Alternate WW1 alliances.

I had this idea about other alliances that Bismarck could have made. One of them was a German-Russian-Italian triple alliance plus some minor powers such as Bulgaria which was Russia's main proxy in 1877 and perhaps Greece which wants to get back at the Ottomans. The POD is that Bismarck favours Russian interests at the Berlin conference for as much as he can without risking a war. An enraged Austria-Hungary leaves the conference and strengthens ties with France and Britain. Perhaps the Ottomans join the entente to curb Russian influence and their desire to het Constantinople although the Triple Alliance will be very strong.

The other was an Anglo-German- Austro-Hungarian alliance (possibly with the Ottomans joining, making it a quadruple alliance). The requires a more complicated POD. Either Emperor Friedrich III, who was pro-British, lives or Wilhelm II gets a personality change. The latter can be achieved by simply having Friedrich (his dad) trip and arrive in the bedroom three seconds later than IOTL. The result is a less militant, arrogant anc tactless Wilhelm.

Which do you find more likely and which would be the strongest? I made some maps to go with it:D

alternate WW1 alliances2.jpg
 
Belgium and Luxemburg would be in the war, if they're not on germany's side allowing troops to pass though the country and supplying them, they're gonna be attacked by germany and forced to...

If Britain is on Germany's side, maybe Belgium would ally with Germany, but not otherwise...

In the first one I don't see how Serbia joins, they wanted the south-slavic lands of Austria, and didn't have any issues with Bulgaria or Greece...
 
In the first one I don't see how Serbia joins, they wanted the south-slavic lands of Austria, and didn't have any issues with Bulgaria or Greece...
Sure they did, Bulgaria and Greece (not so much Greece) wanted Macedonia, which Serbia had... though the Austria thing would still seem to be a fairly large barrier here.
 
In 1877 (the year of the POD) Bulgaria was Russia's main proxy in the Balkans. Bulgaria wanted to snatch Macedonia from Serbia. In this case Serbia might be forced to turn to the Austrians and become their proxy.
 
In 1877 (the year of the POD) Bulgaria was Russia's main proxy in the Balkans. Bulgaria wanted to snatch Macedonia from Serbia. In this case Serbia might be forced to turn to the Austrians and become their proxy.

Correction: They wanted to snatch it from the Ottomans. Which brings me to my point: with an 1877 PoD, especially one putting Germany behind Russia and thus Bulgaria, the Balkans are likely to look very differant by the early 20th century.
 
In 1877 (the year of the POD) Bulgaria was Russia's main proxy in the Balkans. Bulgaria wanted to snatch Macedonia from Serbia. In this case Serbia might be forced to turn to the Austrians and become their proxy.

Bulgaria didn't exist in 1877. Anway, relations between Russia and Bulgaria soured almost immediately after it was created because they had no interest whatsoever in being Russia's "proxy". In fact, in the 80's, Russia demanded the Ottomans invade to bring them in line.
 
The British would never ally with the Ottoman Empire. They didnt even consider the Empire a rival country, much less a viable ally. Winston Churchill was the one that told the Ottomans that Britain was not searching for an alliance at the moment, but pretty much wanted to keep the Ottomans in the sidelines.

The British also screwed the Ottomans over. The Empire commissioned two warships to be built by Britain, and it almost crippled their economy. When they were complete the British seized them, which angered the Ottomans extremely and created an intense feeling of anger towards the British in the Empire.

Germany providing two warships to the Ottomans (to replace the ones the British seized) and a cadre of officers to train their army is really what sealed the deal.

Now if Germany could have secured France, Russia, or Great Britain in an alliance rather than the corpse that was the Austro-Hungarian empire, then they would have won the war.
 
The British would never ally with the Ottoman Empire. They didnt even consider the Empire a rival country, much less a viable ally. Winston Churchill was the one that told the Ottomans that Britain was not searching for an alliance at the moment, but pretty much wanted to keep the Ottomans in the sidelines.

