DBWI: No Austro-Russian vs German WWI

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by kasumigenx, Jun 14, 2019.

  1. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    What if the Adolf Hitler, the Austrian does not kill the Kaiser and start the WWI, I remember this is the reason we have a revived Poland under the Cieszyn branch of Habsburg married to a Romanov and it has the whole Upper Silesia, Cieszyn, the Polish border cities, Posen, Pomerellia and East Prussia but without Eastern Galicia, Lithuania and White Ruthenia which are annexed by Russia , aside from that Prussia was annexed by a Habsburg-Lorraine ruled Germany which has Czechia and Austria.

    Would Britain still rule the waves in the Present?
     
    Dolan and Ferd42 like this.
  2. Landmass Wave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2017
    Location:
    Landmass between New Orleans and Mobile
    Something else would have started WW1. Maybe some fool thing in France, or a communist revolution somewhere that tried to expand and needed to be put down. Different coalitions would have formed so the possible outcomes grow exponentially from there.
     
    karatachi and kasumigenx like this.
  3. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    But at least we have a stable Polish-German border IOTL, the Czechs and Lusatians continue to be a minority in Germany.
     
  4. skarosianlifeform Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    If not beset by France (who jumped in), Austria and Russia simultaneously, Germany might have held the line.

    Also, if Austria and Russia had not been allied, I think they wouldn't have invaded the Ottoman Empire during the war. Russia would have not been able to fight both Germans and Ottomans. As you know, the Austrian-Russian invasion of the neutral OE was what brought Britain into the war, on the German-Ottoman side.

    In turn, Britain not joining the war would have meant Japan not declaring war on Russia, Austria and France either.

    Then, the USA might be very different culturally. Until WWI, the country was mostly Anglophile, while Irish-Americans were heavily discriminated against.

    However, WWI changed it. The Royal Navy surface blockade, combined with the Kriegsmarine USW, the Armenian Genocide and the Twenty One Demands (ie. Japan trying to basically annex China) pushed the USA into war.

    Which in turn, led to the US Army liberating Ireland, India and Malaya from British occupation. Leading to better integration of Irish, Slavs, Greeks, East and South Asians into US society.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
    Beacon, James Ricker and kasumigenx like this.
  5. HIM Dogson Rationally Royalist

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Location:
    Oxford University
    One way to prevent this alliance from forming is to have Ottoman power in the Balkans collapse way earlier. As the Ottomans still controlled the same core of lands they had since the Napoleonic Wars the Russians and Austrians could basically divide the Balkans evenly in terms of influence; Austria gets Bosnia, Albania, and Greece, while Russia gets Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia,and of course the straits- and that was exactly what happened when the Turks joined the Alliance. Although as we know the Romanov-Habsburg Alliance remains strong to this day, I have to wonder if this would have been the case had the Turks fallen earlier. After all, they wouldn't have had the existential threat posed by Communist France, Germany, and Italy to keep them together.
     
    skarosianlifeform likes this.
  6. skarosianlifeform Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Another way would have been to avoid the wave of Communist revolutions.

    I mean, seriously, Germany and France had been mortal enemies. A Communist revolution in Germany should have caused an anti-communist massive backlash in France, not the spread of Revolution.

    But... Vienna and St Petersburg managed the impossible through their arrogance. The Treaty of Vienna was a major humiliation for Italy and Germany (the vanquished), as expected. Italy lost Veneto and Lombardy, back to Austria. Germany lost Bavaria. However, it was also a major humiliation to France, which barely gained anything (except Alsace and Moselle) in the war despite being one of the victors. France losing Indochina to Japan didn't help either. So, Frenchmen felt like they had bled for the Czar and the Emperor. And when German revolution happened, it spread.
     
  7. HIM Dogson Rationally Royalist

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Location:
    Oxford University
    I'd disagree that it was so unexpected. The French working class had been discontented with the situation since the Paris Commune, and the British blockade hit the French hardest out of any of the Entente. Indeed, there was a reactionary crackdown against socialism led by men like Petain and Foch, but the French working class overthrew the government in response.
     
    skarosianlifeform likes this.
  8. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    But a few years later Austria Annexed Germany whole and we now have Karl of Habsburg Lorraine as ruler of Germany, I remember, Karl being impersonated by Tom Hanks.
     
  9. HIM Dogson Rationally Royalist

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Location:
    Oxford University
    Well, I mean, it took an entire Second Great War to manage it, but yeah, that is essentially what happened. It's a revival of the composite monarchies that were dominant in the early modern period, as the House of Habsburg and an advisory council of state are the only thing linking the German, Hungarian, and Illyrian polities- the ultimate rejection of the ethnonationalism epitomized by Germany and Italy.
     
    kasumigenx likes this.
  10. kasumigenx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Even Portugal, Russia and Spain remain monarchies and diverse nowadays, ethnonationalism is of course contained in Poland(which has all of the majority Polish areas that were under the Austria, Russia and Prussia) and Italy.
     
