Anglo-German Alliance

[Glen]

Well i Wonder Could the British army Learn from the Germans?

Officer exchange programs all that kinda woohrah.

Carried this over from the PAG thread....

Definitely. Especially after the war, they will be eager to pick the brains of the Germans...

Alratan also mentioned there about cultural exchange, particularly education...

More intimate exposure to British culture leads to a more democratic German Empire, and exposure to German culture leads to a more efficient education and financial system.

Sound good to everyone?

 

[Glen]

A map of 1913, I think.

 

[Glen]

I think that once the Second Revolution in China is over, the Republicans can negotiate some more favorable terms with the Anglo-Germans. I can see the British being willing to grant Hainan and Macao back to Chinese Control, and perhaps even the Germans going back to their one city in Shantung, rather than the larger area.

The Japanese will stay put in the Northwest, but any encroachment in Fukien in this scenario will have been ephemeral to say the least.

As for Tibet...I see it creeping towards independence, but remaining in the British sphere of influence and protection, perhaps somewhat like Thailand ITTL.

 

[Glen]

I think the War of 1905 has perturbed things enough that we don't see the assassination of Franz Ferdinand ITTL.

Once Franz Josef dies in 1916, what are the odds of Franz Ferdinand getting the Morganic Marriage thing thrown out?

 

[M.Passit]

If it's for the best of both Empires, sure, why not

I agree that the Japanese will stay in Manchuria, no matter what the Chinese want. Japan need raw materials for it's industry, which Manchuria have. Well, the Chinese may want it back under their fully rule, but after 542th failed negotiation, they may just give up.

Franz Ferdinand sympathy toward the Slavs might cause some problem with the Hungarians later. From 1916-1930s, this time will be very critical for Austria-Hungary. The pressure within from various sides need to be resolved, or else the Empire will collapse.

 

[pompejus]

Could you please explain to me the difference in your maps between countries that are pink with a white line around it (like iran) and white countries with a pink line around it (like thailand)?

 

[Alratan]

We're looking set for a much more multi-polar world than OTL. Some thoughts on th losers.

Russia:

Assuming that the Russian Republic was established in relatively peacful circumstances - no Russian Civil War or Bolshevik Second Revolution, then the pre-war level of growth should continue. It will take a knock due to being cut off from the French capital it used to industrialise, but this might help in the long run by forcing the development of local banking system.

The aftermath of the war also coincides with the end of the 5 years economic trough in Russia that followed Witte's economic reforms and investements, when the big structural changes and investements were just about to come to fruition. The new goverment will reap the benefits of the previous Tsarist economic pain, and so should get a big boost to popular support and legitimacy. Russia no longer has to pay to police Central Europe, which will also help. We're probably looking at 6% growth rates in Russia.

This will encourage the other European Powers (particualrly Britain, where growth was much lower) to significantly raise their game, and may provide the extra motivation needed for reform.

By the late 20s, assuming no general war, Russia will probably have an industry as big as the Central Powers (Germany, A-H, Italy, + minor Allies) put together. By this point many of the Balkan states will probably have fallen back within the historical Russian sphere of influence.

Russia has a very bright future if it can avoid a second revolution or another premature war.

France:

France will consider itself to have had a bad war. It entered it in defense of an ally, and was then left in the lurch when that ally succumbed to revolution. It losts the great bulk of its overseas colonies for nothing. On the up side, European France was untouched, and very little fighting happened on home soil.

There are a couple of ways this can go, but if France keeps its head down it's best bet is to allow itself to be bribed back into a grand anti-Russian alliance, as the threat of bear becomes more and more obvious whilst France's vulnerability to blockade and invasion if it aligns with Russia remains constant. The other approach, of autarky and Fortress France, will just lead to economic difficulties.

The best France can do is to be an equal partner in some grand European Alliance system, it can become a 1st/2nd Tier Power again if its sufficiently patient and careful.

The Ottoman Empire

I'm still unclear where Glen intends to go here. I think it likely that the Ottomans are going to loose their capital to British naval assault in the opening stages of the war (even if no one has yet to agree with me). Even if (as is quite likely), the British give it back after the war, this depends on who to give it back to. An event such as this would severly damage central authority in the Empire, and could well lead to a period of warlordism (even without this, it's quite possible. In this era, given the military disparity, there aren't likely for there to be any war heroes to rally around). This is likely to result in an eventual independant Armenia, Britain installing its own government in Constantinople so there's someone to make peace with, and warlords in the hinterlands.