The British also screwed the Ottomans over. The Empire commissioned two warships to be built by Britain, and it almost crippled their economy. When they were complete the British seized them, which angered the Ottomans extremely and created an intense feeling of anger towards the British in the Empire.

Germany providing two warships to the Ottomans (to replace the ones the British seized) and a cadre of officers to train their army is really what sealed the deal.

Now if Germany could have secured France, Russia, or Great Britain in an alliance rather than the corpse that was the Austro-Hungarian empire, then they would have won the war.

Overly simplistic in light of David Fromkin's Peace of End All Peace. It appears that the British embassey staff in Constantinople, from about 1900-1912, completely misread the Young Turks and their goals and objectives. Enver Pasha and his compatriots turned to the Germans months before the outbreak of the Great War.
 
The UK. needed the Ottoman Empire to keep the Russian fleet bottled up in the Black Sea so they might have at least supplied them. Also, they would not want Russia to control the entrance to the Black Sea which could happen it the Russians took Istanbul and the Turkish Straits.

But the UK. would also not want the Ottomans to become too powerful since the UK. had interests that could be affected by the Ottomans. Example the Suez Canal. They would not want a strong Ottoman too close to there Suez Canal.

A Russian, German and Italian alliance would have probably ended up with. the Germans easily conquering Austria-Hungary. Italy might have gotten a small piece of Austria-Hungary. Russians would probably have had a hard time with the Ottomans. With German help they would crush the Ottomans.

If France or the UK. got involved Germany would probably be doing most of the fighting with Italy helping somewhat. Russian would be too busy trying to defeat the Ottomans to help. If the French did not get involved the Germans and allies would be in a very good position since the UK. would have no major European ally helping them on mainland Europe.

OE_1900.jpg
 
Overly simplistic in light of David Fromkin's Peace of End All Peace. It appears that the British embassey staff in Constantinople, from about 1900-1912, completely misread the Young Turks and their goals and objectives. Enver Pasha and his compatriots turned to the Germans months before the outbreak of the Great War.

But didnt English ships chase German warships through the Mediterranean days after declaring war? And that after the warships were given to the Ottomans they still tried to barter peace with the Russians?

I do agree with you that the British misread the Young Turks.
 

General Zod

Banned
About plausibility, by all means, the first option (Russo-German-Italian) is the most likely since it requires the less radical PoD. A strong interest in Russian friendship was one of the OTL cornerstones of Bismarck foreign policy, as the OP indicated, the PoD only requires that Bismarck has an extra bit of insight during the 1870s about the weakness of A-H and the necessity to pick a strong ally in either Russia or UK.

So he decisively sides with Russia during the Berlin Conference. This leads to the birth of Greater Bulgaria (with Eastern Rumelia and Vardar Macedonia) and the expansion of Greece (with southern Epirus, Thessaly, and Aegean Macedonia) as Russo-German satellites, and resentful A-H turns to France for an alliance. Albania may become an Italian protectorate. A-H most likely gets protectorate over Bosnia as a consolation prize. Serbia, resentful for the missed gain of Macedonia, reluctantly turns to A-H and becomes its satellite. Italy strenghtens its old ties to Germany into a permanent alliance and so does a grateful Russia. The Triple Alliance (Russo-German-Italian) takes shape during the early-mid 1880s. Secret plans for the partition of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires by the Triple Alliance in case of a general war are drawn.

The Ottoman Empire, alarmed by the outcome of the Conference, and the Russo-German alliance, joins the Austro-French Entente. At the turn of the century, Britain, faced with growing strategic rivalry with Russia in Central Asia and the Far East, and naval rivalry with Germany, buries old naval rivalry and colonial competition with France , and enters the Triple Entente. Romania may become another satellite of the Triple Alliance, out of greed for some slice of Transylvania.

Now, this Triple Alliance could have rather interesting results if the Allies support Russia during the Russo-Japanese war. The Transiberian Railway could hardly support supplying more troops than OTL, so a German-Italian Expeditionary Corps is rather unplausible. OTOH, if Germany and Italy send a fleet to support Russia and they arrive in time to fight at Port Arthur (a big IF), this could lead to a Russian victory in the war, or at least a draw. OTOH, this might easily lead to a British intervention in the war, so maybe Germany and Italy doen't intervene and the war has its course pretty much like OTL, or allthre powers do and WWI occurs in 1905.

