If Afghanistan Enters WWI On the Central Powers Side, What Does It Get At Brest-Litovsk?

Deleted member 94680

Excellent post! :)

However, two things:

1. I would like to point out that I actually was talking about Afghanistan receiving territorial "gifts" from the Germans at Brest-Litovsk; indeed, expecting Afghanistan to successfully fight against Britain and Russia is obviously unrealistic--as you yourself point out!

Anyway, how would my clarification here change your answer in regards to this?

2. Wasn't Gallipoli very important to the Entente/Allies because a victory there would open up the Straits and thus allow Britain and France to begin exporting large amounts of goods and war materials to Russia?

Thank you.

1. Would they though? In this POD the Afghans have joined the CP 'in name only' then? What have they contributed to the War effort? Why should they be rewarded?

2. Yes, Gallipoli was important in its aims (less so in execution, obviously) but the troops and equipment allocated to it OTL reflect its position in the grand scheme. The prospect of Britain losing India (the jewel, the main territory, the raison d'être of the Empire) would be Priority Number One outside of the Western Front. The same way France couldn't contribute massively to anything other than defeating the Germans, the British are going to shelve everything until the 'Afghan Menace' is resolved.

To the point about "you all forgetting what's been going on in Afghanistan since 1979" the British wouldn't occupy Afghanistan - they'd do what they always did (or tried to do) remove the ruler that was a problem, find someone friendly to them and pay him a shitload of cash to be nice to them.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Thank you.

1. Would they though? In this POD the Afghans have joined the CP 'in name only' then? What have they contributed to the War effort? Why should they be rewarded?

2. Yes, Gallipoli was important in its aims (less so in execution, obviously) but the troops and equipment allocated to it OTL reflect its position in the grand scheme. The prospect of Britain losing India (the jewel, the main territory, the raison d'être of the Empire) would be Priority Number One outside of the Western Front. The same way France couldn't contribute massively to anything other than defeating the Germans, the British are going to shelve everything until the 'Afghan Menace' is resolved.

3. To the point about "you all forgetting what's been going on in Afghanistan since 1979" the British wouldn't occupy Afghanistan - they'd do what they always did (or tried to do) remove the ruler that was a problem, find someone friendly to them and pay him a shitload of cash to be nice to them.
1. Actually, they will fight to the best of their abilities; however, the best of their abilities isn't very much since they are a poor, pre-industrial country! Of course, Germany will certainly reward its Afghan allies for their effort; after all, the Afghans will certainly give it their best shot in spite of their limited abilities (in regards to their military)!

2. Afghanistan wouldn't be able to conquer all or even most of British India, though; indeed, Afghanistan almost certainly wouldn't have the logistics to do this!

3. A pro-British Afghan government obviously wouldn't be recognized by the Central Powers, though; plus, even such an Afghan government might privately not be opposed to territorial gains at Russia's expense at Brest-Litovsk!
 

Deleted member 94680

So are you having the Central Powers win WWI in this TL?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
So are you having the Central Powers win WWI in this TL?
No; rather, I am having Afghanistan enter WWI on the side of the Central Powers, have the Central Powers win in the East, and then have the Central Powers lose the whole war several months later (just like in our TL).

However, my point here is this--a new, British-installed Afghan government might want to get rewarded for its loyalty to Britain; thus, at Versailles, this Afghan government might very well demand that the concessions that the Afghan government-in-exile got (thanks to Germany) from Russia at Brest-Litovsk should be honored and upheld. Indeed, would Britain prefer to have Afghanistan or the Bolsheviks hold these territories?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, I will say this--my previous posts here were based on a presumption that the pro-German Afghan leadership would be able to escape from Afghanistan and go into exile once Britain occupies Afghanistan; indeed, if the pro-German Afghan leadership is unable to do this and gets killed, captured, and/or imprisoned by the British instead, then there will obviously be no Afghan government-in-exile in this TL and thus no one who will be willing to demand Russian territory for Afghanistan at the 1917-1918 Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations.
 

Deleted member 94680

No; rather, I am having Afghanistan enter WWI on the side of the Central Powers, have the Central Powers win in the East, and then have the Central Powers lose the whole war several months later (just like in our TL).

However, my point here is this--a new, British-installed Afghan government might want to get rewarded for its loyalty to Britain; thus, at Versailles, this Afghan government might very well demand that the concessions that the Afghan government-in-exile got (thanks to Germany) from Russia at Brest-Litovsk should be honored and upheld. Indeed, would Britain prefer to have Afghanistan or the Bolsheviks hold these territories?

Well, Brest-Litovsk got ripped up OTL, so why not in this TL?

