Alternate WW1 alliances.

[Don Draper]

Plus with German training the Russian army will be much more well trained, organised and effective.

They do have a lot of fronts though. The Caucasus, Persia/Afghanistan, their expeditionary forces against A-H and then France, and in the Far East against the Japanese. That is the problem.

 

[General Zod]

Plus with German training the Russian army will be much more well trained, organised and effective.

They do have a lot of fronts though. The Caucasus, Persia/Afghanistan, their expeditionary forces against A-H and then France, and in the Far East against the Japanese. That is the problem.

Theroretically, yes, they do. However, as my Sovietophile fellows are so fond of reminding whenever one raises the issue of Japan attacking URSS in 1941, if the Russians feel overextended, just blow up the Transiberian railway, let the Japanese advance, and spare the men for the vital fronts. It will take forever before they can reach anything really important. This also applies for Persia/Afghanistan. Concentrate German-Russian manpower to gut A-H, France, and the Ottomans, in this order. After A-H and France are killed and their fleets seized, GRI have all the armies they need to storm Turkey, Persia and India, and all the naval power they need to strangulate Britain and Japan.

 

[Don Draper]

What are the technological differences if the war begins in 1905(over the RJW) as opposed to in the 1910s over the Italo-Turkic War(which I see as more likely) or something else like that. Who would that benefit?

Would a 1905 war benefit the Entente as it means less time for the Germans to improve the Russian and Italian militaries?

 

[General Zod]

What are the technological differences if the war begins in 1905(over the RJW) as opposed to in the 1910s over the Italo-Turkic War(which I see as more likely) or something else like that. Who would that benefit?

Dunno. We need to dial our armchair military experts.

Would a 1905 war benefit the Entente as it means less time for the Germans to improve the Russian and Italian militaries?

It would also mean less time and means for the French to improve the A-H and Ottomans, and the British would have been in the Quadruple Entente only a few years. OTOH, the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente would have been around isnce the early-mid 1880s.

By the way, I've set up a separate thread to discuss (and vote) on the possible triggers for TTL's WWI. Come one, come all.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Congress of Berlin

Is not going to give you your lineup directly....but I suppose it may be a good starting point.

Bismarck DID support the Russian position at the conference. Disraeli in Britain and A-H were however vehemetly opposed to this expansion of Russian power and influence.

Bismarck was a pacifist essentially except when German interests were directly threatened. That is why he acted as a conciliator of sorts once the realization came that the other powers would not accept the treaty as is. He also didn't want to break up the league of three Emporers. On this latter point if we use your dream then A-H interests are sacrificed and he is more vehemet in the support of the Russian gains, which is what you are proposing.

Britain and the Ottomans had already concluded a defensive treaty to oppose it. Almost certainly under your proposal would have led to war between Russia and its junior partners and most definitely the Ottomans and Britain to which A-H would almost certainly have joined. France possibly as they also did not want to see the ottomans dismantled at this point at the expense of Russia. I am not sure whether Germany, with no direct interests in such a war would countenance such overt support for Russia nor Italy which is still only flexing its influence diplomatically at this point and has just come off its alliance with the Anglo French from the Crimean War and its conflict with A-H for addition of Venezia. There probably still way too weak militarily.

I see only one result....

Russia will be defeated and isolated from Europe diplomatically. They will likely have gained Germany as a diplomatic ally ( so not totally isolated with the prospect of adding Italy to undo their losses).

Montenegro, Serbia and Roumania all gain their independence as this was accepted. They are all probably going to have pro A-H gov'ts in the aftermath (Montenegro might gain a pro-French gov't alternatively). The rest remains under Ottoman control, With A-H exercising a sphere of influence in B-H. Displacing Russia in the Western powers eyes.

This can work to your advantage, but it depends on how the actual war runs in the aftermath, something along the lines of Crimea I expect with A-H added to the mix occupying Roumania as a protectorate ( Add north and south Bessarabia to that client and Roumania is likely firmly allied to A-H).

Such a defeat will also colour German Italian diplomacy in the aftermath. Britain will come out of its isolation probably in alliance with A-H and an improving relationship with France if not outright alliance.

So while I may see your line up.. I see the Balkan situation in an entirely different light. It is still an ongoing concern But Russia and pan-Slavism have been dealt a serious blow. If Bulgaria comes about at all Ferdinand will probably be Prince and it will be pro-A-H without any autonomous Eastern Roumelia. However its likely the Bulgarian question will fester for a bit and they are reincorporated directly into the OE. Promises to govern under the Organic statutes is probably a given.

