Different World War 1?

World War 1 begins just as otl but different nations join in earlier on and on different sides. 1914 Central Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Italy, Netherlands, and Bulgaria. Japan joins the Central Powers in 1915. Entente Powers: France, Russia, Belgium, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, and Albania. Neutrals: Britain and United States.

How does this war go and what would the aftermath of it be?
 

Deleted member 94680

World War 1 begins just as otl but different nations join in earlier on and on different sides. 1914 Central Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Italy, Netherlands, and Bulgaria. Japan joins the Central Powers in 1915. Entente Powers: France, Russia, Belgium, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, and Albania. Neutrals: Britain and United States.

How does this war go and what would the aftermath of it be?

If the beginning of the War is as OTL and Belgium’s neutrality violated, Britain won’t be neutral.
 
If the beginning of the War is as OTL and Belgium’s neutrality violated, Britain won’t be neutral.
Due to how close Belgium is to the conflict could the war go on for half a year or a little more with Germany trying to play it safe with Belgium before Belgium is somehow pulled into the conflict in a way that would not bring Britain in?
 

Deleted member 94680

Due to how close Belgium is to the conflict could the war go on for half a year or a little more with Germany trying to play it safe with Belgium before Belgium is somehow pulled into the conflict in a way that would not bring Britain in?

Yes. If Belgium revokes its neutrality, or joins the Entente without a German violation of its borders, the balance of the British Cabinet would probably not vote for War.

OTL it was only the German Army crossing the Belgian border and refusing the British ultimatum that caused the Cabinet to vote for War, believing they were obligated to mobilise under the clauses in the Treaty of London.

Saying that, it would then depend on the balance of the War if then realpolitik takes over and ‘hawks’ in the British government push for a DoW simply to prevent Germany hegemony of the Continent.
 
Italy staying as part of the Triple Alliance to dispute Nice and other French territories makes sense, but the Italian government prefers what they can snag from Austria-Hungary rather than France. There was also a buildup of diplomatic tension between Italy and Austria-Hungary. The Netherlands joining the war at all does not make sense. They would be forced in if their neutrality is violated, which is more likely to be performed by their neighbor Germany. Japan fighting the Franco-Russian Alliance also makes sense, but the Japanese Government recognized how pointless such a move would be, considering that the Russo-Japanese War was only a decade prior. Britain, France, and Russia had reconciled in the late 1900s and early 1910s against Germany, and as part of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, Japan adopted Britain's new position toward France and Russia. Japan would only enter the war as Britain's ally because, while it had decent relations with France, they didn't like either Germany or Russia.
 
Last edited:
Amusingly, I think the biggest problem on the list is an Entente Albania. The most influential European nation there? Italy who is CP. The Ottomans who have lingerng loyalties there and who many local leaders have connections to? CP. All the nations who literally just tried t make them not exist? All entente.
 
Ok, just before the war, Germany changes its war plans to be able to wait a week after mobilization before launching a west front attack through Belgium (concern over British sensibilities about Belgium), recently completed fortifications in the Masurian lakes area, and the overall rational need to play politics for a week before launching a world war make this all possible to consider this. Plus the navy and colonial office want the extra week to fit out some raiders and ship stuff out to the colonies, gather up some merchants to send home and crash import some stuff. Germany DOWs Russia as part of the diplomatic escalation, but does not DOW France.

France DOWs Germany.
Britain initially neutral hoping to avoid war, still negotiating with Germany over Serbia, but mobilizes her fleet.
France misreads German intentions, that the Germans want to strike east, start pressuring the Belgian government to allow French armies east of the Meuse. The British government backs this and applies diplomatic pressure on the Belgians to allows this. The Belgians protest but allow this. The French move across. This triggers a German reaction, Germany DOWs Belgium, and the Germans launch their attack, sort of OTL like.

This turn of events backfires in the British cabinet. Germany and Britain had been working up a peace deal in Serbia but that is forlorn now. France actually invaded Belgium first and anti war sentiment breaks out. Germany makes some smart diplomatic pledges about what she wants out of the war and does diplomacy well for a change, Britain hesitates....
 

Deleted member 94680

Ok, just before the war, Germany changes its war plans to be able to wait a week after mobilization before launching a west front attack through Belgium (concern over British sensibilities about Belgium), recently completed fortifications in the Masurian lakes area, and the overall rational need to play politics for a week before launching a world war make this all possible to consider this. Plus the navy and colonial office want the extra week to fit out some raiders and ship stuff out to the colonies, gather up some merchants to send home and crash import some stuff. Germany DOWs Russia as part of the diplomatic escalation, but does not DOW France.