Saying that, the OTL 'pro'-British Afghan government (as much as an Afghan of the era would be pro-British) asked for rewards for their 'loyalty' (i.e. hadn't attacked British India (much) and didn't join the CP despite the German Mission) with a seat at Versailles. The British response was that Versailles was reserved for combatants. In this ATL the Afghans are combatants but CP combatants - that doesn't bode well for rewards at Versailles.

Now if Russia goes Bolshevik in this ATL there's a chance they might be used as a bulwark against the expansion into India but why wasn't that tried OTL? Also Bolsheviks did hold these territories OTL and Britain didn't seem to mind, so why the difference here? All that's changed is the Afghans are more anti-British than OTL so I can't see why they'd be rewarded.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well, Brest-Litovsk got ripped up OTL, so why not in this TL?

Saying that, the OTL 'pro'-British Afghan government (as much as an Afghan of the era would be pro-British) asked for rewards for their 'loyalty' (i.e. hadn't attacked British India (much) and didn't join the CP despite the German Mission) with a seat at Versailles. The British response was that Versailles was reserved for combatants. In this ATL the Afghans are combatants but CP combatants - that doesn't bode well for rewards at Versailles.

Now if Russia goes Bolshevik in this ATL there's a chance they might be used as a bulwark against the expansion into India but why wasn't that tried OTL? Also Bolsheviks did hold these territories OTL and Britain didn't seem to mind, so why the difference here? All that's changed is the Afghans are more anti-British than OTL so I can't see why they'd be rewarded.
Fair points, I suppose.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
However, one point: In our TL, Britain and Afghanistan fought a war in 1919; thus, Britain had no desire to help the Afghan government that declared war on it in 1919 to expand into Soviet territory. However, in this TL, if Britain installs a new government in Afghanistan, the British anger towards the Afghan government as a result of fighting Britain (in 1919, in our TL) wouldn't exist in this TL. Thus, in this TL, Britain might be more willing to support Afghan encroaches onto Russian territory.
 

Deleted member 94680

However, one point: In our TL, Britain and Afghanistan fought a war in 1919; thus, Britain had no desire to help the Afghan government that declared war on it in 1919 to expand into Soviet territory. However, in this TL, if Britain installs a new government in Afghanistan, the British anger towards the Afghan government as a result of fighting Britain (in 1919, in our TL) wouldn't exist in this TL. Thus, in this TL, Britain might be more willing to support Afghan encroaches onto Russian territory.

That makes no sense. In my post where I suggested Britain would install a new government, it was in the aftermath of an invasion due to Afghanistan being part of the CP. There would be more British anger towards the Afghans, not less. A nation that has reneged on treaty obligations to attack you (or an ally, if they only go for Russia) is not the kind of nation you want to enlarge and embolden.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That makes no sense. In my post where I suggested Britain would install a new government, it was in the aftermath of an invasion due to Afghanistan being part of the CP. There would be more British anger towards the Afghans, not less. A nation that has reneged on treaty obligations to attack you (or an ally, if they only go for Russia) is not the kind of nation you want to enlarge and embolden.
To be fair, though, Afghanistan can switch sides after the British invasion just like both Italy and Romania did in WWII in our TL.
 
Several questions:

1. Did the Brits actually use poison gas in WWI?

Yes, several times. France, Austria, Russia, and the U.S. also used gas. Turkey and Italy did not, nor any of the minor powers. The Bolsheviks used gas in 1920.
2. Would the Brits and Russians try promoting separatism in Afghanistan in WWI in this TL (think of an Afghan equivalent of the Arab Revolt in the Middle East in 1916-1918)?
Possibly, though Afghanistan is much smaller and weaker than Turkey, so the Allies would have less need of local support.
3. Which Russian territories would the Afghans actually acquire at Brest-Litovsk?
None, IMO.
4. Wouldn't the Bolsheviks be too busy dealing with the Basmachi to invade Afghanistan before 1922-1925?
They wouldn't be too busy to secure any areas claimed by Afghanistan across the 1914 border.
5. Couldn't the Brits support allowing the Afghans to keep their Brest-Litovsk gains in order to weaken the Bolsheviks?
That's actually possible.
6. Which Afghan territories, if any, would Britain actually want to acquire after the end of WWI in this TL?
Dunno. AFAIK, the border runs fairly close to the crest of the mountains. Britain doesn't want any more impoverished restive Pathans to rule, though it might be better to have them inside the tent pissing out.
 
That makes no sense. In my post where I suggested Britain would install a new government, it was in the aftermath of an invasion due to Afghanistan being part of the CP. There would be more British anger towards the Afghans, not less. A nation that has reneged on treaty obligations to attack you (or an ally, if they only go for Russia) is not the kind of nation you want to enlarge and embolden.