The Turks could play the part that Russia did post OTL WW I. In any case, it's going to be the terminally ill man of Europe at best.

 

[Glen]

Could you please explain to me the difference in your maps between countries that are pink with a white line around it (like iran) and white countries with a pink line around it (like thailand)?

White with a pink border - Independent but in the sphere of influence of another nation.

Color with a white border - Has own government, but heavily in the sphere of influence of another nation.

Color - Controlled by the nation of that color.

 

[Glen]

If it's for the best of both Empires, sure, why not

I agree that the Japanese will stay in Manchuria, no matter what the Chinese want. Japan need raw materials for it's industry, which Manchuria have. Well, the Chinese may want it back under their fully rule, but after 542th failed negotiation, they may just give up.

Franz Ferdinand sympathy toward the Slavs might cause some problem with the Hungarians later. From 1916-1930s, this time will be very critical for Austria-Hungary. The pressure within from various sides need to be resolved, or else the Empire will collapse.

And what, under Franz Ferdinand, do you think the most likely course would be?

 

[M.Passit]

Well, from what I read, don't know it's true or not, he may go so far as granting them independence, which I found very unlikely. So, maybe he will do something like raise the status of the Slav states into something like Austria and Hungary, Trialism I think. But the Hungarian will be very against it, so something like civil war maybe unchangable. I stole the phrase from someone else, since I find it really appeal to me. Federalize or die!

 

[Glen]

We're looking set for a much more multi-polar world than OTL. Some thoughts on th losers.

Perhaps, perhaps...

Russia:

Assuming that the Russian Republic was established in relatively peacful circumstances - no Russian Civil War or Bolshevik Second Revolution,

This is my operating assumption. While not exactly peaceful, it was swift, with most levels of society in agreement that the rank incompetance at the top needed to be removed.

then the pre-war level of growth should continue. It will take a knock due to being cut off from the French capital it used to industrialise, but this might help in the long run by forcing the development of local banking system.

Generally agree.

The aftermath of the war also coincides with the end of the 5 years economic trough in Russia that followed Witte's economic reforms and investements, when the big structural changes and investements were just about to come to fruition. The new goverment will reap the benefits of the previous Tsarist economic pain, and so should get a big boost to popular support and legitimacy.

Yes. Funny how that worked out...

Russia no longer has to pay to police Central Europe, which will also help. We're probably looking at 6% growth rates in Russia.

Maybe not quite 6% in the short term (remember they still have to deal with that cut-off of French capital, but they'll make do), but yeah, I see some improving times ahead for the Russian Republic.

This will encourage the other European Powers (particualrly Britain, where growth was much lower) to significantly raise their game, and may provide the extra motivation needed for reform.

Perhaps indeed.

By the late 20s, assuming no general war,

That you may assume.

Russia will probably have an industry as big as the Central Powers (Germany, A-H, Italy, + minor Allies) put together.

Don't know about that. Maybe bigger than Germany or A-H separately. They are still likely to be ahead of Russia in industrialization, but Russia has become the breadbasket of Europe.

By this point many of the Balkan states will probably have fallen back within the historical Russian sphere of influence.

By the 1920s? Possibly. However, what does that really MEAN at this point? Now we have a number of Balkan states that are still semi-conservative monarchies looking towards an economically booming republic.

What influence do you think that might have on those Balkan states?

Russia has a very bright future if it can avoid a second revolution or another premature war.

I think that's possible.

France:

France will consider itself to have had a bad war. It entered it in defense of an ally, and was then left in the lurch when that ally succumbed to revolution. It losts the great bulk of its overseas colonies for nothing.

And Alsace Lorraine is still in the hands of the Boche!

On the up side, European France was untouched, and very little fighting happened on home soil.

True. That's important.

There are a couple of ways this can go, but if France keeps its head down it's best bet is to allow itself to be bribed back into a grand anti-Russian alliance, as the threat of bear becomes more and more obvious whilst France's vulnerability to blockade and invasion if it aligns with Russia remains constant.

Ah, but will the Anglo-German Alliance feel that they NEED France at this point?

The other approach, of autarky and Fortress France, will just lead to economic difficulties.

