How would a WW1 play out if Germany, Russia and Italy allied.
- Thread starter Ameck16
- Start date
Austria-Hungary is obviously in the worst position, completely cut off from it's allies and is super boned. France is in a slightly better position, but is still so screwed it's not funny. The Ottomans are still in a pretty rubbish position but not as bad as their European allies. Russia and Britain might clash in Central Asia, but the logistics network in the early 1900's were pretty rubbish. Basically France will probably fall and Britain will be locked out of the continent.
Essentially see what happened in WWII when the Soviets, Germany and Italy co-operated, now imagine it's much worse as the Russians would be active participants as opposed to economic supporters and Germany is a lot stronger.
Essentially see what happened in WWII when the Soviets, Germany and Italy co-operated, now imagine it's much worse as the Russians would be active participants as opposed to economic supporters and Germany is a lot stronger.
Russia+Germany+Italy? In the 1910s, assuming a OTL-like correlation of forces? They win big time. Problem is, there is no way to get such an alliance in place without an earlier POD that changes the correlation of forces (colonial possessions, army strategy, etc.).
In this context, for instance, France and Britain would have significant time to plan for defence against a massive force invading from the East. Austria is essentially toast, which is part of why this combination is unlikely in the first place - they would try their damnedest to avoid a situation where they have to fight this sort of war.
In this context, for instance, France and Britain would have significant time to plan for defence against a massive force invading from the East. Austria is essentially toast, which is part of why this combination is unlikely in the first place - they would try their damnedest to avoid a situation where they have to fight this sort of war.
nbcman
Donor
While A-H is in a bad way, so is Italy. Assuming France recognizes their imbalance against Germany, they should stay on the defense against Germany and push hard against Italy in conjunction with the UK. In that case, it would be a race to see which country collapses first - Italy or AH. Regardless, the combination of Germany and Imperial Russia would be almost impossible to stop without an early US entry or some other major shake up in Europe. If the French do a Plan XVII in 1914, it could lead to an early end of this Alt-WW1 with the exhaustion / defeat of two major Allied combatants.
Last edited:
LordKalvert
Banned
Austria is partitioned, the Ottomans are partitioned, the French and British colonial Empires are partitioned.
There is no alliance on Earth that could possibly compete with the Italo-German-Russian one
Russia crushes Austria OTL while sending a third of its Army to fight the Germans- the end of Austria is obvious and this is before Italy and Romania join in
Similarly, the Germans push the French back even with an army stuck in East Prussia With the Italians on board to draw off just five or six divisions plus the troops in East Prussia and having no need to rush things, a German victory is assured
The Ottomans have nothing and are out in the middle of nowhere with no chance of any help
The British fall last- but the combined Italian and German navies are a serious match as is control over the French coastline. Might take them a few years, but industrially Britain can no longer compete
There is no alliance on Earth that could possibly compete with the Italo-German-Russian one
Russia crushes Austria OTL while sending a third of its Army to fight the Germans- the end of Austria is obvious and this is before Italy and Romania join in
Similarly, the Germans push the French back even with an army stuck in East Prussia With the Italians on board to draw off just five or six divisions plus the troops in East Prussia and having no need to rush things, a German victory is assured
The Ottomans have nothing and are out in the middle of nowhere with no chance of any help
The British fall last- but the combined Italian and German navies are a serious match as is control over the French coastline. Might take them a few years, but industrially Britain can no longer compete
Assuming the governments that be are somewhat similar to their 1914's counterparts in terms of politics an beliefs this triple alliance WONT be invading Britain. They wouldn't need to bother unless it was some WWII style be all and end all war. The British Navy is a huge obstacle and once a continental victory is achieved (which will probably be really bloody quick with that Alliance at play, good chance this war would be over by Christmas), chances are all sides involved will just sign peace treaties and accept the new status quo if we are looking at early 1900's politics. The British would just throw in the towel if all their continental allies are defeated because it would be a stalemate that would be beyond the willingness of both sides to break.
It's never going to be worth the hassle unless some super Hitler-esque figure bent on conquest/subjegation or eliminating some form of British Nazis which are perpetually threatening the peace (ala the occupation of the Third Reich because everyone was sick of German aggression) is at the helm of this Grand Alliance. The Entente didn't even enter Germany when the Germans sought terms, domestic issues at home will force peace. Exhaustion and the impracticality of continuing the war would force both sides to terms long before things reached that point.
Everywhere else I basically agree, the Entente is fucked. If you're looking for some kind of balance, adding the USA to the Entente might be an option, but it's probably just going to be another Naval stalemate. Maybe Britain and Germany, Ottomans vs France, Russia, Italy, Austria Hungary could be a fairer match off, but is all politically unlikely.
