Alternate WW1 alliances.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Your post I mostly agree with, but where did that horrendous map come from? It's really inaccurate.

The UK. needed the Ottoman Empire to keep the Russian fleet bottled up in the Black Sea so they might have at least supplied them. Also, they would not want Russia to control the entrance to the Black Sea which could happen it the Russians took Istanbul and the Turkish Straits.

But the UK. would also not want the Ottomans to become too powerful since the UK. had interests that could be affected by the Ottomans. Example the Suez Canal. They would not want a strong Ottoman too close to there Suez Canal.

A Russian, German and Italian alliance would have probably ended up with. the Germans easily conquering Austria-Hungary. Italy might have gotten a small piece of Austria-Hungary. Russians would probably have had a hard time with the Ottomans. With German help they would crush the Ottomans.

If France or the UK. got involved Germany would probably be doing most of the fighting with Italy helping somewhat. Russian would be too busy trying to defeat the Ottomans to help. If the French did not get involved the Germans and allies would be in a very good position since the UK. would have no major European ally helping them on mainland Europe.

 

[General Zod]

Well in this case there is really nothing else strategically for Greater Bulg. to gain...thus not reason to enter. Russia will champion Greece, as co-religionists and oppose any designs on Constantinople as they have them themselves or on Dobruja, they favoured Roumania there.

And yes I think the Tsars would fall out, as in the long term their interests did not really match once Bulgaria had achieved its greater Bulg. and The Bulgarian Tsar never had any intention of being anyone's proxy if he could help it. His intent was to make Bulgaria the pre-eminent Balkan power and he would have achieved that for all intents and purposes. The only major opponent that could oppose them in the region would be the Ottomans. If Russian support for Serbia grows, this will disrupt the Russo Bulgarian dynamic but does further the Russian aim of weakening the A-H southern frontier. A Greek Russian war against the Ottomans has no gains for Bulgaria. Indeed..Bulgaria would probably be "encouraged" to give up some of the areas in Macedonia in exchange for smaller terr. in Eastern Thrace (bar Constantinople of course). Though Greece does have the prospect of gaining what Aegean islands she doesn't already have and Cyprus I suppose, if they can get past the Entente patrols. There is very little for Bulgaria to gain that won't be contested by her allies in such a course. Joining the entente at the right moment will offer her Dobruja at least if Roumania has been coerced in to joining the Russo German drive against A-H (assuming the Russians are not fighting the Ottomans where?...the Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia ( Armenia perhaps, not the best place for either to contemplate such conflict.)

I may agree with the rest of the analysis except for the possbility of Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry remaining strong and hence prodding Bulgaria to remain aligned to the German-Russian camp (and hence preventing Russia to grow closer to Serbia). Otherwise, yep there is ground for bulgarian neutrality, but less so if the Ottomans enter the war (potential to gain part of Eastern Thrace). I am rather skeptical about Bulgaria entering for the Entente for Dobruja, since the Alliance can always trump that by promising Eastern Thrace. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Btw, a landing in Sicily or Italy does not have to lead to the same disaster that Gallipoli was.

Of course not, but it is the rather most likely outcome. ITTL there is nothing that would make WWI British substantially better at amphibious warfare, nor were WWI Italians substantially worse than WWI Ottomans. Just like A-H would prepare for a three-way war ITTL and the British may send them an expeditionary corps, so Italy would prepare against British landings.

Italy would be extremely vulnerable to combined Anglo/French and Austrian Squandrons and they know it So would Greece. they wer able to land at Salonika after all.

Yep, but Italy has much better manpower reserves than Greece.

If the Ottomans are on side, the straits are open to put pressure on the Russians in a Black Sea theatre. Britain will have an interest in keeping the Ottoman's naval forces in the Black as strong as possible, so they may not confiscate the ships built for them for themselves.

This is correct.

Italy will have larger naval needs in this scenario and its Army will be consequently less capable of mounting any offensive.

Defensive on the Alps, defense of its coasts, combined Italo-German offensive to gain Tyrol (they really need that land connection), then subsidiary offensive in Carniola to support Russo-German offensives. Maybe some Russo-German expeditionary force to man Italian coasts to focus Italian land power and help overwhelm A-H. That is the fundamental strategic goal. Once that is achieved, it is a downhill struggle for the Alliance.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I may agree with the rest of the analysis except for the possbility of Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry remaining strong and hence prodding Bulgaria to remain aligned to the German-Russian camp (and hence preventing Russia to grow closer to Serbia). Otherwise, yep there is ground for bulgarian neutrality, but less so if the Ottomans enter the war (potential to gain part of Eastern Thrace). I am rather skeptical about Bulgaria entering for the Entente for Dobruja, since the Alliance can always trump that by promising Eastern Thrace. Not impossible, but unlikely.



Of course not, but it is the rather most likely outcome. ITTL there is nothing that would make WWI British substantially better at amphibious warfare, nor were WWI Italians substantially worse than WWI Ottomans. Just like A-H would prepare for a three-way war ITTL and the British may send them an expeditionary corps, so Italy would prepare against British landings.



Yep, but Italy has much better manpower reserves than Greece.



This is correct.



Defensive on the Alps, defense of its coasts, combined Italo-German offensive to gain Tyrol (they really need that land connection), then subsidiary offensive in Carniola to support Russo-German offensives. Maybe some Russo-German expeditionary force to man Italian coasts to focus Italian land power and help overwhelm A-H. That is the fundamental strategic goal. Once that is achieved, it is a downhill struggle for the Alliance.

The Ottomans were actually substantially better than the Italians, with far better training, experience, and doctrine, not to mention they had completed a plan for the defense of the Straits during the Balkan Wars. On the negative side, they had smaller numbers and the lack of industrial infrastructure gave them less staying power, in the long-term (at the end of the war, Allenby did so well to a large extent, other than having vastly superior numbers, because the Ottomans had run out of barbed wire and even fabric for sandbags) - but these are less important in the context of an amphibious invasion of Sicily, where the Italians will have great difficulty concentrating forces, as opposed to Gallipoli, which was right freakin' at the center of Ottoman power.

I'm amazed when people say things like you're line above. The Ottomans beat or held off the British in pretty much all fronts until the last months of the war, while simultaneously fighting, terribly outnumbered, on seven fronts at a time (Galicia, Caucasus, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Macedonia, Rumania, Persia, Gallipoli). No other power but Britain had to face that. Gallipoli wasn't so much about British incompetence as it was Ottoman efficiency - they really made no errors in the campaign, not common in military history.

The Ottoman army was in almost constant war from 1911-1923, and went mostly unpaid and largely unfed that entire time. Any other army would have melted away or revolted under such circumstances.

 

[General Zod]

The Ottomans were actually substantially better than the Italians, with far better training, experience, and doctrine, not to mention they had completed a plan for the defense of the Straits during the Balkan Wars.

Training and doctrine may be argued, and I won't question evident Ottoman merits in holding out against Russians and British for years, but about experience, please remember that ITTL the Balkan Wars would be almost surely butterflied away, as the Balkans are largely settled during the Berlin Conference, so Italians and Ottomans would have comparable experience here, both having undergone their last major war decades ago.

