More or less Luke. The Germans have just started to see how they misjudged that this could be a quick war. Then again everyone did. Only ITL Berlin is just starting to understand that. They had to promise a lot more than what I covered in the update to both the Bulgarians and Greeks to get them to hand over those small pieces of Europe to the Ottomans. This inculdes money to pay for the war, weapons to fight the war, promises to help them build up their economies post-war. Plus a lot of arm twisting. The Germans know full well the Balkans aren't going to be stable post-war but they care more about winning at this point than dealing with a possible mess in the Balkans post war.

Oh well, hope that they win the war very quickly...otherwise i doubt the German people will feel a great difference; the Balkans between this situation and the probable implosion of A-H if the war last beyond 1917 (and in any case it will end as a whole owned subsidiary of the German Empire) will be a mess and any post-war settlement will not last a day, not including the situation in east europe if something akin to OLT B-L treaty is implemented as very soon the various puppet state will rebel.
At this better include various internal revolt and political chaos due to the stress, sacrifice and fatigue of war, that will cover all the continent once the war end (if not earlier).
 
Oh well, hope that they win the war very quickly...otherwise i doubt the German people will feel a great difference; the Balkans between this situation and the probable implosion of A-H if the war last beyond 1917 (and in any case it will end as a whole owned subsidiary of the German Empire) will be a mess and any post-war settlement will not last a day, not including the situation in east europe if something akin to OLT B-L treaty is implemented as very soon the various puppet state will rebel.
At this better include various internal revolt and political chaos due to the stress, sacrifice and fatigue of war, that will cover all the continent once the war end (if not earlier).
Hmm...

It seems I been hacked.
 
France is in a worse position the Germans captured more factories and mines with their artillery within reach of the mines. Without the United States selling equipment to France, the country will only last 3 years.
 
Actually it is worse for France. They are going to need for coal imports from the UK to keep the lights on and factories running than OTL. While the UK has the capacity to provide this coal, this will mean shipping that could used to bring other "stuff" across the Channel will now need to be used for coal. This at the same time that loss of factories means France needs more "stuff" from the UK to make up for what the lost factories produced. This means a huge issue with shipping, as this is the rate limiting step. With more of the continental side of the Channel in German hands small U-boats and light forces are going to make this shipping more vulnerable - more losses=more bottleneck and if you go from western ports to Bay of Biscay ports to avoid this threat, the longer trip means fewer trips means more bottlenecks. Of course the British now need to ship more "stuff" to their forces on the continent as there is less "stuff" in France they can use. More bottlenecks. This can spiral downwards very rapidly.

Britain and France are, at this point, much more dependent on shipping/imports than Germany and Germany is in better shape to get imports through neutral like Holland, Norway/Denmark/Sweden, and Italy. With the US basically hostile to the UK, the US will not tolerate the RN stopping US flagged ships going to neutral ports and preventing cargoes going through especially for food, raw materials, and items that are not weapons. IMHO the US position will be based on freedom of navigation for neutrals especially on cargoes for neutral nations. "It is not the responsibility of the USA to determine what happens to cargoes legally destined for neutral nations after they have been landed."

With a "cash and carry" policy the UK/France will be more constrained than Germany - also both countries are going to be heavily dependent on food imports due to war always consuming more food, and the loss of some farming areas in France as well as young men in the army not on farms. Food from the Empire for the UK can be purchased on "credit", however this won't be enough. Will Argentinian beef be available except on a cash basis? Certainly food from the USA will be cash and carry.

I look forward to seeing what the British will do concerning US flagged ships going to neutral ports. There is also the question of US flagged ships going to German ports. No body would complain about a close blockade (ships interdicted in proximity to "enemy" ports) but the distant blockade that was imposed OTL and tolerated with some complaints by the USA won't be so acceptable here.
 
Last edited:
World War One, Battle for the Neutrals, the Romanians
Romania as the winter of 1914 set in found herself in a unique position. The way she had worked for defensive treaties she was able to set out the start of this war with a far better reason than the Italians did. The fact she bordered three of the nations in this war, one member of the Entente and two of the Central Power nations made her position in this war critical for both sides. Even more important since she sat on the largest oil field in Europe at Ploiesti made what she had to offer to both war efforts even more important on top of her already important geological position. This caused great powers to be performing far more than what would be normal amounts to offers to the Romanians to join their side.


The thing of it was, the Romanians wanted territorial gains at the cost of both the Austro Hungarians and Russians. From Austria Hungary, the Romanians wanted to add Transylvania and Bukovina. From the Russia, they wanted Bessarabia. The thing of it was that neither the Austro Hungarians or Russians wanted to surrender land to the Romanians to get them into the war. This was an impasse that neither the Entente nor the Central Power teams in Bucharest couldn’t get around in the winter of 1914/15 as they were holding out for the best possible deal.


