AI: Dual Entente vs. Quadruple Alliance WWI and aftermath

Irioth

Banned
After 1878 Muslims were a majority in the remaining parts of the Ottoman Balkans,

Bzzt. Wrong. Not in Macedonia, nor in Thrace. Only in Albania, and their Islam is probably the most nominal ever in the world.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania


and the empire enjoyed a vastly superior military establishment in terms of manpower, training, doctrine, and equipment.

Any of the Balkan successor states, taken individually, probably. Absolutely not any of the Great Powers. And that's why after unsuccessful tries from Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria to oust them on their own, they joined in the Balkan League, and kicked out the Sultan's nether parts.

Despite the efforts of everyone, they had held onto the remaining territory for decades.

Beacuse the British Empire propped them up for decades and barred Russia's way since they fearful of the Czar grabbing the Straits, and because Russia and A-H blocked each other's way at delivering the killing blow. Had the Great Powers ever agreed to a decent way of partitioning the mad Balkan ethnic puzzle in way that was minimally stable and threatened not every one's vital interests, the Ottoman Empire would not have last a couple years more in Europe.

There is just no way the Powers will allow Russia to swoop in and seize Constantinople,

This is quite true, it was a casus belli for UK, Germany, and A-H, but that's another thing entirely. This is a basic assumption of this scenario. Personally, I'm quite unpersuaded that the Balkan Wars were but the natural outcome of a long-delayed process.

But if you prefer, we may modify the casus belli as follows:

Any or all of Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria declare war on the Ottomans to free their brothers, they lose some battles, they cry help to the Czar, Russians decide they have been countered in their Panslavist goals one time too many in the past and won't back down now. They ask Turkey to withdraw from Europe. Turkey refuses, and asks help from the Quadruple Alliance. A combined British/German/Italian Fleet blocks the Straits, and Hungary sends troops to the border. Russia mobilizes and delivers an ultimatum to Turkey. UK and Germany quickly consult, and deliver a counter-ultimatum. Russia declares war on Turkey. UK and Germany declare war on Russia. France declares war on Germany. UK declares war on France. Italy declares war on France, Hungary declares war on Russia. Etc. The merry go round starts.

But the important fact here is, even if Turkey is on the winning side ITTL, they surely will be compensated with plenty of additional territory in Caucasus, Middle East, and Central Asia. They won't be returned with direct suzerainety over any European territory but the tiny rump around Constantinople. Possession of any significant European territory with Christian population by an Islamic power was (and is) a strong political taboo and an anachronism that the (Christian) Great Powers were reluctantly willing tolerate to linger in lack of a better compromise, but which won't ever act or allow to reinstate, once it falls.

So in the post-war settlement, Thrace, Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia etc. will be made protectorates of the victorious Great Powers, or awarded in various guises to the Balkan successor states, that will be made puppets, one and all, of the Quadruple Alliance. Not to Turkey.

You might recall the Ottomans were able to hold out against Russia and Britain combined for three years in WWI, even winning some significant victories.

Please. The British generals' horrendous blunders at Gallipoli aren't anyone's proof of military or political strength.

As for the Russo-Ottoman war, I don't see how Hungary has any hope of taking and holding Bosnia - their whole reason for remaining under the Hapsburgs was for imperial help in holding Croatia.

Instead, ITTL they now get help from Greater Germany, a much more healthy power, and indirect help as in sated Italians won't stab them in the back. An excellent deal, I'd say.

Bosnia would hopelessly tip the ethnic balance against the Magyars, and it was the Hungarians that were totally opposed to taking Bosnia in the first place.

Good point. Then let's say that instead of ever annexing them directly, Bosnia stays a protectorate of Hungary, under whatever Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, Wittelsbach, or Savoia thrice-removed cadet they can find willing to get the duchy of Bosnia or whatever. At most, they mollify their Croat subjects by annexing Hercegovina with its Croat majority, which doesn't tilt the ethnic balance too much, I'd say.

An independent Hungary would do anything to prevent a Russian invasion of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of strong Slavic statelets in its underbelly, as these would be the death of Hungary, which rules a very large Slavic population. Even Rumania would have its eyes on Hungary, which has it's target #1, Transylvania.

This is a very good point. But it confirms the assumptions of the scenario. Esp. if we follow the modified casus belli I'd described above. Any of the Quadruple Alliance (even Italy, which sees its Ionian interests threatened) has a strong interest in not letting Russia get the Straits. They act. France can't let its one strong ally alone, lest they be suffocated by the hostile UK/Germany/Italy combo, which covet its colonies. They act too.

Once Russia decides to gamble on bullying Turkey, and we assume the same tangle of misunderstanding, bungled brinkmanship, flawed military plans, overconfidence, and knee-jerk escalation which triggered OTL WWI, the ATL France/Russia vs. UK/SuperGermany/Hungary/Italy WWI becomes just as irresistible.

BTW, I worry that Dual Entente vs. Quadruple Alliance may not be sufficiently cool a name for the timeline. Suggestions, anyone ? I suck at poetic language.
 