There will be knock on effects of course when it comes to the Berlin Conference, which might actually end up being the Paris or Vienna conference instead.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

GZ alt Cof B result

Something along the lines of this is likely to result from the GZ POD. in the immediate term. And Russia will probably have to disgorge Ardahan, Kars and Batum.

 

[General Zod]

Your ideas are interesting, and may be fruitful. However I am not convinced that it would have to come to blows. On second thoughts, after readin your last posts, I concede that the territorial gains I wrote for Balkan states are likely too extreme and might have indeed caused a war. Moreover, they are actually unnecessary for the fulfillment of the scenario, since, had Bismarck came to support Russian (and Italian) interests forcefully, this would have caused the RGI bloc to form anyway, even the other powers' opposition had made Russian claims to come short.

OTOH, it is not necessary for an actual war to be caused by the failure of the Congress of Berlin. It is quite reasonable to assume Bismarck, while giving strong support to Russia, would have counseled it away from war, and that Russia, faced with combined opposition by Britain, A-H, Ottomans, and France, would have compromised, even with German support. Nonetheless, I cannot believe that strong German support isn't to change anything in the Congress' outcome. Britain isn't omnipotent, much the less A-H, and in the face of German opposition, the "proto-Entente" front would have to concede Russia more than OTL settlement. Therefore, IMO the PoD means that TTL's Congress of Berlin must end in a result that is somewhat between the Treaty of St. Stephen and OTL Treaty of Berlin.

Possible changes:

Bulgaria is still recognized as fully independent and is given Eastern Rumelia AKA Northern Thrace, but the Great Powers return Vardar Macedonia, Aegean Macedonia AKA Greek Macedonia, and Western Thrace to the Ottomans. Bulgaria leaves the Congress in the same situation that IOTL would be after the 1885 unification and the 1908 declaration of independence. This is is the reult of Russo-German pressures (independence, Eastern Rumelia) and of British-Austrian ones (no Macedonia, no Thrace).

The Great Powers impose the Austrian candidate for the throne of Bulgaria, Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (British-Austrian price to accept the unificationa and independence of Bulgaria).

Greece gains southern Epirus and all of Thessaly (Russian prize to accept the shrinking of Bulgaria, limiting Ottoman gains by expanding Greece; this is accepted by the Great Powers since Greece is seen as less threatening than Bulgaria).

Turkey keeps a large strip of Balkan territory running from Western and eastern Thrace, Aegean & Vardar Macedonia, and Albania (albeit somewhat smaller than IOTL)

Romania keeps southern Bessarabia and gains Dobruja, so its friendship to Russia is unbroken (Bismarck persuades Russia to do so).

Austria-Hungary occupies Bosnia-Hercegovina (its compensation for agreeing to to the enlargement of Bulgaria and Greece).

Britain occupies Cyprus and gets the great powers' recognition of its protectorate over Egypt (likewise).

I would have liked to let Italy, too, have some boon, but probably there is not room for anything significant within this framework. Oh, well, Russo-German diplomatic support and the Austro-French bond should still bring it fully in the alliance when it is formalized.

This settlement would still cause the lineup we sought to come into existence. Russia, thankful for German support, soon formalizes the alliance with Germany in the Dual Alliance of 1879, which is soon expanded to Italy in the Triple Alliance of 1882. Austria-Hungary, angry with Germany for its support to Russia, breaks the Dreikaiserbund and makes the Dual Entente with France in 1881. Great Britain mostly keeps its "splendid isolation" up to sometimes in the 1890s-1900s when growing stretegic rivalry with Russia and Germany moves it to join the Triple Entente, although it maintains its committment to the defense of the Ottoman Empire since the 1880s. It's bit hard to say whether the Ottoman Empire formally joins the Entente before the onset of WWI, or does so because of it. If the latter, the Italo-Turkish War and the Balkan War(s) can still happen on schedule.

About the Balkan lineup: the butterfly I wrote about Bessarabia would make it so that Russian-Romanian friendship never cools, and the lack of German-Habsburg allaince may easily make it so that Romania turns to regard Germany, not France, as its cultural, educational and administrative model.