Even through Romania wouldn’t commit to joining the war anytime soon as they were trying to get the best possible deal from either Central Powers or Entente they still had a role to play. They hated the Bulgarians and they were trying to limit their gains in this war. They also felt like the Bulgarians had screwed them in the aftermath of the Balkans War as they felt they should had gained border adjustments in their favor after that war for setting out that war. They were trying to play it where the Bulgarians were given the shaft. They were having to walk a fine line about this through as they know they pushed to hard they might give themselves the shaft as well.


In one debate in Bucharest on January 5th that decided the course for Romania for the near term future in regards to the war that was being waged around them. It was decided by the government that they would wait till they saw which side was going to win then join the side that was going to win for territorial gains. This would be the plan unless either the Austro Hungarians or the Russians offered up to them the territory they wanted from their nations and weren’t on the verge of losing the war. At the same time they would try to make sure Bulgaria didn’t gain too much as they didn’t want to deal with a super powerful Bulgaria post-war who would be hell bent on further territorial gains.
 
I'm quite confident (though I can't find the appropriate link) that belligerents can't even legally prohibit weapons from being sent to neutral parties, even if the will promptly be sent across the border to a nation at war. There was a lot of discussing of the laws of war of the time in the classic "Letterstime" timeline/story.
 
I'm quite confident (though I can't find the appropriate link) that belligerents can't even legally prohibit weapons from being sent to neutral parties, even if the will promptly be sent across the border to a nation at war. There was a lot of discussing of the laws of war of the time in the classic "Letterstime" timeline/story.
Yeah this is a legal grey area in international law from what I understand of it. There is some precedent of belligerents doing this legally through?
 
Also for the record the US doesn't have a cash and carry policy ITL. Its more telling the banks you can loan both sides money but if you go past a set limit we aren't helping you as outlined below.

There was also the issue of loans to belligerence powers. The Unites States became a lender nation in the late 1890s and many banks were being swamped with request from both sides for loans to pay for the war. President Roosevelt and the bulk of the Congressional Leadership didn’t want to put the nation in position they had loan so much money to one side they would be forced to join that side just to make sure they had join that side to get their money back. On June 27th the Federal Reserve issued a warning to the banks about loaning money to belligerence powers. It stated that unsecured loans to belligerents would not be insured, and that banks who have made unsecured loans to belligerents of greater than 33% of their reserves would not be insured and lose access to privileges from the Federal Reserve System.

The US is still loaning out money but its with a tablespoon not a five gallon bucket like OTL.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
Will the US trade loans (or cash) for territory in this war?

IOTL France offered the US Atlantic and Pacific islands for loans and cash.
Might all the players do it this time?
 
Transfer of territories and ships...a challenge:
In OTL, France stated that it would not recognize any transfer of ship ownership in wartime from a hostile power to a neutral, and would consider those ships subject to capture. I wonder if, in this timeline, Germany will consider selling ships that have taken refuge in the USA, both to raise money and perhaps set up an incident with French ships seizing a sold ship.

As for buying islands, Germany and Austria-Hungary lack lands worth selling, at least in the Americas. Also, IF there's a chance of American involvement in the wars, it would be best to see if the islands could be collected for free...
 
I don't see the USA wishing to buy any islands from France right now. What the French have in the Caribbean is no potential threat to the USA given US presence in the Caribbean, and St Pierre and Miquelon have zero value. In the Pacific the big issue for the USA is Hawaii which sits between the USA and its Pacific territories. Acquiring some of what the French have in Polynesia simply adds more territory to worry about protecting with Hawaii in the way. If and when the USA gets their hands on Hawaii, then the French Pacific Islands become worthwhile but not until then. The only way I see the British giving up Hawaii is if it is taken from them, and if the USA takes Hawaii, then whatever French possessions in the Pacific it wants can either be seized or ceded in the peace treaty (assuming the USA is on the winning side).

German ships sold to US shipping firms and reflagged will be considered by the US to be US ships. If the French seize one of these because it was a German ship when the war started the USA will consider that an act of war. The French and the British really, really don't want to goad the USA in to declaring war against them. With the USA in the war Canada is basically toast, not necessarily in the first few months but sooner than later. Hawaii is toast. Any British or French possessions in the Caribbean the USA wants to grab it can. Worst of all this means that British and French maritime commerce is now under attack from both sides of the Atlantic. In a previous post I discussed how the ITTL situation in France puts more strain on British/French shipping, so adding the USA to the enemies list will sink lots of merchants, require more shipping by convoy which while safer is less efficient, and make these problems worse.