If the Russo-Japanese war is not the trigger point for Alt-WWI, other possible ones might be Italian-Ottoman clash over Tripolitania, German-French clash over Morocco, or renewed hostilities between Serbia and Bulgaria over Vardar Macedonia, or something else entirely (e.g. Russo-British clash over Persia or Afghanistan). It is most certain, however, that the Balkan Wars would be entirely butterflied away since the partition of the European Turkish possessions would have already happened.

On land, this Triple Alliance would be quite powerful, since Germany and Italy would go on the defensive on the Western Front, while the Anglo-French bleed themselves to no avail in Alsace-Lorraine and the Alps. The Entente might or might not violate Belgian neutrality. Belgium would most likely resist and call for German help, and the Dutch would intervene for the Alliance, causing the Entente offensive to stalemate on the Meuse. In the meanwhile, combined Russo-German-Italian pressure, with the support of Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece, gradually crush A-H in a deadly vise over six months to a year. Britain and Russia clash ineffectually in Persia and Afghanistan. Serbia manages to survive as long as A-H does, since Bulgaria and Greece fight a two-front war with the Ottomans. Afterwards, they are swiftly encircled and destroyed. The Ottomans are able (with the likely help of a British expeditionary corps) to stalemate the Russians in the Caucasus, but after A-H and Serbia are vanquished, an overwhelming number of Allied armies converge on Constantinople and after a savage trench warfare carnage in eastern Thrace, occupy the city and knock the Ottomans out of the war.

On the naval theater, the German and Italian colonies are soon lost, as the RN and the French Navy bottle the HSF, the Russian Baltic/Black Sea Fleets and the Italian Fleet in their ports. Italy and Greece feel some serious economic hardship in the first months of the war, as the Anglo-French blockade them and maybe land to invade Crete or Sardinia. A landing in Sicily would most likely be TTL equivalent of Gallipoli. But in all likelihood, very soon Germans and Italians reestablish a land connection through Tyrol and German-Russian commodities relieve Italian economy (for the same reason, Germany does not suffer the blockade as harshly as IOTL, thanks to unlimited access to Russian foodstuffs from the start).

After A-H and Turkey are knocked out of the war, the vast majority of German-Italian forces, and a massive Russian expeditionary corps, attack France on two fronts and achieve a strategic breakthrough after several months or brutal trench-warfare struggle through sheer force of numbers. Britain, seeing the writing on the wall, after some months, bargains integrity of its pre-war Empire with acknowledgement of the Alliance's continental supremacy. Hmm, say a couple years from beginning to end.

As it concerns the peace settlement, as before, Britain would most likely gain a white peace, maybe with some minor colonial concessions in Central Asia and Africa, and must return German and Italian colonies. France is forced to cede Lorraine, Morocco, and French Equatorial Africa to Germany, Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunis, and Djibouti to Italy. It may or may not keep Algeria (likely partitioned between Germany and Italy if lost). The Hapsburg Empire vanishes off the map, with Germany annexing Austria, Bohemia and Slovenia, Italy annexing Trento, Kustenland, Dalmatia, Russia annexing Galicia, Ruthenia, and Bukovina. Hungary becomes a Russo-German satellite, and it would most likely keep Slovakia. Since Serbia was a defeated enemy, the Allies have no interest in aggrandizing it. So Croatia may stay an Hungarian possession as well. Romania surely gains southern Transylvania, northern Transylvania might go as well or stay with Hungary. Bulgaria gets eastern Thrace, minus the Straits themselves that go to Russia. Greece gains Cyprus and western Anatolia. Italy gains a protectorate over southern Anatolia. Russia annexes northeastern Anatolia and northern Persia and establishes a protectorate over southern Persia, Afghanistan, and northwestern Anatolia). Germany gains a protectorate over Syria and Iraq-Kuwait. Italy gains Libya.

