Challenge: German-Russian Dual Alliance in WWI, AND have it be defeated

[Wednesday]

How long do you think it would take for a combined German-Italian offensive to seize the Tyrol land strip and establish land connection between the three allies ? Relatively little time and effort, in my estimate (by the standards of WWI mountain trench warfare, of course). So that "extraordinarily low" is more than a little biased IMO. Once that happens, German-Russian armies can support Italian defense of its coasts and British sea power is essentially neutralized. At the very most they can seize Sardinia (trivial loss) and Sicily (painful loss, but it won't cripple Italy in any way, in terms of industrial or manpower potential), and everything the RN seizes here shall be recovered with hefty interests at the peace table.

Germany will be able to spare those kinds of resources in a fight against Austria-Hungary and France, plus it'll be able to funnel them along a single, tenuous supply line that is rather notorious for being a partisan warrior's paradise? Further, while Germany can send men and even some material, they won't be able to break the Royal Navy and Royale blockade of Italy's coasts, which combined with the fact that Italy's industrial areas in the north are highly at risk to French or Austrian attack is going to turn Italy's economy into the crapper, exacerbate the inherent north-south political squabbles and possibly even foment social revolt faster than did occur in Russia.

It just seems as though the Italians would be incurring an undue amount of risk, risk which they historically have been averse to take and which most states have been averse to engage in (except those such as the Transvaal Republic, whose scheme to open the Durban port during the opening stages of the Second Boer War smacks a good deal of this plan.

And I'd like to know what 'bias' I'm evincing here. Am I naturally anti-Italian?

No, the most they can do is to help divert a substantial amount of French and A-H manpower on very difficult fronts for the Entente to breach, given their big manpower disadvantage, which substantially diminishes French strategic possibilities and accelerates Habsburg demise, then they can play an substantial part in the destruction of France. And later their fleets and armies can play an important part in the blockade of the British Isles and the conquest of the OE.

Oh, I don't disagree that the Habsburgs will collapse. It's basically a given. But I think you are rating the Hochseeflotte awfully highly, underrating the Ottoman Empire, and significantly overestimating the German ability to 'destroy' France.

Italian support to this Entente simply is geopolitically ASB. You might as well expect France to take the side of Germany.

And yet, France did take the side of Germany several times. Ever hear of a guy named Jules Ferry?

As usual, typical underestimation of Italy. Nobody is assuming that they could have been preparing for this war for decades.

I don't see what your comment has to do with my comment.

As a matter of fact, economic and militaty collaboration with Germany and Russia for decades has made them substially stronger economically as well as militarily (they already had an economic boom and major industrialization ongoing, and an army refitted on German standards).

So they get an economic boom from trading with countries that are not their natural trading partners, while their natural trading partners - who are also the countries best suited to limit Italian colonial gains, such that they may not get as much (not that they got that much) as in OTL - are presumably carrying out tariff wars and the usual oppositionary things that they do?

Italy does not need truly outrageous amounts of German-Russian troops to defend its coasts against British landings, since British manpower is also called for in France, Persia, Afghanistan, and Turkey. The British army being limited at the start, it is most likely that any available British troops in the first months of the war are absorbed by French, Turkish, and Middle Eastern theaters, with little spared for major landings in the Mediterranean, Gallipoli-style. And it only needs them until A-H collapses, afterwards Italy has manpower to spare (as all the Alliance does), and the land connection to Germany and Russia is wide open. Sure, the Brenner railway shall be a lifeline until then.

Who said anything about landings?

 

[Cornelius]

I would say that a lot depends on how exactly the alliances came in play.

Let's suppose that the prussian-italian alliance on 1866 survives and Italy fight along Prussia against France in 1870. This could lead to an alliance between France, determinated to get revenge, and A-H, fearful of the German empire. In this situation Russia could seek alliance with Germany rather than France, since the Balkans were one of expansion route on the Czars, while the Ottoman empire would seek the french help (considering it the lesser of two evils).

If these are the alliances, Italy would, and could, fight from day one. In OTL Great Britain entered the war only after the germans violated the neutrality of Belgium, but in this ATL Germany and Russia would concentrate their efforts toward A-H first, staying on the defensive in Alsace and Lorene (they could always use the Rhine as a line of defence in the worst of the hypothesis). Once A-H is beaten they would pour their efforts against France (maybe after trying to collapse the ottoman empire with a quick seizure of Istanbul).