The bulk of the US anti-shipping attacks will, at least for the early times, be surface ships which will operate under cruiser rules (unlike subs). This allows even neutrals to be stopped and manifests examined for contraband. The net result of this will be for neutral flags to be less likely to risk shipping to the UK or France, so the shipping crisis gets worse.

No the UK and France should be willing to live with a truly neutral US, or even one that leans a little pro-Germany because the consequences of a USA as ally/co-belligerent with Germany is a disaster. Of course Einstein once said the only truly unlimited thing in the universe was human stupidity so...
 
World War One, Battle for the Neutrals, An Offer You Can't Refuse
In the halls of power in Rome unlike in Constantinople and Bucharest the Entente was getting a lot more face time with the Italians than the Central Powers. This was partly because the meetings between Rome and the Central Powers following Italy reneging on its treaty obligations at the start of the war had when poorly. This was because of a mix of Italian trying to claim irredentism lands from Austria-Hungary along with ruffled feathers on the side of the Central Powers about Italy breaking its treaties and was now viewed as trying to extortion land from one of the two great powers within the Central Powers alliance. Because of this the Entente had far more time with their Rome counterparts than the Central Powers did.


As winter was setting in across Europe the Entente were looking for a nation to join with them to help break up the pressure they were feeling. They were getting the feeling that Bucharest was in a wait and see mode after rebuffing their offers and with the Ottomans slowly mobilizing their forces with the fact they were still meeting with them and a deal was nowhere close to being stuck between the Entente, all eyes turned to Rome to get them on their side and into the war. Yet this proved to be a harder task than what the Entente had first believed it to be.


To put it simply, Rome had taken to a Rome is first, second, and third on their point of view. They hadn’t suffer any setbacks to their plans since 1866 during the Third Italian War of Independence where their butts were pull out of the fire by their Prussian allies. Since then they had joined the world stage as a great power with colonies in Africa, a colony in China, and forcing the Ottomans out of Africa. And with Brazil emergent as great power in the past 15 years, Italy was no longer the weakest Great Power in the game. That said Italy had irredentism on both France and Austria-Hungary. They also wanted further growth in the colonies even through they were having some issues controlling what they already had. To put it plainly, the Italian leaders in Rome didn’t fully understand their own limits.


Even through the Italians believed themselves far stronger than they really were, they weren’t a push over either. They were hunting for the best possible deal they could get for their services in this war. One that would see colonial and European gains. The Central Powers led by Berlin as the relations between Vienna and Rome were toxic were only offering minor gains in Europe, namely in the form of Nice, Savoy, and Corsica. In the colonies, their gains would be limited to French Tunisia. The Germans stated they were willing to talk about possible gains in French Alegria along with both French and British Somaliland based on the performance of the Italian Army in the war but they would only guarantee the first four areas.


The Italians felt like they were being given the cold shoulder by Berlin by such an offer. There was something there was the Germans felt betrayed by the Italians. Had the Italians honored the treaty, some in Berlin believed that the war in the west would already be over as Italian neutrality had freed up a French corp which would play a part at the Battle of Marne which start the German drive to capture France. Then the fact the Italian Army promised to help Germany wasn’t there. Without that French corp at the Marne and the Italian Army that was promised in pre-war agreements between the two nations, it was believed that France could had already been forced out the war. Together with the Italians trying to gain colonies at the cost of Germany rubbing the Germans the wrong way the Germans had little reason to better their offer as they believe it was clear they were winning the war and with that Italy wouldn’t join the Entente.


For the Entente as December gave way to the new year the pressure was building to do something. Everyone knew that come the spring new offensives would be launched. And they knew they need a second front opened up somewhere and the Italian Alps seemed as good as place as any. They kept increasing the offer they were making the Italians to get them to join them in the war. Then they finally put forward an offer that for the Italians was impossible to walk away from. In Europe they offered them massive gains at the cost of the Austro Hungarian Empire[1], Albania[1], and Greece[2]. On top of the European gains the Entente promised territorial gains in the colonies as well. They weren’t totally spelled out in the Treaty of Rome which was signed in late January but were promised to be massive. Most of these colonial gains however would come from the British in East Africa and both the French and British in North Africa. For the Italians, it was an offer that was too good to refuse and they decided to sign the treaty which slated them to attack the Austro-Hungarians in the Spring.


[1] Basically the terms of the OTL Treaty of London (1915) here.

[2] The Ionian Islands and Crete.
 