Oh. Sorry to hear that, because I think that is exactly the way that France is heading. If you take into accout the War of 1870, they've lost twice now in a match-up against the Germans. Actually, they didn't do so bad against them this time, but the lesson of the war they will receive is that going on the offensive got them mauled, playing defense worked like a charm.

I can still see a Maginot Line type defense in France's future.

I can also see them going a bit isolationist and focusing on developing internally and what's left of the French outre mer.

The best France can do is to be an equal partner in some grand European Alliance system,

Don't see it happening, at least not in the next few decades.

it can become a 1st/2nd Tier Power again if its sufficiently patient and careful.

This part is true, I believe. More 2nd Tier, I believe.

The Ottoman Empire

I'm still unclear where Glen intends to go here. I think it likely that the Ottomans are going to loose their capital to British naval assault in the opening stages of the war (even if no one has yet to agree with me). Even if (as is quite likely), the British give it back after the war,

Ah yes, that is a bone of contention, isn't it. Perhaps we can just say that the British had other strategic priorities, and with its overwhelming dominance of the sealanes they didn't see the need to take Istambul or the staits given their utter naval dominance (pre-Dreadnought they rule). Or just imagine they gave it back if you must sleep well at night.

I wouldn't have minded seeing Istambul in the hands of the British by war's end, but there's just not enough concensus on this to do that, IMO.

this depends on who to give it back to. An event such as this would severly damage central authority in the Empire, and could well lead to a period of warlordism (even without this, it's quite possible. In this era, given the military disparity, there aren't likely for there to be any war heroes to rally around).

Ah, but unlike OTL, Anatolia itself didn't receive occupying troops, and the losses were all out on the periphery. Heavy losses in some ways to be sure, but also means that there are less Arabs for the Turks to need to suppress.

Oddly enough, we see here what happened OTL, the Young Turks coming to power, except a wee bit earlier, and due to the failure of the Ottomans in the war. Mehmed V is now Sultan, and a puppet.

This is likely to result in an eventual independant Armenia,

Actually not. The same people are now in power who brought you the first blush of the Armenian Genocide.

Britain installing its own government in Constantinople so there's someone to make peace with, and warlords in the hinterlands.

The war just wasn't long enough nor the losses of the Ottoman Empire severe enough (almost, but not quite) to cause such a collapse. Even if Constantinople were captured, I think the government could survive (though that would be towards the end of the war anyway).

The Turks could play the part that Russia did post OTL WW I. In any case, it's going to be the terminally ill man of Europe at best.

Rather, it is going to be a rather mixed bag, with lots of innovation and secularization, but also oppression and outright genocide of non-Turkish minorities who get too bothersome.

Well, maybe its a little bit like OTL post WWI Russia...

 

[Glen]

Well, from what I read, don't know it's true or not, he may go so far as granting them independence, which I found very unlikely.

Not happening.

So, maybe he will do something like raise the status of the Slav states into something like Austria and Hungary, Trialism I think.

This will be the first thing he tries, to be certain, though preceded by Universal Suffrage.

But the Hungarian will be very against it, so something like civil war maybe unchangable. I stole the phrase from someone else, since I find it really appeal to me. Federalize or die!

Its a nice phrase.

However, I've had several similar discussions about the impact of Franz Ferdinand in power and his attempted reforms effects on the empire. General concensus is that the Hungarians probably won't like it, enough to see unrest, even revolt (or an assassination attempt), but that they will be handily crushed if it is tried and then change will come.

But we'll see...timing is everything, after all...

 

[Alratan]

This is my operating assumption. While not exactly peaceful, it was swift, with most levels of society in agreement that the rank incompetance at the top needed to be removed.

This is important. It means that foreign investors do not loose their investments (bizarly, this is very important for Belgium, which was major investor in Russia pre-WW I, and needs all the income it can get). It also means that the French keep their investement, and even if they have to sell some to pay reparations, it means continuity and a retaining of confidence.

Maybe not quite 6% in the short term (remember they still have to deal with that cut-off of French capital, but they'll make do), but yeah, I see some improving times ahead for the Russian Republic.

This is lower than OTL by about 1% (estimated), the greater willingess of the Republican government to implement the reforms (particualry land), that the Tsarist governemnt implmented from 1905-1913 should substantially improve agricutural productivity as well.

Don't know about that. Maybe bigger than Germany or A-H separately. They are still likely to be ahead of Russia in industrialization, but Russia has become the breadbasket of Europe.

