How long would a surviving Archduke Ferdinand delay WWI

[BooNZ]

And that's assuming they bother. If the Germans are being purely defensive, there's no need to fight them at all. Let the Russians and the eastern allies destroy Austria while the Germans sit in their trenches.

yeah - the blood of Russian peasants is far cheaper than French blood and they won't mind... - perhaps the French could send them shipments of cake?

 

[LordKalvert]

yeah - the blood of Russian peasants is far cheaper than French blood and they won't mind... - perhaps the French could send them shipments of cake?

Your comment makes no sense at all but then I rarely see the logic in your thoughts.

The Russians military buildup was real, it was massive and it would have completely changed the balance of power of Europe. Something that everyone at the time understood.

The notions that the Germans could stand on the defensive and withstand an unlimited siege is not something that anyone in the Reich ever contemplated. The closest you could come was Moltke the Elder thought maybe they could grab Poland and then hunker down. He wasn't enthralled with the idea but was trying to be realistic

The Russians demonstrated in 1914 the superiority of their arms against the Hapsburgs. That difference was growing quite rapidly and by 1917 it would have been astronomical. If Germany had stood on the defensive, the Russians would simply mobilize their entire army, wait for that to be completed and then launch an offensive on a massive scale against the weakest link (the Austrians) smashing through the lines in nothing flat. The effect on the neutrals is obvious (Italy and Romania join the Franco-Russians much earlier and the Turks and Bulgarians stay neutral)

You simply can't come up with a plausible scenario of a German victory after 1917. The Kaiser's circle understood this completely

 

[LordKalvert]

Looking at Plan XVII and how it worked for France, and the Russian performance against the Germans, I seriously doubt that France smashing itself against Alsace-Lorraine on a purely defensive Germany would perform much better than in OTL. And the Russian army, looking at it, were incompetent, and whenever they faced the Germans, lost.

So to me, the Russians would collapse in Revolution in an offensive war against Germany and Austria. If it cannot beat two corps in East Prussia with two armies in 1914 while almost all of the armies of Germany were in the west, how could, in 1917, face a much larger German Army? It could go to Galicia, but when Germany puts part of its forces to prop up the Austrians, the Russians are going to reel. Seriously, there is nothing in the Russian performance in WWI that tells me it could beat Germany! It couldn't beat Germany while most of the German forces were in the trenches in Western Europe, how could it win while most of it's forces are in the east?

All Germany has to do is to smash all Russian offensives, then wait for the Revolution to come. The Russians would sue for peace because they want to consolidate the revolution at home, and France would have to come to terms once their Eastern ally is no more and none of their offensives at Alsace Lorraine bore fruit.

In 1914, your right. However, I was contemplating 1917 after Russia's great programe was completed.

If the Germans turned East, the French would have been fighting a force of less than half that they faced. And the war in the West was a close run thing- the Franco-British forces missed chances to destroy the German 1 and 2nd armies and end the war just like the Germans missed their chances to win

The Great Program would have tripled the might of the Russians in the East in August. For the Germans to meet that they would have had to cut their forces in the West by half and their chances in the East would still have been pathetic

 

[LordKalvert]

As previously stated (twice on this thread alone), before WW1, most over-rated the Russian Army - in reality, the Germans proved more than capable of fighting a two front war.

You continue to repeat the same mistake- the Germans felt that they needed to smash the French and then turn on the Germans (which is what they did and made their two front effort possible for a while). However, that is 1914 not 1917 which is what I was talking about

You state an improved rail network would enable Russia to mobilise more troops faster, therefore logically, Germany would have no expectation that it could quickly knock France out of the war on a timely basis.

Exactly-that's what the Kaiser meant when he said that the Russians would be in Berlin before the Germans were in Paris

"The German concept was to use their interior position to mass against one enemy, and then use their tactical superiority to defeat him. This would allow the Germans to once again use their interior position and rail mobility to mass against as second enemy, and so on..." Terrance Zuber

But that is only possible by going on the offensive. It won't work if you hunker down and let your enemies mobilize on your frontiers

I never said it would automatically result in German victory, due to numerous potential butterflies. However, your assessment of Russians being in Berlin by Christmas 1917 is clearly ASB.