Italy could resist to the french in the Alps, since the border run along the drainage divide, a better defensive line than the border with A-H. On seas the italian fleet would have been no match for the french one, but, probably, could be enough of a menace to stave off any attempt to an amphibious operation.

The pivotal question is, though, what Great Britain does. If GB stays neutral the entente is going to be beaten (or probably would not even fight a war in such situation).

But if for any reason Great Britain joins the entente even without the casus belli offered by Belgium, things would change radically. The italian goverment would try to find any possible reason to stay neutral.

It's pretty clear that the entente would see Italy as the weak link of the chain. The french would try first their Plan 17 before, but after a while they would try the italian route. After all it worked for Napoleon, didn't it?

The french and the english navies combined had enough firepower to blast the italian one to the kingdome to come, while the italian beaches would be too difficult to defend against several small landings, both on the islands and the peninsula proper.
Besides in the southern part of Italy the resentement against the conquest by the Savoia was still present and a skillful diplomatic action, coupled with landings of troops and supplies, could cause revolts and even a civil war.
In other word the italian goverment would see its role reduced to be the meat shield for the others two members of the alliance and while it could pay back on the long run, as General Zod wrote, I'm afraid it's a price that no goverment would ever pay.

 

[General Zod]

Germany will be able to spare those kinds of resources in a fight against Austria-Hungary and France,

A-H has to fight on three fronts.

plus it'll be able to funnel them along a single, tenuous supply line that is rather notorious for being a partisan warrior's paradise?

Partisans ? In WWI Austria ? For the Habsburgs ? Against the Germans ?

ROTFL

Further, while Germany can send men and even some material, they won't be able to break the Royal Navy and Royale blockade of Italy's coasts,

If they can't land, the RN can do little real harm to Italy.

which combined with the fact that Italy's industrial areas in the north are highly at risk to French or Austrian attack

Good luck to both coming through the Alps which Italy has been ofrtying for decades (on wide and deep front, totally unlike Tyrol) while they 1-2 other major fronts elsewhere.

is going to turn Italy's economy into the crapper,

Germany can send coal after the Brenner is secured. Italy needs little else that a war economy can't weather through, for the relatively limtied time is shall take for A-H to fall.

exacerbate the inherent north-south political squabbles and possibly even foment social revolt faster than did occur in Russia.

WWI Italy weathered four years of war (rather longer than this WWI is going ot take), with greater casualties, and Caporetto, without breaking.

It just seems as though the Italians would be incurring an undue amount of risk, risk which they historically have been averse to take

The rewards were not as great: all their irredentist claims vs. France and Austria both, 1/3 to 1/2 of the Ottoman, British, French Empires. It is now or never to make Italy a top-tier great power.

And I'd like to know what 'bias' I'm evincing here. Am I naturally anti-Italian?

No. Just a little feeding into stereotype (Italians are coward ineffectual backstabbers).

But I think you are rating the Hochseeflotte awfully highly,

HSF + Russian Fleet + Italian Fleet + captured French and Austrian Fleets.

underrating the Ottoman Empire,

As a matter of fact, I expect them to fall last, since terrain (naoow Thrace, mountain Caucasus) makes them the less liable to Alliance numberical advantage. I expect the Alliance to attack France after they dispatch A-H and its Balkan allies, if any.

and significantly overestimating the German ability to 'destroy' France.

How good are the Anglo-French going to resist, especially if the Belgian and/or Swiss fronts are open, against all of Germany, all of Italy, and most of Russia ?

I don't see what your comment has to do with my comment.

Just to remark that they may easily have been in the GRI Triple Alliance, and preparing to fight this kind of war, for decades ?

So they get an economic boom from trading with countries that are not their natural trading partners,

Last time I checked, Germany has been the natural trading partner of Italy for a century and half.

Anyway, they get an economic boom from extra german investment and sharing in the boom that Germany and Russia get from strong economic partnership.

Who said anything about landings?

