French-Austrian-Russian Entente

Eurofed

Banned
Another spinoff of the CP Italy discussion. The goal is to have the following WWI lineup:

Alliance:

Germany, Britain, Italy, Scandinavia, Turkey.

Entente:

France, Russia, Austria, Spain.

My idea (a variant of the ideas developed by Lord Kalvan and me in my previous "a different 1866" discussion, and by Franciscus Caesar's "Italy, a destiny fulfilled" fine TL):

Italy gets a rather more efficient government in 1861-66 (either Cavour survives, or an ATL more talented statesman emerges, as in FC's TL). As a result, Italian economy and state-building are managed rather better, and Italy reaches 1866 with a much fitter military (mostly, a better high command, since the bulk of the army and navy were actually already rather good, although shaping the Italian army on the Prussian model definitely helps). They seek a strong alliance with Prussia against Austria. The 1866 war happens.

As a result, Italy wins decisive victories on land and at sea against Austria, as good as the Prussian ones. The Austrian army is effectively destroyed, the navy is decimated, and the Italians occupy Trento and Kustenland, and land in Dalmatia. They claim all of those lands at the peace table. Spurred by their ally's success, King Wilhelm and the Prussian generals get greedy and put irresistible pressure on Bismarck to get Prussia its hefty slice of Habsburg flesh. So Otto reluctantly claims Bohemia-Moravia.

Crying foul about the balance of power, Napoleon III threatens war. With their armies massed in the East, Prussia and Italy are forced to compromise on their claims, but they do not forgive nor forget. Prussia annexes Hanover, Saxony, Austrian Silesia, and the German-majority districts of northern Bohemia-Moravia (effectively, the Sudetenland, except the parts bordering German Austria), but leaves Czechia alone. Italy annexes Veneto, Trento, and Gorizia-Gradisca, but leaves Trieste, Istria, and Dalmatia alone.

Prussian-Italian alliance is confirmed and strenghtened, France is alarmed at their growing might, and seeks a pretext to cut down the upstart duo. Austria, utterly humiliated by the defeat, slips into growing domestic unrest.

The casus belli for France comes a couple of years later, when it unsuccessfully tries to annex Luxemburg, and is vetoed by Prussia, and Italian patriots overthrow the Pope, which France protects. War explodes between France and the Italo-Prussian alliance. Despite the overconfident expectations of the French, they get their butts handed them on a plate. Austria makes moves to join France, but resistance by Pan-German nationalist opinion brings it further on the brink of revolution, so it backs down.

Prussia unifies Germany, which annexes Luxemburg, Alsace, and Lorraine, up to the Meuse. Italy annexes Savoy, Corsica, Nice, and the Riviera, up to Hyeres, as well as eastern Algeria (Oran). After doing so well twice in a row, the German-Italian partnership is solidified into an irontight strategic and economic bloc. The shock of the defeat and of the Commune soon results into the takeover of France by a reactionary-authoritarian Bourbon monarchy.

In the meanwhile, Austria further spirals into domestic discord, as the various nationalities fight for power between themselves and against the discredited Habsburg regime. Half-baked attempts at a power-sharing compromise between Germans and Magyars flounder. Unrest brews into the Balkans, and Russia prepares to intervene against Turkey. Revolution explodes in Austria, and soon the Habsburg empire is an a mess worse than 1848, with the Pan-German nationalists, liberals, and Magyar nationalists in open rebellion and the army into disarray.

In desperation, Franz Josef, old reactionary that he is, swallows pride and petitions Russia for help as in 1848. Effectively, he offers territorial cessions and to make Austria into a vassal of Russia, with full support for Russian expansionism in the Balkans, in exchange for keeping his throne with the support of Russian bayonets. Russia, seeing an opportunity to affirm its hegemony in central and eastern Europe, accepts the offer, and its army, already mobilized to fight the Turks, makes a diversion and crushes the rebellions in the Habsburg Empire. They annex Krakow, Galicia, and Bukovina as compensation for their trouble.

Germany and Italy, although appalled to see such a brazen expansion of Russian power in their backyard, are powerless to intervene, with most of their armies still in France.