In 1914 the Germany gdp was $240 billion, AH $100 billion, and Italy $90 billion. Russia was $250 billion, in 1990 US dollars. Russia was growing substantially faster than Germany, even more compared to Italy, and very substantially faster than AH. As an example, between 1890 and 1900, Russian coal and steel production tripled!

By the 1920s? Possibly. However, what does that really MEAN at this point? Now we have a number of Balkan states that are still semi-conservative monarchies looking towards an economically booming republic.

Not really a problem, Britain was a constiutional monarchy with Parliment supreme with authoritarian client states. It means they will be providing a market for Rusian goods and allowing Russian companies to building railways to avoid the chokepoint of the Dardanelles.

Ah, but will the Anglo-German Alliance feel that they NEED France at this point?

Past the late 1930s the answer is an unequivocal Yes. Russia will be the greatest industrial Power in the world by a significant margin ahead of the US. It could be potentially be more industrialy potent as all the rest of continental Europe combined.

Oh. Sorry to hear that, because I think that is exactly the way that France is heading. If you take into accout the War of 1870, they've lost twice now in a match-up against the Germans. Actually, they didn't do so bad against them this time, but the lesson of the war they will receive is that going on the offensive got them mauled, playing defense worked like a charm.

I can still see a Maginot Line type defense in France's future.

Partially true, but I think they will see the devastation that occured in Belgium and want to perform some kind of agressive defense - you don't want trench warfare on your own lands. After all, they didn't break the German lines, but as far as they know it kept the Germans on the back front and unable to press the attack.

I can also see them going a bit isolationist and focusing on developing internally and what's left of the French outre mer.

Could work. I imagine that with Germany and Britain rasing protectionist barriers then the other way it could go is that France becomes the preferred trading partner for the US, its gateway into Europe.

Ah yes, that is a bone of contention, isn't it. Perhaps we can just say that the British had other strategic priorities, and with its overwhelming dominance of the sealanes they didn't see the need to take Istambul or the staits given their utter naval dominance (pre-Dreadnought they rule). Or just imagine they gave it back if you must sleep well at night.

I wouldn't have minded seeing Istambul in the hands of the British by war's end, but there's just not enough concensus on this to do that, IMO.

OK. It does show remarkable foreberance (stupidity) on the Royal Navy's part. Much more likely that they take it at the beginning of the war, the government escapes in good order and fights on from mainland Turkey, and at the end of the war they get it back. This would lead to unifying the Balkan states in hatred of the British. It's the mother of all stabs in the back. Not only would they be giving Constantinople back to the Turks, but also forcing them to withdraw from the areas they would have captured from Asian Turkey (or literally threatened to sink their own allies' troopships to prevent them getting it). In order for the Balkan Alliance not to take Constantinople, the British will have to actively intervene to prevent it, cutting of the supplies at the crucial moment and blockading the Balkan ports to prevent them buying more.

Ah, but unlike OTL, Anatolia itself didn't receive occupying troops, and the losses were all out on the periphery. Heavy losses in some ways to be sure, but also means that there are less Arabs for the Turks to need to suppress.

Oddly enough, we see here what happened OTL, the Young Turks coming to power, except a wee bit earlier, and due to the failure of the Ottomans in the war. Mehmed V is now Sultan, and a puppet.

With any meaningful Great Power support (or simply not having the Great Powers intervening in favour of the Ottomans, as they did in the OTL Balkan Wars), the Greeks and the Bulgarians are going to cross into Asian Turkey. The Ottomans can do nothing to stop them. They will only stop a few months after their Allies pull the plug at the end of the war - indeed, the Balkan powers will probably keep on beating up on the Turks after every one has stopped fighting, like OTL.

Actually not. The same people are now in power who brought you the first blush of the Armenian Genocide.

However much the Russians lost in the war, the Ottomans will have lost far far more. They simply won't permit this to happen.

The war just wasn't long enough nor the losses of the Ottoman Empire severe enough (almost, but not quite) to cause such a collapse. Even if Constantinople were captured, I think the government could survive (though that would be towards the end of the war anyway).

The Ottoman government was very weak. As I say, Constantinople would fall at the very beginning of the war if the British choose to do so.

Rather, it is going to be a rather mixed bag, with lots of innovation and secularization, but also oppression and outright genocide of non-Turkish minorities who get too bothersome.