On the negative side, they had smaller numbers and the lack of industrial infrastructure gave them less staying power, in the long-term

And indeed this is what I expect would inevitably doom the Ottomans in the end, once the A-H buys the farm and the majority of combined Russo-German forces are turned against them.

but these are less important in the context of an amphibious invasion of Sicily, where the Italians will have great difficulty concentrating forces, as opposed to Gallipoli, which was right freakin' at the center of Ottoman power.

True as well, but then again, ITTL Italy would have expected to fight France for 3-4 decades and the UK for about a decade, more or less, with butterflies varying the moment when Britain would join the Entente, probably sometime in the 1890s-1900s. So they ought to have prepared for an amphibious invasion of Sicily with strong garrison forces at the onset of the war (Sardinia would rightly deemed as undefensible in the face of Anglo-French naval power).

Anyway, in the worst possible scenario, Italy would lose Sicily and Sardinia. This would harm Italian manpower potential significantly but not substantially, but almost none as it concerns industrial potential. But it would surely not knock Italy out of the war, or substantially harm its ability to fight. Landing in Sardinia has a good chance of success, landing in Sicily may have some possibility of success, but landings in mainland Italy are almost surely headed the Gallipoli way.

I'm amazed when people say things like you're line above. The Ottomans beat or held off the British in pretty much all fronts until the last months of the war, while simultaneously fighting, terribly outnumbered, on seven fronts at a time (Galicia, Caucasus, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Macedonia, Rumania, Persia, Gallipoli).

And here they would be just as terribly outnumbered until A-H croaks, afterwards they would be much, much more so. They would have less theaters to fight on (Caucasus, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Persia) but would face even worse numerical disadvantages (again, especially after the fall of A-H). I concede that at least on some of these fronts (Eastern Thrace) the terrain features (increasingly narrow front as one gets closer to Constantinople) would multiply the possibility of effective defense, and this would somewhat prolong Ottoman resistance.

On the other hand, this Triple Alliance would enjoy a huge strategic advantage in the possibility to concentrate overwhelming military power against one enemy at a time, first by encirclement, later by internal lines: A-H to begin with, then either the Ottomans or France. The more enemies are vanquished, the most effective this strategy would become. It is rather unlikely that either France or the Ottomans could withstand indefinitely the Alliance pressure after the Habsburg are conquered, even with British help. To really redress the strategic balance, this Entente would need USA help from the start.

 

[RGB]

Russia+Germany together is hard to stop.

Austria cannot do it. The Ottomans may give it a good run but the best they can do is defend until Austria is gone, then get overwhelmed. France is key, of course, the war depends on how long they can hold out.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Italy First

Italy will almost certainly be pursued as the target to knock out first..

A-H will not allow itself to be drawn into a war with Russia and Germany unless it has a viable defense. Your scenario assumes they go in willy nilly with nothin in place.

Thats simply not politically realistic. OTL they were backed by Germany so they didn't feel a need to back down with regards Serbia. here they are not going to back a Serbia say in the face of concerted alliance of Germany and Russia supporting them. They are not going to sacrifice their terr. for the sake of there "puppets" aims, there is nothing for A-H to gain. They will mount a defense in the mountains to keep the Russians and Germans at bay.

losing the Tyrol does not magically open up an unlimited conduit for the Italians, there are only so many rail lines traversing the area, how many actually pass through Alpine tunnels. Massive charges in those tunnels effectively closes them for transit purpose until they can be reconstructed...that would take time. therefore at the outset even if lost the flow of supplies to Italy would be a trickle at best.

Unlike Gallipolli where the Ottomans could afford to concentrate their sparse resources because its where the Allies had to go. Italy has a veryt long and exposed coastline on both the Adriatic, Thyrennian and Ligurian Seas. The Entente will havbe naval superiority, tey can afford to scout for the weakes t spot to land. The Italians either send the navy out to engae and defeat these efforts and be destroyed in the process ( they simply do not have the force ratio that the HSF had in the North Sea to deter such efforts) or they remain in port and refuse battle. That allows the Entente to move their own squadrons art will and resupply Austria with a BEF.

the French will fight a defensive war in the north and concentrate their efforts on Italy. Only with Italy out can they link up with A-H so its the only realistic course.

The Allies can pick the weakest point on the long coastline of the boot. Amphibious assaults can be launched from southern France or Corsica Or the Dalmatian ports if need be. they simply choose the weakes t point and land there. The Italians cannot defend their frontier in the NE, mount an invasion to take Tyrol defend the Alpine frontier with France and defend against every possible landing sight on the Italian mainland. Why land in Sicily or Sardinia when your objective is going to be the speedy neutralization of Italy.

Hence either Italy is neutral from the outset until Germany and Russia have made substantial headway against A-H or the Entente will go for the Italian jugular. If the Allies can land in Greece they can land in Italy. once they are ashore with naval superiority to keep their forces supplied they are staying ashore. That in itself will be a major blow to Italian moral.

As much as Italy entered on the entente side in Otl because the entente promised them gains that Austria couldn't. Italy was also not as vulnerable to attack from A-H /Germany as they were from UK/Fr in the med. Nor could A-H/ Germany provide them any meaningful support to thwart the Anglo-French efforts.

btw, having looked back at your potential POD If you went with an Alt Bulgaria that had the San Stefano Borders. Then yes there is room for conflict between Gr/Serbia on the one side and Bulgaria on the other over Macedonia and the Ottomans over all of Thrace, not just eastern Thrace . The Balkans are still not completely settled in this case as the proposed Bulgarian state was still autonomous only within the OE. The Ottomans still held B-H and the Sanjak and Albania more directly. the Greek state would no doubt be enlarged at this point beyond it historical to the southern borders of the Grt Bulgar state ans Albania (depending on who is interpreting where albania ends and Epirus starts.

Bulgaria is going to be stronger going into any Balkan crisis that may develop later than the Serbs or Greeks and should emerge as the pre-eminent power in the Balkans if it does not itself butterfly any crisis within the Empire away by its simple existence in a stronger form.

The Tsars fell out because von Battenburg had to adopt a more liberal policy than the Russian Tsar wanted because its what the Bulgarians themselves wished and he couldn't rule effectively without such a course. I see no reason why a more liberal Bulgarian principality would not occur so Bulgaria and Russia would probably still come to loggerheads over those issues. A larger Bulger state will also act as a mediating influence within the OE with regards to the Christians of the Empire.

The most logical course for A-H in this case if the larger Bulger principality is reality is to concentrate on controlling Serbia if it can and gaining pre-eminent influence in Bulgaria to safegard its southern frontier. the best way to do that is to restrain Serb ambitians and promote a cordial partnership between the Bulgers and Turks within the OE A position which serves A-H, Ottoman and Bulger goals in containing Russian influence in the region with regards Serbia and Greece.

btw in the aftermath the Roumanians felt betrayed by the Russians in the aftermath of that first Balkan crisis so there would be some initial suspicion on their part at least initially. They were asked to cede terr. to Russia despite treaties with Imp. Russia guaranteeing their terr. integrity. Obviously if that didn't happen then the Roumanian view would be more favourable.