Japan would honor its British allaince and attack Russia, making some serious inroads in Manchuria and Eastern Siberia, but being eventually forced to sign a compromise peace with Britain does so. It is surely forced to cede Manchuria to Russia, but it may keep Korea. Indochina most likely goes to Germany.
 
Last edited:
Correction: They wanted to snatch it from the Ottomans. Which brings me to my point: with an 1877 PoD, especially one putting Germany behind Russia and thus Bulgaria, the Balkans are likely to look very differant by the early 20th century.
Id think that uynder that scenario you get a greater Bulgaria from the outset a la the treat y of San Stefano...Serbia probably would become for a time a n Austrian client as their interests would have not been served by Russia and favoured Bulgaria. But the two tsar's did have their falling out Its more likey Bulgaria would try and remain neutral in this case. As Russia could still be championing the Serbian cause by the time WWI arrives.
 

General Zod

Banned
Id think that uynder that scenario you get a greater Bulgaria from the outset a la the treat y of San Stefano...Serbia probably would become for a time a n Austrian client as their interests would have not been served by Russia and favoured Bulgaria. But the two tsar's did have their falling out Its more likey Bulgaria would try and remain neutral in this case. As Russia could still be championing the Serbian cause by the time WWI arrives.

True to a degree, but on the other hand it is much less likely that Bulgaria would stray if Russia and Germany are in the same alliance and both give patronage to Bulgaria since the Berlin Conference. Therefore, ITTL the most likely main Balkan proxy of the Alliance remains Bulgaria up to WWI, not Serbia, which remains an A-H client (also strategic interests of Bulgaria and Italy are less likely to clash than those of Serbia and Italy).
 
GRI Alliance...

Well the above is a bit flawed in that I doubt that A_H would countenance going into war surrounded as she is without some basic suppport paln in place from her allies in the west.

this means the strategic and tactical imperatives of this alt Entente would be entirely different. They would almost certainly mount a diplomatic offensive to keep Italy out...And A-H which could afford to gamble on no concessions regarding the irredenta, does not really have that option in this scenario.

Giving up parts of Istria, south Tirol and Trieste for Italy's sphere of influence in Albania is a good swap. If not thenthe terr. concessions will be less but they will keep the Italians at bay with with Fr. and Br. Fleets circling in the med...

They will either send the Italians to the bottom or keep them bottled in port.

I suspect an expeditionary force of the Western allies to be deployed in A-H. Contrary to popular believe A-H was not a deadweight in the beginning. they performed up to expectations and did have some of the best Artillery for the outset of the War. As with the Germans , Russia simply mobilized faster than expected. However, even they ran into a wall when they hit the mountains of the Carpathians. The defensive imperatives of the Empire will also be considerably different in this scenario and the mountain defenses in the Bohemia and the Tyrol will likely be reinforced and manned accordingly. Tyrol is probably only defendable if Italy is neutral and if not would certainly be conceded at the outseet as a trade off for a stiffer defense in the Danube, Bohemia and Carniola.

I tend to think a greater Bulgaria will steer politically towards neutrality if they can as their strategic objectives are essentially met. they have common interests with the Ottomans in keeping Russian influence out of the straits and a growth of Greek terr or influence in Macedonia. Serbia would almost certainly be "restrained" from making any move that might make the Bulgarians enter on the Russian side. That would only worsen the A-H strategic position.

The Ottomans would almost certainly prefer neutrality as well at the outset especially if Grt Bulg. is neutral as well. The only thing that is likely to bring them in would be a threat to their terr. integrity that might be sponsored by the Greeks or Russians, or worse the Entente in an attempt to attack Russia directly via the straits. Indeed, one could argue that Grt Bulgaria if the Ottomans are neutral and rebuff efforts to transit the straits for such an effort could be "encouraged" to enter with the prospect of annexing the remainder of Thrace and Constantinople itself.. This would put the Ottomans in the position of having to ally with the Russians, but more implausible has happened and no doubt will again.