The Italians are going to regret this

Probably, but looking from their Pow Germany offer sound like: ok you get what you can conquer and forget any possible irredente land on A-H (the ally that almost invaded you a couple of times) or influence in the balkans and if you perform well maybe some little more scrap for you will be found.
At least ITTL Italy is much more prepared for war than OTL as a shorter war in Abyssinia and no war in Libya mean a lot of money saved and so the army will not found itself short of everything and 'forced' to create a quick and big effort to resupply the entire army...plus no Cadorna at the helm and this is always good.

Btw, Crete will not accepted as even if is an historical venetian domain has the problem to be too full of very bellicose Greeks, more probable offer will be Ciameria a zone of north Greece bordering Albania and with a sizeble albanians minority
 
The Italians are living in the past in terms of a "New Roman Empire". even if they got everything they asked for without spending a lira or loosing a single soldier they simply can't control all of this on top of what they already have. Given that they are going to take significant human and financial hits in any war, their ability to actually take and control any additions will be nil. The Italian economy and industry may be better than OTL but is is second rate at best.
 
The Italians are living in the past in terms of a "New Roman Empire". even if they got everything they asked for without spending a lira or loosing a single soldier they simply can't control all of this on top of what they already have. Given that they are going to take significant human and financial hits in any war, their ability to actually take and control any additions will be nil. The Italian economy and industry may be better than OTL but is is second rate at best.

Agreed.
 
The Italians are living in the past in terms of a "New Roman Empire". even if they got everything they asked for without spending a lira or loosing a single soldier they simply can't control all of this on top of what they already have. Given that they are going to take significant human and financial hits in any war, their ability to actually take and control any additions will be nil. The Italian economy and industry may be better than OTL but is is second rate at best.

Well, in Europe except for the add of part of Dalmatia and the Ionian Islands is more or less what obtained OTL, so there will be not that problem as i posted earlier the italian goverment is not totally idiotic and will not really go for Crete because even them know how difficult will be to really control, for the rest it's probable that some incentive for the original owner of the land to leave the country will be thought
Regarding the rest, if the treaty is an analogue of OTL things regarding colonial compensation will be vague enough that at most Italy will receive some nice piece of desert with too few inhabitants to worry...like OTL, so controlling any new acquisition will not be the problem.
Frankly of the different nations objectives, Italy has the more tamed and sustainable on the long run; there are people in Wien that want to absorb Serbia, France want to dismember Germany and Berlin will try to implement the September program and B-L if he had the occasion
 
Luke one thing, Cadorna is still at the helm of the Italian Army. Granted Italy has had a better run than OTL so far but Cadorna is still in power and controls the Italian Army.
 
Luke one thing, Cadorna is still at the helm of the Italian Army. Granted Italy has had a better run than OTL so far but Cadorna is still in power and controls the Italian Army.

Ok, just nitpicking and there can be various explanation about Cadorna remaining the chief of staff here; but OTL he get the job due to being the senior officer not touched by the lucklustre performance of the army in Libya. He was slated to become the chief of staff years earlier but due to his (horrible) character he was capable to offend even the King himself and so was passed for the role, plus he and Giolitti really hated each other with a passion.
With no war against the Ottoman the most probable candidate for the role is General Carlo Caneva (ironically a former liutement of the A-H army...and he fought against the italian army during the third war of independence/Austro-Prussian war) and at least in OTL, unlike Cadorna, a veteran of at least three wars at the time, but as i said it's more nitpicking, it's just that i really really dislike Cadorna
 
Ok, just nitpicking and there can be various explanation about Cadorna remaining the chief of staff here; but OTL he get the job due to being the senior officer not touched by the lucklustre performance of the army in Libya. He was slated to become the chief of staff years earlier but due to his (horrible) character he was capable to offend even the King himself and so was passed for the role, plus he and Giolitti really hated each other with a passion.
With no war against the Ottoman the most probable candidate for the role is General Carlo Caneva (ironically a former liutement of the A-H army...and he fought against the italian army during the third war of independence/Austro-Prussian war) and at least in OTL, unlike Cadorna, a veteran of at least three wars at the time, but as i said it's more nitpicking, it's just that i really really dislike Cadorna
Look I understand that you don't like Cadorna. The guy is a grade A jackass and not someone who should have been put into that position. But Caneva has already retired ITL through its possible be will be recalled to active duty he was fairly old as he was born in 1845. Granted Cadorna is that much younger have been born in 1850, but he is getting close to force retirement for age reasons only this is giving him added time.

But there is also the future as I'm giving background information at the moment to the TL so I can get to 1937 which starts the more normal first person POV I do than this third person historical POV that I'm currently doing. There will be another war. I'm saying that flat out, another world war will happen ITL and that will even more radically change things than this war does.
 
Top