 

[General Zod]

@AB: your points are good.

However, just like as the Entente powers would seek to shore up A-H and the Ottoman Empire by sending a BEF and striking at Italy, the Alliance powers would try to shore up Italy.

It is true that for Italy fighting a two-fronts war and defending its coasts at the same time but the Alliance can quickly gain Tyrol through a combined German-Italian bilateral offensive.

By the way, the main railway communication between Austria and Italy occurs through the Brenner Pass, that doesn't require a transalpine tunnel. Even if the Austrians mine the Brenner railway, German-Italian engineers can reestablish it in relatively little time, the Entente is out of luck here.

With the Tyrol connection open, surely the Alliance can send German-Russian troops to relieve the strategic burden of Italy. Whether they are used against France in the Alps, against A-H in Kustenland, or to garrison Italian coasts, they ought to diminish the strategic pressure on Italy considerably, and make the success of any British landing rather unlikely, even with Anglo-French control of the Mediterranean.

The Alliance success is based on keeping France and A-H separate and using Italy to crush the Habsburg in a strategic vise, so they shall plan to establish land communications quickly and fortify the boot. The Entente can still use their naval advantage to supply A-H and the Ottomans and send a BEF, and seize Sardinia (Sicily is still possible but less likely if Italy gets a GREF), but a successful landing in mainland Italy becomes quite unplausible. They experienced rather serious difficulties in WWII, with a technological background much more favorable to amphibious warfare, massive American support, and a weaker Italy.

About the issue of BEF, I was wondering how the British would plan to split their forces between France, A-H, and the Ottomans. I agree that France would get rather less than IOTL since Germany would go on the defensive in the West and adopt an Austria First strategy, and A-H would get a substantial BEF. Would the British send a second BEF to the Ottomans too ? They also have fronts in Persia and Afghanistan to man on their own. Would they try to make make landings in Greece ? Until A-H and Serbia are conquered, and a land connection is established with Germany and Russia, there just as vulnerable, and rather weaker than Italy. OTOH, the strategic benefist are smaller for the Entente (albeit they may relieve the southern flank of A-H and Serbia, and the western flank of the Ottomans), and if Bulgaria enters for the Alliance (Romania is quite likely), an early land connection to Russia is available.

The British might also attempt landings in Romania, Bulgaria, or Ukraine itself, but this seems to promise a stiffer Russian reaction.

And what about the neutrals ? Would France violate Swiss neutrality when they fail the offensives in A-L and the Alps, to try and connect with Austria ? It seems like something they might do. Also, what about Belgium ? In this alliance system, Britain is sure to join the war from the start, so both France and to a lesser degree Germany have more incentive to violate the neutrality of Belgium. But Germany necessarily goes for the Austria First strategy, they may have only a possible motive to invade Belgium later, when A-H and maybe Turkey as well are defeated. France would have motive to go for Switzerland first, they might attempt to go through Belgium to sidestep impassable German trenches in A-L. The Swiss are sure to resist any violation of their neutrality, the Belgians most likely. Would the Dutch enter the war if Belgium is invaded ? It seems possible, esp. if France is the culprit.

Spain, the USA, and the Nordic countries seem almost sure to stay neutral throughout. Spain lacks any casus belli, except for possible greedy for Roussillon and French colonies, late in the war, when only the Anglo-French are still standing, but by then the Alliance would have little need for Spanish assistance. Despite some possible ideological sympathy for the Anglo-French, the isolationist USA would lack any real casus belli: with Russian resources, Germany can withstand the blockade with ease, so it has very little reason for unrestricted submarine warfare, if anything the USA might be annoyed at loss of trade with Germany. Not to the point of intervention, though, unless Britain does something really stupid. Just the same, ther Zimmerman Telegram is butterflied away. Sweden is neutralized by having Germany and Russia in the same block, and philo-British Norway would not dare risk a German-Russian invasion.

 

[General Zod]

About other points: yes, the strategic position of A-H is bad in this alliance system and they would seek to improve it by trying securing guarantees of Anglo-French naval support and an expeditionary corps and cultivating a client relationship with Serbia or Bulgaria. With both at once, it would be impossible, the other would be drawn in the opposite bloc. And if even they attempt to avoid being drawn into a general war because of theri client's quarrels, depending on the tirgger point for a general war, they may be easily forced to join by the alliance system.

ITTL, with a greater Bulgaria and Greece, the Balkans would quickly lose any residual Ottoman presence: even assuming that Greater Bulgaria does nto get full suzerainty at the Berlin Conference, they would very soon declare so. Likewise, the Ottomans would lack any land connection with Albania and B-H, so they would easily escape their control. Italian protectorate of Albania is almost a given. Habsburg protectorate of B-H is quite likely as well if Austro-Ottoman allaince develops later.

The events that led to a cooling of Russian relationships with Bulgaria and Romania might still happen ITTL, but they might just as easily be butterflied away.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Actually, you make a good point. It's hard to say how the Ottoman military would develop from 1878 with a different Berlin - but having a far more powerful Bulgaria so close to Istanbul has got to be a major impetus for keeping the military in top form.

Training and doctrine actually can't be argued - in these categories the Ottomans were actually considerably superior to even the British until around 1917, and organizationally, the Ottoman army was more advanced than the German - although that is to some extent due to German assistance, and to a large extent due to the lessons learned in the Balkan Wars, which left the Ottoman army numerically weaker, but qualitatively hugely superior.

The American military historian Edward Erickson has written extensively about this subject - in a dry writing style, but it's an interesting subject:

Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I: A Comparative Study

http://www.amazon.com/Ottoman-Army-...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236270080&sr=8-2

It's stupid expensive, but a library might have it.

Training and doctrine may be argued, and I won't question evident Ottoman merits in holding out against Russians and British for years, but about experience, please remember that ITTL the Balkan Wars would be almost surely butterflied away, as the Balkans are largely settled during the Berlin Conference, so Italians and Ottomans would have comparable experience here, both having undergone their last major war decades ago.



And indeed this is what I expect would inevitably doom the Ottomans in the end, once the A-H buys the farm and the majority of combined Russo-German forces are turned against them.



True as well, but then again, ITTL Italy would have expected to fight France for 3-4 decades and the UK for about a decade, more or less, with butterflies varying the moment when Britain would join the Entente, probably sometime in the 1890s-1900s. So they ought to have prepared for an amphibious invasion of Sicily with strong garrison forces at the onset of the war (Sardinia would rightly deemed as undefensible in the face of Anglo-French naval power).

Anyway, in the worst possible scenario, Italy would lose Sicily and Sardinia. This would harm Italian manpower potential significantly but not substantially, but almost none as it concerns industrial potential. But it would surely not knock Italy out of the war, or substantially harm its ability to fight. Landing in Sardinia has a good chance of success, landing in Sicily may have some possibility of success, but landings in mainland Italy are almost surely headed the Gallipoli way.