If the RN cannot stage any major landing on Italian mainland, the amount of damage they can do to Italy is quite limited. Italy can withstand a blockade for the time it takes to conquer Austria and open the door wide open to Germn and Russian resources.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

But the mobilizable population of the Russian Empire is not 170 million, nor does she have the organization and infrastructure to make full use of the population that is.

France could almost hold off Germany alone, and Russia alone versus the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary is not as bad as it sounds, especially with some British stiffening - in this case the Entente will have total domination of the Black Sea, leaving Russia very vulnerable.

Russia + Germany is not going to defeat France, Britain, A-H, and the Ottomans.

Not gonna happen. the manpower disparity alone is just far to great. According to my penguin atlas the population of Russia was 170 million, Germany 65 million, France 39.5 million, the UK (counting just the British isles) 45 million, Austria 50 million, the Ottoman empire 27 million, and lastly, Italy at 34.5 million. This Russo-German alliance now has 235 million behind it. and 269.5 if Italy joins. The opposing forces have 161.5 million. That's about 108 million difference in favor of the Russo-German alliance with Italy and 73.5 million difference with just Russia and Germany.

Germany now can focus entirely on France and OTL they almost won. If the Germans can get Italy to join (which if they offer some French and Austrian territory they will) then the French are out quickly. And then what are the British going to do then? Plus remember that Austria almost lost in the opening months of the war and would have if the Germans had not driven the Russians back. If the Germans and Russians alone are all buddy-buddy then even if the French, British, Austrians, Ottomans and Japanese are all against them then it still wouldn't matter. And I very much doubt the Italians would join against them since what are they going to gain? All of their territorial interests are in France and Austria.

In short even if it's interesting it falls into ASB.

 

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

There is already one in progress, the authors estimate it should cover the period of WWI in the next week. Sadly for the OP's intents, it shall have the Entente crushed to a pulp.

I did not see that, thank you.

 

[General Zod]

It's pretty clear that the entente would see Italy as the weak link of the chain. The french would try first their Plan 17 before, but after a while they would try the italian route. After all it worked for Napoleon, didn't it?

Good luck with that, if Italy has been expecting this war for decades and fortifying the Alps. In all likelihood, they take a nose as bloody as the one they are getting in Alsace-Lorrainre.

The french and the english navies combined had enough firepower to blast the italian one to the kingdome to come, while the italian beaches would be too difficult to defend against several small landings, both on the islands and the peninsula proper.

The islands, yes. The peninsula, not so difficult.

Besides in the southern part of Italy the resentement against the conquest by the Savoia was still present and a skillful diplomatic action, coupled with landings of troops and supplies, could cause revolts and even a civil war.

It was two generations ago. They are not going to convince anyone of import, beside an handful of pathetic Bourbon nostalgics. Did the CPs got any luck convincing the South to secede again ? Same thing.

In other word the italian goverment would see its role reduced to be the meat shield for the others two members of the alliance and while it could pay back on the long run, as General Zod wrote, I'm afraid it's a price that no goverment would ever pay.

As I wrote, at the very most it delays inevitable Italian intervention until A-H starts to lose. After that, the gain/loss ratio is so good that it is treasonous not to intervene.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I can't really see this as being a goer.

Apart from the Population of the immediate states involved lets leave the Colonies aside for the moment as this could be a factor in both side winning.

With Russia firmly in Germany's corner Rumania will remain neutral at best or outright join the German russian alliance Nothing the Entente can offer them will get them to try and fight the bear and the Eagle all by themselves.
Bulgaria probably joins as well as they have issues with the OE and AHE.

Greece could go either way as could Italy but the latter would require AHE giving up "Italian" territory.

The real big problem here is resources with no eastern front Germany will get food and resources from Russia and Rumania while supplying them with munitions arms and equipment.
The Russian Baltic and White Sea fleets also becomes an issue.

Even if Japan goes after Siberia it is a sparsely populated undeveloped region that can be reconquered when the main enemies are destroyed.
Even if Russia loses temporary control of all of Siberia the logistical issue for the Japanese will make it impossible for them to make this theatre more then a side show.

AHE is destroyed in the first few months of the war as they simply can't fight both Russia and Germany.
This is why I'd say Italy would be a co belligerant just to seize the Italian regions of AHE.
German with some Russian help could then turn it's full might on poor old Belgium and France.
The Russian manpower would be helpful but it is the food and resources that will help the German win.

