Alternate WW1 Alliances

So what drives Austria to make a pants on head retarded mistake like alienating both Germany and Russia and being unfriendly with Italy and Serbia.

The Austrians aren't dumb, they know that they'll have to cozy up to Germany if they want to survive, France and Britain won't be able to help them when they're surrounded on all sides by enemies.
 
So what drives Austria to make a pants on head retarded mistake like alienating both Germany and Russia and being unfriendly with Italy and Serbia.

The Austrians aren't dumb, they know that they'll have to cozy up to Germany if they want to survive, France and Britain won't be able to help them when they're surrounded on all sides by enemies.
I think it's more likely that in this scenario, it's the Germans that alienated Austria-Hungary in order to keep Russia friendly. Probably Willy prefering his cousin over the Habsburgs. Just another 'Fuck Bismarck' from Wilhelm II.
 
So what drives Austria to make a pants on head retarded mistake like alienating both Germany and Russia and being unfriendly with Italy and Serbia.

The Austrians aren't dumb, they know that they'll have to cozy up to Germany if they want to survive, France and Britain won't be able to help them when they're surrounded on all sides by enemies.

Agreed. If anything, a Dreikaiserbund alliance would me more logical as a WWI realingment scenario than what the OP proposes.
 
Any Franco-Austrian Alliance would most likely come about from Germany telling Austria to go screw itself. Absent and Alliance with either Germany or Russia and with Italy likely eagerly waiting to join them from the sidelines. I feel Austria would gravitate toward the next biggest player in the region in the Ottoman Empire supporting them against the Balkan minors and Russia in exchange for support against Germany and Russia.
 
Second tier is probably a bit harsh, but the Russian 1st and 2nd armies were certainly the best prepared of the Russian armies in 1914.
So the best prepared weren't the ones with the much longer prep time? Paper numbers don't matter much if their mobilization is rushed.

Racing to join the losing side sounds more than a little bit daft and my interpretation of your wording suggested it was a near certainty.
You'll note that I said "should" not "when". And it's certainly no more "daft" than when Romania join the war while surrounded on 5 sides by the Central Powers, with a single rail line connecting it to Russia and the industrial capacity to only produce one bullet per rifle per day.

I am quite certain the Romanian Queen had no significant influence on Romanian foreign policy, indeed British influence in Romania was deliberately slight because OTL the British ordinarily shied away from potential entanglements in the Balkans. German had a strong relationship with Romania despite this being impaired by its relationship with A-H and the Transylvanian issue. I understand the German relationship was cited as a reason for Romania not to join a Serbian-Greek alliance early in 1914. I assume Russia had influence over Romania would have been by virtue of intimidation.
Your certainty seems to be entirely misplaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_of_Romania#Queen_of_Romania_.281914.E2.80.9327.29

Also you're mistaken about the Kingdom of Romania's relations with A-H, OTL they were actually quite friendly (thus why Romanians had Austrian Rifles) even if popular opinion was against the Hungarians. Romania was also not friendly at all with Russia whose panslavic ambitions were perceived as a direct threat to Romania, they were also economic rivals, and its not like the Russian Empire was any better to the Bessarabians than the Hungarians were to the Transylvanians.

It is far more likely that Romania would enter early to recover Transylvania from an failing A-H, than Bulgaria rushing to join a failing A-H.
So what you're saying is that its logical for the Romanian army to march off to war without a source of replacement rifles, but illogical for Bulgaria to attack an opponent it knows it can easily beat and in doing so would open up supply lines to Austria?

So once the Italians enter the war (mid 1915) the burden became very significant...
It eventually did, but it took some months for Italy to apply that pressure.

Yes, in 1914 the Russians were at their strongest compared to other major powers. By 1914 the Russians had spent years and vast amounts of treasure preparing for war and the Russians still had their best trained troops and pre-war stockpiles of supplies. The Russian effectiveness deteriorated rapidly as the war progressed due to difficulty in replacing trained manpower and the inability of its industry to effectively supply its military. Conversely, the A-H military in the decade or so leading into WW1 were starved of funds for modern equipment and its doctrine was not great. Despite being monstered in the opening months, German co-operation and assistance enabled the A-H military performance to generally improve as the war progressed, admittedly from a very low base.