And here they would be just as terribly outnumbered until A-H croaks, afterwards they would be much, much more so. They would have less theaters to fight on (Caucasus, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Persia) but would face even worse numerical disadvantages (again, especially after the fall of A-H). I concede that at least on some of these fronts (Eastern Thrace) the terrain features (increasingly narrow front as one gets closer to Constantinople) would multiply the possibility of effective defense, and this would somewhat prolong Ottoman resistance.

On the other hand, this Triple Alliance would enjoy a huge strategic advantage in the possibility to concentrate overwhelming military power against one enemy at a time, first by encirclement, later by internal lines: A-H to begin with, then either the Ottomans or France. The more enemies are vanquished, the most effective this strategy would become. It is rather unlikely that either France or the Ottomans could withstand indefinitely the Alliance pressure after the Habsburg are conquered, even with British help. To really redress the strategic balance, this Entente would need USA help from the start.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Russia+Germany together is hard to stop.

Austria cannot do it. The Ottomans may give it a good run but the best they can do is defend until Austria is gone, then get overwhelmed. France is key, of course, the war depends on how long they can hold out.

The Ottomans can do better than you might think if they are allied to Britain. Due to logistical problems, there is only so much force that can be exerted through the Caucasus, and 100,000 men can defend Istanbul forever if they are kept supplied, equipped, and particularly with massive naval gunfire support. If they con't have to fight the British in Mesopotamia, Gallipoli, and Palestine, their full military power can be used where it would be most effective. If they're alone, it's hopeless in the medium to long-run.

Austria is screwed though.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Largely I agree, except San Stefano effective strips the Ottomans of Albania and Bosnia. A-H will occupy the former, and the latter will be a big mess and constant source of conflict between all the Balkan states, Italy, and A-H.

Bulgaria won't have much to do with Ottoman Christians - it will have a separate Church and will have way too many other problems to be even thinking about this. Also, interference with Ottoman Christians was a cynical method of extending power, which Bulgaria doesn't have much of - more than historical, but less than the Ottomans and way less than the Powers.

Italy will almost certainly be pursued as the target to knock out first..

A-H will not allow itself to be drawn into a war with Russia and Germany unless it has a viable defense. Your scenario assumes they go in willy nilly with nothin in place.

Thats simply not politically realistic. OTL they were backed by Germany so they didn't feel a need to back down with regards Serbia. here they are not going to back a Serbia say in the face of concerted alliance of Germany and Russia supporting them. They are not going to sacrifice their terr. for the sake of there "puppets" aims, there is nothing for A-H to gain. They will mount a defense in the mountains to keep the Russians and Germans at bay.

losing the Tyrol does not magically open up an unlimited conduit for the Italians, there are only so many rail lines traversing the area, how many actually pass through Alpine tunnels. Massive charges in those tunnels effectively closes them for transit purpose until they can be reconstructed...that would take time. therefore at the outset even if lost the flow of supplies to Italy would be a trickle at best.

Unlike Gallipolli where the Ottomans could afford to concentrate their sparse resources because its where the Allies had to go. Italy has a veryt long and exposed coastline on both the Adriatic, Thyrennian and Ligurian Seas. The Entente will havbe naval superiority, tey can afford to scout for the weakes t spot to land. The Italians either send the navy out to engae and defeat these efforts and be destroyed in the process ( they simply do not have the force ratio that the HSF had in the North Sea to deter such efforts) or they remain in port and refuse battle. That allows the Entente to move their own squadrons art will and resupply Austria with a BEF.

the French will fight a defensive war in the north and concentrate their efforts on Italy. Only with Italy out can they link up with A-H so its the only realistic course.

The Allies can pick the weakest point on the long coastline of the boot. Amphibious assaults can be launched from southern France or Corsica Or the Dalmatian ports if need be. they simply choose the weakes t point and land there. The Italians cannot defend their frontier in the NE, mount an invasion to take Tyrol defend the Alpine frontier with France and defend against every possible landing sight on the Italian mainland. Why land in Sicily or Sardinia when your objective is going to be the speedy neutralization of Italy.

Hence either Italy is neutral from the outset until Germany and Russia have made substantial headway against A-H or the Entente will go for the Italian jugular. If the Allies can land in Greece they can land in Italy. once they are ashore with naval superiority to keep their forces supplied they are staying ashore. That in itself will be a major blow to Italian moral.

As much as Italy entered on the entente side in Otl because the entente promised them gains that Austria couldn't. Italy was also not as vulnerable to attack from A-H /Germany as they were from UK/Fr in the med. Nor could A-H/ Germany provide them any meaningful support to thwart the Anglo-French efforts.

btw, having looked back at your potential POD If you went with an Alt Bulgaria that had the San Stefano Borders. Then yes there is room for conflict between Gr/Serbia on the one side and Bulgaria on the other over Macedonia and the Ottomans over all of Thrace, not just eastern Thrace . The Balkans are still not completely settled in this case as the proposed Bulgarian state was still autonomous only within the OE. The Ottomans still held B-H and the Sanjak and Albania more directly. the Greek state would no doubt be enlarged at this point beyond it historical to the southern borders of the Grt Bulgar state ans Albania (depending on who is interpreting where albania ends and Epirus starts.

Bulgaria is going to be stronger going into any Balkan crisis that may develop later than the Serbs or Greeks and should emerge as the pre-eminent power in the Balkans if it does not itself butterfly any crisis within the Empire away by its simple existence in a stronger form.

The Tsars fell out because von Battenburg had to adopt a more liberal policy than the Russian Tsar wanted because its what the Bulgarians themselves wished and he couldn't rule effectively without such a course. I see no reason why a more liberal Bulgarian principality would not occur so Bulgaria and Russia would probably still come to loggerheads over those issues. A larger Bulger state will also act as a mediating influence within the OE with regards to the Christians of the Empire.

The most logical course for A-H in this case if the larger Bulger principality is reality is to concentrate on controlling Serbia if it can and gaining pre-eminent influence in Bulgaria to safegard its southern frontier. the best way to do that is to restrain Serb ambitians and promote a cordial partnership between the Bulgers and Turks within the OE A position which serves A-H, Ottoman and Bulger goals in containing Russian influence in the region with regards Serbia and Greece.

btw in the aftermath the Roumanians felt betrayed by the Russians in the aftermath of that first Balkan crisis so there would be some initial suspicion on their part at least initially. They were asked to cede terr. to Russia despite treaties with Imp. Russia guaranteeing their terr. integrity. Obviously if that didn't happen then the Roumanian view would be more favourable.

 

[General Zod]

Actually, you make a good point. It's hard to say how the Ottoman military would develop from 1878 with a different Berlin - but having a far more powerful Bulgaria so close to Istanbul has got to be a major impetus for keeping the military in top form.

Training and doctrine actually can't be argued - in these categories the Ottomans were actually considerably superior to even the British until around 1917, and organizationally, the Ottoman army was more advanced than the German - although that is to some extent due to German assistance, and to a large extent due to the lessons learned in the Balkan Wars, which left the Ottoman army numerically weaker, but qualitatively hugely superior.