No it isn't. The Russians certainly could have won both Tannenberg and destroyed the Austrians in OTL (came close enough as it is). By 1917, there's no doubt they would have won both. Its really just a leisurely march to Berlin after that- unless the Germans have so depleted their Western defenses that the French are taking the Rhine. Either way, the war is over

With the benefit of hindsight (in assessing Russian competence), I would be very nervous about amassing the Russian Army in the Polish Salient.

Massively larger army? The 1914 Russian army reforms would have ultimately increased its standing army by 400,000 men by 1917, but in absolute numbers by only 60,000 (i.e. it brought peacetime strength closer to wartime level). The German 1913 army reforms already scheduled an increase of 58,500 in absolute numbers for October 2014.

You also somehow assume in the face of a massive military build ups by Russia (France was close to maxed out) that Germany and A-H would do nothing. Germany and A-H had the capacity to further meaningful increases in resources and manpower available to its armies.

As previously stated, the Russian military build-up would likely improve military co-operation between Germany and A-H. OTL it verged on non-existent, but German influences led to significant improvements in A-H effectiveness later in WW1.

Your ability to cling to fantasies is truly amazing. The game was up and the Germans knew it. The key is the massive improvements inthe rail network and pre war administration that would have had the Russians flooding into Poland much much sooner

The artillery is going to change the outcome of those engagements (its the lack of artillery which leads to their defeats not incompetence like you always assume).

And the Austrians are barely matching the Serb buildup.

Conrad's absence in 1917 is likely to also enhance A-H early performance considerably...

And your basis for assuming Conrad is gone? and who is his replacement that is going to do so much better? Really, live in the fantasy here

An uber-confident Russian steam roller adopting a defensive posture? How wide a defensive front would the Russians have to hold to prevent a Polish salient being pocketed, or merely threaten?

Um, I said they would stand on the defensive until their army was mobilized. The Germans could launch some spoiler attacks but the Russians would stand on the defensive in that case. Really, BooNZ your just hoping that everyone is completely stupid so the Germans don't get killed in the first two weeks

A-H could do no worse than it did OTL. The most important neutral would be Great Britain, which is more likely to remain so.

Well, that is the point isn't it? Austria is going to be destroyed and the Germans don't have the firepower to strike at the Russians and the French at the same time.

Great Britain isn't that important in a short war. In a short war, Romania, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands are far more important. In 1917, we are really looking at the short war scenario

OTL including Great Britain, Belgium & Italy, all of which would be less likely to participate on the Russian side of things in 1917.

Really? Belgium is going to fight for her land in 1917 just as she does in 1914. Unless your going to butterfly away the Western offensive- in which case the French aren't being beaten into the ground

As for Italy- she's going to side with whomever she thinks will win. When the French reach the Rhine, the Russians the passes its going to be obvious who is going to win. Remember Mussolini? When did he declare war on France?


Great Britain may or may not be less likely to side with Russia (what's your theory here?) but how much does it matter? British power in the opening months of the war is almost non existent and much much less than say Romania (which is much much more likely to back Russia in 1917)

 

[LordKalvert]

Without a German-aligned Ottoman Empire to block the straits and cause massive shortages all around, a Russian revolution is unlikely to happen. And that's not taking into account their own military development scheduled for 1914-1917, which gave the pre-war German General Staff nightmares.

This is the point- by 1917, the military balance would have shifted dramatically towards the Franco-Russians and the Russians in particular. What increases the Germans manage are going to be sent to the East relieving the pressure on France

As for Austria, she's barely holding her own against Serbia's increases. How she is going to deal with an increasingly hostile Italy and Romania and the Russian buildup is beyond me

 

[BooNZ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BooNZ
yeah - the blood of Russian peasants is far cheaper than French blood and they won't mind... - perhaps the French could send them shipments of cake?

Your comment makes no sense at all but then I rarely see the logic in your thoughts.

Sorry, I will keep it simple for you.

A cornerstone of the French/ Russian alliance was to force Germany to fight on two fronts. This necessitated a co-ordinated approach where both France and Russia would attack Germany simultaneously.