What would GB do when it fins France and the AHE conquered the OE on the ropes and Japan facing an angry bear and eagle wanting revenge.

Now on to the colonies.
India has a very large population but it is real close to Russia.
How many German rifles would it take to have this colony break into a full scale rebellion.
If this happens how many Australian, South African, British and other Empire forces will it take to keep the heel well and truly on the back of the restive Indian masses.

If I were the British Political leadership I would quickly make it clear that I'd remain neutral if France and the AHE were stupit enough to try and take on these two.

GB might even decide to expand at their expense and seize french colonies just to stop Germany getting them.

This could be a much better war for German and a much worse one for France.

Bulgaria was actually quite friendly with the Ottomans at this point, and has no beefs at all with Austria-Hungary - but a long history of hostility with Russia and very serious issues with Serbia.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

As I see it;

Entente;
France, UK, Austria- Hungary, Japan, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria

Central Powers;
Germany, Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, Greece, (and very possibly Italy).

 

[General Zod]

Bulgaria was actually quite friendly with the Ottomans at this point, and has no beefs at all with Austria-Hungary - but a long history of hostility with Russia and very serious issues with Serbia.

That assuming Serbia, not Bulgaria, is the main Russian proxy in the Balkans. This far from given, however. if the RGI Triple Alliance solidifies in the 1860s-1870s, it is actually quite possible and even likely that they agree on propping up Bulgaria instead of Serbia. The former is much less problematic than the latter for German and Italian strategic interests.

 

[Wednesday]

A-H has to fight on three fronts.

...yes...and?

Partisans ? In WWI Austria ? For the Habsburgs ? Against the Germans ?

ROTFL

I was under the impression that the Germans and the Italians would be the ones breaking open the Brenner Pass.

If they can't land, the RN can do little real harm to Italy.

Are you joking?

Good luck to both coming through the Alps which Italy has been ofrtying for decades (on wide and deep front, totally unlike Tyrol) while they 1-2 other major fronts elsewhere.

When the Italian army evinces enough competence to defend those fortifications consistently, let me know.

Germany can send coal after the Brenner is secured. Italy needs little else that a war economy can't weather through, for the relatively limtied time is shall take for A-H to fall.

Again, you have an awfully low estimation of the resilience of the Habsburg empire and an awfully high estimation of the capacity one of that empire's railroads can manage.

WWI Italy weathered four years of war (rather longer than this WWI is going ot take), with greater casualties, and Caporetto, without breaking.

Closer to three, and again you're lowballing on time estimations (and therefore casualty estimations). Plus, Italy didn't have a blockade and it had consistent and large-scale allied support.

The rewards were not as great: all their irredentist claims vs. France and Austria both, 1/3 to 1/2 of the Ottoman, British, French Empires. It is now or never to make Italy a top-tier great power.

Which is why they still have a chance of coming into the war at all. Statesmen of this era aren't as anxious to fight a war as you think they are.

No. Just a little feeding into stereotype (Italians are coward ineffectual backstabbers).

Then you have failed to see my point and you have used a spectacularly poor choice of words.

HSF + Russian Fleet + Italian Fleet + captured French and Austrian Fleets.

The second element is unlikely to play a significant role, because it's so easily bottled up; the first and third are disunited, and the fourth is unlikely to occur.

As a matter of fact, I expect them to fall last, since terrain (naoow Thrace, mountain Caucasus) makes them the less liable to Alliance numberical advantage. I expect the Alliance to attack France after they dispatch A-H and its Balkan allies, if any.

But they will still be a drain on at the very least Russian and probably German as well manpower. Balkan allies...well, it definitely depends on how the last few decades of the 19th century go.

How good are the Anglo-French going to resist, especially if the Belgian and/or Swiss fronts are open, against all of Germany, all of Italy, and most of Russia ?

Considering their OTL superiority over the Germans and the Germans' usual two-front-war plan's overall inadequacy (single-bound logistics and armies ain't enough to crush any given Great Power anymore, even if it's lower-tier like the Habsburgs or Italy), I doubt it'd be that easy. Besides, surely the French have Alpine forts if the Italians do.

Just to remark that they may easily have been in the GRI Triple Alliance, and preparing to fight this kind of war, for decades ?