I won't argue your evidence, but then again, since the Ottomans won't fight the Balkan Wars ITTL, would not this this deprive them of the experience advantage they got there IOTL ? Actually, if I reckon things correctly, the only great powers that are going to see a major military engagement against another great/middle power (not just colonial wars) since 1878 are the USA (Spanish-American War), the Russians, and the Japanese (again, assuming the RJW is not the trigger for alt-WWI).

ITTL, the Ottomans would be on a rather more level playing field with most other great powers. If anything, the Russians might have a comparative advantage here (however, I'm not aware whether IOTL they got any significant improvement in land doctrine from the RJW, with them having to weather an aborted revolution just after the war and all; again, German-Italian intervention might or might not defuse the defeat, and hence revolution, but then this most likely would cause British counterintervention, and spark the general war).

Moreover, the Ottomans would not be German junior partners here, but Anglo-French partners. So no German training. If anything, it is the Russians and the Italians that might have comparative advantage here, having enjoyed 3-4 decades of full alliance with Germany, development from German capital, and training from German officers. True, Italy did so as well IOTL, but I think they would get rather more attention and help from Germany ITTL, since there would be no risk of Italy being disloyal to the alliance (both its geopolitical rivals are in the enemy bloc) and being fundamental to the Alliance strategy of isolating and crushing A-H.

However, it is also true that just like Germany would almost surely try to better its own position by heavily investing German capital and expertise to develop and modernize Russian and Italian economy, infrastructure, and military, so France, and later Britain as well, would do likewise with Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Not sure what the overall effect would be. Most likely a somewhat more level playing field between the great powers.

Largely I agree, except San Stefano effective strips the Ottomans of Albania and Bosnia. A-H will occupy the former, and the latter will be a big mess and constant source of conflict between all the Balkan states, Italy, and A-H.

Bulgaria won't have much to do with Ottoman Christians - it will have a separate Church and will have way too many other problems to be even thinking about this. Also, interference with Ottoman Christians was a cynical method of extending power, which Bulgaria doesn't have much of - more than historical, but less than the Ottomans and way less than the Powers.

I would largely agree with your thoughts here, except I have severe difficulties with A-H getting Albania instead of Italy, especially if the German-Russian-Italian bloc takes shape at the Berlin Conference. A-H can certainly get B-H by default there, since Greater Bulgaria and Greater Greece would sever all land connections between Ottoman Eastern Thrace and B-H. Mayhap did you mean the opposite of what you wrote ?

The Ottomans can do better than you might think if they are allied to Britain. Due to logistical problems, there is only so much force that can be exerted through the Caucasus, and 100,000 men can defend Istanbul forever if they are kept supplied, equipped, and particularly with massive naval gunfire support. If they con't have to fight the British in Mesopotamia, Gallipoli, and Palestine, their full military power can be used where it would be most effective. If they're alone, it's hopeless in the medium to long-run.

Austria is screwed though.

Well, AHP, this is a rather interesting point, something I was musing myself. I think we may all agree that in the medium term, even with a big BEF to A-H, the Habsburg are screwed, if France does not manage a quick strategic breakthrough in southern Germany or northern Italy (rather unlikely in WWI warfare), or A-H manages to hold out in Tyrol, isolate Italy from Russo-German supplies and reinforcements, and expose it to British landings (just a bit less unlikely). However, after A-H has surrendered and the Alliance controls the Balkans, what would be the correct use for combined Russo-German-Italian power ? Turkey Second or France Second ?

As you rightly point out, the Ottomans could exploit a series of strategic bottlenecks (Eastern Thrace, Caucasus) which multiply the possibilities of the defender, esp. with WWI trench warfare and massive British help, and would diminish the big manpower advantage of the Alliance at this point. The Russians can't really expect to inflict a decisive blow from Persia, since their logistic train would have to go through Central Asia, and be exposed to British attacks from India.

So, should we expect that the Alliance would go after France instead, after A-H, even if they are theoretically rather stronger ? The Anglo-French would face a much more extended front here, even more so if Swiss and/or Belgian neutrality gets violated by either side (quite possible). It is not conceivable that the Anglo-French could forever avoid a deadly strategic breakthrough against the combined German-Italian forces and a big REF. The Alliance might choose this strategy from the start (having conquered A-H, Russia could easily be amenable to a France Second strategy), or after they get a bloody nose in some Verdun-like failed offensive in Eastern Thrace and the Caucasus. Either way, eventually France is swamped by overwhelming numbers and an overstretched front.

Would Britain and the Ottomans throw the towel at that point, or keep fighting ? At this point, the Ottomans can still count on their defensive strategic bottlenecks, and British help, even if the fall of France makes their naval advantage and control of the Mediterranean questionable (it depends whether the French Navy goes to the Allaince or the UK here: abundant butterflies at work), but now they face the combined full power of Germany, Russia, Italy, and their Balkan allies, there is a limit to what even defensive trench warfare in strategic bottlenecks can allow against overwhelming numbers, how much can the Anglo-Ottomans resist in Thrace ??? And would the UK follow the Napoleonic precedent and keep fighting as long as another great power does so, or would they throw the towel when France falls ? I don't think it realistic that they would hold out indefinitely: their blockade is useless against a power bloc that controls all of continental Europe, there is little damage they can inflict with their peripheral strategy by this point, at the worst if they are truly stubborn, the Alliance can invest all of the industrial power of continental Europe they now control to churn out a massive Navy to make an irontight blockade of the British Isles in a few years, the USA won't intervene at this point and even the RN would be eventually swamped.

About the Ottomans, they may or may not throw the towel when France falls or before the UK gives up or even after UK does so: they quite possibly might try an Ataturk valiant last stand against the Sevres-like partition peace treaty that the Alliance powers would surely offer, but ITTL I cannot really see Ataturk being anything but a doomed martyr, not against the combined forces of a less-exausted Germany, Russia, Italy, and Greece power bloc. Therefore, ITTL the fact that Turkey might be the last or next-to-last Entente power to stand would screw them all the more in the long term.

 

[Germaniac]

That alliance might see a much different break up of the Ottoman empire than before. With a living Russia willing to continue a fight the Ottomans will be forced to give up rights over the straights, whether or not they loose Constantinople or not is debatable. The Ottomans cannot continue as a country if they loose Constantinople. A Turkish state will not wave an Aegean outlet as the greeks will force themselves in, and with german/russian support expect it to stay for the long term. Much of the middle east would be divided up amongst Italy and Germany, likely as vassalized states, not exactly colonies but still controlled by their respective nations.

 

[General Zod]

That alliance might see a much different break up of the Ottoman empire than before. With a living Russia willing to continue a fight the Ottomans will be forced to give up rights over the straights, whether or not they loose Constantinople or not is debatable. The Ottomans cannot continue as a country if they loose Constantinople. A Turkish state will not wave an Aegean outlet as the greeks will force themselves in, and with german/russian support expect it to stay for the long term. Much of the middle east would be divided up amongst Italy and Germany, likely as vassalized states, not exactly colonies but still controlled by their respective nations.