You suggested France could just sit on its arse and let Russia do all the work. Not only would that be unacceptable diplomatically, it would result in Russia being torn apart.

The Russians military buildup was real, it was massive and it would have completely changed the balance of power of Europe. Something that everyone at the time understood.

Everyone also 'understood' the 1914 Russian army to be competent... (hint: they were very wrong)

The Russian military build-up before 1914 was massive - for all that was worth.

The notions that the Germans could stand on the defensive and withstand an unlimited siege is not something that anyone in the Reich ever contemplated. The closest you could come was Moltke the Elder thought maybe they could grab Poland and then hunker down. He wasn't enthralled with the idea but was trying to be realistic

The German preference (per doctrine) would have been a mobile war for which Russia would be ill equipped. Russian offensives create ample opportunities for flanking and counterattack and the German desired battles of annihilation.

The Russians demonstrated in 1914 the superiority of their arms against the Hapsburgs. That difference was growing quite rapidly and by 1917 it would have been astronomical. If Germany had stood on the defensive, the Russians would simply mobilize their entire army, wait for that to be completed and then launch an offensive on a massive scale against the weakest link (the Austrians) smashing through the lines in nothing flat. The effect on the neutrals is obvious (Italy and Romania join the Franco-Russians much earlier and the Turks and Bulgarians stay neutral)

Clearly butterflies do not exist in your universe.

Zuber indicates the size of the Russian forces would ultimately increase a "massive" 60,000 men from the 1914 reforms - against potentially additional 4 German ARMIES, that assumes the Germans and A-H do not respond to the Russian escalations with further increases of their own.

Further, increased German influence on the A-H military would have a significant-huge impact on its effectiveness (per OTL). This is entirely likely as A-H became increasingly threatened by Russia and its client states.

You simply can't come up with a plausible scenario of a German victory after 1917. The Kaiser's circle understood this completely

As you have noted, you rarely see the logic of my thoughts. I suggest you invest in some kind of visual aid and some sensible reading material.

 

[BooNZ]

Exactly-that's what the Kaiser meant when he said that the Russians would be in Berlin before the Germans were in Paris

...and instead the Russians got Tannenberg. However, by 1917 the increased size of the Russian standing army, coupled with an improved rail infrastructure would likely lead to the Schlieffen plan being abandoned along with any illusions (among the CP) that the next war would be a short.
A likely alternative strategy would be to look for a potential battles of annihilation, which are more likely in the East. To achieve success, such battles would be best fought on German territory or relatively close to the border. Thrusting offensives into the heart of Russia would clearly be self defeating.

In contrast to the CP powers that would be expecting a long war, the Russians might actually believe they can achieve victory by 'marching' all the way to Berlin (think Schlieffen plan in super slow-mo).

But that is only possible by going on the offensive. It won't work if you hunker down and let your enemies mobilize on your frontiers

Refer above and consider the concepts of 'flank' and 'counterattack'.

No it isn't. The Russians certainly could have won both Tannenberg and destroyed the Austrians in OTL (came close enough as it is). By 1917, there's no doubt they would have won both. Its really just a leisurely march to Berlin after that- unless the Germans have so depleted their Western defenses that the French are taking the Rhine. Either way, the war is over

Yeah, Tannenburg was a real nail biter

OTL those French offensives did not go so good, while two thirds of the German Army was marching through Belgium.

Your ability to cling to fantasies is truly amazing. The game was up and the Germans knew it. The key is the massive improvements inthe rail network and pre war administration that would have had the Russians flooding into Poland much much sooner

Improved administration does not necessarily equate to improved competence on the battlefield -

The artillery is going to change the outcome of those engagements (its the lack of artillery which leads to their defeats not incompetence like you always assume).

Quite possible! In 1914 the Russian army was already equiped with fast firing artillery while the only modern artillery the A-H army possessed were 1905 80mm artillery, with A-H light and heavy howitzers lacking quick firing mountings.