Last edited:
Another Thought:

Suppose you had the UK intervene on behalf of the CSA during the Civil War, but the UK intervention is half-hearted and not decisive, it just makes the war last another two years and leads to the USA and the UK being very cold after the 1860s.

Finally, I suspect that there is one gap in your thoughts. Even if Frederick lived a longer life, Bismarck is still dying in July 1898 -- far too early to guide the policies at this point. OTL, Kaiser Bill of course hired a bunch of flunky Kanzlers who essentially allowed him to follow his own lines, but neither of those would remain in office.

After 1898, the Reichstag needs another good man at the helm. But I don't have any ideas who that would be. Perhaps a hypothetical protege of Bismarck?

Finally, if the UK and the USA have fought such serious fighting against each other, I think the Anglo-American rivalry would overwhelm any concerns in Europe. The UK would want to ally with someone AGAINST the USA if I read the politics correctly. Taking Canada from the UK is a sharp blow and not one that be lightly forgiven. If the USA and UK are hostile, the UK and USA would have no choice but to become very involved in international politics for their continued survival.

In this Hypothetical WW1, that matchup might be repeated: USA/SuperGermany/Hungary/Italy/Turkey/Japan vs. UK/France/Russia/China??

If that happens the US Navy would probably be increased in size until its strong enough to liberate Ireland, as a friendly country. If the USA wants to bonkers, it can turning Britain into US Territories, but I think that unlikely--A free, friendly Ireland would be huge for the USA though.

Going to have to decide how badly things turn out for the allies. Also, I suspect that Belgium is probably gone as well.
 

Typo

Banned
Sigh. One more reason I loathe Churchill is that his bipolar-fueled braggadocio helped crystallize in pop culture this idea of the British elite as gung-ho Patton manics that will be willing to fight total wars to the complete destrucion of their country and be implacable enemies anytime like some European country seems like getting a significant advantage on the others.
Traditionally the British form some sort of alliance against that country (possibly by bribing certain countries with certain other countries' territory) in Exchange for doing the actual land fighting. Then have the RN do everything from blockading it's enemies to sending marines to hoist the flag in farway and weird places that its former owners barely knows about and add more pink to the map. Of course , the British will bankroll whichever coalition it's supporting. When the war is over, it will pick up whatever overseas territory it occupied and let the continental powers sort the rest out (with their participation of course). If the certain states they supported happen to get too strong because of the peace, they can just switch sides for the next war. While the British themselves won't fight a total war against an enemy, they'll certain work against them.

first, balance of power on the continent always a secondary concern for them, security of the Empire and the Home Islands was the foremost concern. They became enemies of Wlhelmine Germany because the gorwing Tirpitz fleet threatened communications between the British Isles and the Empire, and the trade of UK (a question of life or death for them since GB was not self-sufficient, as foodstuff went).
Nobody but Germany and the US would (and probably could) realistically challenge the RN. Not France, and certainly not Russia. So back to continental BoP. Unless the British fights and loses a war badly against the US, which I don't see happening, and even then they'll still be conscious of a hegemony on the continent.

Second, balance of power only was an overwhelming concern when it was completely overthrown, as in one power stretches from the Channel to the Vistula.
German unification did completely overthrow the balance of power in Europe.
They were proven and be willing to compromise with dominant powers, see Peace of Amiens with Napoleon, Munich with Hitler.
There's a difference between compromise with and working with.
It as not a chemist's scale "OMG, Power A has 700 power score, whileas Power B has 500. Declare war asoon as pretext is feasible".
Of course not, but they'll certainly work against the power with 700 power score.
Third, Czarist Russia at least balanced Germany in their minds
I actually don't know about this, but we both know Tsarist Russia gets steamrolled in a 1v1 land war with Germany.
Grossdeuathcland doesn't radically change the equation.
It does, for one, its existence means no Austria
Last but not least, they were historically proven to be quite willing to ally with Germany, so your view is very, very questionable.
What do you mean by Germany, you mean German states? Prussia was not a western European power until after the Napoleonic wars. And the British allied with them as a counter to Austria. So you can just as easily say historically the British were quite willing to keep a balance of power within Germany. You seem to assume that the British will hop on the strongest continental power bandwagon.
 

Irioth

Banned
Another Thought:

Suppose you had the UK intervene on behalf of the CSA during the Civil War, but the UK intervention is half-hearted and not decisive, it just makes the war last another two years and leads to the USA and the UK being very cold after the 1860s.

This may be feasible (although only really feasible if escalation from Trent affair gets out of hand), but only until Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation. Afterwards, no English politician would be remotely willing and be mistaken as a defender of chattel slavery. I would assume Canada does not get conquered now, but later, in a subsequent war. Let's say that limited British and possibly French engagement occurs in 1861-1862, undecisive skirmishments, then Lincoln issues the Proclamation, London and Paris backpedale out of embarassment, unofficial armistice, official peace when Richmond surrenders with the British, Union Army (threatens to enter), or actually invades Mexico to expel the French. I can't say whether Napoleon III backs down from the threat, or after losing some battles. The latter would help explain why ATL USA are eager to go into the second M-A war. Lingering resentment over bloody Europeans trying to break out the Great Republic makes the US slightly more militaristic and imperalistic, so they are eager to fight a war to expel Spain from the Caribbean, then another one with the British (when the South is pacified and completed resettling the freedmen into Liberia and substituing with immigrates, and the full might of the country is behind the challenge to the British Lion) to conquer Canada.