There is also the prospect though of an East Asian theatre in this case between Russia and Japan. This will give the Japanese some use for its army as well as its Navy after the German colonies have been scooped up. Pressure would surely mount for them to mount an offensive to draw off some Russian forces.

Much really depends on what the trigger is and what events precede the explosion of the powder keg. With the Balkans settled much earlier The Ottomans will focus eastward on Anatolia and Arabia much sooner and look eastward to Central Asia and influence in the Turkic pop. there as well as the Caucasus. This could give them common purpose with the Brits vs the Russians, particularly in Cent. Asia.

A Russo Japanese War could be the point that sets things in motion but I doubt it will expand beyond the primary opponents. If Italy and/ Or Germany think to intervene with naval forces to support Russia. Britain is obligated to support Japan by the AJNT. Even if the French/Austrians stay out the Japanese and British can likely defeat the combined TA fleet that might arrive. The threat of intervention by French and Austrian squadrons will either keep them out ( Assuming the Br. threat hasn't already kept them out) or touch off the alt WWI. Even so the the Br. diplomacy should such a thought be entertained by G&I will certainly colour the Br. diplomatic support of Japan when the peace occurs between the two protagonists, assuming every one else has stayed out.
 
True to a degree, but on the other hand it is much less likely that Bulgaria would stray if Russia and Germany are in the same alliance and both give patronage to Bulgaria since the Berlin Conference. Therefore, ITTL the most likely main Balkan proxy of the Alliance remains Bulgaria up to WWI, not Serbia, which remains an A-H client (also strategic interests of Bulgaria and Italy are less likely to clash than those of Serbia and Italy).

Well in this case there is really nothing else strategically for Greater Bulg. to gain...thus not reason to enter. Russia will champion Greece, as co-religionists and oppose any designs on Constantinople as they have them themselves or on Dobruja, they favoured Roumania there.

And yes I think the Tsars would fall out, as in the long term their interests did not really match once Bulgaria had achieved its greater Bulg. and The Bulgarian Tsar never had any intention of being anyone's proxy if he could help it. His intent was to make Bulgaria the pre-eminent Balkan power and he would have achieved that for all intents and purposes. The only major opponent that could oppose them in the region would be the Ottomans. If Russian support for Serbia grows, this will disrupt the Russo Bulgarian dynamic but does further the Russian aim of weakening the A-H southern frontier. A Greek Russian war against the Ottomans has no gains for Bulgaria. Indeed..Bulgaria would probably be "encouraged" to give up some of the areas in Macedonia in exchange for smaller terr. in Eastern Thrace (bar Constantinople of course). Though Greece does have the prospect of gaining what Aegean islands she doesn't already have and Cyprus I suppose, if they can get past the Entente patrols. There is very little for Bulgaria to gain that won't be contested by her allies in such a course. Joining the entente at the right moment will offer her Dobruja at least if Roumania has been coerced in to joining the Russo German drive against A-H (assuming the Russians are not fighting the Ottomans where?...the Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia ( Armenia perhaps, not the best place for either to contemplate such conflict.)


Btw, a landing in Sicily or Italy does not have to lead to the same disaster that Gallipoli was. There are a number of places they can land and achieve the desired strategic objective. The difference being they had to land near Gallipoli to force the straits if they hoped to force the straits open and resupply Russia. This changes the Strategic defense planning immensely in the lead up to the such a War. Italy would be extremely vulnerable to combined Anglo/French and Austrian Squandrons and they know it So would Greece. they wer able to land at Salonika after all. If the Ottomans are on side, the straits are open to put pressure on the Russians in a Black Sea theatre. Britain will have an interest in keeping the Ottoman's naval forces in the Black as strong as possible, so they may not confiscate the ships built for them for themselves. Italy will have larger naval needs in this scenario and its Army will be consequently less capable of mounting any offensive. The Austrians do not have to increase their naval capabilities as they will have the aid of the Anglo-French naval squadrons. Their land forces should not be impaired by any naval build up of Italy.
 
