AH challenge: german/austria don't sign treaty before ww1

ok, first time i've done one of these, so bear with win. [or is it bare?]. also, i'm not actually sure if the PoD has to be before or after 1900...

basically, i was thinking on the consequences of Germany and Austria not having signed the treaty [i forget what it was called] that lead to Germany getting involved in ww1 on the Austrian side.

i know there were a lot of factors that had been building up for a long time that ultimately lead to the war, but i Think this should at least split it up so they don't all fire off at once?

i figure either Austria Or Russia would still collapse, probably, but if you keep Germany out of that initial conflict, i can easily see France and Britain staying out of it too...

i had a whole lot of different possible results from that, but I'm not really sure how plausible any of them are and I'm not a great writer. I'll elaborate if someone takes this on and wants to know :)

umm, yeah. hopefully i've got my title tags right and havn't screwed this up...
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
You'd need a POD before 1900, where the Germans don't go Pro Austrian, but this would probably create huge butterflies, as Austria would be much more cautious without German backing.
 
Agreed that this requires a pre-1900 POD, and the ripples from this will be large. That said, it doesn't seem particularly difficult.

Remember, Austria was humiliated by Prussia in 1867. Now right around that time, France went through a brief period of fairly good relations with Austria (before themselves being crushed by Prussia). Now, you have two traditional powers, both seeking a measure of revenge against the upstart Prussia. It isn't that hard to see the two states gravitate towards each other (Italy ITTL is firmly in the german camp, but doesn't have a very good strategic situation). Maybe remove Bismark (who, post-unification, was fairly pro-austrian), with all the butterflies that that might cause.

Following this reasoning, maybe we can create a war between prussia on one side and France/Austria on the other. Bismark is removed (maybe von Arnim replaces him?), and butterflies cause prussia to try to break the growing power of republican france before it is to great a threat?
 
1867? I'm sorry but didn't it start and end during 1866?

Anyway, one would also have to consider the Russian Empire. I remember Germany had fairly good relations with Russia, but they picked A-H over them.

I remember there's a good timeline about this
 
1867? I'm sorry but didn't it start and end during 1866?

Anyway, one would also have to consider the Russian Empire. I remember Germany had fairly good relations with Russia, but they picked A-H over them.

I remember there's a good timeline about this

If Atreus is Canadian or Alaskan, the year 1867 is THE important date that all other nearby dates get referenced to. Personally, I never remembered when the US Civil war was, exactly, but knew it was in the immediate period pre-1867. ...
 
1867? I'm sorry but didn't it start and end during 1866?

Anyway, one would also have to consider the Russian Empire. I remember Germany had fairly good relations with Russia, but they picked A-H over them.

I remember there's a good timeline about this

Yeah, my bad. I was a bit pressed for time, and for some reason the date 1867 jumped into my mind (a bit inexcusable, considering that I've been reading up on the time period). Probably made a connection to some event in the immediate aftermath of the war, and assigned the same year to it.

Now, does germany ally with russia if it is opposed to austria? IIRC Bismark was one of the staunchest advocates postwar of alliances with both powers. So, for instance, if the POD involves Bismark being removed, russia may sit this one out.

If Atreus is Canadian or Alaskan, the year 1867 is THE important date that all other nearby dates get referenced to. Personally, I never remembered when the US Civil war was, exactly, but knew it was in the immediate period pre-1867. ...

Regardless of where I may or not be from, I try to remain a little more objective on these matters. That said, you are correct in that 1867 is one of those dates which dominates certain collective consciousnesses. A good example of this would be 1776 for our american contingent.

And, for the record, the ACW ran from 1861-1865.
 
The POD would be 1879. And it would be easy for there be no Dual Alliance. Historians still debate this point, but I tend to lean on those who argue that Bismarck got bamboozled by Andrassy into signing away far more of his freedom of movement than Andrassy's. Bismarck's conception of the Dual Alliance was not offensive, not even defensive, but it was merely meant to put a leash around the Russian bear-- and temporary. Andrassy turned Bismarck's intention on its head and converted the alliance into a near-permanent fixture and cut off Bismarck's room to maneuver. Bismarck always implied that the alliance could be cast off if inconvenient and with his great moral authority in Germany, he could have. Perhaps. But not his successors, with Andrassy's changes that made the treaty so public and pan-German, not one of his successors could risk taking the political backlash.
Simple. Bismarck does not panic in 1879 and insists on a secret treaty, to the point of abandoning alliance with Austria if not complied with. Since Andrassy needed Bismarck more than Bismarck needed Andrassy (despite Bismarck's mistaken assumptions), the Dual Alliance treaty is another one of the those secret treaties Bismarck loves, and nothing more.
 
Top