They were in the OTL Triple Alliance and in preparation for a French war or an Austrian war for most of that time, neither of which stopped Italy from weighing the situation before it went in.

Last time I checked, Germany has been the natural trading partner of Italy for a century and half.

It's Germany and Russia before the Lombardverbot, especially in money markets.

Anyway, they get an economic boom from extra german investment and sharing in the boom that Germany and Russia get from strong economic partnership.

Uh, what? Economics and diplomacy aren't that well linked.

If the RN cannot stage any major landing on Italian mainland, the amount of damage they can do to Italy is quite limited. Italy can withstand a blockade for the time it takes to conquer Austria and open the door wide open to Germn and Russian resources.

Even with Austria-Hungary under the alliance's thumb, transport wouldn't be that easy. And I still disagree with you about the time such a thing would take.

Anyway, the basic point behind what I'm trying to say is that Italy isn't going to jump into this headfirst, banners flying, even if they are formally allied to Germany-Russia, and when they do fight it won't be a walkover. And I also think that the Habsburg Empire is more resilient than you give it credit for. That's the main point, quibbles on other stuff aside.

 

[General Zod]

As I see it;

Entente;
France, UK, Austria- Hungary, Japan, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria

Central Powers;
Germany, Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, Greece, (and very possibly Italy).

In my TL (with a PoD at the Congress of Berlin, when Bismarck has an epiphany and takes the side of Russia, forsaking A-H), it is:

Entente:
France-Spain (Bourbon personal union under a Boulangist regime), UK, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Ottoman Empire, Serbia, Romania.

Central Powers:
Germany, Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, USA (later).

Not yet taken a stance about Greece, but most likely they join the CPs when A-H and Serbia collapse.

Serbia and Romania are in the Entente because they become (reluctant) A-H clients after TTL's Congress of Berlin.

Bulgaria stays an (eager) German-Russian client for the same reason.

The USA are already strongly leaning on the CP side and revanchist-expansionist since when the Franco-Spanish-Austrian Entente defeated them in the 1898 War and the Triple Alliance sent them support (subsidies, supplies, & volunteers), so it takes relatively little provocation from Entente naval blockades for them to join WWI and pick a rematch against the Entente.

If things go the way I've planned (the other author is in charge of the military side, I'm the political guy), Netherlands joins the CP side, when Belgium and Switzerland are invaded by the Entente.

 

[Wednesday]

In my TL (with a PoD at the Congress of Berlin, when Bismarck has an epiphany and takes the side of Russia, forsaking A-H), it is:

A better (and cleaner IMHO) PoD is in the early Wilhelmine administration. Russia was rather desperate to renew the Reinsurance Treaty, after all. Von Bismarck's slight at the Congress was patched up easily enough in the proceeding decade.

 

[General Zod]

A better (and cleaner IMHO) PoD is in the early Wilhelmine administration. Russia was rather desperate to renew the Reinsurance Treaty, after all. Von Bismarck's slight at the Congress was patched up easily enough in the proceeding decade.

The PoD is not just Bismarck being slightly nicer to Russia in 1878. It is him getting a whole geopolitical epiphany about European alliance systems: He realizes that A) The Habsburg are useless as an ally in comparison to the Russian-Italian combo B) Germany needs to pick a side between Russia and UK and stick to it. True to his OTL preferences, ITTL he picks Russia. True, I could have used the PoD you suggested, or the treaty of Bjorko sticking and causing an allainces switch, but using Berlin allows me an head start to modernize Russia and Italy. Same reasoning with using the 1866-70 PoD (Germany stays allied to Italy after 1866) that someone else suggested.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

In OTL Russia was unable to mobilize properly because the railroad system had not finished upgrading as planned, and still suffered under the worst mobilization system in Europe.

In this TL either Russia is much slower and clumsier to mobilize without the French support, hence less dangerous, or France and allies have had quite a few years to see the German-Russian pact and react accordingly.


Syphon, given the loyalty displayed by India in WWI, including hundreds of thousands of troops, this is the last colony where a rebellion is plausible. Nor is the idea that Russia will ignore over Japan seizing most of the Pacific territories and destroying the Russian position in China, especially since Russia is no longer in any position to gain anything at the expense of Germany or Romania and a victory of the Ottoman Empire is doubtful.