Finally, I suspect that there is one gap in your thoughts. Even if Frederick lived a longer life, Bismarck is still dying in July 1898 -- far too early to guide the policies at this point.

Yes, but all of his essential work would have been done by then, Greater German unification, Hungary and Italy settlement, th constitution, organizing the Empire, the protective tariffs, the social welfare, Triple Alliance, the naval-colonial-trade pact, the Anglo-German defensive alliance. Historically, feelers about that pact came in late 1890s. ITTL, an Anglophile Kaiser in charge, things proceed more smoothly and quickly. Afterwards, it mostly becomes maintainance work, without William around to make diplomatic blunders.

After 1898, the Reichstag needs another good man at the helm. But I don't have any ideas who that would be. Perhaps a hypothetical protege of Bismarck?

Indeed. ITTL, Bismarck dies at the helm, a national hero, hailed as a German Washington or Lincoln, he would have the means to groom a successor, and any protege of him would have a red carpet to the Chancellorship, and several years of political capital. Caprivi was good, he pursued a socially-progressive, pro-British policy, but he dies in 1899.

Finally, if the UK and the USA have fought such serious fighting against each other, I think the Anglo-American rivalry would overwhelm any concerns in Europe.

Yes, but after the USA manage to expel the British in the Battle of Quebec or whatever, the conflict becomes mostly self-limiting, since the prize is settled for good, no serious hope for the UK of regaining a foothold in North America, they would likely heal the loss in some years as they did for the 13 colonies. Also ITTL South Africa gets addtional development, it's quite possible that expanded with Zimbabwe and Rhodesia and some serious immigration, it would become the new star Dominion, to compensate for the loss. I'm not saying they would not feel the loss, but it wouldn't become a national obsession like Alsace-Lorraine.

As it concerns the USA, well, for now they have everything they may ever want from the UK, they have all of North America, Philippines, Cuba, the Caribbeans to develop, they have no more serious rivals in their South American playground, they are building the Panama Canal, and will relatively soon gobble Mexico. In time say a generation, they may get covetous about China and Malesia, but for now China is still a wide playground, it offers plenty of space for all the great powers. Serious rivality may occur in a generation, when it's been partitioned.

The UK would want to ally with someone AGAINST the USA if I read the politics correctly. Taking Canada from the UK is a sharp blow and not one that be lightly forgiven. If the USA and UK are hostile, the UK and USA would have no choice but to become very involved in international politics for their continued survival.

But they now lack a common ground to clash. Canada is gone for good, UK have no interest in South America, USA no one in Africa (Liberia ? no vital resources), Asia yes, about China and South-East Asia, but it's too soon. They likely compete to build ever-greater fleets, that's all, but the USA rightly feel fundamentally unthreatened by the UK without Canada, so it has no need of European alliances. Things would only be different if CSA was around, but that's another timeline.

If UK/USA resentment lingeers as much as you describe, the IMO the consequence is that USA don't enter WWI directly on the side of UK, they sit it out and gobble Mexico, fight a parallel war in China, at most clash with Russia in Siberia but don't send troops in France. They don't ally with France/Russia.

In this Hypothetical WW1, that matchup might be repeated: USA/SuperGermany/Hungary/Italy/Turkey/Japan vs. UK/France/Russia/China??

No, Russia is the main current threat of UK ITTL, they loom over India and the Middle East, USA a treacherous upstart that finished stealing away North America, regrettable but it can't be helped. They might one day become a problem in China and Malesia, but that's a problem for another decade.

So the WWI matchup is SuperGermany/Hungary/Italy/Turkey/Japan vs. France/Russia/China.

USA is a loose cannon which fights a parallel war vs. Mexico, China and maybe Russia.

The matchup you describe above USA/SuperGermany vs. UK/France (ignoring Italy, they likely lack as serious power projection capability in Asia) might become realistic in the late 20s or early 30s, over China and Asia. The neo-colonial powers vs. the old colonial ones. A OTL Entente-style reconciliation is possible. But it requires that France never goes fascist nor communist, and forgives UK gobbling its colonies. Russia almost surely goes totalitarian pariah. And in a fight over China and South East Asia, Japan becomes the loose cannon. And later in the 30s, Russia returns for the rematch, causing yet another realignment.

But this Asian feud is more likely to be a Cold War skirmish rather than an other major war. That is more likely to be caused by the return of the Russian Bear, hungry for revenge, and Colonial China exploding in the Mother of All REbellions.

Going to have to decide how badly things turn out for the allies. Also, I suspect that Belgium is probably gone as well.

