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.
Anglo-German Alliance
- Thread starter Glen
- Start date
Glen
Moderator
It was in 1904 that the Great Powers came into conflict. In the beginning of the year, the Japanese demanded the Russians abide by their former agreement to pull out of Manchuria. The Russians, feeling confident in their ability to defeat an Asiatic nation, refused and so began the Russo-Japanese conflict. The Russians over the course of the year suffered defeat after defeat, mostly in the naval arena but on land as well. The other Great Powers tried to remain neutral at first, but the tension was greatly heightened by the war, and the potential alliances that could be activated should even one more power enter the fray.
It was in this climate that the Battle of Dogger Bank became almost inevitable, as in October of 1904 a Russian flotilla heading for the Far East mistakenly thought British vessels were part of a Japanese ambush. This quickly escalated into a full scale naval engagement which the Russians lost. The Russians refused to take responsibility for the action, claiming it was Britain's attempt to sereptitiously aid their ally Japan under the guise of an 'accident'. Russia and Britain entered into a state of war.
With two powers at war with Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire were obliged by treaty to enter into war on behalf of the Russians, which in turn would require the entry into the war of Germany and Austria-Hungary, and so on, as interlocking alliances were tripped by the expansion of the war.
Many in France cheered the announcement of hostilities with chants of 'Alsace-Lorraine!', inflaming the spirit of revanchism in the country.
However, by the end of the year, most of the fighting was still occuring only in Manchuria, and many thought that negotiators would prevail and general war in Europe be avoided.
It was in this climate that the Battle of Dogger Bank became almost inevitable, as in October of 1904 a Russian flotilla heading for the Far East mistakenly thought British vessels were part of a Japanese ambush. This quickly escalated into a full scale naval engagement which the Russians lost. The Russians refused to take responsibility for the action, claiming it was Britain's attempt to sereptitiously aid their ally Japan under the guise of an 'accident'. Russia and Britain entered into a state of war.
With two powers at war with Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire were obliged by treaty to enter into war on behalf of the Russians, which in turn would require the entry into the war of Germany and Austria-Hungary, and so on, as interlocking alliances were tripped by the expansion of the war.
Many in France cheered the announcement of hostilities with chants of 'Alsace-Lorraine!', inflaming the spirit of revanchism in the country.
However, by the end of the year, most of the fighting was still occuring only in Manchuria, and many thought that negotiators would prevail and general war in Europe be avoided.
Ivan Druzhkov said:
They could be shelfed for greater, co-operation between the allies.
Romania will likely join the opposite side to Bulgaria, I'd say... They have major and roughly equal land claims on both Austria-Hungary and Russia, and so the Southern Dobruja claim in Bulgaria will probably push them when it comes time to choose sides. Though, there is the historical emnity with the Hungarians.
Glen
Moderator
Okay, here I'd like to hear some opinions on timing in 1905-6.
The Alliance will attack into Russia first to knock them out of the war quickly, while Germany goes on the defensive on the border with France.
France will decide to do their own version of von Schlieffen, invading through Belgium and the Netherlands to strike at Germany. They actually had a plan by this name, but I can't recall the Plan number at the moment. This attack will stall.
When do we see these attacks, and how long is Russia likely to hold out? The war in the East is likely to remain more mobile than OTL WWI due to terrain, commitment of troops by the Alliance, Russia having to fight on two fronts, and the relative quality of the forces involved. The question is when does the balloon go up, and how long will it take before the Russians are forced to the negotiation table?
I'm almost tempted to think the Germans might try for a winter offensive. The frozen terrain would allow for quicker movement if the forces involved were properly dressed for Winter (which I'd assume they would be if they were actually planning to launch a Winter campaign, rather than having their campaign stall and go into Winter). Then again, the more traditional approach would be to wait for the Spring, I suppose....
The Alliance will attack into Russia first to knock them out of the war quickly, while Germany goes on the defensive on the border with France.
France will decide to do their own version of von Schlieffen, invading through Belgium and the Netherlands to strike at Germany. They actually had a plan by this name, but I can't recall the Plan number at the moment. This attack will stall.
When do we see these attacks, and how long is Russia likely to hold out? The war in the East is likely to remain more mobile than OTL WWI due to terrain, commitment of troops by the Alliance, Russia having to fight on two fronts, and the relative quality of the forces involved. The question is when does the balloon go up, and how long will it take before the Russians are forced to the negotiation table?
I'm almost tempted to think the Germans might try for a winter offensive. The frozen terrain would allow for quicker movement if the forces involved were properly dressed for Winter (which I'd assume they would be if they were actually planning to launch a Winter campaign, rather than having their campaign stall and go into Winter). Then again, the more traditional approach would be to wait for the Spring, I suppose....
luakel said:
If the Ottomans are on the entente side, which I find rather strange, then you could find the bulk of the minor powers favouring the alliance. Don't forget this is before the 1st Balkan war, in which they allied to overrun most of the Ottoman provinces in Europe. This is also before the Austrian annexation of Bosnia, so probably better relations between them and Serbia. Rumania would definitely be pro-alliance as the king was a Hollenzarn (sp). Greece would almost certainly also be pro-allied because of its hostility to Turkey and its vulnerability to sea power. Under those circumstances, with the possible exception of Bulgaria they would be almost certainly be in the allied camp. [It has historical links with Russia which were only broken after the 1st Balkan war, but also wants land from Turkey.]
Italy is an awkward matter. Its most bitter rivalry is with Austria. However it does have colonial and border disputes with France and a vulnerability to sea power so might side with the allies rather than the entente.
Steve
Glen
Moderator
luakel said:
Maybe, maybe not. I can see the Russians collapsing in '05 even, but I'll have to think about that one.
One thing I will say is that I think this war will be a lot quicker than OTL WWI. The sides will not be as devastated, though the Western Front will show the ugly side of modern warfare, with a static front and no-man's-land, at least for a while.
Glen
Moderator
stevep said:
Quite frankly, the Ottomans were bribed into the Entente.
Good points about the Balkans.
Though I'd find it interesting if the Italians sided with the Entente, I think they will sit on the fence for a little while but then jump in with the Alliance. They're a lot better at determining which way the wind is blowing than many other powers of the era....
Thanks for the feedback, Steve.