About Bulgaria and Serbia: this modified scenario leaves many potential claims for both countries (and Greece) unfulfilled, so either could end up an as Russo-German client (and the one who does not, becomes an Austrian client). It is very likely that the Balkan War(s), in some form, would still happen, as it may the Italo-Turkish War as well, if the OE is not a formal member of the Entente yet. There is some uncertainety about it, but probably Britain, France, and A-H would not be too eager to make a full alliance iwth it too soon, since most of htem have expansionistic aims of their own on Ottoman territory, too.

The domestic contrasts in Bulgaria, between the liberal aspirations of its populace, and the conservative influences of Russia, that led to its partial estrangement from Russia IOTL, still exist. But the butterfly I wrote (Ferdinard instead of Alexander taking the throne after the CoB) could lead to later reversal of this, when the 1886 coup removes him from power and places the pro-Russian Alexander on the throne. Under his influence, Bulgaria might remain a client of Russia and Germany, if Russia eventually gives up on a reactionary Bulgaria and is satisfied with making it a military-diplomatic ally. this would likely cause Serbia to remain an Austrian client (this may or may not buttefly the 1903 coup and the dynastic change in Serbia). It is also possible that this PoD is not suffiicent to change the OTL allaince realignment that caused Serbia to become a Russian client and Bulgarian to get close to A-H. In such a case, the 1903 coup is Serbia certaintly occurs and is both concause and effect of this allaince shift.

In this scenario, Greece would certainly stay friendly to the Triple Alliance, against pro-Ottoman Britain and Austria, even if it would have some serious conflict of claims with the other Alliance client Bulgaria or Serbia, over Macedonia, Albania/Epirus, and/or Thrace.

As said before, in this modified scenario, the Italo-Turkish War and even more so, the Balkan War(s) may still quite possibly happen. The latter especially are very likely, since this CoB left a large part of the Southern Balkans still "unredeemed", if TTL WWI does not erupts before. Both wars may easily be triggers of a general war themselves, especially the Balkan Wars, when Serbia and Bulgaria come to blows over division of Macedonia after the Ottomans are kicked out (almost a given), if either nations calls to its patrons for aid. Or alternatively, Britain and A-H might intervene to help the Ottomans, or Russia against the OE if it defeats her clients.

Therefore, this scenario would still easily cause our GRI/BAHFOE Great War lineup to come into being, with Serbia and Bulgaria as wildcards that may end up in either camp depending on butterflies, without need of a second "Crimean" war. OTOH, the lack of complete fulfillment for Bulgarian claims at the CoB makes an Alliance Bulgaria still possible.

 

[General Zod]

I just had another idea. What if the Russo-German Alliance causes the survival of Tsar Alexander as a butterfly (say he avoides assassination because he is in route to a diplomatic visit to Germany). Would this help the scenario ? A more liberal Russia might acutally become closer to Imperial Germany in outlook.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

GZ, even the modest changes you propose will result in war. It is simply too early for a breakup of the Ottoman Empire in Europe.

As I state earlier. Bismarck and the Russians WERE in agreement at the congress...he DID support the Russian efforts.
Short of military intervention there is really little else the Germans by themselves can do to alter the OTL events.

It is a measure of how vociferous the British and Austro-Hungarian opposition was that they had to dial back their efforts to only what was obtained OTL.

The Convention of Cyprus is already in place remember, committing the British Empire to aiding the OE in ejecting the Russians from Batum, Kars and Ardahan if they did not agree to modify their gains and accept far more modest proposals.

Almost certainly Bulgaria will BE limited to only autonomy, not independence. Though I will grant you that more vigorous support by the Germans would give them Roumelia perhaps. The Russians will have to give up something somewhere else though, Ardahan, Batum and Kars perhaps. Honestly I don't see the Tsar giving up direct Russian gains in favour of an enlarged Bulgaria.
That is how vehemet the opposition, faced by the German and Russian delegations, was.

OTL the Greeks and OE were committed to rectifying their border disputes. You probably will only get the same. This led to the cession of Thessaly and Arta shortly after the congress but left the remainder of Epirus in Ottoman hands. You also have the League of Prizren of the Albanians to consider as well. As they did become a force to be reckoned with at this time as well. While the Great powers essentially ignored them the Sultan gave them his tacit support until the Congress had decided the final disposition the Russo-Turkish War. It allowed them to secure the largely Albanian viyalets of Kosovo, Shkoder and the Northern parts of Epirus. If War comes then they will likely continue to support the Empire in exchange for their own autonomy and a unity of all the Albanian viyalets or parts there of into a single Ottoman Viyalet. I suspect a larger and earlier proto Albanian state.