The restored Habsburg, now effectively a client of Russia, set up a much more centralized state, controlled by a loyalist coalition of Czechs, Croats, and reactionaries that keep down the Magyars, the Pan-German nationalists, and the liberals. Unity and centralization are the main themes of Hapsburg rule, leading to the repression of ethnic nationalisms (especially Magyars, but also extending into suppressing outspoken Pan-German nationalists) and the imposition of a steadily more authoritarian system. Discontent simmers under the surface, but for now the dynasty is able to keep in control with Russian support. The Russians sponsor Balkan nationalism against the Ottomans, but out of respect for their Austrians allies suppress the notion of Pan-Slavism as it concerns the subjects of the Habsburg.

Emboldened by their successes in Austria, the Russians soon restart their offensive plans in the Balkans and attack Turkey. The war is a success, and the Russians armies get in sight of Constantinople, but Britain, scared by Russian control of the Straits, threatens war, soon backed by Germany and Italy, that by now have concluded peace with France and are ready to intervene in the East if need be.

An international conference is called in the Hague, where the Russo-Austrian-French bloc is pitted against the Anglo-Italo-German one. As pretty much every power but Britain is burdened by war fatigue at this point, there is no great willingness to fight a general war, so reluctantly, a last-ditch compromise is reached:

Russia gains southern Bessarabia and the districts of Ardahan, Artvin, Batum, Kars, Olti, and Beyazit, Romania gets independence and northern Dobruja, Serbia gets independence and a northern slice of Kosovo, Bulgaria gets self-rule in OTL modern borders, Greece gains Thessaly and southern Epirus, Britain gets Cyprus, Italy gets a sphere of influence in Tunisia and Libya, Crete is put under the administration of the Great Powers, Bosnia becomes a self-ruling principality under a sovreign picked by the powers. Montenegro gets independent under an Italian protectorate. The Ottomans keep Albania, Macedonia, most of Kosovo, and Thrace, and they are bound by the powers to enact a strrong set of capitulations and internal reform for their Christian subjects. The powers proscribe every state and principality from enacting abuses on their minorities.

France, slowly recovering from the defeat, and seeking support for revenge against the German-Italian bloc, signs the Triple Entente with Russia and Austria, building a bloc of reactionary-authoritarian powers. Soon afterwards, the Bourbon monarchy, which has a Carlist dynastic claim on the throne of Spain, sponsors a Carlist coup in Spain, and a French-Spanish dynastic union is formed.

Germany and Italy, feeling encircled by the reactionary powers bloc, and Britain, fearing the expansion of Franco-Russian power in the continent, sign the Triple Alliance.

Seeking further allies in the continent against Russia, Britain fosters a reconciliation between Denmark and Germany, and the unity of the Nordic states. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden unite into Scandinavia, which joins the Triple (now Quadruple) Alliance.

Britain, Germany, Italy, and Scandinavia build an economic bloc alongside the military alliance, and British investment fosters the development of Germany, Italy, and Scandinavia, while France strives to do the same for Austria, Spain, and Russia. Italy especially benefits from Anglo-German support and soon becomes the economic and military equal of France. Economic prosperity, alliance with Britain, and rivalry with reactionary powers foster the evolution of Germany and Italy towards a British-syle liberal constitutional monarchy system, which gives an ideological, liberal-reactionary undertone to the rivalry between the alliance blocs.

The Quadruple Alliance powers also support the modernization of the Ottoman Empire, even if Turkey has to recognize an Italian protectorate over Tunisia and Libya and a British protectorate over Egyot and Sudan Britain as the price for their support. In due time it becomes an unofficial fifth member of the Quadruple Alliance (the liberal, Christian great powers are not quite willing to give the dignity of a formal alliance to a Muslim, semi-authoritarian state whose strength they do not really trust). Eventually, a general European conflict breaks out.

I'm not entirely sure how the Balkan powers would align themselves in this WWI. Japan would almost surely join the Alliance during the war, America may stay neutral or join the Alliance if it previously fought the Entente over the Spanish colonies and lost.
 