Yep, this is pretty much what I foresee, a different kind of Sevres, but just as harsh. I'm not entirely sure that Turkey would give up if Constantinople is conquered, the Ottoman government would surely do, but Ataturk and Turk nationalists mugth just stage a resistance much as they did IOTL, only ITTL they would be screwed as big combined German-Russian-Italian-Greek expeditionary corps in Anatolia steamrolls them.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That alliance might see a much different break up of the Ottoman empire than before. With a living Russia willing to continue a fight the Ottomans will be forced to give up rights over the straights, whether or not they loose Constantinople or not is debatable. The Ottomans cannot continue as a country if they loose Constantinople. A Turkish state will not wave an Aegean outlet as the greeks will force themselves in, and with german/russian support expect it to stay for the long term. Much of the middle east would be divided up amongst Italy and Germany, likely as vassalized states, not exactly colonies but still controlled by their respective nations.

Good luck to Greece. They lost even with the Ottoman army demobilized. How are they even going to get over to Anatolia?

 

[General Zod]

Here, I've written a somewhat more detailed description of the PoD:

Sometime in the early-mid 1870s, German Chancellor Bismarck awoke one night with a sweat. In a nightmare, he had foreseen the future: the inevitable collapse of his carefully-woven diplomatic web to isolate France owning to Russo-British rivalry, the isolation of the Empire owning to misguided naval competition with Britain and Austrian rivalries with Russia and Italy, the growing internal instability and decay of the useless Habsburg ally, the Empire starved by British blockade, invaded by French and Russian hordes, the monarchy collapsing in Socialist revolution...

It was horrible, and intolerable. He saw everything so clearly, what had escaped him so far. The diplomatic strategy he had followed up to that moment, might work in the short term, but was doomed to failure in the long term, when the fertile land of Prussia would have embraced him, and the inept sycophants that would surround some future Emperor would let his careful construction go to ruin. He would have to do better, build a alliance system that would be the strongest possible and absolutely able to ensure the success of the Reich in the general war that was coming, sooner or later.

But what to do ? In the coming days and weeks, a possible strategy dawned to his gaze: He could solidify the alliance with Russia by supporting their claims on the Balkans. Let's face it, the Habsburg Empire and the Ottomans were bound to collapse sooner or later, it made no sense to exhaust the strength of the Reich trying to breathe life in those corpses. Better to abandon their alliance, and make an agreement with Russia and Italy to support their interests instead. In perspective, to make a pact for the eventual partition of the Habsburg and the Ottomans with those nations, in the contingency of a war or their internal collapse. With Russia and Italy allied to Germany, the Reich could cower any coalition of rival powers, be them Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans, out of war, or win it in short order.

Fast-forward to the Congress of Berlin. According to his new geopolitical and strategic insight, Bismarck favors Russian interests (and to a lesser degree, Italian interests) at the Berlin conference as much as he can without risking a war. Russian clients Bulgaria and Greece get most of their claims: Bulgaria gets full independence from the Ottoman Empire, Eastern Rumelia, Eastern & Vardar Macedonia, and Western Thrace, Greece gets southern Epirus, Thessaly, Aegean Macedonia, and Crete. Italy gets a protectorate over Albania and Montenegro. An enraged Austria-Hungary almost walks out of the Congress but gets a protectorate over Bosnia-Hercegovina. The Sanjak of Novi Pazar is divided between Serbia and Montenegro. Britain is more than a bit unhappy as well but less so than A-H, as it gets occupation of Cyprus, guarantee that the Straits remain in Ottoman possession (but are declared open to all neutral ships in war and peacetime), and a free hand to establish a combined Anglo-French protectorate over Egypt. The Congress recognizes the independence of Romania and Serbia. Russia annexes Armenia and Georgia. Romania keeps southern Bessarabia and gets northern Dobruja, while Bulgaria gets southern Dobruja.

An enraged A-H, feeling betrayed, breaks the league of Three Emperors, and signs the Dual Entente alliance with France in 1881, while a grateful Russia forges a solid alliance with Germany and Italy. The Triple Alliance gets signed in 1882. The Ottoman Empire, fearful of Russian expansionism, joins the Triple Entente in 1884. Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece strengthen their ties with the Triple Alliance, while Serbia becomes an Austro-Hungarian client. Britain maintains its “splendid isolation” up to the 1890s, then growing concerns for Russian expansionism in Central Asia and the Far East, and naval rivalry with Germany, force it to join the Quadruple Entente in 1901, and sign an alliance with Japan in 1902. Both Bismarck and his successors work to solidify the Triple Alliance by heavily investing German capital and expertise to develop and modernize Russian and Italian economy, infrastructure, and military. France, and later Britain as well, does likewise with Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. The USA fights a war with Spain in 1898 and annexes Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, but otherwise remains estranged from the European alliance system.

 

[RGB]

Hm.

Interesting. So the Russo-German-Italian alliance will antagonize the Japanese just as per OTL? Will there be a RJW?

 

[AuroraBorealis]

well that was a hilarious read of course but thoroughly implausible.... and unsupported to boot...


However given that...

The Berlin conference was called after the Russo ottoman war was over and the treaty already signed, it was specifically called to dial back the gains by Russia as a result of this war. France /AH, Britain Serbia and Greece were all opposed to it.

Here you are revising Bismarck's position so that he supports even stronger gains for the Russian position.. that would be intolerable to the balance of power politics at play...what do you want an immediate resumption of hostilities.

At best all your going to get is the conference reaffirming the treaty itself... but the other powers are all going to have to get something if Bismarck and the Russians think the other powers are going sign on. indeed a Russian prince excluded from the new Bulgarian throne was a goal of the allies this tL That will be a hard position and not negotiable even if you simply get reaffirmation. It will probably be a German Prince more aligned with the Austrians and Western powers and less opposed to a liberal regime in the post war. Ferdinand " the Austrian candidate" from Saxe-coburg -Gotha gets the throne earlier.

Whether Alexander or Ferdinand gets the throne your POD will not change the desire of the Bulgers for a more liberal political regime than the Tsar in Moscow desired. Alexander attempted to rule more conservatively and in line with Moscow's wishes but couldn't he himself was forced to accept the more liberal regime to rule effectively. the Tsar had him deposed, Stambulov had him immediately reinstated. It is this divergence of political regimes between Russia and Bulgaria that hastened the falling out between two. I don't see your POD changing that at all.

If A-H gains even a protectorate over B-H it will drive a wedge between them and Serbia difficult to surmount as they had their own designs for Greater Serbia more so there than in Macedonia. Annexation will lead to downright hostility in some Serbian circles (Black Hand anyone). that would seem to lead to a path of convergence of interests for A-H and Bulgaria.

So i don't see how your POD gets you your line up yet? I still suggest quite firmly that Bulgaria in whatever its final form is likely to not entering at all or will be a a late entry for the Entente in all likely hood.