So I will grant you Thessaly and perhaps the district of Arta from the viyalet of Janina for Greece at the outset.

Austria only administered B-H in Otl. That would have disrupted their position with the Obrenovic's of Serbia. Its unlikely they would seek outright annexation if an opportunity to substantially reducing Russian influence presented itself.

Russian opposition to reducing their gains would have presented them just such an opportunity...

I stand by my statements made earlier and represented by the map post in the aftermath of such a continuation of the Russo -Turkic War that would probably have resulted from your proposition...though I would concede that rather than falling into the A-H orbit, Roumania like Serbia OTL would tread a neutral course between the two powers of A-H and Russia, perhaps at times marginally favouring Russia and at others marginally favouring A-H.

Under your proposal the Russians will HAVE to make concessions elsewhere or face the OE and Britain in war this is a

Btw, there is no point in assuming that the coups and counter-coups that occurred OTl will occur this TL. For instance, the Coup that initially displaced Alexander was a Russian inspired coup. Stambulov still had the force of influence when he returned from his exile to have him re-instated. Even if you revers the positions of Ferdinand (the pro-Austrian candidate) that such a Russian coup would even occur, because of the possible opposition it would cause with A-H or that it might even fail because the pro-Russian party is not as strong. Even so. If exiled, Stambulov may simply reinstate him if instead of the reactionary conservative Russian that the somewhat weaker Russian party may want to have established. In which case, that is going to leave a very anti -Russian backlash in Ferdinand's court having been usurped by a pro-Russian Coup. Its far likelier that Russia won't attempt the coup at all as the risks for Russian influence are too great.

Then of course there is Alexander of Serbia's coup which might even be butterflied away if Russian influence is less from the start, he taking on a more A-H influenced position from the start. Perhaps Mirka of Montenegro is indeed accepted as his heir if A-H desire for stability is paramount in the Serb Kingdom. Perhaps he is persuaded not to marry Draga in the first place and marries a German princess instead as his father wished. That in itself probably finishes the pro-Russian Serbian coup before it starts.

One other thought. politics in Italy are so corrupt at this point that an alliance with them is essentially worthless and utterly useless to curb A-H until Crispi comes to power in '87.

 

[Don Draper]

So what you're saying is that the Russo-Germans wouldn't be able to get any of Bulgaria/Serbia/Greece in their camp ITTL?

 

[General Zod]

AB, you are misinterpreting the OTL position of Bismarck IMO. He was not giving any strong support to Russian claims, he did maintain a position of neutrality between Russian and A-H interests as he wanted to maintain the friendship of both powers (but he failed since Russia felt betrayed by his lack of support over Bulgaria). Therefore it is false to assume that IOTL he already supported Russia. He kept balance between A-H and Russia. If instead we have him giving full support to Russia in our PoD, the position of A-H is rather weaker, and indirectly the one of Britain, too. This ought to amount to much. Yes, Britain fully supported the OE, but the UK was not omnipotent and the opposition of the strongest land power to its designs is going to give Disraeli pause. This change (and it is a rather big change, Germany gave half of its support to A-H, and hence indirectly to Britain, here it goes into full opposition) is going to force Britain to compromise on something and give Russia something more than OTL, without need for Russia to give up something else in return.

Hence my counterproposal: Bulgaria remains an widely autonomous principate, not a fully independent kingdom, but it gains Eastern Rumelia as an integral part of the state, and de facto independent as IOTL. Ferdinand becomes Prince, but Russia keeps Ardahan, Batum and Kars. The OE gets all of Macedonia back. Greece gets Thessaly and the district of Arta. A-H occupies (not annexes) B-H. This is an absolute minimum to represent the changes caused by the PoD. Your stance makes Britain's position far too strong.

I may agree with your analysis of Bulgaria's and Serbia's internal problems but your statement on Italy is far too dismissing and otally beside the point anyway.

Yep, Italy was in 1878 far weaker than it shall be in 1914 but its domestic political instability had very little influence on its foreign policy. There was a consistently anti-Austrian (and since the '70s, a growing anti-French) feeling among pretty much all parties but the clericals (kept out from all power owning to the Roman Question), and during the OTL Triple Alliance an artificial friendliness was kept only because Italy coveted the friendship of Germany (the true ally and real friend) against France (the other hated rival). Offer Italy an allaince gainst a France-Austria bloc, and you shall see a strong national concordance about it. Domestic political trasformismo is not going to have anything to do with it. Of course, there also was a strong pro-British feeling, and healthy respect for British might, just as there was both for Germany, so Britain in the enemy bloc is going to give Italy some pause until they have grown rather stronger, economically and militarly, than they were in 1878, say in 1890s-1900s. But I still assume that the PoD does not cause Britain to join the French-Austrian Entente till the mid-late 1890s or early 1900s, they are going to keep their isolation until then.