Last edited:
I'm seriously tempted to believe that unless either Italy or Britain is significantly more prepared for war the Allaince is going to fold pretty quickly in WW1. OTL Germany faced a two front war and still ran into problems covering both fronts sufficiently in 1914. Here Germany will have to fight a three-front war with the added burden of facing almost the entirety of Russia's army along with Austria's. Germany also faces the added problem that it can't properly go on the offensive against any of the entente powers from the get-go since it will have at most 6 armies on one front with 1 each on the other two. So to not get steemrolled in 1914, Germany is going to have to avoid losing a decisive battle on any of the three fronts while outnumbered on each one. Unless the BEF is significantly expanded or Italy is able to launch a sufficiently large attack, through the Alps, against either France or Austria, the war will end pretty quickly in an Entente win.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Unless the BEF is significantly expanded or Italy is able to launch a sufficiently large attack, through the Alps, against either France or Austria, the war will end pretty quickly in an Entente win.

Well, Italy is indeed rather stronger ITTL as German know-how and British investment built it up a lot and Britain knows that it must support its continental allies substantially from the get-go against the Franco-Russian-Austrian behemoth, or it will be left alone to face an hostile continent. The Alliance has been preparing for this war for decades. So a large BEF is deployed and Germany and Italy go on the defensive against France and Russia and concentrate to crush Austria (ITTL the Alliance controls the Sudetenland, Trento, and Gorizia, so advancing into Austria is not as difficult as with the OTL 1914 border). Austria is the weakest link of the Entente, not just militarly but politically: a hard enough blow and Magyars and Pan-Germans may rise in rebellion again. Then Russia, with the support of Scandinavia and Turkey, then France.

Where would you have the BEF deployed ? Alsace-Lorraine ? the western Alps ? Both ? Or landing in Dalmatia to backstab Austria from three sides ?
 
Last edited:

Paul MacQ

Donor
You are certainly looking for a bigger nastier war

Well the Money goes onto who can get US onside if it lasts as long as OTL WW1

For the US
Britain major trading partner
Germany and Italy with there large immigrant populations and Trade.

Spain that might of might not have an American Spanish war supported by France (that could turn nasty)

Probably be neutral from start but have certain preference, especially if the Large French Sub fleet goes to unrestricted warfare.

German options Defence in defend as best you can the Boarders with AH and Russia. Crush France ASAP. Spain like Italy has long vulnerable coasts and going to have to keep large forces at home, And possibly fighting on the Portugal Spanish Boarder.

France can be crippled by Britain and in a few short months of Blockade its industries are shot, It depends to much on British coal, Iron from Spain is one thing, But you need working furnaces and Spain though it has coal, really not in a position to be an exporter as it is using almost all it can mine.

Britain has the problem of it’s commerce is allot more vulnerable But the Med will come down to Naval victories and money goes on the British Germans and Italians beating what the French Spanish can put together. Russian fleets still have there problem of being split over several Oceans.

A united Scandinavia and a small Baltic German Fleet could do holding actions it is a theatre very conducive to mine warfare.

Ottomans if they can get on well with the Italians might be an avenue for them to get coal. Not mined locally but supply and protection of the Suez becomes vital for them.

Ottomans can also supply Iron; expect a major strategic build-up of Rail in the Ottoman Empire, Large resources put into completing the Bagdad rail all the way to Basra. The best sense would be a Holding action in the Caucasus and try Offensive action in the Balkans. Italy if the Naval side of things is in the Allies side Holds its Northern Boarder supported by what ever the British Empire can support with via the Suez, as getting past Spain is a bit difficult now. For the British I am thinking a March along the North coast of Africa to Morocco threaten Southern Spain.

Other player is who the Japanese sides with if the Allies then The British Empire can support Ottomans real easy. I am thinking they would do fine 2-3 ANZAC divisions plus a Dozen Indian Divisions on there side and not fighting them. I am thinking probably at least 4-500,000 more than OTL to fight Russia and in the Balkans The Forces they can throw at the Russians and AH is just so much more and unlike OTL can be easily supplied. Add to that what Japan can add Russia might be hurting.


Persia will become a battle zone and I am sure that Indian Divisions plus Persian Troops can be supplied in this region so much more easily the Russian Land routes

Expect a Pan Turkic force to come into effect, how well this does I am not sure But at least they have the Ottomans and even Muslims from India to help stir things up

Germany is in a Pickle for sure but in the east and south some good defendable areas and a backyard protected by Scandinavia

I am thinking France would go down allot Faster then Germany, followed by Spain.

Russia will not be able to send as many Troops to the Western Front as it has massive boarders to protect from the attentions of the British Empire and possibly added to the Mix Japan.