Ah, but that was the previous regime. The new regime is very firmly allied to Britain; why not reward them for that with a piece of Russia?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
At Bretsk Litovsk: a ham sandwich and a participation medal I guess.
After the war: British League Mandate, and maybe with luck semi- independence in the 1930s (similar to Iraq).
 

Deleted member 94680

Ah, but that was the previous regime. The new regime is very firmly allied to Britain; why not reward them for that with a piece of Russia?

No Afghan regime is firmly allied to anyone and this one was put in place by Indian bayonets. If it came about by a coup or the Army deposing the Kahn, maybe - but as I wrote it, it was the result of the British victory.

At Bretsk Litovsk: a ham sandwich and a participation medal I guess.
After the war: British League Mandate, and maybe with luck semi- independence in the 1930s (similar to Iraq).

Love it. But come on Old Chap, a ham sandwich for a Muslim country? Maybe a lamb sandwich instead, eh?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Yes, it's been three weeks; however, I need to respond to some of the comments here--thus, here goes:

Yes, several times. France, Austria, Russia, and the U.S. also used gas. Turkey and Italy did not, nor any of the minor powers. The Bolsheviks used gas in 1920.

OK.

Possibly, though Afghanistan is much smaller and weaker than Turkey, so the Allies would have less need of local support.

Wouldn't the Entente/Allies want all the help that they can get, though?

None, IMO.

They wouldn't be too busy to secure any areas claimed by Afghanistan across the 1914 border.

You mean would be too busy, correct?

Also, what about having Germany do the hard work in the negotiations for the Afghans?

That's actually possible.

OK; however, to clarify--you don't think that Afghanistan would actually acquire anything at Brest-Litovsk, correct?

Dunno. AFAIK, the border runs fairly close to the crest of the mountains. Britain doesn't want any more impoverished restive Pathans to rule, though it might be better to have them inside the tent pissing out.

OK.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That makes no sense. In my post where I suggested Britain would install a new government, it was in the aftermath of an invasion due to Afghanistan being part of the CP. There would be more British anger towards the Afghans, not less. A nation that has reneged on treaty obligations to attack you (or an ally, if they only go for Russia) is not the kind of nation you want to enlarge and embolden.
Please look at Romania in 1944-1945 in our TL, though; in spite of the fact that the Soviets have fought Romania for three years, they were willing to reward Romania after it switched sides in 1944 by giving it all of Northern Transylvania back. :)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
No Afghan regime is firmly allied to anyone and this one was put in place by Indian bayonets. If it came about by a coup or the Army deposing the Kahn, maybe - but as I wrote it, it was the result of the British victory.

What about if this new Afghan regime was the result of a coup deposing the Afghan Amir, though?

Love it. But come on Old Chap, a ham sandwich for a Muslim country? Maybe a lamb sandwich instead, eh?

Completely agreed. :)

Also, question--if Britain would actually decide to have British India outright annex all of Afghanistan after the end of WWI in this TL, could this result in even stronger support for the Partition of India in 1947 (assuming no butterflies in this region before that point in time, that is)?
 
The Ottomans and Germans had been trying to woo Afghanistan once the war broke out. The Ottomans wanted to use the Afghans as a way to expand their holding within Persia, Central Asia, and the Russian Caucasus. The German diplomat sent to Afghanistan (Baron Max von Oppenheim) Said that the population was not one to be underestimated as they were a powerful and prideful people. They figured that if the Afghans managed to penetrate the Indus Valley that India itself would rise up in rebellion against the British rule.

The Russians were facing issues along it's border with Afghanistan already, mainly with the Kazakhs and a few other people's groups that rose up against being forced to join the army, their main population base was within the central Asian mountains and gave a large (if not weak) barrier to Russian operations against the nation.

The Afghan military was pretty small over-all. You would be looking at roughly 140,000 men (50,000 being the regular army with a supplement of 90.000 tribesmen that would be mainly armed with spears, swords, old firearms etc.) They would be attacking into the Pashtun region, an area that was high in terms of national identity and (albiet unlikely) willing to rise up against the British. The Pashtun people created seven regiments (70,000 men) during the war and five were sent to the western front. One was sent to Mesopotamia and the other to Egypt. So let's say that another 30,000 actually decide to join the Afghan forces (the population of the area is rather small even today, I don't have the exact numbers though) so that's 170,000 men attacking along a 100 mile front. They would have no hope of getting really any supplies from the Central powers as Persia was under partial occupation by the British, and they had an intensive spy network already in place. The English could muster ~120,000 men in India if need be, Portugal had three regiments within their territories in India and depending on the time, are part of the Entente, and if worst comes to worst, the Japanese would be more then likely willing to send aid as after 1914, the Japanese had little to no fighting left to do.
 
Top