Italy will not enter in this TL at all..they are too exposed. So really you need to flesh that out and propose a plausible reason for them to do so.

OTL they WERE allied to A-H and Germany right up to the DOW. yet jumped ship. This despite being linked by friendly terr. to Germany and A-H. they realized correctly that in their vulnerable position to attacks and economic strangulation by the Angl-French naval forces that A-H and Germany were either in no positon to help them or completely unwilling because of their own agendas. What makes you think they will read the Russo Germans any different.

In this case they are separated by hostile terr. One of their allies is on the other side of their opponent and in no position what so ever to give them any assistance. i don't see how their reading of the political and strategic situation will be different , if anything its far worse. So No I see them attempting to find what ever reason they can not to enter for a s long as possible.

OTL AH opened with what were essentially two fronts, Germany the same. Here Germany enters with two fronts as well, Italy remains as exposed as OTl and out of any prospects for immediate support by its allies same as OTL, they have been building for a defensive war in the med against the Anglo-French for the same period as OTL, so realistically their out look and prospects on the outset of war are worse than OTL. Russia who had to fight on on the Eastern front against A-H and Germany now faces a war on three active fronts at least and the prospect of a guerilla insurgency akin to that of the Arabs with regard to OTL Ottomans in Central Asia sponsored jointly by both the British and the Ottomans. They will almost certainly lose their influence in the north of Persia right off the bat.


btw, my reading of the situation OTL was that Bulgaria entered the war not so much as a German ally but an ally of A-H I don't see that changing.
With no fronts against the British, the Ottomans are in a far stronger position in this TL If they haven't remained neutral. They can combine forces with British forces in India to undermine the Russians in Persia, the Caucasus and facilitate independence movements in Central Asia. And then there is the inevitable rematch in the far east with the Japanese. I don't think it needs saying but the Russians are hard pressed and won't be giving any aid to anyone. Their hands are full just defending their own interests.

Btw, until late in the 19th C Britain and France were the primary suppliers of Foreign capital for investment. Germany only came into its own in this latter regard late in the century, displacing France but not Britain. Most French Capital went to Russia here it will go to A-H presumably. German and Br. Capital was more spread around and in the end in more direct competition. some from both went to Russia and the Ottomans and the USA. A-H was a large recipient of German capital.

British capital to primarily the Dominions and the USA and to a East Asia and South America. Some German capital is still likely to flow to A-H simply because of proximity. A-H is likely to have far greater investment in its infrastructure and defensive capabilities As I expect it will be a net gainer over OTL. Russia is likely to be a net loser. The Germans as sid came late to that as they industrialized far later than the French or the English. Their availability of surplus capital is somewhat more limited. the English and French can afford to pour some investment capital into both A-H and the Ottomans over a somewhat longer period.

In any case I do look forward to reading how you intend to surmount these difficulties. Right now I don't see it but persuade me

 

[General Zod]

well that was a hilarious read of course but thoroughly implausible.... and unsupported to boot...

Unsupported and implausible, why ? Strong concern about maintaining a friendly relationship with Russia was one of the cornerstone of Bismarck's policy. And the man was a geopolitical genius, him getting an epiphany that his attempts to keep France totally isolated were doomed to fail in the end, and that he needed to adjust his policies accordingly, and throw Vienna to the wolves in order to secure St. Petersburg (and Rome), is far from implausible.

The Berlin conference was called after the Russo ottoman war was over and the treaty already signed, it was specifically called to dial back the gains by Russia as a result of this war. France /AH, Britain Serbia and Greece were all opposed to it.

Here you are revising Bismarck's position so that he supports even stronger gains for the Russian position.. that would be intolerable to the balance of power politics at play...what do you want an immediate resumption of hostilities.

The idea here is that since the German-Russian-Italian bloc makes dialing back the Bulgarian gains impossible, the great powers concede that the Ottoman position in the Balkans is unsalvageable and try arrange a stable partition of the Balkans between successor states, hence they try to balance Bulgaria and Greece.

At best all your going to get is the conference reaffirming the treaty itself... but the other powers are all going to have to get something if Bismarck and the Russians think the other powers are going sign on.

But they do: A-H gains Bosnia, Britain gains Cyprus, a protectorate over Egypt, the powers' guarantee about Ottoman ownership of the Straits. Maybe something more for A-H (the Sanjak ? Montenegro ? and Kosovo for Italy ?) and for Britain (early protectorate on Palestine ?).

indeed a Russian prince excluded from the new Bulgarian throne was a goal of the allies this tL That will be a hard position and not negotiable even if you simply get reaffirmation. It will probably be a German Prince more aligned with the Austrians and Western powers and less opposed to a liberal regime in the post war. Ferdinand " the Austrian candidate" from Saxe-coburg -Gotha gets the throne earlier.

OK, I suppose this is a reasonable requirement for the treaty. Consider it added to the PoD.

Whether Alexander or Ferdinand gets the throne your POD will not change the desire of the Bulgers for a more liberal political regime than the Tsar in Moscow desired. Alexander attempted to rule more conservatively and in line with Moscow's wishes but couldn't he himself was forced to accept the more liberal regime to rule effectively. the Tsar had him deposed, Stambulov had him immediately reinstated. It is this divergence of political regimes between Russia and Bulgaria that hastened the falling out between two. I don't see your POD changing that at all.

I see your reasoning. OK, let's assume this happens too and Russia ultimately gains a partially Phyrric victory as its chosen Balkan client gets estranged (even if they still won a major victory by getting the Ottoman expelled by the Balkans). So they work to affirm their ties to Romania (they get to keep Bessarabia) and Greece, and get close to Serbia instead. I would have preferred to keep Serbia in the loser Entente camp, as not to reward the 20th Century's most obnoxious nationalism ITTL, but it seems cannot be helped. Oh well, at least Germany and Italy shall keep Serbia away from Croatia in the post-ww1 settlement.

If A-H gains even a protectorate over B-H it will drive a wedge between them and Serbia difficult to surmount as they had their own designs for Greater Serbia more so there than in Macedonia. Annexation will lead to downright hostility in some Serbian circles (Black Hand anyone). that would seem to lead to a path of convergence of interests for A-H and Bulgaria.

So i don't see how your POD gets you your line up yet? I still suggest quite firmly that Bulgaria in whatever its final form is likely to not entering at all or will be a a late entry for the Entente in all likely hood.

OK, so Serbia goes in the Alliance (not too trusted by Germany and Italy, I surmise) and Bulgaria stays neutral or goes Entente. Cannot decide what option is more likely for the latter.

Italy will not enter in this TL at all..they are too exposed. So really you need to flesh that out and propose a plausible reason for them to do so.

OTL they WERE allied to A-H and Germany right up to the DOW. yet jumped ship. This despite being linked by friendly terr. to Germany and A-H. they realized correctly that in their vulnerable position to attacks and economic strangulation by the Angl-French naval forces that A-H and Germany were either in no positon to help them or completely unwilling because of their own agendas. What makes you think they will read the Russo Germans any different.