OTL Russian leadership was certainly no worse than the A-H efforts - again a rather low bar...
Oh you're talking relative strength rather than actual capability. Fair enough, but it does raise a few questions regarding TTL, specifically how strong Russia would be without French capital, and what Austria would do differently with its peace time army if it realized how hopelessly surrounded it was.


Also returning to my earlier mention of OTL's Romania, it was in a much worse scenario than TTL's Austria-Hungary, and it held out for more than a year. So I really don't see how TTL's Austria-Hungary will get steam rolled in under a year.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Agreed. If anything, a Dreikaiserbund alliance would me more logical as a WWI realingment scenario than what the OP proposes.
Would Austria-Hungary agree to defer to Russian interests in the Balkans, though?

I think it's more likely that in this scenario, it's the Germans that alienated Austria-Hungary in order to keep Russia friendly. Probably Willy prefering his cousin over the Habsburgs. Just another 'Fuck Bismarck' from Wilhelm II.
That, or Kaiser Bill can get a personality change and become a German nationalist.
 

BooNZ

Banned
@BooNZ I can pretty much agree with you on almost all points. My quip about the French guns was about how the 75s only had direct fite capabilities in 1914 IIRC, making then absolutely useless at the opening stages of the war despite all of its advantages (and once they could fire indirectly, they were probably the best field guns on the war).

The French 75mm did have indirect fire capacity, indeed their introduction allowed the French to pioneer the concept in their artillery doctrine well ahead of any other military power. Even by 1914 the French 75mm was still superior to its German equivalent, but light artillery is simply not particularly effective against entrenched positions when compared to heavy artillery and howitzers. I was seeking to illustrate the relative potency of modern artillery and the severe handicap obsolete artillery would have had on A-H performance.

My overall point, though, is that the Austro-Hungarians, on the defensive and basically forced not to commit major offensives because of the combined Russian-German pressure, have an absolutely massive advantage and it is definitely NOT clear that it will collapse in 1915 at all.

Being on the defensive does not suddenly eliminate the serious and systemic shortfalls within the A-H military. The Germans had repeatedly demonstrated an ability to overcome Belgian, French and Russian defenders without excessive losses. In 1914 the Germans had the best trained and best equipped military and a doctrine that was 'less bad' than other militaries of the day. A-H was not exactly Sparta and was the least prepared of the major powers.

I find your confidence in A-H resilience refreshing - too often folks ignore the virtues and potential of A-H.

I find Italy joining the war incredibly unlikely in the place, while if Serbia joins, then Bulgaria is likely to join the altentente. Romania isn't likely to join either; OTL when they weren't vaguely pro-Austrian (they bought A-H firearms and river monitors), they were pro-French culturally. Since they are all in the altentente, then unless Russia convinces them (which they couldn't iOTL, maybe they could now? Sounds unlikely), then Romania is likely neutral.

OTL Russia had to restrain Serbia from going to war as early as 1908, so almost immediate Serbian belligerence is not in doubt. My recent reading suggests the Romanians were increasingly alienated from A-H due to Magyarization* of Romanians and the desire to recover Transylvania. Romanian hostility towards A-H was somewhat mitigated by a strong German relationship, but in this scenario there will be no such restraint. The enthusiasm of Italy and Romania to tear apart A-H would be restrained by the abysmal state of their militaries, but by 1915 greed to recover territories will likely overcome such concerns.

*I suspect it may have been of your posts regarding Magyarization on another thread I found extremely interesting.
 
Agreed. If anything, a Dreikaiserbund alliance would me more logical as a WWI realingment scenario than what the OP proposes.

That might make a rather formidable combination, especially if Wilhelm II displays more tact overall, the reason it lasts, then Germany fails at coming off as a brute or bully more often than not. I suspect this would encourage an Anglo-French alliance with Italy tipped between them and OE trying harder to play them off each other since the Ottomans no longer have much to offer Germany. Romania sees a lot of pressure to join the Three Emperors, as does Bulgaria, Greece sweats it trying to look neutral as it soaks up all the Anglo-French can give. Serbia stays Russia's pilot fish but is far less dangerous, might get more out of this from A-H. Might Belgium be more inclined to cozy to France here? I assume the Dutch stay close to Germany. The Swedes get pressure to be closer too. I see a lot less threat to peace in Europe but the friction should intensify in Africa and Asia. Japan will get a boost as the vanguard in the far east and China becomes a more dangerous crisscross of imperial aspirations. This should become quite the China-screw.
 