About Bulgaria and Serbia, I shall simply remark that there is not going to be any chance that A-H may keep them both in its camp. Owing to their various rivalries, at least one of them is going to go with Germany-Russia, various butterflies may cause them to switch places.

 

[General Zod]

So what you're saying is that the Russo-Germans wouldn't be able to get any of Bulgaria/Serbia/Greece in their camp ITTL?

That is simply impossible. I really cannot see the geopolitical justification for Greece to favor France-Austria, or Britain, the big sponsor of the Ottomans, against Russia, their traditional sponsor, or Italy. OTOH, since Greece was far weaker than Italy, it is quite pissible that Anglo-French naval power would intimidate them into neutrality until A-H is vanquished, at that point they would enter the war against the Ottomans. As it concerns Bulgaria and Serbia, they are rivals for regional supremacy, they can only reluctantly cooperate to expel the Ottomans from the Balkans, but otherwise, they shall belong into opposite camps, political butterflies may cause them to switch places in different versions of TTL, but they shall belong into opposite alliance blocs during alt-WWI.

 

[General Zod]

I've rewritten the PoD, according to the recent discussions. I've left it for the moment undefined the relative places of the Balkan states in the alliance blocs, as well as the precise diplomatic relantionship of the Ottoman Empire and the Entente.

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 encirclement of the Reich 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 Fatherland 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: He could solidify the alliance with Russia by supporting their claims on the Balkans. Let's face it, the Habsburg Empire was bound to collapse sooner or later, it made no sense to exhaust the strength of the Reich trying to breathe life in that corpse. Better to abandon that 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.

During the Congress of Berlin, according to his new geopolitical and strategic insight, Bismarck supports Russian interests as much as he can short of causing a general war. He is unable to get many of the Russian aims satisfied, but his support ensures that Britain and Austria-Hungary are unable to undo the effects of Russian victory in the Russo-Turkish War as much as they wished.

The large autonomy (de facto independence) of Bulgaria as a Principate and its full ownership of Eastern Rumelia is recognized but it is forced to give all of Macedonia back to the Ottoman Empire. The Austrian candidate for the throne, Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, is picked. The independence of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro is also recognized. Austria-Hungary is allowed to "occupy and administer" Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Sanjak of Novi Pazar. Greece receives Thessaly and the district of Arta in Epirus but its hopes to gain Crete are frustrated. Russia keeps Ardahan, Batum and Kars. Britain gets the occupation and administration of Cyprus, the powers' guarantee that the Straits shall remain in Ottoman possession (but they are declared open to all neutral ships in war and peacetime), and a free hand to establish a protectorate of Egypt. France is allowed to establish a protectorate in Tunisia. Italy is much angered over Franch expansion in Tunis and Austrian expansion into Bosnia, but is granted the right to establish a protectorate in Tripolitania. Romania gets Dobruja but must return southern Bessarabia to Russia.

Russia, thankful for German diplomatic support, soon formalizes the alliance with Germany in the Dual Alliance of 1879. Italy, angered over French occupation of Tunis, resentful over A-H expansion in the Balkans without a settlment of Italian irredentist claims, and eager to get powerful allies against both France and A-H, joins Germany and Russia in the Triple Alliance of 1882. Austria-Hungary, angry with Germany for its support to Russian interests, breaks the Dreikaiserbund and makes the Dual Entente with France in 1881.

Britain maintains its “splendid isolation” up into the 1890s. Subsequenty, growing concerns for Russian expansionism in Central Asia and the Far East, and naval rivalry with Germany, move it to join France and Austria in the Triple 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.

 

[Don Draper]

That is simply impossible. I really cannot see the geopolitical justification for Greece to favor France-Austria, or Britain, the big sponsor of the Ottomans, against Russia, their traditional sponsor, or Italy. OTOH, since Greece was far weaker than Italy, it is quite pissible that Anglo-French naval power would intimidate them into neutrality until A-H is vanquished, at that point they would enter the war against the Ottomans. As it concerns Bulgaria and Serbia, they are rivals for regional supremacy, they can only reluctantly cooperate to expel the Ottomans from the Balkans, but otherwise, they shall belong into opposite camps, political butterflies may cause them to switch places in different versions of TTL, but they shall belong into opposite alliance blocs during alt-WWI.