France DOWs Germany.
Britain initially neutral hoping to avoid war, still negotiating with Germany over Serbia, but mobilizes her fleet.
France misreads German intentions, that the Germans want to strike east, start pressuring the Belgian government to allow French armies east of the Meuse. The British government backs this and applies diplomatic pressure on the Belgians to allows this. The Belgians protest but allow this. The French move across. This triggers a German reaction, Germany DOWs Belgium, and the Germans launch their attack, sort of OTL like.

This turn of events backfires in the British cabinet. Germany and Britain had been working up a peace deal in Serbia but that is forlorn now. France actually invaded Belgium first and anti war sentiment breaks out. Germany makes some smart diplomatic pledges about what she wants out of the war and does diplomacy well for a change, Britain hesitates....

Need some good PoDs there
 
No doubt, you got to work pretty hard to make the original post. I gave up on getting the Netherlands on the same side as the central powers.
If the Netherlands is convinced Britain won’t enter the war could they be convinced by Germany to join the central powers? They are friendly with Germany and if Belgium is dragged in as described in the other post could that stir a response from the Netherlands? Germany might want to recreate the United Kingdom of the Netherlands as a strong buffer state against France after winning the war. Belgium, Luxembourg, and maybe even Nord-Pas-de-Calais being put under Dutch rule would be seen as a positive. A friendly Netherlands strength at the expense of France could be a German war goal. Flanders joining Netherlands is not a outrageous claim. Adding the rest of Belgium and Luxembourg might not even be pushing it to far. Germany could even push for Dutch Nord-Pas-de-Calais if they make no claims or demands in Western Europe. A neutral Britain might also take this less negativity then Germany taking anything directly in Western Europe especially if Germany offers them Congo. Britain gets its cape to Cairo railroad with that gain. I don’t think the Netherlands would turn away from claiming past lands if they thought they could realistically get it.
 

Deleted member 94680

If the Netherlands is convinced Britain won’t enter the war could they be convinced by Germany to join the central powers? They are friendly with Germany and if Belgium is dragged in as described in the other post could that stir a response from the Netherlands? Germany might want to recreate the United Kingdom of the Netherlands as a strong buffer state against France after winning the war. Belgium, Luxembourg, and maybe even Nord-Pas-de-Calais being put under Dutch rule would be seen as a positive. A friendly Netherlands strength at the expense of France could be a German war goal. Flanders joining Netherlands is not a outrageous claim. Adding the rest of Belgium and Luxembourg might not even be pushing it to far. Germany could even push for Dutch Nord-Pas-de-Calais if they make no claims or demands in Western Europe. A neutral Britain might also take this less negativity then Germany taking anything directly in Western Europe especially if Germany offers them Congo. Britain gets its cape to Cairo railroad with that gain. I don’t think the Netherlands would turn away from claiming past lands if they thought they could realistically get it.

A neutral Britain would consider a German ally/vassal controlling the continental channel ports a serious threat indeed.
 
A neutral Britain would consider a German ally/vassal controlling the continental channel ports a serious threat indeed.
I imagine it would still be preferable over direct German control and the Netherlands being a fully independent nation and not a German puppet or dependent must help ease Britain a bit? Would it only become a major issue if Germany is allowed to station military forces and its navy there?

Also could a neutral Netherlands just be given this by Germany after they win the war? In this situation the Netherlands would be a neutral power who is on good terms with Germany and cordial ones with Britain. Germany would probably want to screw France a good bit but not wanting to upset Britain they don’t take anything for themselves. They just make France renounce any current claims to any German lands and recognize their ownership of them, the northern France border is permanently demilitarized, and Netherlands gains the lands mentioned in the previous post? Additionally, a central power Italy is likely to be rewarded with Corsica, Nice, and Savoy? Maybe Tunis and Djibouti too isn’t out of the question? If Germany wanted to take the extra mile in weakening France they could let Italy have its previously stated gains and everything east of the Rhône River?

Lastly, does Germany even have to care what Britain thinks after winning the war? It might be preferable to keep good relationships with Britain but can Britain do anything effective against Germany once they control the European mainland after winning ww1? The most they could do at that point is try to blockade them which isn’t really that effective with the war over and most of Europe under German influence. Won’t a neutral Britain start looking away from Europe and more towards the commonwealth? Germany controls mainland Europe while Britain rules the high seas?
 

Deleted member 94680

I imagine it would still be preferable over direct German control and the Netherlands being a fully independent nation and not a German puppet or dependent must help ease Britain a bit?

No. In your proposition it was “given” to them by Germany. Ergo, a German vassal/ally.

Would it only become a major issue if Germany is allowed to station military forces and its navy there?

Which the scenario makes likely, given the Netherlands’ cordial relation with this alt-Germany and the German’s economic domination of the continent in this scenario.