It's never going to be worth the hassle unless some super Hitler-esque figure bent on conquest/subjegation or eliminating some form of British Nazis which are perpetually threatening the peace (ala the occupation of the Third Reich because everyone was sick of German aggression) is at the helm of this Grand Alliance. The Entente didn't even enter Germany when the Germans sought terms, domestic issues at home will force peace. Exhaustion and the impracticality of continuing the war would force both sides to terms long before things reached that point.
Everywhere else I basically agree, the Entente is fucked. If you're looking for some kind of balance, adding the USA to the Entente might be an option, but it's probably just going to be another Naval stalemate. Maybe Britain and Germany, Ottomans vs France, Russia, Italy, Austria Hungary could be a fairer match off, but is all politically unlikely.
Last edited:
I also think it's unlikely for the NCP to get the whole Balkans region, half maybe, but for all of it you really need to balance it out by giving the NE some other powers, like perhaps Iran.
Of course, it might not be quite as one-sided as all that, after all the NE are likely to get Japan in, which will give the Russians real issues in the east (good bye Vladivostok), And Italy's going to lose pretty much everything beyond Sicily.
Of course, it might not be quite as one-sided as all that, after all the NE are likely to get Japan in, which will give the Russians real issues in the east (good bye Vladivostok), And Italy's going to lose pretty much everything beyond Sicily.
The real difficulty is how to put together the alliances.
The only reasonable way I see is Bismarck managing to keep together a bit longer the Three Emperors alliance (which is theoretically possible: one of the reasons for the Russo-German fall out was Bismarck's decision to increase the tariffs on Russian grain, and it was the political price he had to pay for the Junkers' support in parliament. This decision might go differently, and Wilhelm II might listen to the voice of reason but this is already quite harder. In the end the Russo-Austrian interests in the Balkan will collide, but there is no Franco-Russian Entente in 1893). When the Russo-German-Austrian alliance collapse, Germany must make the rational choice of selling the Austrians down the river and keeping the Russian alliance (which would make also Italy much happier).
Putting together France and Austria is a bit more counter-intuitive (why should France get shackled to a country surrounded by enemies? Rationally, France should bend over backward to get some kind of agreement with UK, whatever the cost in terms of colonial spoils). Maybe the British will become even more worried by the Russo-German alliance to agree to open discussion earlier than it happened IOTL and there could be a separate Franco-Austrian alliance treaty.
There would be a lot of butterflies coming out of this reversal of alliances (no French investment in Russia, for one. Probably no Russo-Japanese war, since the railway to the far east will be delayed: a negotiated agreement in Korea. Russia develops at a lower pace with German loans, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. No Russo-British agreement in Persia). IMHO an equivalent of the Balkan wars will happen anyway, and it is much likely to be the spark for the general European war: once again a desperation move by Austria, intervening in support of the Ottomans. The first decade of the 20th century will be a very nervous one, and war in Europe may come earlier than IOTL.
The only reasonable way I see is Bismarck managing to keep together a bit longer the Three Emperors alliance (which is theoretically possible: one of the reasons for the Russo-German fall out was Bismarck's decision to increase the tariffs on Russian grain, and it was the political price he had to pay for the Junkers' support in parliament. This decision might go differently, and Wilhelm II might listen to the voice of reason but this is already quite harder. In the end the Russo-Austrian interests in the Balkan will collide, but there is no Franco-Russian Entente in 1893). When the Russo-German-Austrian alliance collapse, Germany must make the rational choice of selling the Austrians down the river and keeping the Russian alliance (which would make also Italy much happier).
Putting together France and Austria is a bit more counter-intuitive (why should France get shackled to a country surrounded by enemies? Rationally, France should bend over backward to get some kind of agreement with UK, whatever the cost in terms of colonial spoils). Maybe the British will become even more worried by the Russo-German alliance to agree to open discussion earlier than it happened IOTL and there could be a separate Franco-Austrian alliance treaty.
There would be a lot of butterflies coming out of this reversal of alliances (no French investment in Russia, for one. Probably no Russo-Japanese war, since the railway to the far east will be delayed: a negotiated agreement in Korea. Russia develops at a lower pace with German loans, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. No Russo-British agreement in Persia). IMHO an equivalent of the Balkan wars will happen anyway, and it is much likely to be the spark for the general European war: once again a desperation move by Austria, intervening in support of the Ottomans. The first decade of the 20th century will be a very nervous one, and war in Europe may come earlier than IOTL.
One concern is keeping Italy in the alliance; they didn't honor their commitments OTL, when they wouldn't have been surrounded by enemies; they certainly won't ITTL. They probably will join once Austria-Hungary collapses (which should be soon; they were in terrible shape in 1914 against Russia and Serbia OTL, and had to be bailed out by the Germans; here they have the opposite problem), but that delay probably changes things significantly.