Thanks for clearing that up Zod.

 

[Don Draper]

So let's review who gets what out of this Alliance victory.

Germany: Iraq/Kuwait, Syria, French Equatorial Africa, possibly part of Algeria, Morocco, a few British African posessions(which ones?), Lorraine, other French African posessions I've forgotten to mention(again, which would be most likely?), Indochina, I'm guessing various French Pacific islands as well, Austria, Slovenia, other part of A-H I've forgotten.

Russia: Persia(north directly, south through protectorate), Afghanistan(through protectorate), Manchuria(likely through protectorate), Northern Anatolia, Armenia, possibly Korea though not likely, parts of A-H including at least part of Austrian Poland, Constantinople.

Italy: Tunisia, possibly part of Algeria, Libya, Djibouti, Southern Anatolia(through protectorate), anything else I've forgotten.

What do you think Zod?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

There is a lot in this thread that I don't think is accurate. For one thing, Bismarck didn't support the Russian position, he pretended to as best he could. He knew San Stefano would have to be scaled back, and facilitated this happening.

Second, Russia is not Greece's sponsor, Britain is. Just because Russia and Greece are both Orthodox doesn't mean they're BFF. Their relations were not all that great, and Russia has no interest at all in getting territory for Greece, which would then enter the British sphere of influence.

Third, after the war with the Ottomans, Russia was at death's door. There is no question of them continuing to fight against ANY major power. They are utterly bankrupt, and the reprecussions of this war were felt for decades - which led to a considerable raproachment with the Ottomans, with whom Russia after Berlin had better relations than it did with any Balkan State except maybe Serbia. Everyone was aware how weak Russia was, which was why the Berlin Congress even happened - they had no choice.

Anyway, you'll note that the Russian-Ottoman relationship from 1886-1814 was pretty uneventful. The only problem area was in Eastern Anatolia where the Russians cynically manipulated Armenian nationalists to further their ends.

In the period directly after Berlin, the diplomatic situation was pretty lively with Britain and Russia vying to make the Ottomans a protectorate. Abdul Hamid II won, which is why I think he's one of the most underrated rulers ever.

If for some reason there was a British-Ottoman war, I'm not sure what would happen. Probably pretty much what you said, although I'm not sure you could prevent Austria-Hungary from taking over Bosnia.

If this does happen, Cyprus stays Ottoman and Tunis is not occupied by France.

 

[General Zod]

So let's review who gets what out of this Alliance victory.

Germany: Iraq/Kuwait, Syria, French Equatorial Africa, possibly part of Algeria, Morocco, a few British African posessions(which ones?), Lorraine, other French African posessions I've forgotten to mention(again, which would be most likely?), Indochina, I'm guessing various French Pacific islands as well, Austria, Slovenia, other part of A-H I've forgotten.

Russia: Persia(north directly, south through protectorate), Afghanistan(through protectorate), Manchuria(likely through protectorate), Northern Anatolia, Armenia, possibly Korea though not likely, parts of A-H including at least part of Austrian Poland, Constantinople.

Italy: Tunisia, possibly part of Algeria, Libya, Djibouti, Southern Anatolia(through protectorate), anything else I've forgotten.

What do you think Zod?

Mostly correct, although with some minor additions and clarifications:

Germany: Austria, Bohemia-Moravia, South Tyrol, Slovenia (minus a western slice to Italy), Lorraine, Luxemburg, Syria (through protectorate), Iraq/Kuwait (through protectorate), Morocco, part of Algeria, Gabon, Middle Congo, Ubangi-Shari, part of French West Africa, Indochina, various French Pacific islands as well.

Russia: Galicia, Bukovina, the Straits (through protectorate), Northern Anatolia, Armenia, Persia (north directly, south through protectorate), Afghanistan (through protectorate), Manchuria (north directly, south through protectorate).

Italy: Trento, Austrian Littoral, part of western Slovenia, Dalmatia, Albania, Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia, part of Algeria, Libya, Djibouti, Chad, part of French West Africa, Southern Anatolia (through protectorate), possibly some French Pacific Islands.