I don't think a Dreikaiserbund would allow a world war so long as it exists. Italy would have to contend with Austria-Hungary alone or else with some minor Balkan states for backup, so it'd probably shy away from those odds. And without them, Britain, France and the Ottomans are simply outgunned. The strategic depth and low defensive frontage the DKB would enjoy makes them a really imposing behemoth, actually.
 
What if the Central Powers remains only Germany and A-H, with vague connections to OE and Bulgaria, a warmish Romania and more hostile-neutral Italy? Assuming France and Russia still ally, I assume they can trust Greece, Spain and Serbia to be friends. Might the British stay aloof? (Likely many other butterflies at work). In other words is Italy the tipping point? And if so does a Germany-A-H versus France-Russia appear more evenly matched so as to maintain the fiction of balance of power?
 
Do people think I should edit the OP so that Romania is neutral at the beginning rather than having jumped in immediately?
 
Do people think I should edit the OP so that Romania is neutral at the beginning rather than having jumped in immediately?
I'm of the opinion that Romania only stayed out as long as it did because it pro-German but also anti-Austrian, in a situation were it's those two things arnt conflicting, I could easily see them choosing to join from the get go if promised Transylvania
 
I think it's more likely that in this scenario, it's the Germans that alienated Austria-Hungary in order to keep Russia friendly. Probably Willy prefering his cousin over the Habsburgs. Just another 'Fuck Bismarck' from Wilhelm II.

What does Germany gain from Russian domination of the Balkans though? Gobbling up the German pieces of Austria doesn't compare to Russia gaining it's pan-Slavic ideals. Once this happens, Germany is all alone to face down the bear in Europe.
 
The French 75mm did have indirect fire capacity, indeed their introduction allowed the French to pioneer the concept in their artillery doctrine well ahead of any other military power. Even by 1914 the French 75mm was still superior to its German equivalent, but light artillery is simply not particularly effective against entrenched positions when compared to heavy artillery and howitzers. I was seeking to illustrate the relative potency of modern artillery and the severe handicap obsolete artillery would have had on A-H performance.

God damnit. Did I mix up guns? I thought I read about thr Mlle 1897 having a terrible carriage by the start of the war that severely limited its indirect fire capabilities at first. Or I am mixing it up with poor doctrine where they tried using them in direct fire and got wrecked?

But yeah, totally agreed. Artillery was the king of the battlefield for a long time. WW1 demonstrated that horrendously well. I guess I just wanted to point put that A-H had the potential to catch up far more quickly than most people (both back then and now) give/gave then credit for.


Being on the defensive does not suddenly eliminate the serious and systemic shortfalls within the A-H military. The Germans had repeatedly demonstrated an ability to overcome Belgian, French and Russian defenders without excessive losses. In 1914 the Germans had the best trained and best equipped military and a doctrine that was 'less bad' than other militaries of the day. A-H was not exactly Sparta and was the least prepared of the major powers.


That's true enough, but I doubt the Russians can enjoy the successes they had in 1916-7, but in 1914 instead. I also doubt the Germans can effectively focus on Austria-Hungary politically or logistically. I can imaginr TTL's von Schlieffen still made his plans, but with A-H in place of Russia. Plus, advancing through the Danube valley or into Moravia/Upper Hungary are much more difficult ordeals than it seems. Especially since the former has Krakow and its fortress in the way on the left flank and the latter is one of the most important part of the Empire, home to some of its best units and relatively-easily reinforceable from Hungary and Croatia. They'll definitely advance, sure (Salzburg is practically undefendable), but how far can they realistically get until they are bogged down? Plus, no doubt TTL's A-H is a lot more scared of a hostile Germany and has prepared the likely channels of attack (as they did in Galicia, like the Germans and French did at their border, etc.).


I find your confidence in A-H resilience refreshing - too often folks ignore the virtues and potential of A-H.