Indians Nearly 700,000 OTL served in the Middle East, fighting against the Turks in the Mesopotamian campaign, I am thinking that more would be recruited with a war in Northern Boarder and not counting 140,000 that saw service in Western Front OTL. These are now going to be Facing Russians.

Quote Eurofed “Where would you have the BEF deployed ? Alsace-Lorraine? the western Alps ? Both ? Or landing in Dalmatia to backstab Austria from three sides?”

Many options including off the wall ideas like Basque region with the British stating they will support a independent Basque Nation, Not sure how possible but would mean the British might get basses to better close off France from the Atlantic. And possible way of Cutting Spain and France from each other. At least making them move forces there.

So many choices so few Troops to start with.
 

Eurofed

Banned
You are certainly looking for a bigger nastier war

Well, in all likelihood not really bigger or nastier than OTL if worst comes to worst, anyway. Conceded, OTL-bad would have its rather bad long-term effects in that UK, Germany, and Italy could get exhausted enough not to be able and check the Red/Brown revanchism of Russia in the long run. France and Spain, they may be able to keep muzzled, thanks to favorable strategic position, unless they get so sleepy at the wheel as to let a French Hitler grow strong under their nose.

Well the Money goes onto who can get US onside if it lasts as long as OTL WW1

For the US
Britain major trading partner
Germany and Italy with there large immigrant populations and Trade.

Spain that might of might not have an American Spanish war supported by France (that could turn nasty)

Probably be neutral from start but have certain preference, especially if the Large French Sub fleet goes to unrestricted warfare.

You make a rather good case for eventual US intervention, if the war last long enough, indeed. Economic and political interests would converge for pro-Alliance cobelligerance. Let's say that if America got a bloody nose from France-Spain in the SAW, or that war didn't happen yet, their cobelligerance becomes almost certain and shall happen pretty soon.

American manpower would quickly cast the balance definitely for the Alliance. And differently from OTL, America stands to gain something valuable from the war, French and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific (there would likely be a potential clash of claims with Japan about the French Pacific, but America is surely going to get the better claim on the Philippines and New Caledonia). I wonder if the US would stake a claim for Kamchatka (again, over likely Japanese protests). it would complement nicely their ownership of Alaska.

German options Defence in defend as best you can the Boarders with AH and Russia. Crush France ASAP. Spain like Italy has long vulnerable coasts and going to have to keep large forces at home, And possibly fighting on the Portugal Spanish Boarder.

France can be crippled by Britain and in a few short months of Blockade its industries are shot, It depends to much on British coal, Iron from Spain is one thing, But you need working furnaces and Spain though it has coal, really not in a position to be an exporter as it is using almost all it can mine.

You certainly make a good case for a France/Spain first strategy. I see the point of your argument, they are rather vulnerable to British blockade and landings, but I'm not entirely convinced as I see the point of an Austria first strategy, too. Germany and Italy may have serious difficulties in acheiving breakthroughs in Alsace-Lorraine and the Alps, and France-Spain may not fall just to a BEF landing, since Spanish partecpiation reduces the big French mampower problem.

At the very least, it would require the BEF and all the troops Germany and Italy can spare going through Belgium. Granted, with Britain onboard, this is not such a big problem. Either Belgium grants free passage to the Alliance, which it may well do, and then France is in rather big trouble, as the front gets terribly long, even with Spanish help, or it gets a pro-French swing and resists. It has surely written its own death warrant (a pro-French Belgium is worse than useless to Berlin and London, they would return it to Netherlands at the peace table), but it may give France-Spain time to stabilize the new front, at least immediately (in the long term, the overextension problem remains). I wonder if Netherlands may be persuaded to join the fight, if Belgium resists, with the offer of getting it afterwards.

Of course, there is another side of the coin. France-Spain, is, when the war starts, going to try and achieve a breakout in Alsace-Lorraine and the Alps. When, almost surely, they get a bloody nose, and the clock of British blockade is ticking, they shall be sorely tempted to violate the neutrality of Belgium and/or Switzerland to bypass those defenses. Switzerland shall surely resist, and most likely good enough for Germany and Italy to shore it up. Would Belgium resist, or give a safe passage ? If they give free passage to the French, Germany may be in trouble, unless the British are quick to land forces in the Rhineland, or the Dutch intervenes (again, if the Alliance wins, Belgium as written is own death warrant). If the Belgians resist, almost surely they give time for the British to intervene, and the Dutch very likely join the Alliance. As for Belgium, they suffer teh immediaye hardship of invasion, but they save their independence and stand to gain territory if the Alliance wins.