The British would never ally with the Ottoman Empire. They didnt even consider the Empire a rival country, much less a viable ally. Winston Churchill was the one that told the Ottomans that Britain was not searching for an alliance at the moment, but pretty much wanted to keep the Ottomans in the sidelines.

The British also screwed the Ottomans over. The Empire commissioned two warships to be built by Britain, and it almost crippled their economy. When they were complete the British seized them, which angered the Ottomans extremely and created an intense feeling of anger towards the British in the Empire.

Germany providing two warships to the Ottomans (to replace the ones the British seized) and a cadre of officers to train their army is really what sealed the deal.

Now if Germany could have secured France, Russia, or Great Britain in an alliance rather than the corpse that was the Austro-Hungarian empire, then they would have won the war.

This doesn't make sense. The British had no particular need to ally with the empire in OTL, because they were allied with Russia - all they needed from the Ottomans was friendly neutrality; they weren't interested in an obligation to the Ottomans. However, if Russia and Britain were on different sides, you can bet your ass the British would bend over backwards for an Ottoman alliance.
 

General Zod

Banned
They would almost certainly mount a diplomatic offensive to keep Italy out...And A-H which could afford to gamble on no concessions regarding the irredenta, does not really have that option in this scenario.

Giving up parts of Istria, south Tirol and Trieste for Italy's sphere of influence in Albania is a good swap.

I am terribly doubtful that this diplomatic offensive would work with Italy, as Rome stands to gain much, much more (all its Austrian claims plus its French claims and quite possibly its Ottoman claims) if it stays true to its Alliance and both of its great-power rivals are in the opposite bloc and its current alliance looks like the stronger side. Most likely, any such diplomatic offensive would be flatly rejected as too late, too little. Forget about Italian neutrality, really. Didn't work IOTL, won't work here.

If not then the terr. concessions will be less but they will keep the Italians at bay with with Fr. and Br. Fleets circling in the med...

They will either send the Italians to the bottom or keep them bottled in port.

Yep, this is a given (already was mentioned in my analysis, anyway). This is why the foremost priority of Italy would be to conquer Tyrol and establish a land connection with German and Russian supplies to feed its economy. Once that is done, Anglo-French naval blockade is not that much terrible. Painful, yes, but nothing a semi-dictatorial WWI war government can't face.

I suspect an expeditionary force of the Western allies to be deployed in A-H. Contrary to popular believe A-H was not a deadweight in the beginning. they performed up to expectations and did have some of the best Artillery for the outset of the War. As with the Germans , Russia simply mobilized faster than expected. However, even they ran into a wall when they hit the mountains of the Carpathians. The defensive imperatives of the Empire will also be considerably different in this scenario and the mountain defenses in the Bohemia and the Tyrol will likely be reinforced and manned accordingly. Tyrol is probably only defendable if Italy is neutral and if not would certainly be conceded at the outseet as a trade off for a stiffer defense in the Danube, Bohemia and Carniola.

Oh yep, a British expeditionary corps in A-H is quite possible (esp. if the Ottomans are neutral, if not they would have to send another one to support the Otomans against the Russians, too, so available British forces would be divided). The French is rather less plausible, probably they need pretty much almost any man they can spare to man their exceedingly extensive front, so any contribution of theirs to such expeditionary corps is unlikely to be much substantial. Of course, it also depends whether the Anglo-French adopt a defensive strategy in the West, and spare manpower, or more likely start to waste manpower with fruitless offensives in A-L, the Alps, or invade Belgium (and extend their front even more) or try some landing in Sardinia (successful, but eventually pointless) or Sicily (most likely, TTL's Gallipoli).

Even so, The British manpower would take some time to be amassed, at the start, there would be only the BEF. Yes, they can send it to shore up the encircled A-H. but then the extended French woluld lack it. Anyway, I'm rather skeptical that the A-H could withstand such an encirclement for long, even making use of Serbian and British support (esp. since an entry of Romania for the Alliance is almost sure). Germany would mobilize faster than A-H and strike it first, and Russia would again mobilize somewhat faster than Vienna would expect, so I'm rather skeptical that A-H would manage to stabilize the front in Bohemia, the Carpathians, and Carniola at the same time, or have the manpower to hold such an extensive three-front for very long.