The adoption of fast firing artillery would be a significant force multiplier for A-H, providing 4x the rate of fire and vastly improved accuracy. The 1914 Russian reforms were to increase the number of artillery pieces per corps from 108 to 132 an increase of 22% - significant but not even in the same ballpark as the potential A-H improvements.

Um, I said they would stand on the defensive until their army was mobilized. The Germans could launch some spoiler attacks but the Russians would stand on the defensive in that case. Really, BooNZ your just hoping that everyone is completely stupid so the Germans don't get killed in the first two weeks

As outlined above, the Germans would likely seek to have decisive battles as close to home as possible. Your suggestion that Russia should accumulate its forces in Poland would create a perfect opportunities, but I doubt even the Russians would be that foolish.

Well, that is the point isn't it? Austria is going to be destroyed and the Germans don't have the firepower to strike at the Russians and the French at the same time.

The Germans do not have to - the Russians and the French do.

Great Britain isn't that important in a short war. In a short war, Romania, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands are far more important. In 1917, we are really looking at the short war scenario

Without the Schlieffen plan Belgium is firmly on the side lines. OTL neither Romania nor Italy had hair triggers and scarcely covered themselves in glory. Where did the Netherlands come from?

A key advantage of the CP powers is that they would not be suffering from short war delusions.

Really? Belgium is going to fight for her land in 1917 just as she does in 1914. Unless your going to butterfly away the Western offensive- in which case the French aren't being beaten into the ground

A 400,000 increase in the Russian standing army (i.e. pre mobilised) and improved Russian railway infrastructure would be convincing reasons not to commit 7/8 of the German army in the West. A shorter defensive line would also be easier to defend. Belgium will be firmly on the side lines.

As for Italy- she's going to side with whomever she thinks will win. When the French reach the Rhine, the Russians the passes its going to be obvious who is going to win. Remember Mussolini? When did he declare war on France?

Not material

Great Britain may or may not be less likely to side with Russia (what's your theory here?) but how much does it matter? British power in the opening months of the war is almost non existent and much much less than say Romania (which is much much more likely to back Russia in 1917)

Reduced German naval expenditures, both because the naval race is lost and the need to focus on army, the increased Russian naval expenditure, increased Russian belligerence, colonial rivalry including the Great game, likely turnover of Grey & Crowe and hostilities likely to be initiated by Russians...

Yes, of course it is only ever going to be a short war

 

[lounge60]

Some questions:
With a Franz Ferdinand live,and without a war in 1914....

1-Could the balance between stabilize in subsequent few years for avoid at all a great war in Europe?

2-Could be a rapprochement between Germany and UK,and Germany and Russia?

3-The attempt to transform the Austro-Hungarian Empire in a Federation could cause a civil war?
With what results (Hungary is defeat and Federation proclaimed? Or the situation can be escalate in a European war)?

4-Assume that a war not happen: Can Germany,Habsburg Federation,Russian Empire,Ottoman Empire,become full contitutional democracy within 1940?
And if not all,which State have best possibilities to become a parliamentary democracy?

 

[1940LaSalle]

I would venture that it would delay a general European war by a good decade.

As reform/liberalizing elements gained traction in Germany, the Reichstag could prove singularly unwilling to write checks to the armed forces. That in combination with the perceived closing of a window could put Germany in a less bellicose frame of mind.

Also, don't forget that the monarchy in Russia hung by a thread: all it would have taken, for example, was a minor household accident on the part of Alexis in which seemingly trivial bleeding quickly got out of control. (Indeed, all it would take is some dust inhaled at the wrong moment causing a couple of full-throttle sneezes yielding epistaxis...) If/when that happens, Rasputin is discredited. That means the anti-Rasputin forces can seize the day and force Nicholas to abdicate in favor of a reformer (say, his brother Michael or his uncle Nicholas). Once that happens, Russia looks inward to play catchup in terms of industry, rail lines, you name it.

While we're at it, Great Britain will have its hands full with the Home Rule movements. We might today have parliaments in Dublin, Edinburgh, and (say) Cardiff and Manchester looking after the affairs in each of the constituent nations, with the government in London becoming more federalized. This probably also would have resulted in the House of Lords becoming no more than a ceremonial body at the same time.

