Alternate Causes of World War I

Cook

Banned
Hecateus’s World Map, circa 500 B.C.E.
Please note Hellas slap bang in the centre.

And the Pedantic SOB’s start thier engines!:D

map_roman.jpg
 

Germaniac

Donor
Well played sir... Many Europeans called the Byzantine Empire the Greek Empire. In their eyes the HRE was the Successor to the Roman Empire, and calling the Byzantines (remember that was a name created after its fall) the Rhomani Empire was a little tough to swallow
 
American entry isn't such an easy inevitablility. It had a couple of reasons; one was the Zimmerman Telegram the other was a bit more abstract having to do with balances of power. Attacks on shipping wasn't that big of a reason, because back then the American public believed that their fellow Americans should have sense enough not to go sailing into the warzone, and if they do, it was their own bloody fault.
 
..and, in the AHN Universe, the Great War is actually started by a succession crisis in Poland-Lithuania. A member of the German Imperial Family and the Swedish Royal Family were both candidates for that throne, but the election of the new king kept getting deadlocked, so the Kaiser decided to force the issue and install his cousin (or was it brother..) since the previous Polish-Lithuanian King was a German.
 
Very true, which is what's stalling me there. The Ottomans had a long history going up into the Balkans as part of their Empire, so they could be said to have a historical claim going back several centuries up to Budapest, and down into the Middle East.

After regaining Edirne in 1913, however, the Ottomans gave up on the Balkans. One of the Three Pashas said "We are like a man who had been robbed in the woods. He wants only to keep his life and pehraps his shirt; he will give everything else away."

Russia has ethnic Slavs in the region, giving them an interest, though I admit I'm unclear how strong the 'fellow Slav' sentiment is at this point in history (say 1870-1920).

"Negotiable". Russian nationalists certainly see themselves as protectors of Slavs (and Russian diplomacy was anxious to keep this useful status: thus why the Russians opposed the claims of their ally Italy in the Adriatic), and Bulgarians do have very strong sentimental ties to Russia, but Serbia and Russia tend to be Slavic Brother Peoples for as long as it suits their respective foreign policies. In 1914, letting Serbia fall under Austrian domination was a clear threat to Russia at the straits; but the Russians were ultimately pragmatic, and quite willing to let Bulgaria go hang even as they used its pro-Russian political currant to their advantage.

A possible compromise for the two powers would be that Russia would help the Ottomans hold up to Albania, leave Bulgaria alone, and focus on regaining Egypt, while the Ottomans would cede Bulgaria/Yugoslavia to the Russians. The Ottomans would allow Russian Naval ships through Istanbul giving them a warm water exit point that they've wanted for the longest time (this might be a reason for the British/Germans to take Istanbul and give it to the Greeks in a peace settlement);

This reminds me of the 1830s, which gives me a thought: why assume the Ottomans are doing this completely of their own accord? A weak Ottoman Empire could easily find itself a Russian dependency.

Roughly:

Ottomans: Egypt, Libya, Albania, Macedonia, Greece
Russia: Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Iran?

The Russians had no particular desire to go annexing Balkan countries, whereas the Ottomans as I said had given up.

I don't know what Russia would gain from Iran at this point in time though.

Indian Ocean access? Buckets and buckets of oil? Iran is a strategic place.

Would the two powers agree to this, though?

That depends on a lot.

And if the Ottomans don't really draw themselves in - I did read Sultan Mehmed V tried to stay neutral, and the Germans along with Mehmed's advisor led them in on the OTL Central Powers. Perhaps Paris entreats the Sultan, agreeing to offer assistance with Egypt (to gain Suez access) in exchange for Ottoman help up the Balkans?

But are the Ottomans going to join an alliance which looks pretty handily doomed?

On the issue of Istanbul, I'm not sure it's likely Greece can gain it back until the Ottomans fall on the losing side of a war, and the Greeks press British allies to swap the city.

I'm not sure it's that likely even then. The ragtag remains of the Ottoman Empire's defeated forces still got it back in the Turkish War of Independence.
 

JJohnson

Banned
After regaining Edirne in 1913, however, the Ottomans gave up on the Balkans. One of the Three Pashas said "We are like a man who had been robbed in the woods. He wants only to keep his life and pehraps his shirt; he will give everything else away."



"Negotiable". Russian nationalists certainly see themselves as protectors of Slavs (and Russian diplomacy was anxious to keep this useful status: thus why the Russians opposed the claims of their ally Italy in the Adriatic), and Bulgarians do have very strong sentimental ties to Russia, but Serbia and Russia tend to be Slavic Brother Peoples for as long as it suits their respective foreign policies. In 1914, letting Serbia fall under Austrian domination was a clear threat to Russia at the straits; but the Russians were ultimately pragmatic, and quite willing to let Bulgaria go hang even as they used its pro-Russian political currant to their advantage.

I'll remember that when it comes time to writing out the timeline.

This reminds me of the 1830s, which gives me a thought: why assume the Ottomans are doing this completely of their own accord? A weak Ottoman Empire could easily find itself a Russian dependency.

Hmm...true. How would they come to this given one or more Turk-Russian wars in the 19th century? Common goals/enemies?

The Russians had no particular desire to go annexing Balkan countries, whereas the Ottomans as I said had given up.



Indian Ocean access? Buckets and buckets of oil? Iran is a strategic place.

I just checked wikipedia (not the best source, just a quick one) and they discovered oil back in 1908 in Iran by the British Empire. If the Russians tried that, they'd get the British on their back pretty quickly. That could be a regional goal for both the Russians and the Ottomans - splitting up Middle Eastern oil, and give the British reason to defend it.

Turkey found oil in Iraq in 1927.

That depends on a lot.



But are the Ottomans going to join an alliance which looks pretty handily doomed?

I guess letting the Americans stay out for most of the war could let them gain an inflated sense of their own success, coupled with Allies who make little gains until then using the standard techniques of the time. After American entry into the war, the tide could turn with the influx of industrial output and fresh manpower from overseas.

I'm not sure it's that likely even then. The ragtag remains of the Ottoman Empire's defeated forces still got it back in the Turkish War of Independence.

Hmm...perhaps making 'The Battle of Constantinople' a big fight between the Russians/Turks and the Americans/British on the other side, using their naval forces and marines to storm the city and occupy it, then expelling the Turks could do it in the short term. If the Greeks were to hold it, I could hypothesize they would need to have American/British forces there for years afterwards to keep the Turks from trying to retake it, lest they force the hand of the British Empire or the Americans into attacking them. I don't see Americans at this point in time doing something of this magnitude - they were still isolationist in tendency, so after the war, I would think they'd leave the British to the city.
 
Top