If Belgium and the Netherlands enter the war by being invaded by Germany or France, Germany would surely at least make statellite states of both countries, annex Belgian Congo, and various redrawings of the borders in the Low Countries are possible: a) partition of Belgium by German annexation of the parts of the provinces of Liège, of Limburg and of Namur east of the Meuse, and Dutch annexation of Flanders; b) German annexation of Netherlands and Flanders; c) annexation of Belgium to Netherlands; in all cases, union of Nord-Pas de Calais to rump Belgium. In all cases, Germany would make a concerned effort to establish economic union and military alliance with Netherlands, and unite it to the Empire if at all possible.

It is a bit uncertain how much harsh or lenient a peace treaty Britain and Japan would get (it depends how much residual will to fight RGI powers keep after defeating A-H, France, and the Ottomans, and whether UK and JP give up soon after their allies surrender or have to be blockaded).

Depending on the harshness of the peace treaty, Korea may be kept by Japan, or become a Russian protectorate.

Britain would be surely forced to cede Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, and Somaliland to Italy, and share control of Egypt-Sudan (combined protectorate), and the Suez Canal (redistribution of the Canal shares between Britain, Germany, Italy, and Russia) with the Alliance powers.

If the peace treaty is harsh, they might also lose Egypt-Sudan (to Italy), control of the Suez canal (combined administration by Germany, Italy, and Russia), Kenya-Uganda (either to Germany or to Italy), Rhodesia and Beciuanaland (to Germany), Ghana and Nigeria (to Germany), Yemen (to Italy) and Oman (to Germany). In almost all cases Britain would keep control of India, Burma, and most likely Malesia (the may lose the latter in a really harsh treaty).

Russia, Germany, and Italy would surely try to partition China, although they would likely meet serious US opposition if they go too far.

A-H is wiped off the map, with Austria, South Tyrol, Bohemia-Moravia and Slovenia to Germany, Trento, Austrian Littoral, and Dalmatia to Itlay, Galicia and Bukovina to Russia; Hungary with Slovakia, Backa, and northern Transylvania becomes a Russo-German satellite, and Croatia with Hercegovina becomes a German-Italian satellite.

The rest of the Balkan settlement would vary significantly depending on which states were clients of the Alliance during the war: i.e. an Alliance Romania would surely get southern Transylvania and the Banat, also southern Dobruja if Bulgaria was not in the Alliance, otherwise all of Transylvania would go to satellite Hungary; an Alliance Serbia would get most of Bosnia, otherwise it goes to satellite Croatia; an Entente Serbia loses Kosovo to Italy and becomes a Russo-German protectorate; Vardar Macedonia goes to whomever among Bulgaria and Serbia was in the Alliance; Thrace goes to an Alliance Bulgaria, otherwise to Greece; Western Anatolia, Aegean Macedonia, southern Epirus, and Crete go to Greece.

The Ottoman Empire is likewise wiped off the map. Anatolia is partitioned with the Straits as an international (de facto Russian) protectorate, Northern Anatolia and Armenia to Russia, southwestern coast to Greece, Southern Anatolia to Italy, Syria, Iraq/Kuwait and Southeastern Anatolia to Germany. Palestine, hard to say which of the Allies would claim it.

 

[tempestite]

And here's the other

I like that one better as it offers an explanation on how the policy(personality) of William II allows reason.

 

[General Zod]

Some thoughts about the post-WWI geopolitical situation ITTL.

Globally international politics has been simplified to the interplay of four first-tier great powers (Germany, Russia, Britain, and the USA) and two second-tier ones (Italy, Japan).

A-H and the OE have been wiped away and their territory directly annexed by the victors, set up as protectorates of the same, or redistributed to various satellites.

France still exists as a potential second-tier great power, but its power has been crippled with a harsh reverse Versailles peace, with exorbitant reparations, punitive demilitarization, and the loss of Lorraine, Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Nord-Pas de Calais, and the colonial empire. It gets trapped into a spiral of economic collapse, political instability, Fascist/Communist rebellion for several years, and when it makes a tentative recovery it shall be as a German-Italian satellite, either a fragile parliamentary democracy, an authoritarian-conservative junta, or a Fascist regime. Most likely it harbors virulent revanchist feelings, but it is quite unlikely it shall be able to act decisivelty on them for a long time, unless the Allies get seriously distracted elsewhere. Most likely, the defeat triigers yet another radical left-wing "Second Commune" revolution, but the Allied troops just march in and shoot the subversives.