Across the water in the US, no war means a lot less impetus for Prohibition. Probably the Volstead Act doesn't get reported out of committee favorably, marking the high water mark of the movement, especially since Wayne Wheeler and William Jennings Bryan aren't getting any younger. Could also be that Wilson's tenure is limited to a single term, given that his record wasn't particularly stellar up until 1916. We might well speak today of the tenure of President Hughes.

 

[Mikestone8]

Across the water in the US, no war means a lot less impetus for Prohibition. Probably the Volstead Act doesn't get reported out of committee favorably, marking the high water mark of the movement, especially since Wayne Wheeler and William Jennings Bryan aren't getting any younger. Could also be that Wilson's tenure is limited to a single term, given that his record wasn't particularly stellar up until 1916. We might well speak today of the tenure of President Hughes.

Agree about Prohibition.

OTOH I don't see why Hughes would get in. Removing the war means that the election is fought entirely on domestic issues, and Wilson's domestic policies were popular. I suspect he'd carry all his OTL states, and maybe pick up IN, MN and WV in addition.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Without WW1 and the US dropping tariffs in 1913 to increase trade, could we then avoid the GOP repeal of that after WW1? What effect would a liberalized US trade policy have had on the world economy going forward? Protectionism was a major German complaint leading up to WW1, so with it going into effect at least by 1914 within a decade it might well have an impact on German-US trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913

The United States Revenue Act of 1913 also known as the Tariff Act, Underwood Tariff, Underwood Act, Underwood Tariff Act, or Underwood-Simmons Act (ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114, October 3, 1913), re-imposed the federal income tax following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment and lowered basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%, well below the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909. It was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on October 3, 1913, and was sponsored by Alabama Representative Oscar Underwood.

It is impossible to offer a meaningful judgment on the impact of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff because the entire international economic picture was soon upset by the outbreak of World War I. American products were in great demand throughout the world, making the question of protectionism moot. The next reordering of national tariff policy would not occur until after the war ended in the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordney–McCumber_Tariff

The Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 was a law that raised American tariffs on many imported goods in order to protect factories and farms. Congress displayed a pro-business attitude in passing the tariff and in promoting foreign trade through providing huge loans to Europe, which in turn bought more American goods.[1]

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/copeland.htm

GERMANY AND THE OUTBREAK OF WORLD WAR I

Germany had been one of the few great powers trying to buck the trend towards protectionism in the early and mid-1890s. Recognizing that German industrial products could now match the goods of any state, Chancellor Caprivi set in place policies to expand German trade in Europe and overseas. Other great powers, however, indicated their opposition to any German penetration pacifique. Severe tariffs from the United States (McKinley tariff, 1890) and France (Meline tariff, 1892) were certainly worrisome. Even that bastion of free trade - Britain - indicated after 1895 that its fear of rising German commercial strength would soon lead to a reversal of policy. In 1896, the British had raided the Transvaal region of South Africa, jeopardizing German commercial interests. In mid-1897, Canada slapped a discriminatory tariff on non-British goods, contrary to the 1865 Most Favored Nation treaty between Germany and the British empire. Despite Germany's protest, the British, far from making amends, upheld the Canadian decision and then renounced the 1865 treaty in July 1897. Soon after this Joseph Chamberlain opened talks with British colonies on the possible formation a general imperial preference system.(45)

German expectations for future trade reflected these developments. On July 31, 1897, the Prussian minister in Munich informed Chancellor von Hohenlohe that public opinion saw the British "denunciation" of the 1865 treaty as "the prelude to a close trade relationship of England with her colonies." The kaiser's marginal comments indicated his agreement that "the denunciation is the beginning of a revolution in the whole system of British commercial policy." For the kaiser, any suggestion that the target of British action was the United States was "nonsense"; clearly "it is against Germany." He continued, "now that the superiority of German industry is recognized, [the British] will soon make efforts to destroy it."(46)

The "main worry" of German leaders during the late 1890s, as Fritz Fischer recounts, "remained . . . the extreme protectionist tariffs of the United States and the plans for a British customs association."(47) The German naval buildup after 1898 was partly designed to protect German trade, particularly imports of raw materials and food. Cecil notes that there was widespread recognition in Germany that with its fast growing population, Germany "could no longer subsist on native-grown foodstuffs" and that a strong navy was needed as "a necessary bulwark against starvation."(48)

