Anglo-German Alliance

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Imajin

Post #63 in this thread, I believe

You are correct.

Given how much Bulgarian territory is currently held by the Ottomans...I'm starting to think the Bulgarians join with the Alliance....

....and thus, perhaps Romania goes with the Entente....

[luakel]

Originally Posted by Glen

No, I think it would just encourage them to shoot for complete dominance of the Adriatic.

There is just no way that AH will allow Italy to have both sides of the bottleneck out of the Adriatic.

Might there just be an Austrian puppet there then, instead of annexation?

Originally Posted by Glen

You are correct.

Given how much Bulgarian territory is currently held by the Ottomans...I'm starting to think the Bulgarians join with the Alliance....

....and thus, perhaps Romania goes with the Entente....

But Bulgaria's traditional best friend (Russia) is on the Entente, and the Turks still own them as a protectorate IIRC- while Romania has traditionally good relations with the Alliance.

[DuQuense]

Isn't the city of Nice in the province of Savory, I just remember La Duce's aim in France was Nice/Savory.

I was Kind of thinking that at the end of the war there wouldn"t be a Bulguria left.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by luakel

Might there just be an Austrian puppet there then, instead of annexation?

That's possible...or Serbia annexes the whole of Albania...

But Bulgaria's traditional best friend (Russia) is on the Entente, and the Turks still own them as a protectorate IIRC- while Romania has traditionally good relations with the Alliance.

Tradition didn't stop them from siding with Germany against Russia in WWII...

...anyway, if the Bulgarians want complete independence from Ottomans and take a good chunk with them as a parting gift, they'll go Alliance. And if they do that, there's a stronger incentive for the Romanians to go Entente.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by DuQuense

Isn't the city of Nice in the province of Savory, I just remember La Duce's aim in France was Nice/Savory.

Yes, but WHAT Savoy? Its had different borders over the years, IIRC.

I was Kind of thinking that at the end of the war there wouldn"t be a Bulguria left.

Don't know yet. Time will tell....

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by Glen

Yes, but WHAT Savoy? Its had different borders over the years, IIRC.

Presumably the borders of Savoy when the Italians gave it to France in 1860 would be the border Italy would seek to restore. Corsica is also a possibility for Italian expansion, and with British support certainly a viable target.

I would think that Bulgaria and Romania would ultimately act in their own best interests. As I recall the Bulgaria-Romania antipathy was largely a result of the Balkan Wars, which have not occoured in this time; all the territory they would fight over is still under Ottoman control. Bulgaria's friendship with Russia was in many a result of Russia's status as big brother of the orthodox slavs in the Balkans, an image that would be badly hurt by Russia working with the Ottomans instead of fighting them. Romania has enough ties to the Alliance to at least stay out of the war until the outcome is clear, they tried much the same strategy in WWI, though they picked the wrong moment and made some errors in execution. If the Romanians stay out of the war to see how things are going, they likely end up joining the Alliance eventually, as the general consensus is that this would be very much the winning side.

I would have to say the Balkans might very well be solidy Alliance. Even the pro-Russian Karađorđević dynasty is Serbia will have to consider joining, as the Russians would lose a lot of their political capital in the Balkans by siding with the Ottomans, not to mention the obvious gains of attacking "the sick man of Europe" and the risks of going against the very powerful Alliance. Russia allying with the Ottomans might even be enough to provoke an Obrenović counter-coup against the Karađorđevićs.

[Othniel]

Originally Posted by Glen

Define Savoy.

The area previously ceeded to the French during the Austro-Italian War.

[Glen]

Okay, so the Savoy borders lost in 1860...

....and maybe we see the Balkans do a mix of neutrality, but at various times the Balkan nations end up joining the Alliance?

However, might not Serbia join the Entente to 'liberate' Bosnia from Austrian occupation?

Maybe not.

IF the Balkans are smart and stay neutral til the outcome seems certain, that may be best....

[Glen]

Someone have a map showing the Savoy area ceded to France in 1860?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Glen

Tradition didn't stop them from siding with Germany against Russia in WWII...

...anyway, if the Bulgarians want complete independence from Ottomans and take a good chunk with them as a parting gift, they'll go Alliance. And if they do that, there's a stronger incentive for the Romanians to go Entente.