Hmm, ITTL, Belgium has no protector since the UK enter the fray against France. Either they see the writing on the wall and allow the Wehrmacht and the BEF to pass, and then North France becomes the battleground (then they might even get some French territory as compensation), or they resist and side with France, then they get occupied, and bye-bye Belgian Congo., UK and Germany split it up.
 

Irioth

Banned
Traditionally the British form some sort of alliance against that country (possibly by bribing certain countries with certain other countries' territory) in Exchange for doing the actual land fighting.​


It's a modus operandi, not a compulsion or crusade. They only do it when that power directly threatens their national security, too, they don't go out of their way picking fights with powers that do not mess with British interests. They did it with Napoloen, because Napoleon was engaging them for world egemony, and likewise with Louis XIV. Philip II tried to invade them. Alexander I is an ally, so they don't do it, even if they dominate Europe under Metternich. Napoleon III and Bismarck leave the UK Empire alone, so they leave them alone. Russia threatens the Straits, they go in Crimea.​




Nobody but Germany and the US would (and probably could) realistically challenge the RN.

And they fought WWI against Germany only because they invaded Berlgium, and built too large a Navy. Not because they cared about the Holy Continental Balance of Power.​

Not France, and certainly not Russia.

Together, they could. As British admirals were very aware of. Tirpitz fleet changed it.​

German unification did completely overthrow the balance of power in Europe.

Please, it only resettled it by adding a first-league player to the game. But the game continuied. Proof is, German Unification caused NO war scare in Britain. There was widespread surprise, b/c conventioanl wisdom expected a France victory.​

I actually don't know about this, but we both know Tsarist Russia gets steamrolled in a 1v1 land war with Germany.

Hindsight. How easy the mighty fall to it. Conventional wisdom expected the Cossack hordes to steamroll Prussia, ro at least require a very long and hard figth to be contained. The fatal weakness of the Tsarist army vs. Japan and Germany came a surprise.​

It does, for one, its existence means no Austria

Indeed it concentrates all the manpower and economic resources of the German peoples (and some reluctant Poles and Czechs) in the capable hands of a young efficient nation-state instead of a doddering crumbling multinational empire. It partially reorganizes said empire in national states, and avoids recurrent committment to prop up the failing fortunes of said empire. But it gives Germany a nice extra oomph, but it gives them no overwhelming set of new resources. That could have been from annexing *all* Hapsburg lands, and that would have indeed severaly rocked the balance of powers, but they were wiser than that. They would have inhereited the crippling Hapsburg weaknesses. Some Poles and Czechs the Empire may digest. Half of the Balkans, no.​


What do you mean by Germany, you mean German states? Prussia was not a western European power until after the Napoleonic wars. And the British allied with them as a counter to Austria. So you can just as easily say historically the British were quite willing to keep a balance of power within Germany. You seem to assume that the British will hop on the strongest continental power bandwagon.


I mean that in late 1890s and early 1900s, Germany and UK repeatedly came very close to sign an alliance. It always failed since Germans under blundering gaffe-prone leadership of William II and his yes-men chancellors, didn't give up their naval buildup. ITTL, Bismarck and Frederick III are much wiser than that, and it changes the world.
 
Last edited:
Interesting idea. I find US/UK war unlikely...but frostier relations is a definite possibility. The British teaming with the Supergermany of this OTL is probably difficult to pull off, but good diplomacy might do it, IF the Germans make it an integral part of their goals. No Kaiser Bill Navy build-up, and less focus on the Colonies (why would you get many colonies when you have half of Europe under your control or under the control of ironclad allies?? Maybe one or two african colonies, I can't see why they'd go farther than that), and it's a possibility. France and Russia against Britain/Hungary/Grossdeutschland/Italy? Ouch. Say goodnight, Ivan, Pierre. This is an interesting timeline, and contrary to what some might say, not ASB. Hardly anything I see posited on the AH Before 1900 or AH After 1900 boards are ASB, some of it is just more plausible or likely then other things. But there is nothing in the scenario you mentioned-except possibly US/UK War...that is either impossible or even very unlikely, IMO.
 
Look, don't try to lecture me on Ottoman population statistics, and definitely not using Wikipedia. In every province of the Balkans, Muslims were a majority or plurality in every single one except Yanya (Ioanina). That includes outright majorities in Edirne, Iskodra, and Kosova, with pluralities (meaning they were the largest group) in Salonika and Manastir. Overall, they were over 50% of the population, and that's not all Albanians. From about the city of Salonika West, the very significant Muslim population was principally Turkish.

I think your understanding of Ottoman and Balkan history is more of the Crimean War era rather than post-Berlin. The British since 1878 had been relentlessly undermining the empire, not propping it up. Militarily it was superior to all the Balkan powers combined, but ended up getting trounced because the empire was in political disarray following the CUP revolution, was in the midst of totally reorganizing the army, busy with a war with Italy, and had an incredibly faulty war plan (strategic defense, tactical offense - the opposite of what should have been done, to allow time to mobilize and transport their vastly superior manpower).