German leaders had good reason to worry about the dependability of outside suppliers. In the decade and a half before the war, dependence on trade for vital goods increased dramatically, driven by phenomenal growth in both population and industrial size. Domestic oil production, for example, had gone up 140 percent from 1900 to 1913, but still accounted for only ten percent of total German oil needs. The state went from being a net exporter of iron ore as late as 1897 to relying on outsiders for close to 30 percent of its needs by 1913, despite domestic production increases of 120 percent. By 1913, over 57 percent of Germany's imports were in the form of raw materials, versus 44 percent in 1903 and 41 percent in 1893. All this was occurring at a time when Germany's ratio of trade to GNP was rising to new heights: from 32 percent in 1900, to 36 percent in 1910, to almost 40 percent in 1913.(49)

Of great concern as well were the growing French, Russian, and British efforts to obstruct German commerce. After 1897, Britain and the United States worked in tandem to preclude German colonial gains: despite Germany's efforts, for example, it received nothing from the dissolution of the Spanish empire. In both Moroccan crises, 1905 and 1911, Britain helped France thwart greater German economic penetration of Africa. In fact, from 1898 to 1913, the colonial territory Germany had been permitted to acquire was only one-seventh that acquired by the United States, a state less often thought of as "imperialist."(50)

...

By 1911, after the failures of the second Moroccan crisis and "in response to the protectionist trends in the United States, Britain, and Russia," Germany "turned again to the idea of a central European economic area as a defensive measure."(58) Concern for economic security was tangible, transcending ideological and party lines. Future chancellor and National Liberal Stresemann stated in early 1913 that Germany must seek to "create a self-sufficient economic area, so as to make sure of our raw material requirements and to protect our exports." Basserman of the Centre Party in mid-1912 stated that "our trade declines more and more in certain places where we are pushed out or where it keeps its end up only with difficulties." Even the Social Democrat Hildebrand would write in 1911, "from a socialist standpoint the acquisition of colonial domains has become an acute economic necessity for Germany." Indeed, Fischer shows that after 1906 the Social Democratic party moved from opposition to acceptance of German colonial expansion.(59)

These views paralleled those within the government. Walter Rathenau, who was the influential head of the department of military raw materials in the War Ministry in August 1914, was arguing by December 1913 that Germany's raw material base was too "narrow," and that it depended on "the mercy of the world market as long as [Germany] did not itself possess sufficient raw material sources." In April 1914, Albert Ballin noted that the "expansion of our foreign markets is increasingly threatened," and in the oil-rich Near East in particular, "we have been thrown out of the most important regions there."(60)

The declining expectations of future trade contributed to the pervasive sense of general decline felt by the German leadership in July 1914. Extensive evidence shows that German leaders brought on world war for "preventive" motives, namely to forestall the rise of powers such as Russia.(61) Economic factors reinforced these motives. If France and Russia could be defeated, valuable areas in Europe would be incorporated under German tutelage, guaranteeing the raw materials and markets needed for future German economic power and therefore security; without major war, the economic policies of German adversaries would push Germany further into decline over the long term.

...

Thus increasingly pessimistic German trade expectations had much to do with the German willingness to bring on a major war in July 1914. With Britain shutting Germany out of the oil-rich Middle East and resource-rich Africa, with France threatening Germany's access to iron ore, and with high French and Russian tariff levels limiting German economic growth versus "economic empires" like Britain and the United States, German leaders felt that only a major war would provide the economic dominance of Europe needed for long-term German survival.

 

[LeCHVCK]

4-Assume that a war not happen: Can Germany,Habsburg Federation,Russian Empire,Ottoman Empire,become full contitutional democracy within 1940?
And if not all,which State have best possibilities to become a parliamentary democracy?