Violation of neutrals may be as tempting for France ITTL as it was fro Germany IOTL (and it builds just the same nasty reputation for the Entente), but unless it succeeds quickly, it may turn into a strategic trap, as it makes their front ever more overstretched.

However, lets not forget the potential merits of the Austria first strategy. Austria may be potentially attacked by three sides, is vulnerable to internal collapse if the Magyars or the Pan-Germans rise up in rebellion, and its army is probably the weakest of the Entente (France would have likely built up the Spanish one in the union), and TTL border is not so hard to break through for Germany and Italy. OTOH, Russia may swamp it with its own troops without too much trouble, and the easiness of backstabbing it from the Balkans for the British and the Ottomans depends on which side the Balkan states pick.

The RN is probably able to maintain the blockade of France-Spain and the Baltic with Scandinavian help, so Germany can send the bulk of its fleet (which probably is somewhat smaller than OTL, but the Italian one would be proportionally bigger) to shore up the Italians, the Ottomans, and what the RN can spare, if any, to achieve naval superiority in the Mediterranean. This means that Greece, at least, is going to side with the Alliance (at least as a friendly neutral that gives safe passage to Alliance troops). Serbia and Romania are almost surely going to be (reluctant) Russian puppets. Bulgaria is a wild card, it could probably be bought to the Alliance's side, which would diminish the effort of fighting through the Balkans considerably, but it would need to be bought with Vardar Macedonia, if it is possible. Romania isn't going to be bought nonetheless, trapped between Austria and Russia, it would be suicidal for them. Serbia might perhaps be persuaded to swtich sides with Bosnia (even if Germany and Italy would never give them an inch of Croatia or the Adriatic coast).

If the Alliance can get 2-3 Balkan minors on their side, and time an offensive from three sides in Bohemia, Tyrol, Carniola, as well as an Anglo-Ottoman punch from below, hopefully with a Magyar/Pan-German insurrection brewing (whose nationalism germany and Italy have been likely fostering for years), then Austria may be quickly brought to its knees. Unless Russia swamped it with its own troops from the start, which has its own logistical and overstretch problems.

Austria has an additional problem ITTL, in that a large part of its two main nationalities are going to be infected by pro-Alliance nationalism and not very reliable. As in 1848, the spine of the Habsburg regime is going to be the Czechs and Croats that fear German/Italian expansionism and a minority of reactionary loyalists. Not the best demographic base to fight a three-sided total war.

Britain has the problem of it’s commerce is allot more vulnerable But the Med will come down to Naval victories and money goes on the British Germans and Italians beating what the French Spanish can put together. Russian fleets still have there problem of being split over several Oceans.

All very true. As it concerns the F-S, they can probably try to hit Alliance trade with submarine warfare and privateering, which may hurt them somewhat. OTOH, this shall most likely bring the Americans in the fray rather fast, if they hadn't done it already, messing with US trade with UK, Germany, and Italy at once is a no-no.

A united Scandinavia and a small Baltic German Fleet could do holding actions it is a theatre very conducive to mine warfare.

Very true. The bulk of the German navy is surely put to better use helping to chase the F-S out of the Atlantic and (most importantly) the Mediterranean.

Ottomans if they can get on well with the Italians might be an avenue for them to get coal. Not mined locally but supply and protection of the Suez becomes vital for them.

Well, ITTL Italy got Tunisia and Libya not too much after the Russo-Turkish war, so it is an long past issue for Italy and Turkey, so not great reason why they could not get along well, even if it may not be the Italo-German BFF.

Ottomans can also supply Iron; expect a major strategic build-up of Rail in the Ottoman Empire, Large resources put into completing the Bagdad rail all the way to Basra. The best sense would be a Holding action in the Caucasus and try Offensive action in the Balkans. Italy if the Naval side of things is in the Allies side Holds its Northern Boarder supported by what ever the British Empire can support with via the Suez, as getting past Spain is a bit difficult now. For the British I am thinking a March along the North coast of Africa to Morocco threaten Southern Spain.