I also don't think Italy will collapse right away, even if they do join; a French offensive across the Alps would be difficult, and if the British don't join right away (because with Austria as an enemy, even a marginally competent general staff is going to pick them as the first target over charging through Belgium), then the French position gets even worse (if Germany does decide to launch Schlieffen while leaving AH mostly to the Russians, the French are in too much trouble to bother with an invasion. It's true that the Italians had possibly the least competent leadership of the war, but even they didn't collapse OTL until Caporetto in late 1917. Nor does Gallipoli inspire any confidence in an Entente naval invasion, even with Austrian support.
I also don't think Italy will collapse right away, even if they do join; a French offensive across the Alps would be difficult, and if the British don't join right away (because with Austria as an enemy, even a marginally competent general staff is going to pick them as the first target over charging through Belgium), then the French position gets even worse (if Germany does decide to launch Schlieffen while leaving AH mostly to the Russians, the French are in too much trouble to bother with an invasion. It's true that the Italians had possibly the least competent leadership of the war, but even they didn't collapse OTL until Caporetto in late 1917. Nor does Gallipoli inspire any confidence in an Entente naval invasion, even with Austrian support.
It seems if the Russians and Germans remain friendly, the Germans would just side with Russian interests in the Balkans, Austria is really just under German and Russian protection then, they guarantee her current borders and nothing else (either pre 1878 or post 1878). I can see this happening to just keep Austria from breaking up and to protect her German population.
More likely Russia, Germany, Austria against the world. (vs Britain, France, Italy, Britain, Japan, Ottomans)
Everything depends on whether the UK and France can drag the US to war. UK + France vs. Germany + Russia + Italy is a German victory, although not as much of a stroll as people here assume; UK + France + US vs. Germany + Russia + Italy is an Allied victory.
FWIW, my TL has a war that, in OTL's national terms, is UK + France + US + Low Countries + Switzerland + Scandinavia + Lombardy + Japan vs. Germany + Austria-Hungary + Italy + Russia. Germany's strategy is to use Russia as unlimited strategic depth, harass American shipments with submarine attacks, and make a quick move on Paris in order to achieve continental domination. France's is to harass German supply lines via bombing, keep Paris at all costs while it assembles an American expeditionary force, and invade Russia east-to-west from its and Japan's Chinese colonies. Eventually, France wins. GDP ultimately wins total wars.
FWIW, my TL has a war that, in OTL's national terms, is UK + France + US + Low Countries + Switzerland + Scandinavia + Lombardy + Japan vs. Germany + Austria-Hungary + Italy + Russia. Germany's strategy is to use Russia as unlimited strategic depth, harass American shipments with submarine attacks, and make a quick move on Paris in order to achieve continental domination. France's is to harass German supply lines via bombing, keep Paris at all costs while it assembles an American expeditionary force, and invade Russia east-to-west from its and Japan's Chinese colonies. Eventually, France wins. GDP ultimately wins total wars.
Admiral Halsey
Banned
What time does this work take place and how far back is the PoD? Because even today Siberia has shit for an army's logistical support let alone a WW2 era and god forbid you're trying to do that WW1 and earlier.
The war is 1918-23, and the POD is 1500 but the tech level is largely parallel (and yes, I'll defend parallel tech levels as the most likely outcome of a POD from about 1450 onward). Siberia has the railroad, and on top of that the French and Japanese are mostly using colonial Chinese troops and don't care if a few million Chinese people die in the process.
with a pod in 1500 it is surprising to have the same states in Europe in 1918 (not to mention the USA). I do smell a genocide of butterflies
In this alternate scenario, it will obviously be Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, not Russia, that will benefit from French and English capital investments. This means that the double-digit industrial growth will benefit them - so we could expect the Russo-Turkish match to tilt the Turkish way this time. OTOH, the Turks have much less manpower than the Russians, and in such a configuration, pan-Slavism is going to be really rampant in the Balkans.
Admiral Halsey
Banned
Yeah those are the perfect conditions for a rebellion if there ever was. Also colonial Chinese troops!? Are you telling me the GP's conquered some if not all of China? There's a reason that didn't happen OTL and that's because there are to many Chinese. India was pushing it as was OTL and the British were lucky with the Sepoy Rebellion.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Assuming the diplomacy leads to these alliances, I wouldn't fancy being Italian. One long coastline and facing the combined Mediterranean fleets of France, A-H, Britain and (for what it's worth) Turkey.
Still, two good reasons for an Italian admiral to smile: -
1. No Stringbags, so no Taranto - I can hide in port all war;
2. At least I'm not a Habsburg general....
Still, two good reasons for an Italian admiral to smile: -
1. No Stringbags, so no Taranto - I can hide in port all war;
2. At least I'm not a Habsburg general....