Britain has survived as first-tier great power, with its (slowing waning in relative importance) industrial might, its ties with the Dominions, and control of India, but its relative power has been significantly diminished, having been expelled from continental Europe (where it lacks decent allies), and the Middle East. Since it now lacks the strength to challenge the German-Russian Eurasian hegemony and their Italian sidekick directly, it shall seek to exploit possible motives of dissension between the victors, rebelliousness in defeated France, as well as (likely) national unrest in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. They shall also seek an alliance with the USA and Japan to balance the GRI bloc.

The USA are coming out in their full industrial might just now, being the only great power with the potential to challenge the German-Russian bloc. Initially they are going to stay isolationistic and focus on building their hegemony in South America and their trade penetration into Asia. Clashes with the likely attempts of the RGI hegemony to partition China may be the possible motivation to make them take a more active and interventionistic stance into global politics (and a possible partnership with the British Empire) into Asia, albeit they shall largely disinterest from European and Middle East affairs.

The future of Europe is largely determined by what path the political development and the mutual relationships of the hegemon great powers take. If Germany and Russia enter a competition for continental hegemony, then a second war even more destructive than WWI between Russia and Germany-Italy is in the wings in 1-2 decades. If they remain occasionally quarrelsome but generally cooperating, then they can maintain control and ensure peace on the continent.

If the Russian-German autocratic elites and their Italian sympathizers regard the victory as a confirmation of their hegemony, then the victors are bound for a prolonged period of widespread political and social unrest, as the mass parties and the middle class try to force them to share power, and their control of subject nationalities in Europe gets more and more heavy-handed, forcing the hegemon nations to use most of hteir power to police the continent.

OTOH, it is also quite possible that the backlash of the war effort gives new momentum to the pre-war political movements, forcing the authoritarian-conservative elites to share pwoer with the middle class and the mass parties. If so, Germany and Italy may evolve to fairly advanced parliamentary democracies, and Russia to an hybrid much akin to the pre-war German Empire, which would defuse social and politcal tensions, and possibly allow a more liberal management of subject nationalities. However, some of them are goign to remain rather rebellious nonetheless, especially in the Balkans and the Middle East, and require a significant amount of power projection.

In comparison to OTL, TTL is going to be definitely nicer, since mass-murderous German Nazism and Russian Communism are butterflied away. Something rather akin to Nazism or at least a rather nasty Fascism is quite possible in France, but again unless the attention of the hegemon powers is seriously distracted by internal problems, the Great Depression, widespread rebellions in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, or serious clash with the Anglo-Saxon bloc, the French Fascists are unlikely to be able and cause much damage besides their own unlucky minorities, and their are going to be mostly opportunistic (maybe an intervention into Spain) since France lacks the resources of OTL Nazi Germany or Soviet Union.

Economically, TTL may or may not see a Great Depression. But the economic unification of Europe under German leadership, a less traumatic industrilization of Central/Eastern Europe and Russia and proper development of its abundant resources than Stalinism, and the early industrialization of Italy may be factors that make Europe more prosperous than IOTL.

Geopolitically, TTL may or may not see a second Great War when the Continental German-Russian-Italian bloc (with France either as cowed satellite or a revanchist backstabber) clashes with the Naval Anglo-American bloc and their likely Japanese ally over control of Asia, or it may just head to a multigenerational superpower competition between the USA, the British Imperial Federation, and the European bloc.

 

[Don Draper]

Wow, France really gets stepped on. They've lost all their colonies and a good deal more of Metro France(Algeria, Nord-Pas de Calais, Lorraine, Nice, Savoy). The OTL revanchism of 70-14 will look positively Germanophile in comparison to what would happen TTL. The Third Republic is doomed and likely to go Fascist, though with a Second Commune along the way.
Likewise in Japan I would think we'd see the militarists take power sooner riding a wave of revanchist anti-russian anger.

I'm guessing Germany grabs Hong Kong as well, or does that stay British?

Interesting to see Anschluss ITTL, this time the Austrians aren't facing it from an ally but an enemy? Would there be much resistance to this?

Palestine would be either Italian or German, can't say which. Germany would get nearby Syria and Lebanon so maybe them.

The question is, once the French, Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians are knocked out of the war after a couple of years, how long does Britain hold out alone? As you've said, with all the resources of Continental Europe at their disposal the Germans and Russians would eventually build a fleet powerful enough to take on even the RN. Would the British sue for peace soon after the French are out or would they fight on longer. The longer the war goes on the more colonies the Brits lose in the peace.

How would an attempted partition of China go by the Russo-Germans? Russian North, German South?