That's probably the detail that renders this whole idea worthless. Germany gets to dominate Europe and Russia gets...what? Austrian Galicia? Nothing from Germany, nothing from Romania, nothing guaranteed anywhere else.


Wednesday, Zod knows the facts, he just prefers to ignore them. A majority of Italy's coal needs can only be delivered by coastal freighter as the rail network below Rome is hopelessly inaccurate so if Italy enters the war she loses the colonies, much of her national economy and the islands of Sicily and Sardinia. Her merchant marine and fleet may or may not survive, depending on how much cowardice/common sense they display.

The likelihood of this economic wreck of a nation being able to pressure France or of Germany being able to supply tens of millions of Italians while blockaded themselves is obviously questionable.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

I guess the Russkies in this scenario would have their eyes open on Afghanistan, British zone of Persia and Ottoman territory. And of course Austrian Galicia. Romania's, Serbia's and Greece's dependence on Russia would grow, with Bulgaria and A-H defeated Russia would be the hegemon of the Balkans. Russia would still have much to win.

 

[RGB]

And Russia alone versus the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary is not as bad as it sounds, especially with some British stiffening - in this case the Entente will have total domination of the Black Sea, leaving Russia very vulnerable.

It is worse than it sounds. Austria will be a non-factor (or even totally dismembered) in months, once that is done, Bulgaria ditto. I doubt the Bulgarians would even really put up a serious fight against Russia in any case, our history suggests they won't even bother, like both times they found themselves on the wrong side.

The Ottomans couldn't dislodge a third-rate force from the Caucasus as it was. Imagine that the Russians aren't losing ground and whole armies of men to the Germans in Prussia and Mazuria - that WAS the bulk of the losses. The Ottomans can certainly hold out for a long time (and with naval advantage perhaps indefinitely), but they're certainly not gaining ground AT ALL, regardless of British support.

Even in naval terms - can the Allies guarantee domination of BOTH Mediterranean and the Baltic? Because they need to do both before venturing into the Black Sea, and the Black Sea Fleet is in decent shape in WW1. It's an honest question, I really don't know.

Russia + Germany is not going to defeat France, Britain, A-H, and the Ottomans.

But here I somewhat agree - it depends on long-term production of war materiel. The Entente have the upper hand in that.

Here's how it goes: Austria is a write-off, Bulgaria (or Serbia or Romania, take your pick) is a write-off, the Ottomans lose ground, dig in, and that's how the operations end there, maybe there's some British activity along the Russian coasts (means nothing in the end). France, however, holds out long enough, and the Ottomans aren't really gone. Even if Greece is in CP, the British will land in Greece instead of the Black Sea anyhow. Proceed to exhaustion.

Although CP Wartime Russia is actually economically better off than Entente Wartime Russia - shorter safe overland routes allow both sale of bread and import of materiel - I suspect they will eventually run out of supplies and food anyway. They can't trade with the USA, the British control the oceanic lanes and are probably pro-British anyway. So in the end they lose.

-----

As for Italy and Greece - I would think a million times before joining in anything. I'd probably dishonour the alliance and wait it out until it's clear that one side is winning.

-----

Russia stands to gain the following:

1. Galicia
2. Romania and Bulgaria as friendly regimes
3. PASSAGE THROUGH THE STRAITS with no more British interference. EVER.
4. Ability to play for influence in Persia (maybe even including a railway and some space at a warm-water port)
5. Ability to play for influence in Afghanistan
6. Ability to play for influence (perhaps unchallenged) in the post-Ottoman area
7. Whatever other puppets they can carve out of Turkey as friendly regimes (Kurds, Assyrians?)

If Japan is involved,

8. revenge in Manchuria and maybe Liaodong
9. South Sakhalin

Korea may be too much to ask for.

There's plenty of reasons to go into a war to end all wars...but I don't think they can actually win without a different USA like in Zod's TL.

 

[Onkel Willie]

In OTL Russia was unable to mobilize properly because the railroad system had not finished upgrading as planned, and still suffered under the worst mobilization system in Europe.

In this TL either Russia is much slower and clumsier to mobilize without the French support, hence less dangerous, or France and allies have had quite a few years to see the German-Russian pact and react accordingly.