Germany was getting more and more liberal before the war the Kaiser and old elites feared this parliamentirazon (I know the German term but not the English sorry) but by 1940 there's no plausible way that the constitutional Monarchy of 1871 is still living it's probably a paliarmentary monarchy.
If FF can outmanoever the Hungarians and he gets his idea with the United States of Greater Austria there is at least some kind of democracy.
I don't know enough over the Ottomans or Russians but I think the Turks tried to get their democracy thing going for them which is nice.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Germany was getting more and more liberal before the war the Kaiser and old elites feared this parliamentirazon (I know the German term but not the English sorry) but by 1940 there's no plausible way that the constitutional Monarchy of 1871 is still living it's probably a paliarmentary monarchy.
If FF can outmanoever the Hungarians and he gets his idea with the United States of Greater Austria there is at least some kind of democracy.
I don't know enough over the Ottomans or Russians but I think the Turks tried to get their democracy thing going for them which is nice.

Its a common misconception that FF wanted a US of Austria; he did not. That was presented by a Romanian professor, which FF rejected. He was a massive conservative like Nicholas II of Russia, but hated the Magyar nobles and was trying to find a way around their power as part of the Ausgleich; he thought about a Third Crownland of Yugoslavia, but ultimately rejected it by 1907 as creating more problems than it solved. His plan upon his death was to refuse to be crowned in Hungary until they rewrote their constitution and if they refused he was going to launch the 1905 Plan U to coup the Budapest parliament and rewrite the constitution by force to allow for universal manhood suffrage in Hungary to break the lock of the Magyar nobility on parliament (only 5% of the population could vote, only nobles). By having all the non-Magyars voting, they were about 49% of the population of Hungary, and all the poor peasant Magyars voting too the nobles would lose control over the Hungarian half of the Empire and FF could then play divide and conquer with the ethnic groups in Hungary to get his way ruling the Dual Monarchy. It was a good plan if he could pull it off without starting a civil war, which I think he could have pretty easily, because so many Hungarian citizens hated the parliament of the nobles, despite their ethnic chauvanism propaganda in Hungary to divide and conquer the poor, whatever their ethnic group.

 

[KACKO]

(only 5% of the population could vote, only nobles)

Actually it was 6 % of population increased in 1913 to some 8.7 %.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Actually it was 6 % of population increased in 1913 to some 8.7 %.

Thanks for the correction, what's your source so I can read more?

Edit: found this source:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_(Ungarn)

By a census suffrage , which allowed only a privileged part of the population to choose from - 1913 only 7.7% of the total population were eligible to vote (or were allowed to hold public office) - was using the Reichstag the reactionary structure of the multi-ethnic state cemented Hungary. [10]

or this:

The House of Representatives (Képviselőház ) consisted of members elected, under the Electoral Law of 1874, by a complicated franchise based upon property, taxation, profession or official position, and ancestral privileges. The House consisted of 453 members, of which 413 were deputies elected in Hungary and 43 delegates of Croatia-Slavonia sent by the parliament of that Kingdom. Their terms were for five years and were remunerated.

The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition considered the franchise "probably the most illiberal in Europe". The working classes were wholly unrepresented in the parliament, only 6% of them, and 13% of the small trading class, possessing the franchise, which was only enjoyed by 6% of the entire population.

 

[lounge60]

Its a common misconception that FF wanted a US of Austria; he did not.

The late FF plan was not a TRIPLE monarcy (Germans-Hungarians-Slavics) more a larger autonomy for the others ethnic groups?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The late FF plan was not a TRIPLE monarcy (Germans-Hungarians-Slavics) more a larger autonomy for the others ethnic groups?

That was never his plan, it was one presented to him that he rejected; he started with a triple monarchy idea and dropped it in 1907 and later the US of Austria was proposed and he rejected it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria

This specific proposal was conceived by the lawyer and politician Aurel Popovici in 1906

http://www.amazon.com/Archduke-Sara...3789&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=arch+duke+sarejavo
This book describes his character and has info about his plans for ascension to the throne that were found after his death in his personal desk. I've detailed what they were in my previous post.

 

[KACKO]

Thanks for the correction, what's your source so I can read more?

Hungary's Long Nineteenth Century by Laszlo Peter. Or was it Peter Laszlo? As Hungarians are placing first name after surname and actually Laszlo is also form of first name. Confusing really with this author.