Austria had no common border with the empire, other than maybe 30 miles at the tip of Novi Pazar, so I don't know how you think they would have delivered a "killing blow", and likewise the only avenue of attack for the Russians would have been in the East, where they had never had much success.

What always puzzles me is that everyone in their rush into the inevitability of Ottoman collapse completely ignore their outstanding performance in WWI, where they faced off against several times the number of Entente troops and inflicted severe defeats on both Britain and Russia, while fighting on a huge number of fronts (Gallipoli, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Galicia, Macedonia, Rumania, Persia, Caucasus), and outlasted all the Central Powers and Russia - AND continued to fight, and successfully, until 1923. That's TWELVE solid years of total war. NO other power could have come close to matching that. The military and administrative vitality of the empire was much greater than everyone estimated (except the Russians, who never believed their own "Sick Man" rhetoric).

But I do completely agree that any territory with a Christian population of any significant size, even if a minority, would never be allowed to return to Ottoman rule once lost. Those were the rules of the game in that timeframe.

Bzzt. Wrong. Not in Macedonia, nor in Thrace. Only in Albania, and their Islam is probably the most nominal ever in the world.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania




Any of the Balkan successor states, taken individually, probably. Absolutely not any of the Great Powers. And that's why after unsuccessful tries from Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria to oust them on their own, they joined in the Balkan League, and kicked out the Sultan's nether parts.



Beacuse the British Empire propped them up for decades and barred Russia's way since they fearful of the Czar grabbing the Straits, and because Russia and A-H blocked each other's way at delivering the killing blow. Had the Great Powers ever agreed to a decent way of partitioning the mad Balkan ethnic puzzle in way that was minimally stable and threatened not every one's vital interests, the Ottoman Empire would not have last a couple years more in Europe.



This is quite true, it was a casus belli for UK, Germany, and A-H, but that's another thing entirely. This is a basic assumption of this scenario. Personally, I'm quite unpersuaded that the Balkan Wars were but the natural outcome of a long-delayed process.

But if you prefer, we may modify the casus belli as follows:

Any or all of Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria declare war on the Ottomans to free their brothers, they lose some battles, they cry help to the Czar, Russians decide they have been countered in their Panslavist goals one time too many in the past and won't back down now. They ask Turkey to withdraw from Europe. Turkey refuses, and asks help from the Quadruple Alliance. A combined British/German/Italian Fleet blocks the Straits, and Hungary sends troops to the border. Russia mobilizes and delivers an ultimatum to Turkey. UK and Germany quickly consult, and deliver a counter-ultimatum. Russia declares war on Turkey. UK and Germany declare war on Russia. France declares war on Germany. UK declares war on France. Italy declares war on France, Hungary declares war on Russia. Etc. The merry go round starts.

But the important fact here is, even if Turkey is on the winning side ITTL, they surely will be compensated with plenty of additional territory in Caucasus, Middle East, and Central Asia. They won't be returned with direct suzerainety over any European territory but the tiny rump around Constantinople. Possession of any significant European territory with Christian population by an Islamic power was (and is) a strong political taboo and an anachronism that the (Christian) Great Powers were reluctantly willing tolerate to linger in lack of a better compromise, but which won't ever act or allow to reinstate, once it falls.

So in the post-war settlement, Thrace, Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia etc. will be made protectorates of the victorious Great Powers, or awarded in various guises to the Balkan successor states, that will be made puppets, one and all, of the Quadruple Alliance. Not to Turkey.



Please. The British generals' horrendous blunders at Gallipoli aren't anyone's proof of military or political strength.



Instead, ITTL they now get help from Greater Germany, a much more healthy power, and indirect help as in sated Italians won't stab them in the back. An excellent deal, I'd say.



Good point. Then let's say that instead of ever annexing them directly, Bosnia stays a protectorate of Hungary, under whatever Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, Wittelsbach, or Savoia thrice-removed cadet they can find willing to get the duchy of Bosnia or whatever. At most, they mollify their Croat subjects by annexing Hercegovina with its Croat majority, which doesn't tilt the ethnic balance too much, I'd say.



This is a very good point. But it confirms the assumptions of the scenario. Esp. if we follow the modified casus belli I'd described above. Any of the Quadruple Alliance (even Italy, which sees its Ionian interests threatened) has a strong interest in not letting Russia get the Straits. They act. France can't let its one strong ally alone, lest they be suffocated by the hostile UK/Germany/Italy combo, which covet its colonies. They act too.

Once Russia decides to gamble on bullying Turkey, and we assume the same tangle of misunderstanding, bungled brinkmanship, flawed military plans, overconfidence, and knee-jerk escalation which triggered OTL WWI, the ATL France/Russia vs. UK/SuperGermany/Hungary/Italy WWI becomes just as irresistible.

BTW, I worry that Dual Entente vs. Quadruple Alliance may not be sufficiently cool a name for the timeline. Suggestions, anyone ? I suck at poetic language.
 