Syphon, given the loyalty displayed by India in WWI, including hundreds of thousands of troops, this is the last colony where a rebellion is plausible. Nor is the idea that Russia will ignore over Japan seizing most of the Pacific territories and destroying the Russian position in China, especially since Russia is no longer in any position to gain anything at the expense of Germany or Romania and a victory of the Ottoman Empire is doubtful.

That's probably the detail that renders this whole idea worthless. Germany gets to dominate Europe and Russia gets...what? Austrian Galicia? Nothing from Germany, nothing from Romania, nothing guaranteed anywhere else.


Wednesday, Zod knows the facts, he just prefers to ignore them. A majority of Italy's coal needs can only be delivered by coastal freighter as the rail network below Rome is hopelessly inaccurate so if Italy enters the war she loses the colonies, much of her national economy and the islands of Sicily and Sardinia. Her merchant marine and fleet may or may not survive, depending on how much cowardice/common sense they display.

The likelihood of this economic wreck of a nation being able to pressure France or of Germany being able to supply tens of millions of Italians while blockaded themselves is obviously questionable.

I'd say that Italy won't be as much of a wreck if it joins one of the major blocks immediately and supports it. In the TL of General Zod and me they get quite some German and Russian investment. The Germans also send military advisors to reform the Italian army along German/Prussian lines, leading to a more competent army. Something similar goes for Russia which is slightly more headstrong and therefore gets a stalemate out of the RJW. Also Tsar Alexander II survives due to butterflies and outlives his son Alexander (best case scenario, little optimistic but not impossible).

EDIT: This topic reminded me that I forgot to include anything on the African front in my collaborative TL. Will have to do that after General Zod sends back the chapters I sent him for revision.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Onkel Willie, if these things all happen in the years prior to the war then the Entente has plenty of time to prepare. Also there is ZERO chance of Russian investment in Italy, particularly of military grade, as Russia needed all such investment for herself and still came up short.

As to why Italy suddenly realizes her military needs massive changes but Austria-Hungary doesn't...



RGB, except the Ottomans did fight the Russians to a standstill and inflict horrible losses despite being hit from three sides by the British from Egypt, from the Persian Gulf and the landing at Gallipoli. Now the Ottomans have no defensive needs against British forces and certainly no reason to fear naval landings while the Russian position in the Black Sea is at serious risk from even a moderate British naval force. Indeed, I am unable to find any reference to a single Russian dreadnaught in the Black Sea in WWI.

 

[General Zod]

I'd say that Italy won't be as much of a wreck if it joins one of the major blocks immediately and supports it. In the TL of General Zod and me they get quite some German and Russian investment. The Germans also send military advisors to reform the Italian army along German/Prussian lines, leading to a more competent army. Something similar goes for Russia which is slightly more headstrong and therefore gets a stalemate out of the RJW. Also Tsar Alexander II survives due to butterflies and outlives his son Alexander (best case scenario, little optimistic but not impossible).

Exactly what my estimed co-author said. That is the sense of picking an early PoD: it gives Russia and Italy the time to adapt to the alliance system and modernize accordingly (economically and militarily), which counteracts most of the problems GR quoted. If the Italian and Russian railway network is efficient and theri economy sturdier, they can mobilize quickly and do not need coastal freighters, and they feel relatively little economic pinch from the blockade, as does Germany.

As for Russia's share of the war booty, I can assure you it is rather extensive: Galicia, northern Anatolia, the ever-coveted Turkish Straits, Persia, Baluchistan, North China...

And yes, the Entente backward nations (Spain and A-H) modernize better ITTL as well (the Ottomans don't since they only enter the Entente at wartime), but the point is that the strength a decently modernized Russia and Italy can add to Germany trumps what a decently modernized Spain and Austria can add to Britain and France.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Onkel Willie, my bad but there's another serious problem with the TL which I mentioned earlier. What do the Russians get out of this?

So far as I can tell Germany's gain are immediate and clear while Russia must accept a major loss against Japan, a token gain from Austria(if you consider a single province of hostile Poles much of a gain) and nothing else until later in the war, assuming everything goes well and Germany not inclined to consider a separate peace if Berlin is feeling content.

That really doesn't strike me as a plan Russia will be very comfortable with.