I tend to think a greater Bulgaria will steer politically towards neutrality if they can as their strategic objectives are essentially met. they have common interests with the Ottomans in keeping Russian influence out of the straits and a growth of Greek terr or influence in Macedonia. Serbia would almost certainly be "restrained" from making any move that might make the Bulgarians enter on the Russian side. That would only worsen the A-H strategic position.

This is more reasonable, but then Serbia would have to stay neutral as well, which again worsens the A-H position (less manpower for its extensive front).

The Ottomans would almost certainly prefer neutrality as well at the outset especially if Grt Bulg. is neutral as well.

Quite possibly, but again bad news for A-H, as they get the full onslaught of european Russian armies.

The only thing that is likely to bring them in would be a threat to their terr. integrity that might be sponsored by the Greeks or Russians, or worse the Entente in an attempt to attack Russia directly via the straits.

Yes, very reasonable. Of course, it depends on which crisis triggers WWI in the first place (e.g. it might be such a threat, or a renwed Serbian-Bulgarian clash for Macedonia, or Italian threat on Libya).

Indeed, one could argue that Grt Bulgaria if the Ottomans are neutral and rebuff efforts to transit the straits for such an effort could be "encouraged" to enter with the prospect of annexing the remainder of Thrace and Constantinople itself.. This would put the Ottomans in the position of having to ally with the Russians, but more implausible has happened and no doubt will again.

Sorry, here I lost you. Any such Bulgarian threat would most likely cause the Ottomans to side with the Entente, IMO.
:confused::confused:

There is also the prospect though of an East Asian theatre in this case between Russia and Japan. This will give the Japanese some use for its army as well as its Navy after the German colonies have been scooped up. Pressure would surely mount for them to mount an offensive to draw off some Russian forces.

Oh, sure no doubt of this, and little necessity to pressure them to join. They would be eager to get their slice of Manchuria from Russia.

Much really depends on what the trigger is and what events precede the explosion of the powder keg. With the Balkans settled much earlier The Ottomans will focus eastward on Anatolia and Arabia much sooner and look eastward to Central Asia and influence in the Turkic pop. there as well as the Caucasus. This could give them common purpose with the Brits vs the Russians, particularly in Cent. Asia.

Agreed on this.

A Russo Japanese War could be the point that sets things in motion but I doubt it will expand beyond the primary opponents. If Italy and/ Or Germany think to intervene with naval forces to support Russia. Britain is obligated to support Japan by the AJNT. Even if the French/Austrians stay out the Japanese and British can likely defeat the combined TA fleet that might arrive. The threat of intervention by French and Austrian squadrons will either keep them out ( Assuming the Br. threat hasn't already kept them out) or touch off the alt WWI. Even so the the Br. diplomacy should such a thought be entertained by G&I will certainly colour the Br. diplomatic support of Japan when the peace occurs between the two protagonists, assuming every one else has stayed out.

Basically agree with this analysis. Depending on butterflies ITTL the RJW might go pretty much like IOTL or touch off the conflagration.
 
Overly simplistic in light of David Fromkin's Peace of End All Peace. It appears that the British embassey staff in Constantinople, from about 1900-1912, completely misread the Young Turks and their goals and objectives. Enver Pasha and his compatriots turned to the Germans months before the outbreak of the Great War.

Fromkin is not an Ottomanist, and uses no Ottoman sources. The British did misread the Young Turks, but it's hard to misread their objectives since they were chaotic and conflicting.

Of the most influenctial Young Turks, only Enver was pro-German, and he was able to win over others because of the Battleship snub and Grey's arrogant dismissal, and it was the arrival of Goeben that gave Enver the tool he needed to force the government's hand. It's true that Enver had approached the Germans months before, but he was the War Minister and had done so without authority. The Ottomans could have been kept out of the war with very little effort on the part of the British.

Just because the empire wasn't as developed liberal-democratically as the France or Britain doesn't mean that public opinion didn't matter.
 
Top