Irioth

Banned
Interesting idea. I find US/UK war unlikely...but frostier relations is a definite possibility.

In the sense that USA and UK don't go to war during ATL WWI, or that they don't go to war ever during the second half of the XIX Century for Canada ?

The first I fully agree, the second I mean to keep in the TL if at all possible.

The British teaming with the Supergermany of this OTL is probably difficult to pull off, but good diplomacy might do it, IF the Germans make it an integral part of their goals. No Kaiser Bill Navy build-up, and less focus on the Colonies (why would you get many colonies when you have half of Europe under your control or under the control of ironclad allies?? Maybe one or two african colonies, I can't see why they'd go farther than that), and it's a possibility.

All of these developments are meant to belong in the timeline.

France and Russia against Britain/Hungary/Grossdeutschland/Italy? Ouch.

It's the reversal of OTL WWI. Whereas here Germany and its sidekick A-H were gangbanged, there Russia and its sidekick France are gangbanged.
 
I have read this more for the chuckle value than anything else..its just so nonsenssical at points I just couldn't read it anymore.

The comments regarding the Balkans and the remnant terr. of the Ottoman's are patently false. Muslims were indeed the plurality there if not the majority. If the Ottoman's are allied with Russia's foes and Russia is defeated. They are not...repeat not...going to lose anything to their allies as so-called protectorates of same. Unless the Ottoman's have been completely ejected ( which I can't see given that they have the support of Hungary, Uber Germany, Italy and Britain. I'm sorry Its just never going to happen as far as I can tell. In all likelyhood their sovreignty is re-affirmed. Its allies may receive priviledges within the region, but at the conclusion of your Grt War analogue there sovreignty will be confirmed.

the most laughable part of this whole proposal is that a more agrressive and expansionist is able to annex in its entirety BNA with the exception of Quebec (its a puppet) and it is able to do same to Mexico, and NO one bats an eye in the rest of Europe...Britain is unable to oppose this. I cannot see Britain being so defeated that it concedes to this without great animosity.

It is one thing to concede terr. sparsely settled of only purely economic value ( something for which compensation can be offered) and a settler colony/Dominion of nearly 5 million the by the mid '80's when it is abundantly clear that the inhabitants have no desire to be Americans in the first place and Britain has no incentive to concede the place without inflicting so much damage on the US economy and infrastructure that it will be a third rate power for decades. The Animosity that would exist precludes any kind of collaboration between the two. One or the other will be neutral or or they will be on opposing sides for decades most definitely.

I could see the US gaining the West of BNA, but the Eastern colonies are just too established by the latter half the 19th C to even contemplate annexation in part or in whole.

Ontario and Quebec have common interests at this time despite the disparate linguistic makeups. Their politics are driven for the most part by the politics of the Railroad and an attempt to forge an Empire of the St. Lawrence to harvest the resources of the Shield and the Western prairies. They have greater interest in remaining together than separating...Ontario and the Maritimes have as much reason and desire to preserve their independence as Quebec, why are they annexed and Quebec not. There is no rational for that. In the case of the Maritimes. The UK is definitely in a position to make independence and continued inclusion in the Empire stick.

I simply see no way for the US to strip away the Eastern provinces without a whole lot of grief that results in them having to let the places go their own way in the end anyway.

having said that...the Riel rebellion is probably a good opening for intervention for you..and while the US "might win the West..they will never obtain the East.


You need to do some explaining ainstead of whole lot of handwaving.
The US and Britain for instance have no reason to fight each other in the 19th C. what is the catalyst?
 
Okay, I also see the US-UK relationship as one of the weak points of the scenario.

A Trent Affair leading to UK intervention on behalf of the CSA would lead to considerable animosity as a result. And should the USA back Venezula as a result in during its dispute with the UK and actually go to war as a result (which is probably the best point this could happen, it would still be an unintended war), the UK would not accept the loss of Canada without a very serious defeat.

Based on the Economic Position of the USA at this time, this probably butterflies the Spanish War, as fighting the UK would mean a protracted war. Figure that William Randolph Hearst's Yellow Journalism is now tarring the UK rather than Spain.

The UK is not a slouch in this fight and the raiding power of the Royal Navy is not to be underestimated. Amphibious Assaults and raids of the Eastern Seaboard would be much of the conflict, and this would greatly antagonize the United States, which probably would go all the way against Canada, though the UK would probably retain Newfoundland and things like Jamaica and British Honduras.

Irioth, this UK-USA war, for it to have the outcome you suggest, would have to be a very bitter, very hard fought war. Otherwise a negotiated peace would probably leave the UK with much of Canada.

Canada might enjoy being US Territory 40 years down the line (you have a point about culture and such) but up until that point, you have a large number of people who don't like it that way and want to change it. While I see Canada being mostly OK with the change in the long run, you are probably going to have millions leave Canada for the UK, an emigration of the Tommies back home.

The Relationship between the UK and the USA will be very, very, cold as a result. Trading Ties might eventually overcome this, but this hypothetical war takes place only 25-30 years before WW1. I'd suggest that Spain simply loses control over Cuba and the Phillipines in the 1910s and that the USA winds up being the ones with the reins, rather than fighting Spain after such a costly war with the UK.