Who's dong the investment to pay for this? The French are broke, the Russians are making up for the fact that the French have pulled out, Britain has gone protectionist and has several huge infrastructure investments to pay for in the colonies (Cape to Cairo, Cairo to Saigon, etc), Germany has Mitteleurope, and the US is in recession and suffering for capital as the British draw down their capital there (protectionism again). There is insufficient indigenous capital here, and the periphery has been lost and can't be taxed.

 

[Glen]

This is important. It means that foreign investors do not loose their investments (bizarly, this is very important for Belgium, which was major investor in Russia pre-WW I, and needs all the income it can get). It also means that the French keep their investement, and even if they have to sell some to pay reparations, it means continuity and a retaining of confidence.

I agree. The war was over too quickly, and Russia wasn't shaken as much. This is for Russia what the Franco-Prussian War was for France, fast and an eye opener, but not a destroyer.

This is lower than OTL by about 1% (estimated), the greater willingess of the Republican government to implement the reforms (particualry land), that the Tsarist governemnt implmented from 1905-1913 should substantially improve agricutural productivity as well.

Yep. That is why I say they will be the breadbasket of Europe. Which means less sales for the US, btw.

With two major grain producers duking it out, food prices will be lower, btw, which probably means less discontent throughout...

In 1914 the Germany gdp was $240 billion, AH $100 billion, and Italy $90 billion. Russia was $250 billion, in 1990 US dollars. Russia was growing substantially faster than Germany, even more compared to Italy, and very substantially faster than AH. As an example, between 1890 and 1900, Russian coal and steel production tripled!

REALLY? I didn't realize Russian GDP was higher at the start of WWI.

Okay then. Although I'm guessing per capita is still lower in Mother Russia for a good long while, right?

Not really a problem, Britain was a constiutional monarchy with Parliment supreme with authoritarian client states. It means they will be providing a market for Rusian goods and allowing Russian companies to building railways to avoid the chokepoint of the Dardanelles.

Probably. Although I can also see the Young Turks trying to cozy up to the Anglo-German Alliance as well.

Past the late 1930s the answer is an unequivocal Yes. Russia will be the greatest industrial Power in the world by a significant margin ahead of the US. It could be potentially be more industrialy potent as all the rest of continental Europe combined.

Perhaps. However, that growth rate is not going to extend all the way to the late 1930s.

And the 1930s will see some significant changes, though I still need to plot out their impact on Russia.

Partially true, but I think they will see the devastation that occured in Belgium and want to perform some kind of agressive defense - you don't want trench warfare on your own lands. After all, they didn't break the German lines, but as far as they know it kept the Germans on the back front and unable to press the attack.

True. But an 'aggressive defense' is still not the same as offense.

Could work. I imagine that with Germany and Britain rasing protectionist barriers

Are you referring to Imperial Preference here? A mild barrier, to be certain. And why do you think Germany is raising protectionist barriers? Russia?

then the other way it could go is that France becomes the preferred trading partner for the US, its gateway into Europe.

Could be. Despite the late entry of the US into the war and their stripping of French territories in the New World, they are probably the least despised of the victors of the war.

OK. It does show remarkable foreberance (stupidity) on the Royal Navy's part. Much more likely that they take it at the beginning of the war, the government escapes in good order and fights on from mainland Turkey, and at the end of the war they get it back. This would lead to unifying the Balkan states in hatred of the British. It's the mother of all stabs in the back. Not only would they be giving Constantinople back to the Turks, but also forcing them to withdraw from the areas they would have captured from Asian Turkey (or literally threatened to sink their own allies' troopships to prevent them getting it). In order for the Balkan Alliance not to take Constantinople, the British will have to actively intervene to prevent it, cutting of the supplies at the crucial moment and blockading the Balkan ports to prevent them buying more.

Okay, this is becoming a problem.

I need to know from everyone, how likely is it that Britain could/would take Istanbul in the War?

Also, how likely are the Balkan nations to be able to carry the war to Anatolia?

Recall that unlike OTL WWI, the Ottomans were still in the Balkans significantly at the start of this war, so they'd have to fight the equivalent of the Balkans War before getting to Anatolia.

