serbs)
In that case, Russia is going to get dragged into it whether she likes it or not- an Austria that knocks out those three would be too formidable
The chessboard is very complicated and the moves are endless here
Peter Parker
Banned
If the naval race dies down, then we could see a German-British alliance since the Great Game will start again
My question is the Ottomans and AH
The Ottoman Empire wasn't going to make it to 1930
My question is the Ottomans and AH
The Ottoman Empire wasn't going to make it to 1930
???Why not? OTL it was dismembered after losing in WWI, as was AH. Neither state was doomed to split, despite what people from OTL assume.
IF the 1914 crisis is averted you need another spark to set it off.
FF indeed wanted to settle things with russia in a peaceful way - he believed that an agreement could be reached. If Austria supports the russians vs Otoman interests the russians will probably put pressure on Belgrad to scale back its interests. (both wiithout immediate action)
An interesting powderkeg might be Greek/Turkish tensions (imagine a greek insurrection in Western Turkey - Bulgaria also joins)
THis might lead to Russia supporting Greece/Bulgaria and Britain supporting the OE - it mighht not lead to war but Russian/British relations will significantly cool.
FF indeed wanted to settle things with russia in a peaceful way - he believed that an agreement could be reached. If Austria supports the russians vs Otoman interests the russians will probably put pressure on Belgrad to scale back its interests. (both wiithout immediate action)
An interesting powderkeg might be Greek/Turkish tensions (imagine a greek insurrection in Western Turkey - Bulgaria also joins)
THis might lead to Russia supporting Greece/Bulgaria and Britain supporting the OE - it mighht not lead to war but Russian/British relations will significantly cool.
with a fast industrializing russia a new balance in europe is a complete illusion - the age of "great powers" is ending and the age of the superpowers is starting.
while france, germany, ottomans and A-H are at the height of their power russia is rising fast, and imperial russias "power ceiling" is far higher than that of the soviet union because it lacks some of the crippling issues of the communist system.
while france, germany, ottomans and A-H are at the height of their power russia is rising fast, and imperial russias "power ceiling" is far higher than that of the soviet union because it lacks some of the crippling issues of the communist system.
LordKalvert
Banned
Unlikely, while Britain never made it official or public, it had long given up on the straits issue. This had become clear with the withdrawal of the Mediterranean fleet
Nor do I see any reason for Russia to back the Greeks or the Bulgarians. Russia's policy is to contain Austria and grab the straits for themselves. A strong Bulgaria is an obstacle to be avoided. More likely, the Russians encourage the Romanians to attack Bulgaria again. Romania is the real key here- adding her might to Serbia's presents the Austrians with a formidable Southern front that would divert at least two or three armies from Poland
(see second Balkan War where Russia supports Serbia, Romania, Turkey and Greece against the Bulgarians)
Britain is in a tight spot here- the Russian entente was made when Russia was much weaker and with her growing strength, Russia is in the mood for much better terms. A Russo-German reconciliation is the one thing that Britain would fear the most