And I'll say it again. SuperUSA going against the UK in a WW1 era Rematch is likely to free Ireland and might even invade Britain Proper. The main strategic outcome of the Third Anglo-American War is that the USA recognizes that it needs a navy to Rival the UK's. This UK-USA rivalry will work massively in Germany's favor, because the SuperUSA is now the faction that the UK would seek to contain, however possible. If the USA occupies London I expect the whole British Empire will fall like a deck of cards.
 

Irioth

Banned
OK folks, I've come to the realization that the Super-USA part of the scenario is still to controversial and may need more development and reanalysis, so I'm going to put it aside, at least for a while.

AuroraBorealis, I'm sorry to state that I cannot agree with you. IMO the political realities of the late XIX and XX Centuries were such that European public opinion would not allow European territories with a Christian majority or plurality to be forcibly returned under the sovreignity of a Muslim state, esp. a large multinational one, and not a tiny nation-state like say Albania, once the control of that state in the region has been shaken by rebellion or war, and such control is no more absolutely necessary to maintain the status quo between the Great Powers.

If Turkey sides with the victorious powers, it will be abundantly rewarded for its loss with territorial gains in Caucasus, Middle East, Central Asia, but its rump European territories will not be returned. If you wish a OTL comparison, check the way France and Italy did get some, but no means all, of their territorial claims in the Versailles peace settlement.

That said, I feel it's time to start developing a rough tentative outline for the European side of the timeline, up to the breakout of WWI.

1866: Austrian Army suffers a crushing total defeat in the Austro-Prussian war. Vienna is occupied by the Prussians. Hungary rises up in revolt once again, the Army of Italy is called back, the Italian Army advances and occupies Venice, Trento and Trieste. Bismarck has to act quickly to stabilize the situation and prevent intervention by the other european powers.

Kaiser Franz Joseph abdicates, his son Rudolph is crowned king of the independent kingdom of Hungary, including Croatia and Transylvania.

The federal German Empire is proclaimed in Vienna, under the leadership of Prussia, and the crown is offered to the King of Prussia, William I of Hohenzollern. A strong federal constitution is drafted, with legislative power given to the Reichstag, elected by universal male suffrage, with legislative initiative, and the Bundestag, made up by representatives of the various states. The executive is vested in the Chancellor, responsible to the Kaiser, and his ministers. Maintenance expenses for the army and the federal government are enshrined in the constitution. German Austria and Bohemia-Moravia are set up as the Kingdom of Austria, ruled by Archduke Maximilian, and enter Germany. The lesser states of the former German Confederation, as well as the new Kingdom of Austria, are included in the German Empire. Italy is rewarded with Venice, Trento (South Tirol remains to Germany), Trieste, Istria, and Dalmatia. Both Italy and Hungary sign treaties of defensive alliance with Germany.

To appease Russia, it is ceded Galicia, and given support for the remilitarization of the Black Sea. To appease France, which is feeling the loss of its unfortunate Mexican expedition, it is allowed to occupy Luxembourg, and covert promises are made to support for the partition of Belgium between France and Netherlands. To appease the UK, the Kingdom of Hannover is allowed to enter the German Empire as a constituent state, rather than being annexed by Prussia.

1867-69. Relations between France and Germany worsen. Bismarck covertly stirs up irredentist pro-Germany agitation in former Luxembourg, and has the secret drafts for partition of Belgium to be published in English newspapers, looking like a proposal by France. The UK is outraged and distances from France. Italy is promised the support for annexation of the French-occupied rump Papal States, and the return of the lost provinces of Nice and Savoy.

1870. Spanish succession crisis. Outraged by an Hohenzollern candidature for the throne of Spain, France declares war on Germany, Italy declares war on France. The German army, reorganized under the superior Prussian model, crushes the French army in a few decisive battles and lays siege to Paris. Napoleon III is taken prisoner. Revolution sets up the French Third Republic. After several months of desperate struggle, starving Paris surrenders and the republican government gives up. France has pay an heavy indemnity, cede Alsace and Lorraine to Germany and Nice, Savoy, and Corsica to Italy. After the last radical left-wing revolutionary convulsions of Paris Commune, which is savagely repressed by the rump French army, the country settled down in exhaustion, but a strong revanchist sentiment against Germany and Italy builds up and lingers for decades.

1871-1878. Bismarck organizes the new Empire. In the first few years, he leads the anti-clerical Kulturkampf campaign to lessen the influence of the Catholic Church, but to appease Catholic Germans, which make up half of Empire population, this is gradually phased out in favour of a ruthless Germanization program against the “disloyal” Polish and Czech minorities in Bohemia and Posen. Their lands are seized up for German colonization and their emigration is subsidized. At the end of the decade, the German government switches policy from free-trade to heavy protectionist tariff for agriculture and industry. Industrialization, already well under way, takes a further boost. Laws restricting Socialist parties are passed.