Sorry, here is where our visions go into radical divergence. IMO Italy switched alliance IOTL not because they were concerned about Anglo-French naval power, but because the Entente sold them a better bargain. Italy's main concern in a general war was to satisfy their claims against either or both of A-H and France, British naval power entered theri calculations but only to raise their price (also for the fact that Germany had precipitated the war with their declarations of war, so the defensive clausles of the Triple Alliance were invoked), so guarantees of satisfaction of theri French claims was not sufficient, they wanted some A-H stuff too. Vienna dragged their feet too much, too long, they lost patience and listened to London instead that promised all of their A-H claims and some Ottoman claims to boot (ultimately betrayed at Versailles but that is beside the point). "Economic strangulation" was not really a point since Germany was in the position to supply what Italian economy really needed (coal) to stay afloat, otherwise there would be some hardship but nothing a war government can't manage. And Italy could defend itself effectively against Entente landings (except in Sardinia), with some German help if need be.

In this case they are separated by hostile terr. One of their allies is on the other side of their opponent and in no position what so ever to give them any assistance.

But they are in the position to link with one ally very soon (which has a strong land connection with the other one, by the way, so what you tell is not entirely correct) if they act quickly and coordinate, which no doubt they have been planning and preparing to do for long. In this allaince bloc, all of their claim-holding enemies and rivals for supremacy in the Mediterranean are in the enemy bloc, this war is a unique opportunity to satisfy all of their claims and raise to the role of hegemon of the Mediterranean. The risks are higher but the potential gains are much more so. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. This position in the war is not radically different from the one they chose in WWII, which would have worked if they had better prepared their military. Since the liberal ruling elite manageed to prepare Italy better for WWI than the fascist regime did for WWII, again it's a risky gamble but it is also a unique chance to become a top-tier great power and a regional hegemon.

As for justification for their own position, I also assume that Bismarck and its successors realize how much strenghtening their Russian and Italian allies works to their advantage, so they work hard to build up Russian and Italian economies and military forces with German support and expertise.

i don't see how their reading of the political and strategic situation will be different , if anything its far worse. So No I see them attempting to find what ever reason they can not to enter for a s long as possible.

Since our reading of the reasons for Italy's OTL chocies in ww1 is very different, so does our assessment ITTL. I can see at the very most Italy waiting to see if German/Russian offensives against A-H are any successful (which they will), then entering. But they might also have reason to want and seize control of Tyrol in a coorindated offensive with Germany as soon as hostilities erupt.

Here Germany enters with two fronts as well,

But their perspectives are rather better since one of their enemies is weaker than Russia and much more exposed.

Italy remains as exposed as OTl and out of any prospects for immediate support by its allies same as OTL, they have been building for a defensive war in the med against the Anglo-French for the same period as OTL,

IMO you give far too much credence to Anglo-French naval power. At the onset of the hostilities, France needs to man a long front and is not in the position to launch any major landing operation, Britain has a limited army geared for colonial wars and needs it to man the Persia/Afghanistan front and dole out assistance to all of their allies (France, A-H, Ottomans). They shall not be in any position to launch any major landing operation agianst Italy for six months to an year, and by that time, A-H has likely collapsed, the Alliance controls the Balkans and may concentrate its combined power by internal lines on the continent at will, and Anglo-British naval power has become pointless, any landing would turn out worse than Gallipoli.

Russia who had to fight on on the Eastern front against A-H and Germany now faces a war on three active fronts at least and the prospect of a guerilla insurgency akin to that of the Arabs with regard to OTL Ottomans in Central Asia sponsored jointly by both the British and the Ottomans. They will almost certainly lose their influence in the north of Persia right off the bat.

True, but just as for Italy it is a matter of meeting hardship at front and netting huge gains later. They can combine effectively with their allies to crush A-H very soon, then contain the Anglo-Ottomans in their tiny Thrace corner of the Balkans. Then (if they are wise) they combine their forces again to crush France. At that point they are the masters of continental Europe and crushing the Ottomans and regaining Persia and Central Asia is only an issue of time and logistics. Isolated Britain shall give up or be starved into submission by combined Alliance fleets.

btw, my reading of the situation OTL was that Bulgaria entered the war not so much as a German ally but an ally of A-H I don't see that changing.

Perhaps, I concede you the the possible switch of Serbia and Bulgaria in the alliance blocs, but that won't save A-H, only slightly delay their demise, as they turn half the strength of Romania and Serbia against themselves. Once A-H is done, combined Russo-Germans shall vanquish the Bulgarians in a few months.

With no fronts against the British, the Ottomans are in a far stronger position in this TL If they haven't remained neutral. They can combine forces with British forces in India to undermine the Russians in Persia, the Caucasus and facilitate independence movements in Central Asia. And then there is the inevitable rematch in the far east with the Japanese. I don't think it needs saying but the Russians are hard pressed and won't be giving any aid to anyone. Their hands are full just defending their own interests.

True... at the start. But Germans and Russians can (and shall) focus their efforts to eliminate the Habsburg. This frees up much power for Germans, Russians, and Italians both. The next move is to focus efforts again to eliminate Bulgaria, which frees up all of Romanian, Serbian, and Greek manpower, and combine it again to contain the Ottomans around Constantinople. At that point, the Alliance has the (bad) choice of a bloody trench and urban warfare campign to conquer the city, or focus power again to vanquish the overextended French. At that point, the Allies shall have an unsurmountable manpower advantage, using it to conquer Constantinople and/or reconquer Persia, Central Asia, and menace India is only a matter of time and logistics. At some point, be it after the fall of Pris, the fall of Constantinople, the threat to India, the threat of British Isles blockade by combined German/Russian/Italian and captured French/Austrian fleets, Britain shall give up, and Japan likewise, lest combined Alliance fleets show up and bloackade the Home Isles.

 

[General Zod]

Btw, until late in the 19th C Britain and France were the primary suppliers of Foreign capital for investment. Germany only came into its own in this latter regard late in the century, displacing France but not Britain. Most French Capital went to Russia here it will go to A-H presumably. German and Br. Capital was more spread around and in the end in more direct competition. some from both went to Russia and the Ottomans and the USA. A-H was a large recipient of German capital.

British capital to primarily the Dominions and the USA and to a East Asia and South America. Some German capital is still likely to flow to A-H simply because of proximity. A-H is likely to have far greater investment in its infrastructure and defensive capabilities As I expect it will be a net gainer over OTL. Russia is likely to be a net loser. The Germans as sid came late to that as they industrialized far later than the French or the English. Their availability of surplus capital is somewhat more limited. the English and French can afford to pour some investment capital into both A-H and the Ottomans over a somewhat longer period.

Difference between Anglo-French and German investment potential was not so significant by late 19th century: they industrialized later, but their rise (like the one of the USA) was much more significant and dramatic, while UK was slowing its relative economic growth and French economic power was never that much dramatic and utterly dwarfed by German one late in the century. Here German investment shall focus in Russia and Italy instead of A-H and the Ottomans. Therefore, yep A-H and the Ottomans shall be a net winner but so shall Russia and Italy.