The Bulgarians were still very strongly aligned with Russia up to the 1st Balkan war, when the various Christian states ganged up on Turkey. However while Bulgarian did most of the fighting and suffered the heaviest casualties this meant that a lot of the lands in Macedonia Bulgarian wanted were occupied by the Serbs. There had been a previous agreement granting much of those to Bulgaria. However the Serbs didn't hold to the agreement and Russia didn't give the support Bulgarian wanted on the issue. Bulgaria also picked a quarrel with Greece over Thessalonika while Rumania also bullied it out of a bit of land as compensation for the Bulgarian gains in the south. All in all bad judgement meant Bulgaria found itself isolated and when it tried to seize the disputed land from Serbia and Greece it not only lost more land to them but also Turkey and Rumania who piled in. It was left feeling very aggrieved and alienated from Russia so took the chance in 1915 when it thought the Central Powers were winning to get revenge on Serbia.

Possibly we could have something similar in this timeline. Most of the powers, possibly including Bulgaria, side with the allies and carve up European Turkey. Then, possibly while the main war is still on-going the various minor powers in the Balkans quarrel over the spoils?

Steve

[luakel]

Originally Posted by Glen

....and maybe we see the Balkans do a mix of neutrality, but at various times the Balkan nations end up joining the Alliance?

However, might not Serbia join the Entente to 'liberate' Bosnia from Austrian occupation?

Maybe not.

IF the Balkans are smart and stay neutral til the outcome seems certain, that may be best....

I'd say Greece would be the first to join, then the others would join in to get land for themselves... So are all nations going to be on the Alliance at this point?

[Glen]

Originally Posted by luakel

I'd say Greece would be the first to join, then the others would join in to get land for themselves... So are all nations going to be on the Alliance at this point?

I'm still mulling over that one. This is a sidebar at least for the moment to the main war, but could be important.

I agree with you though that Greece is likely to be on the Alliance side, and earlier than the other Balkan nations.

[Glen]

Where the heck is pedro! I was hoping to get his opinion on some of this before I posted any of the war years....

Any of our other amateur war historians have opinions as to how quickly the Alliance could knock out the Russians?

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Glen

Where the heck is pedro! I was hoping to get his opinion on some of this before I posted any of the war years....

Any of our other amateur war historians have opinions as to how quickly the Alliance could knock out the Russians?

Russia can be defeated in the field in under a year, especially with no blockade impacting German access to critical imports. German & AH forces have significant advantages in both equipment & more importantly, leadership. German commanders are consumate professionals, if they are given overall command the Russian Army will shoot it's bolt before winter hits (assuming a mid-summer starting point) in pointless mass charges. By the middle of the following summer (early October at the latest) the Russians will have been forced back in such disorder accross the entire front that terms would be the only alternative left to St. Petersburg. Without British support & encouragement (and any possible French support bottled up by the RN) & a restive population early retirement from the conflict would be Russia's only option.


The Tsar's troops were brave to the point of madness, but they were led so poorly that they had no real hope. The real question is what kind of state you want to leave behind in the peace. It will require a subtle hand (and more than a few troops) to keep the Russian nation from imploding, with all the lasting after effects that we saw ITTL. (i.e. DO NOT send any sealed railroad cars to Russia!) The role of policing/peace keeping in post defeat Russia might be an ideal one for British Ground forces, which will have little role otherwise, as noted below.

The French present an interesting problem. They fought with great vigor until late in the war IOTL, but they suffered from manpower issues almost from the start; IITL it likely to be worse as the Alliance's strategy is to fight a defensive war in the West from the start. Offensive action almost always is more expensive than defending against it, this will cause supply & staffing problems to appear even sooner that IOTL. With the RN in position to interdict supplies of both men & materiel from France's colonies (rubber, nitrates, rare earths, etc.) France would quickly find itself in January 1918 Germany's position, short of everything except enemies. However, unlike Germany in 1918 the French will not face a sudden influx of fresh enemy troops from America. I can see Britian managing to land a small force, but with the technology of the time, it will be difficult to expand the beachhead much beyond the range of the RN's guns. If the British could manage to take a Channel or Mediterranean port intact they could use it to pour in troops & supplies, but the lessons of OTL indicate that achieving such a capture would be the wildest stroke of luck. Otherwise the only Britsh ground contribution would be forces landed in Germany to help with the push into France. Unfortunately, logistics for these forces would be a nightmare, limiting their utility. This would mean the ground war would be France/Germany, with a few special guest appearances by other players.