1878. Russo-Turkish war threatens peace in Europe. At the Congress of Berlin, Bismarck brokers a deal: the British are allowed to control the Straits and occupy Cyprus, independent Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro are recognized, Bosnia is placed under the administration of Hungary, and Rumelia is set up as a nominally Ottoman provinces under the administration of Bulgaria (it will be later annexed by Bulgaria in 1885). Greece is given Epirus and Thessaly.

1878-1888. To lessen the radicalization of German workers, laws are passed that establish the first social security system. To keep France isolated, Bismarck sets up the Triple Alliance with Hungary and Italy, and seeks a détente with Russia. Fearing French revanchism and Russian expansionism, both Hungary and Italy stay loyal, strong economic and political links develop between the three countries. But by the end of the decade, Russia grows closer to France, seeking an ally against British checks to its expansion, while the French want revenge against the Triple Alliance.

1888. After a long reign, Kaiser William I dies. His equally long-lived son Frederick III, an Anglophile liberal, takes the throne and reigns for other 30 years. After some skirmishes, Bismarck and him broke a compromise program of social and political liberalization: the “New Course”. Frederick agrees to keep Bismarck as chancellor. Constitutional reforms make the government responsible to the Reichstag as well as the Kaiser, social security programs are strengthened, anti-Socialist laws are scrapped, the illiberal Prussian electoral system is abolished for universal suffrage. The cooperation treaties with Russia are allowed to lapse and detent with the UK is pursued. As a compensation, the Chancellor, with the Kaiser's assent, is given the power to veto laws, and items in appropriation bills, that are not approved by a two-thirds majority of the Reichstag.

Together Frederick III and Bismarck are able to check those elements of German society that check for the creation of a large German navy, as well as the quest for overseas colonies. The British are pleased. Treaties are signed exchanging German holding in Africa in return for the UK granting most-favored status throughout the British Empire. In the following years, economic and political ties grow, and as the UK finds itself pitted towards against French expansion in northeast Africa and Russian expansionism in central Asia, it seeks closer relations with Germany.

1892 France and Russia sign the Dual Entente. Both countries agree not to go to war against each other, and to remain neutral if either country goes to war against a third power.

1894. Bismarck signs the Anglo-German Entente. Both countries agree not to go to war against each other, and to remain neutral if either country goes to war against a third power. Germany also agrees to restrict its Navy’s growth to one-third of the size of the British Navy. In return, Britain promises to protect the German coast if Germany finds itself at war with a third power. The UK also signs cooperation treaties with Italy and Hungary. When Italy invades Abyssinia in 1895, Great Britain supports the invasion. Italy defeats Abyssinia and annexes it as a colony.

In 1894, Japan attacks China and after a brief victorious war annexes Taiwan and brings southern Manchuria and Korea in its sphere of influence. Russia claims northern Manchuria and both powers clashes for the control of the whole area, as tensions grow over the next few years.

1898: “Bismarck’s Last Masterpiece”. Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Great Britain sign the Quadruple Alliance treaty of defensive alliance. Secret protocols draw lay down plans for military cooperation of allied Navies under UK direction, and of allied Armies, including a British Expeditionary Force, under German direction, in the case of a major European conflict. Later in the year, Bismarck dies and he is declared a national hero.

1901. Russia and France seek a closer partnership in the Dual Alliance. Both nations agree to come to the other’s defense if either finds itself at war with a third power. France hopes to draw Russia into a war with Germany, while Russia hoped to draw France into a war with Britain. But as tensions between the Japanese and the Russians in Manchuria escalate, the Japanese declare war on Russia in 1905. France immediately declare war on Japan.

The Japanese army manages to quickly expel the Russians when they invade Korea, and they invade Manchuria in turn. A combined Franco-Russian fleet defeats the Japanese fleets off the coast of Port Arthur. The US President Theodore Roosevelt brokers a compromise peace among the warring nations. Japanese is permitted to annex Korea, but it has to evacuate southern Manchuria. Russia is permitted to annex Outer Mongolia and occupies the whole of Manchuria and Inner Mongolia as its sphere of influence. France is given the Shantung peninsula as its sphere of influence. Japan signs an alliance with Great Britain.

1908. Italy attacks Turkey and seizes Libya.

1909. Insurrections break out in the Ottoman-occupied Albania, Thrace, and Macedonia. Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria, which all have various claims to those areas, attack the Ottoman Empire. They manage to occupy the contested areas, but clashes soon break out between the Balkan states, and the Ottomans seize back parts of Thrace and Macedonia. Serbia asks for assistance from Russia. St. Petersburg delivers a note to the Ottoman Empire that asks it to withdraw from all territories in Europe and open up the Straits for passage. The Ottoman government refuses and asks for Britain’s support. The British Fleet blocks the Straits. Russia mobilizes its armies and declares war on the Ottoman Empire. Great Britain and Germany declare war on Russia. France declares war on Germany and Great Britain. Italy and Hungary declare war on France and Russia.
 
Last edited:
Top