 

[LordKalvert]

Some questions:
With a Franz Ferdinand live,and without a war in 1914....

1-Could the balance between stabilize in subsequent few years for avoid at all a great war in Europe?

A great war would be very unlikely. FF saw the problems of the monarchy as internal and that they couldn't be solved by war. If anything he wanted reconciliation with Russia

2-Could be a rapprochement between Germany and UK,and Germany and Russia?

Not sure what Britain could offer Germany. The Germans rather discounted the British ability to influence continental events so probably weren't looking for an alliance which Britain would never offer anyway. If Britain and Russia drift apart, reconciliation between Russia and Germany seems the more likely

3-The attempt to transform the Austro-Hungarian Empire in a Federation could cause a civil war?
With what results (Hungary is defeat and Federation proclaimed? Or the situation can be escalate in a European war)?

Hungary's defeat would come quickly- it wasn't really Hungarian as Magyar nobles in the opposition with little support in the country. If fighting does break out, it would depend on the neighbors if it spreads. A free for all to grab what you can could easily have broken out. Serbia taking Bosnia, Romania taking Transylvania and Russia and Italy grabbing whatever they could

4-Assume that a war not happen: Can Germany,Habsburg Federation,Russian Empire,Ottoman Empire,become full contitutional democracy within 1940?
And if not all,which State have best possibilities to become a parliamentary democracy?

Hard to say here. The monarchies retained a lot of popular support (they would keep that support through the long war despite making incredible demands on their people) and if the leaders are ruthless enough they can keep their power

Something would also have to provide the spark for change as inertia can last a long time in politics.

As others have noted- the Russian succession is becoming a mess. Alexis is not long for the world and has little chance of producing any offspring in any event. Nicholas might relent and let his brother have the throne (like he does in 1917) or he might try and put his daughter on the throne. Not sure where that one's headed but giving the throne to his cousin is really unlikely

 

[LordKalvert]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BooNZ
yeah - the blood of Russian peasants is far cheaper than French blood and they won't mind... - perhaps the French could send them shipments of cake?




Sorry, I will keep it simple for you.

A cornerstone of the French/ Russian alliance was to force Germany to fight on two fronts. This necessitated a co-ordinated approach where both France and Russia would attack Germany simultaneously.

You suggested France could just sit on its arse and let Russia do all the work. Not only would that be unacceptable diplomatically, it would result in Russia being torn apart.

No I didn't. I said that if Germany sat on its arse (like you suggested) the French would wait for the Russians to be mobilized and then launch their attacks

Everyone also 'understood' the 1914 Russian army to be competent... (hint: they were very wrong)

The Russians had weaknesses- no worse than France's. They crushed the Austrians without much trouble. If England and France had fought a decent war, it would have been over. As mentioned by so many here, the real problem of Tannenburg was that the Russians were attacking prematurely to save France. If they had been fully mobilized, the battle would never have been in doubt

The German preference (per doctrine) would have been a mobile war for which Russia would be ill equipped. Russian offensives create ample opportunities for flanking and counterattack and the German desired battles of annihilation.

As pointed out, you have the Germans on the defensive. Why would the Russians strike at them first? Go after Austria and crush them

Zuber indicates the size of the Russian forces would ultimately increase a "massive" 60,000 men from the 1914 reforms - against potentially additional 4 German ARMIES, that assumes the Germans and A-H do not respond to the Russian escalations with further increases of their own.

Further, increased German influence on the A-H military would have a significant-huge impact on its effectiveness (per OTL). This is entirely likely as A-H became increasingly threatened by Russia and its client states.

Funny how the Kaiser and his entourage who knew something of the situation didn't see it that way. That they know a lot more than an historian who's out in left field in his analysis shouldn't be a surprise

As you have noted, you rarely see the logic of my thoughts. I suggest you invest in some kind of visual aid and some sensible reading material.

I think we both know who has the much better sources. But stay in your dreamland where the Sultan and the Russians never cooperate and the Sultan is bussom buddies with Queen Victoria even when she's running around Europe trying to get him deposed