I'm not even going to lie. Austria-Hungary is very much an obsession for me. I've been studying it for years now and I've been frustrated by how dogshit its historiagraphy has been until, like, ten or twenty years ago in the English-speaking world, and how people who know next to nothing about it consistently dismisses it.

OTL Russia had to restrain Serbia from going to war as early as 1908, so almost immediate Serbian belligerence is not in doubt. My recent reading suggests the Romanians were increasingly alienated from A-H due to Magyarization* of Romanians and the desire to recover Transylvania. Romanian hostility towards A-H was somewhat mitigated by a strong German relationship, but in this scenario there will be no such restraint. The enthusiasm of Italy and Romania to tear apart A-H would be restrained by the abysmal state of their militaries, but by 1915 greed to recover territories will likely overcome such concerns.

*I suspect it may have been of your posts regarding Magyarization on another thread I found extremely interesting.

Yeah, Magyarisation is quite a complex subject marred by post-war/post-KuK historiagraphy. It was definitely a sore point in educated Roumanian circles of the time, which made Roumania's entry into the war relatively easy until its offensive failed and it got invaded.

You're quite right, although don't forget that educated Roumanians and the Elite (other than the King) view the French as their cultural cousin and respected them greatly. ITTL, Roumanians are going to have to deal with the paradox of their Francophilia, the question of Transylvania and the Banat, their Prussi- err, German-born king and Russian influence all at once. Hell, Bessarabia might come into play as well since Franco-Austrian diplomacy might meddle and try to convince them away from Austria and against Russia.
 
Would Austria-Hungary agree to defer to Russian interests in the Balkans, though?

Not sure, though I would assume that some compromise, even if only nominal, would be reached rather than having any of the Great Powers completely defer its interests to another.

There's a reason that alliance fell out OTL.

IOTL it ended up being a German - A-H alliance with Russia falling out. There were some really good reasons why it went that way.
 
What does Germany gain from Russian domination of the Balkans though? Gobbling up the German pieces of Austria doesn't compare to Russia gaining it's pan-Slavic ideals. Once this happens, Germany is all alone to face down the bear in Europe.
Germany, in a best case scenario, neutralises France to its west while protecting its eastermost border. If it partitions A-H, it satisfies the pangermanist tendencies in Conservative circles and radical nationalists. Maybe it can even convince Russia of only taking Galicia, rump-Hungary as a satelite (with Roumania gaining it's ridiculous maximist claims) and Serbia also gaining its maxist claims. With the west secured and Britain in a 'peace of honour' situation, the German High Command can focus on its fear of Russia and plan for the nigh-inevitable conflict between two massive European power blocs.

Just an idea.
 
Germany has to fight all of Europe alone, basically. That sounds hard.
Well, they aren't exactly alone - they have a number of medium powers helping them out (mostly by keeping A-H busy and thus vulnerable), as well as a sort of first mover advantage, given that Russia is slow to mobilize.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Well, they aren't exactly alone - they have a number of medium powers helping them out (mostly by keeping A-H busy and thus vulnerable), as well as a sort of first mover advantage, given that Russia is slow to mobilize.
You have Romania bordering Russia, Bulgaria and A-H, Italy bordering France and A-H while dealing with A-H & Anglo-French naval assets, Serbia bordered by A-H, Greece and Bulgaria. In this thread I highlighted A-H weakness, but despite those shortcomings it could probably have handled Italy, Serbia and Romania handily unassisted.
 
Aren't we all forget some important factors regarding Austria-Hungary though?

First of all, a huge amount of capital was invested in Russia by the French in this particular era, which were crucial elements for the Russian economic growth in OTL. Now, all of these investments would pour into Austria-Hungary, which would be a huge boost to the economy, which growed fast even in OTL.

Second, do you really think that, without the protecting hand of big brother Germany, Austria-Hungary would neglect it's military as it did in OTL? And even it's not just like Germany won't protect them against Russia, but they even attack together with them! Not even the Hungarian nobles would be that foolish to do so! In TTL Austria-Hungary would probably spend around twice as many on it's army as in OTL and it would be one of the best equipped and prepared military of the time, that's for sure.
 
Top