With any meaningful Great Power support (or simply not having the Great Powers intervening in favour of the Ottomans, as they did in the OTL Balkan Wars), the Greeks and the Bulgarians are going to cross into Asian Turkey. The Ottomans can do nothing to stop them. They will only stop a few months after their Allies pull the plug at the end of the war - indeed, the Balkan powers will probably keep on beating up on the Turks after every one has stopped fighting, like OTL.

Why? Why are the Balkans forces doing so well in this fight in your opinion? Recall they have to free the Balkans of the Turk before moving on to Anatolia. And the war isn't lasting very long, at least not for the major powers (and I can see them applying pressure to the Balkans to 'respect the peace').

Are you claiming this is what would have happened in the original Balkan Wars without Great Power intervention?

However much the Russians lost in the war, the Ottomans will have lost far far more. They simply won't permit this to happen.

Interesting...and how far will the Russians go to prevent it from happening?

The Ottoman government was very weak. As I say, Constantinople would fall at the very beginning of the war if the British choose to do so.

Despite the Young Ottoman reforms? Not great, but still...

IF this is the case, I'm going to have to do some mild retconning of the timeline.

Who's dong the investment to pay for this? The French are broke, the Russians are making up for the fact that the French have pulled out, Britain has gone protectionist and has several huge infrastructure investments to pay for in the colonies (Cape to Cairo, Cairo to Saigon, etc), Germany has Mitteleurope, and the US is in recession and suffering for capital as the British draw down their capital there (protectionism again). There is insufficient indigenous capital here, and the periphery has been lost and can't be taxed.

Probably Germany. They have Mitteleuropa, but there's enough capital for it. Also, the US recession doesn't hit until the 1910s, time enough for initial outlays of capital, so we could see some US investment. And the British might invest some to keep their hands in the pot, and help link up their own mideast possessions for trade purposes (again, the Imperial Preference is mild, not enough to completely close of extramural trade).

 

[Alratan]

REALLY? I didn't realize Russian GDP was higher at the start of WWI.

Okay then. Although I'm guessing per capita is still lower in Mother Russia for a good long while, right?

In OTL 1914, its AH $2000, Germany $3600, and Russia $1500.

Probably. Although I can also see the Young Turks trying to cozy up to the Anglo-German Alliance as well.

Certainly, turning on their traditional protectors to ally with the old enemy isn't going to have been popular, and the post-war government is likely to reverse it.

Yep. That is why I say they will be the breadbasket of Europe. Which means less sales for the US, btw.

With two major grain producers duking it out, food prices will be lower, btw, which probably means less discontent throughout...

Not as much as you might think. Russias cities are likely to expand much faster than OTL, and soak up most of the surplus grain.

Perhaps. However, that growth rate is not going to extend all the way to the late 1930s.

And the 1930s will see some significant changes, though I still need to plot out their impact on Russia.

Don't see why not. Look at the US Gilded Age for an example that this is possible. Russia has, in some ways, more advantages. More natural resources, a bigger starting population, easier access to markets.

Are you referring to Imperial Preference here? A mild barrier, to be certain. And why do you think Germany is raising protectionist barriers? Russia?

This is important. You have to remember why these countries wanted clonies and sattelite states in the first place, what powered New Imperialism. Basically, the whole point was to have captive markets for your industries, to insulate them from the threat of foregin competition. That was what Mittleeurope was for the Germans, and what the colonies were for the British. Having got them, the immediate and rational thing to do is to erect tariffs to make them, well, captive. With (at least initially) more efficicent American industry threatening the British Imperial market and Russian cheap and incresingly skilled labour threatening the German Central European market, then Protectionism is inevitable. It has to be remembered that Protectionism is a vicious cycle.

Could be. Despite the late entry of the US into the war and their stripping of French territories in the New World, they are probably the least despised of the victors of the war.

Makes economic and political sense for both sides. The French and new Russian government are likely to be hostile, what with the French feeling let down and the ussians annoyed about the economic dmage inflicted by a massive sell down of Ffrench owned asstes.

Okay, this is becoming a problem.

I'll stop harping on about it soon.

I need to know from everyone, how likely is it that Britain could/would take Istanbul in the War?

No more for me to say here. Anagaxorous might be able to comment.

Also, how likely are the Balkan nations to be able to carry the war to Anatolia?

Recall that unlike OTL WWI, the Ottomans were still in the Balkans significantly at the start of this war, so they'd have to fight the equivalent of the Balkans War before getting to Anatolia.