Good point for the Ottomans, esp. if the British can help in the Balkans, and they can get some Balkan minors on their side. Agreed that holding Suez is vital for the Alliance, but it doesn't look like the Entente has very good chances of threatening it. Thanks to British support, Italy has not serious problems about defending its coasts from F-S landings, so it can hold the defensive on one side, and mass troops on the other side for a combined Italo-german punch to knock out either France or Austria. Britain may help the Italo-Germans deliver the knockout to France in Belgium, or help the Italo-German-Ottomans with the knockout to Austria, in the Balkans. Spain is likely not the best use of its main forces, even if it's knocked out, the Pyrenees are a problem for invading France from below (even if, a three-sided front, compounded with loss of Spanish manpower, may indeed be the trunk that breaks the back of the French camel). Anyway, a secondary Spanish front is likely worth opening for Britain, in order to keep Spanish forces dispersed and not massed in France. But IMO it is easier to exploit the Portoguese satellite, and/or land a force in Galicia, and open a front in western/northern Spain, than doing it from Morocco.

Other player is who the Japanese sides with if the Allies then The British Empire can support Ottomans real easy. I am thinking they would do fine 2-3 ANZAC divisions plus a Dozen Indian Divisions on there side and not fighting them. I am thinking probably at least 4-500,000 more than OTL to fight Russia and in the Balkans The Forces they can throw at the Russians and AH is just so much more and unlike OTL can be easily supplied. Add to that what Japan can add Russia might be hurting.

All very true, since Russia is going to have fronts practically everywhere.

Persia will become a battle zone and I am sure that Indian Divisions plus Persian Troops can be supplied in this region so much more easily the Russian Land routes.

True as well.

Germany is in a Pickle for sure but in the east and south some good defendable areas and a backyard protected by Scandinavia.

Yup, they have enemies on three sides, but they have their northern and southern sides backed by strong allies, and their borders aren't hard to defend. Italy shares most of their problems, but also all of their opportunities. Germany and Italy are encircled by France and Austria but may encircle them in turn, too. They absolutely need to syncronize their defensive and offensive on either front (and surely this is a task that the respective officer corps have been working on for decades). If their other allies can distract a sizable amount of Entente forces, and they syncronize their moves, they can relatively easily knockout either France or Austria, and from that, the war is all but downhill. A big advantage Germany has in this war is that the British are working overtime to feed its industry with commodities, while France is goraning under the blockade.

I am thinking France would go down allot Faster then Germany, followed by Spain.

Provided that IMO it is a toss-up whether Austria or France goes down first, and which one would be the easier to make collapse, I agree.

Russia will not be able to send as many Troops to the Western Front as it has massive boarders to protect from the attentions of the British Empire and possibly added to the Mix Japan.

Very true, which spells trouble when Austria begins to falter.

Indians Nearly 700,000 OTL served in the Middle East, fighting against the Turks in the Mesopotamian campaign, I am thinking that more would be recruited with a war in Northern Boarder and not counting 140,000 that saw service in Western Front OTL. These are now going to be Facing Russians.

True.

Many options including off the wall ideas like Basque region with the British stating they will support a independent Basque Nation, Not sure how possible but would mean the British might get basses to better close off France from the Atlantic. And possible way of Cutting Spain and France from each other. At least making them move forces there.

Maybe (but would the British really need those bases ? I doubt it). Alternatively, they could land in Galicia, which spares the trouble of dealing with Basque nationalism. IMO it may be more trouble than it is worth, given that they have a readymade Spanish front just going through their Portugal satellite. Unless they first open that front, then land in Galicia and try to encircle the Spanish troops on the Portuguese front. if done well, it could be a knockout front for Spain.

But as a rule, I'm very skeptical about the strategic value of landings as telling blows in WWI. IMO the lesson of Gallipoli is that in almost all cases, they deploy so slowly, given thecnological limitations of the time, that the defender is almost always able to block the bridgehead. If the defender can't send troops in time, it typically means that the location is of such marginal economic/strategical value that conquering it is not worth the trouble. It may only really work if the defender is already scraping the bottom of its strategic reserve, teetering on the brink of collapse, the landing may complete an encirclement, or such.
 
Last edited:
Top