[Codeman]

I think the Germans would win in a 1 on 1 vs france and once the germans capture a channel port wont the brits be able to pour in men?

[Glen]

Originally Posted by CalBear

Russia can be defeated in the field in under a year, especially with no blockade impacting German access to critical imports. German & AH forces have significant advantages in both equipment & more importantly, leadership. German commanders are consumate professionals, if they are given overall command the Russian Army will shoot it's bolt before winter hits (assuming a mid-summer starting point) in pointless mass charges. By the middle of the following summer (early October at the latest) the Russians will have been forced back in such disorder accross the entire front that terms would be the only alternative left to St. Petersburg. Without British support & encouragement (and any possible French support bottled up by the RN) & a restive population early retirement from the conflict would be Russia's only option.

So would I be right in assuming it is your opinion that Russia will fold by the Summer of 1906?

The Tsar's troops were brave to the point of madness, but they were led so poorly that they had no real hope. The real question is what kind of state you want to leave behind in the peace. It will require a subtle hand (and more than a few troops) to keep the Russian nation from imploding, with all the lasting after effects that we saw ITTL. (i.e. DO NOT send any sealed railroad cars to Russia!) The role of policing/peace keeping in post defeat Russia might be an ideal one for British Ground forces, which will have little role otherwise, as noted below.

I doubt a full on occupation of Russia...though a bolstering of forces in any break-away areas is a real possibility...

The French present an interesting problem. They fought with great vigor until late in the war IOTL, but they suffered from manpower issues almost from the start; IITL it likely to be worse as the Alliance's strategy is to fight a defensive war in the West from the start. Offensive action almost always is more expensive than defending against it, this will cause supply & staffing problems to appear even sooner that IOTL. With the RN in position to interdict supplies of both men & materiel from France's colonies (rubber, nitrates, rare earths, etc.) France would quickly find itself in January 1918 Germany's position, short of everything except enemies.

I tend to agree. The French will have some inkling of this, which is why they will try the Benelux route. Unfortunately for them, they shall find the same failure with that as the Germans did OTL.

However, unlike Germany in 1918 the French will not face a sudden influx of fresh enemy troops from America.

Don't bet on it...

I can see Britian managing to land a small force, but with the technology of the time, it will be difficult to expand the beachhead much beyond the range of the RN's guns. If the British could manage to take a Channel or Mediterranean port intact they could use it to pour in troops & supplies, but the lessons of OTL indicate that achieving such a capture would be the wildest stroke of luck.

Which lessons of OTL in particular do you refer to here?

Otherwise the only Britsh ground contribution would be forces landed in Germany to help with the push into France. Unfortunately, logistics for these forces would be a nightmare, limiting their utility.

What logistics problems in particular?

This would mean the ground war would be France/Germany, with a few special guest appearances by other players.

I do think the main attraction on the Western Front would be France v. Germany.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Glen

Where the heck is pedro! I was hoping to get his opinion on some of this before I posted any of the war years....

Any of our other amateur war historians have opinions as to how quickly the Alliance could knock out the Russians?

I got a PM from him, he's on his annual training right now.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Matt

I got a PM from him, he's on his annual training right now.

I saw. So you got an opinion, oh former marine?

[Matt]

Let me read through real quick, and I can put in my .02c

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Ivan Druzhkov

With Willy out of the picture, what happens to those naval expansion plans? The motivation behind them was just as much from the imperially-minded middle class, who joined up in all those associations and pressure groups like the Pan-Germans, as it was from Wilhelm's fancies. Even with German policy becoming more predicable without Wilhelm, I can't imagine the British being all that thrilled with the growth of a battleship-heavy navy so close to Britain.

My First thought: Channel the Pan-German ethusiasm into National Army, or a cruiser based fleet designed to counter the French Fleet. With the first, you have to keep in mind that Germany had 4 distinct Armies going into the Great War, almost similar to the manner that the United States has a national guard for each state. The primary army was the Prussians', but you can start raising a Federal Army.

The second can channel Germany's latent industrial ability, while not antagonizing the British, since it's clearly designed to operate against a defined enemy. Hell the German's can even use British ports to coal ITTL.