Also could a neutral Netherlands just be given this by Germany after they win the war? In this situation the Netherlands would be a neutral power who is on good terms with Germany and cordial ones with Britain.

Not once they so openly move into Germany's orbit.

Germany would probably want to screw France a good bit but not wanting to upset Britain they don’t take anything for themselves. They just make France renounce any current claims to any German lands and recognize their ownership of them, the northern France border is permanently demilitarized, and Netherlands gains the lands mentioned in the previous post?

So... German domination of the continent? Runs counter to the central tenant of British foreign policy of the last 300 (or more) years.

Lastly, does Germany even have to care what Britain thinks after winning the war? It might be preferable to keep good relationships with Britain but can Britain do anything effective against Germany once they control the European mainland after winning ww1?

Trade. The Royal Navy will (or can) decimate anything the Germans put to sea. London will still be the financial centre of the world. These are effective weapons to bring to bear. Also good to acknowledge your scenario has Germany dominating the continent.

The most they could do at that point is try to blockade them which isn’t really that effective with the war over and most of Europe under German influence. Won’t a neutral Britain start looking away from Europe and more towards the commonwealth? Germany controls mainland Europe while Britain rules the high seas?

I don’t think a blockade of Europe would cease to be effective merely because the war has ended.
 
I don’t think a blockade of Europe would cease to be effective merely because the war has ended.

It's certainly blatently illegal by any possible interpretation of naval law sans "Britannia rules the waves and so waives the rules". That isent exactly going to do anything to help try coax potential allies out of Germany's thumb, or stop them from getting hooked more tightly into the German economic system, and the Americas will have something to say about being locked out of basically the whole continent...
 
It's certainly blatently illegal by any possible interpretation of naval law sans "Britannia rules the waves and so waives the rules". That isent exactly going to do anything to help try coax potential allies out of Germany's thumb, or stop them from getting hooked more tightly into the German economic system, and the Americas will have something to say about being locked out of basically the whole continent...
If the US is neutral during ww1 they could have good relations with Germany afterwards. As long as Germany stays out of the Western Hemisphere and Germany is open to free trade relations could be very good. America during this time doesn’t care if Germany dominates continental Europe politically and militarily as long as they can freely trade with them. The US could even go straight to Germany when a trade issue comes up with them and a other Europe nation in hopes Germany will pressure that nation into caving into their demands and in exchange the US gives something back to Germany.

The interesting part would be the possible cultural conflict. Germany and the United States would be going into the 1900s as the two superpowers while Britain is a close second. America who is neutral in WW1 will likely consider themselves a much more “Germanic” nation without the suppression of German culture. Britain could be the same way. A lot more Americans especially ones of German background would view Germany more like the US currently views British cultures. By this I mean Germany is viewed as a cultural father or father figure among many Americans. All this is reinforces by Germany being a superpower. Anglo-Saxon culture will still be seen as just a extension of Germanic culture. This will have will a major effect on public perceptions in Britain and the US when it comes to Germany. German and Anglo-Saxon culture would be viewed as “high-cultures” by upper class Americans. Wealthy Americans and Brits would also keep sending their kids to German universities which could lead to a lot of economic and cultural ties.
 
Hmmm...they might last until the spring of 1916.
I think everyone is downplaying the Balkans a bit. I agree Germany would win but in 1917 maybe early 1918 at most. The Entente with Romania, Greece, Serbia, Albania, and Montenegro all joining in 1914 should help out a decent bit.
 
I think everyone is downplaying the Balkans a bit. I agree Germany would win but in 1917 maybe early 1918 at most. The Entente with Romania, Greece, Serbia, Albania, and Montenegro all joining in 1914 should help out a decent bit.

I suppose the question here is how many German forces might have to be diverted to help the Austrians out down there?

I think the thing is, though, that a) the Austrians no longer have the Italian front to drain them, and b) they will not suffer the gutting they took in Galicia in OTL in 1914 (see below). This leaves a reasonably capable KuK army that can at least keep the Balkan Entente at bay, I suspect, especially since the Turks can play ball without having to worry about the British (just the Russian army in the Caucasus).

In this scenario, the Russians are the real fulcrum of the alliance, because they have the most military power and the most freedom of action. We must assume that the Germans are not going into Belgium here, because if they did, the Brits *would* intervene; and that means they're standing on the defensive in the West, with the French bleeding themselves white in the Vosges. But how long can the Tsarist army of 1914 really stand against the bulk of the Heer? Two campaign seasons before revolution forces them to sue is my guess, and at that point, the French are out of options unless they can bring the Anglo-Americans in.

I do expect you'd see some sort of effort by France to throw troops into Salonika, to bolster the Balkan allies once they realize they're going nowhere fast over the Moselle; but they really won't have much to spare.
 
Top