The First Balkan war basically lasted for two months, although the Greeks remainded in the field until the offical peace treaty six months later, that was basically manouvering for the Second Balkan War, which was fought between the Balkan Alliance, not against the Ottomans, because the Austro-Hungarians insisted on an independant Albania, so the pre-War Balkan Alliance's proposed division of the spoils was now mutually unacceptable to the former allies.

Why? Why are the Balkans forces doing so well in this fight in your opinion? Recall they have to free the Balkans of the Turk before moving on to Anatolia. And the war isn't lasting very long, at least not for the major powers (and I can see them applying pressure to the Balkans to 'respect the peace').

The Serbians had to worry about a hostile A-H, which historically supported the Ottomans during OTL, in ATL they are allied. In OTL the Ottomans had could concentrate their entire mobile reserve into the war. In ATL the British are conquering Arabia and shutting down their costal trade/transports. Also, the Ottoman Empire was strongly dependant on German advisors in the era of WW I and the Balkan wars. They actually comanded the armies against the British. They obviously won't be getting this help here.

Are you claiming this is what would have happened in the original Balkan Wars without Great Power intervention?

In OTL the British wouldn't tolerate a Russian client getting the Dardanelles, and AH want to pop up the Otomans for strategic balance and to keep the Serbs down. Neither apply here, or at least not to the same extent. The Ottomans got a breather imposed by the Powers, in which time it improved its armies, and learnt the lessons of the Balkan wars. The fortificaiton of the Dardanelles ocured in this short interval. The Balkan wars then kicked off again as part of WW I, and despite the Serbs fighting for their lives against AH and Germany, thus unable to contribute troops, the rest of the Balkan Powers took the war to Asian Turkey, and were only kicked out years later, despite the Ottomans having German advice and a pause for breath.

Interesting...and how far will the Russians go to prevent it from happening?

They could simply arm the Armenians and turn the region into an ungovernable mess before going into restore order. They can probably also just tell the Ottoman government what to do and expect to be obeyed.

Despite the Young Ottoman reforms? Not great, but still...

IF this is the case, I'm going to have to do some mild retconning of the timeline.

Very little of what's posted is affected.

Probably Germany. They have Mitteleuropa, but there's enough capital for it. Also, the US recession doesn't hit until the 1910s, time enough for initial outlays of capital, so we could see some US investment. And the British might invest some to keep their hands in the pot, and help link up their own mideast possessions for trade purposes (again, the Imperial Preference is mild, not enough to completely close of extramural trade).

Germany needs all (most) of its surplus capital at home now its facing heavy competion from Russia. Germany's industrial development was quite patchy, and Mitteleuope has a long way to go. They can contribute some, but it depends on the state of the country.

 

[Glen]

Okay, someone in Pax Anglo-Germanica brought up the OTL international pressure to strip Leopold II of his Congo holdings given humanitarian concerns.

Here I can see the Belgians in the aftermath of the war agreeing to sell their claim to the Congo to the British and Germans, given their need for cash after being the main battlefield for the Western Front.

So, I might throw that into a retcon, but would it be immediately after the war?

 

[Glen]

Okay...a conceptual map if we go with the Congo Partition Option.

IIRC, we were hypothesizing the crossroads for the German and British rails as being Goma, which I used for the 'intersection point' for the divisions. I can see Goma being made a Codominion city of the British and Germans.

Might be interesting someday to hear the history of this Goma, crossroads of Anglo-German Africa....

 

[Alratan]

On the subject of railways, the east-west route might also be possible, as a unifying factor of British possessions here. Perhaps:

Cairo-Jerusulem-Bagdad-Kuwait-Hyderbad-New Delhi-Calcutta-Mandalay-Hanoi-Hong Kong

 

[Glen]

On the subject of railways, the east-west route might also be possible, as a unifying factor of British possessions here. Perhaps:

Cairo-Jerusulem-Bagdad-Kuwait-Hyderbad-New Delhi-Calcutta-Mandalay-Hanoi-Hong Kong

Probably a spur to Bagdad rather than through it, given that its still in Ottoman hands IIRC.

Then of course the last bit they'd have to negotiate with the Chinese.

But yeah, its possible.

 

[Alratan]

Probably a spur to Bagdad rather than through it, given that its still in Ottoman hands IIRC.

Then of course the last bit they'd have to negotiate with the Chinese.

But yeah, its possible.

"negotiate", eh