  11. Tamara Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2019
    So why do you guys think that Britain sided with the allies in the second war? They were just as humiliated by the Vienna and St. Petersburg treaties as the Germans and the French.
    As a side note, I’ve always loved the scene it that movie The New War, when after the British officially join the allies, the American ambassador tells them they better start building some ships. They had been forbidden from having a navy at the treaties, so there’s just this sense of triumph that they’re finally allowed to do what they’re best known for again.
     
    kasumigenx likes this.
  12. skarosianlifeform Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Well, in the First World War, Britain had been utterly humiliated, with the USA conquering Canada, British Caribbean, Australia and New Zealand, and liberating Ireland (where they kept bases), India and Malaya.

    Before the war, Britain mostly traded with her empire and with the USA. After the war, Britain needed to resume this trade, and so, needed to renounce ambitions of reconquest (to get cordial relations with the USA, Ireland and India). Soon, Britain fully entered the US allies and trade network.

    Then, there was the problem of Russia, Austria and Japan dominating Eurasia. Basically, Russia was dominating Central Asia, Persia and Near East (all the way to Sinai and Arabia), while Austria controlled Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Both countries also dominated Eastern Europe and Balkans.
    Historical British policy had always been to prevent one power (or group of powers) dominating the continent.

    Finally, Japan (despite being on the British side in WWI, which overall lost) emerged as a victor, dominating China, Filipinos, Indochina and Siam.
    And... Japan become a threat to the remaining British East Indies [OTL Malaya and Indonesia], as panasian imperialistic ambitions developed (and the IJN wanted more glory).

    So, naturally, as Japan, Russia and Austria became the Imperial Pact, in response, the USA, Britain, Ireland and India formed the Alliance for Democracy. It was also a matter of culture (absolute monarchies vs liberal democracies).
     
    karatachi and Tamara like this.
  13. HIM Dogson Rationally Royalist

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Location:
    Oxford University
    Britain's leadership was extremely pragmatic after the loss of India. She had after all won the war in Africa, and once the French collapsed into revolution there was no Entente power left that cared enough to make them leave. This meant that France was Britain's main geopolitical rival. Britain survived the 20s and 30s against both the left and the right. Really the question isn't why they joined the Allies, it's why democracy survived long enough for them to do that.
     
  14. skarosianlifeform Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Indeed. They faced both the Socialist Union (France, Germany and Italy), which was busy spreading sedition across Africa (and with the British holding everything but North Africa, Angola and Mozambique they were overstretched), as well as the Imperial Pact. So naturally they joined the US-led Alliance for Democracy.

    Also, I think conquering French (and other European) holdings in Africa during WWI was what saved British democracy. There were millions of malcontents, but Britain at least wasn't feeling humiliated. Beaten in Eurasia yes, but a resounding win in Africa at least.
     
  15. Tamara Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2019
    Getting back to the original question, I wonder if, had Austria not allied with Russia, what they’re relationship with Germany would have been like. On one hand, I could say them becoming allies based on language and ethnicity, but on the other hand a powerful expanding German Empire would probably pose an existential threat to the Austrian Empire. I really don’t know what would happen there.
     
  16. skarosianlifeform Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Well, Germany came too late to gain overseas colonies, so once the Franco-Prussian War was done, only Austria and Russia remained as viable targets for expansion.
     
    Tamara likes this.
  17. Tamara Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2019
    I thought of another interesting POD: what if the Alliance for Democracy had sided with the communists instead of with the Imperial Pact? I mean, tensions between the Alliance and the Pact had been pretty high for a while, so there’s a chance it could have happened.
     
    skarosianlifeform likes this.
  18. skarosianlifeform Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Indeed. Between the USA resenting Japan (because the Japanese had basically taken China for themselves and closed it to foreign trade or influence), and Japan looking greedily on the (remaining) British East Indies, the Democrats and Imperials might very well have fought a war.

    However, Britain did her best to calm those tensions (with success). After all, the Internationale trying to stir up revolts in British Africa (ie. destroy the British Empire), and even worse, the Red Franco-German threat right across the Channel, was more important (to London) than pissing contests over Asia.

    The British went above and beyond, actually selling the East Indies to Japan (in return for money and Japan opening Chinese markets to the Alliance). Which remained one of the major problems between Pact and Alliance. And allowed everyone to focus on the Socialists.
     
  19. Tamara Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2019
    Yeah. I’m very glad that the two blocks get along so well today.