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

CaliGuy

Banned
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.
Question--how many troops could Japan deploy to Afghanistan during WWI if necessary?
 
Question--how many troops could Japan deploy to Afghanistan during WWI if necessary?
If I was to hazard a guess I'd say ~one division at most. I can't imagine that the British would be very keen on having Japanese forces anywhere where they wouldn't have to be really, nor do I have any idea how far the Japanese would be willing to commit military wise to aid the British. Some tentative plans existed for having 100-500,000 Japanese sent to France but none of that came to be reality (Nor can I find much information about those plans either). Japan was much more focused on exerting influence over China during this period of time anyway.
 

Deleted member 94680

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.

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

That's a fair point, but Soviet foreign policy for the post-WWII era and British Imperial foreign policy are two different beasts. Enlarging Afghanistan would, in some quarters' view, simply increase the risk of a further attempt on India later on down the line. Maybe, provided the coup is as you say, a semi-independent southern Russian state under Afghan control but with Afghan foreign policy controlled by Britain would be possible?

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)?

I have no idea, as that would be adding a whole new dynamic to internal Indian politics. I just can't see India adding Afghanistan to their territory though. Too many conflicting interests, the cost of modernising Afghanistan's infrastructure to India's levels would be immense and it then gives India a land border with whatever is in Russia (which was what the Afghan 'buffer state' was meant to avoid in the first place).

I know you like huge annexations with no regard for ethnicity or logistics, but usually the reasons they were performed OTL are pretty sound.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If I was to hazard a guess I'd say ~one division at most. I can't imagine that the British would be very keen on having Japanese forces anywhere where they wouldn't have to be really, nor do I have any idea how far the Japanese would be willing to commit military wise to aid the British. Some tentative plans existed for having 100-500,000 Japanese sent to France but none of that came to be reality (Nor can I find much information about those plans either). Japan was much more focused on exerting influence over China during this period of time anyway.
How many troops is one division, though?
 
How many troops is one division, though?
Around 10,000 men, Some nations (especially during this period in time) would have varying sizes for their divisions, more so because they would stick within the "Two Regiments per Division" rule (plus support units), even during heavy fighting and their regiments may be of varying sizes as well.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Around 10,000 men, Some nations (especially during this period in time) would have varying sizes for their divisions, more so because they would stick within the "Two Regiments per Division" rule (plus support units), even during heavy fighting and their regiments may be of varying sizes as well.
OK; also, though, why exactly would Britain be wary of having Japanese forces be somewhere other than where they need to be? Because this could cause Japan to end its alliance with Britain?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That's a fair point, but Soviet foreign policy for the post-WWII era and British Imperial foreign policy are two different beasts. Enlarging Afghanistan would, in some quarters' view, simply increase the risk of a further attempt on India later on down the line. Maybe, provided the coup is as you say, a semi-independent southern Russian state under Afghan control but with Afghan foreign policy controlled by Britain would be possible?

I've got a question--couldn't enlarging Afghanistan actually have the opposite effect to the one that you are thinking of? After all, if a lot more non-Pashtuns are put into Afghanistan, then the Afghan government might be busy dealing with these non-Pashtuns for the next several decades and thus lack the ability and resources to invade British India during this time!

I have no idea, as that would be adding a whole new dynamic to internal Indian politics. I just can't see India adding Afghanistan to their territory though. Too many conflicting interests, the cost of modernising Afghanistan's infrastructure to India's levels would be immense

Isn't Afghanistan's population totally puny in comparison to India's, though?

and it then gives India a land border with whatever is in Russia (which was what the Afghan 'buffer state' was meant to avoid in the first place).

Technically speaking, though, some Pashtun-majority areas can be annexed while a rump independent Afghanistan remains in northern Afghanistan.

I know you like huge annexations with no regard for ethnicity or logistics, but usually the reasons they were performed OTL are pretty sound.

Yes; correct!

Also, though, I myself am actually a fan of national self-determination; indeed, I simply want to explore all of the options here.
 
OK; also, though, why exactly would Britain be wary of having Japanese forces be somewhere other than where they need to be? Because this could cause Japan to end its alliance with Britain?
No, My thoughts on this are based more on post-war events regarding Japanese troops in Russia, so I could simply be incorrect.
It's more a case where the British (and west in general) didn't want to give or let Japan expand their influence, now, having Japanese troops fighting in India (as unlikely as that would be) could call the Japanese government to take spoils that they wish due to being a "fighting ally" and an ally that the British would want to keep. Again, Japan was much more focused in China at the moment so I'm not even sure that the government would allow troops to go to India. When I wrote that, I didn't have much information to go with it, it sounds possibly in theory but lacks evidence to show such a thing. It would be far more likely that the troops raised in India would easily repulse an invasion, or ANZAC troops would be brought in, troops from the Mesopotamian front, or Portuguese troops as a last resort.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
No, My thoughts on this are based more on post-war events regarding Japanese troops in Russia, so I could simply be incorrect.
It's more a case where the British (and west in general) didn't want to give or let Japan expand their influence, now, having Japanese troops fighting in India (as unlikely as that would be) could call the Japanese government to take spoils that they wish due to being a "fighting ally" and an ally that the British would want to keep. Again, Japan was much more focused in China at the moment so I'm not even sure that the government would allow troops to go to India. When I wrote that, I didn't have much information to go with it, it sounds possibly in theory but lacks evidence to show such a thing. It would be far more likely that the troops raised in India would easily repulse an invasion, or ANZAC troops would be brought in, troops from the Mesopotamian front, or Portuguese troops as a last resort.
Question--how exactly would Japan expand its influence if it sent some of its troops to British India and Afghanistan? After all, it's not like Japan would be able to conquer either British India or Afghanistan!
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Heck, if anything, having Japan send troops to British India and Afghanistan might benefit Japan most of all in the sense that its troops will have some additional military experience--military experience (as well as military lessons) which will have value in future wars which Japan will get involved in!
 
Question--how exactly would Japan expand its influence if it sent some of its troops to British India and Afghanistan? After all, it's not like Japan would be able to conquer either British India or Afghanistan!
By being an active ally, they can demand German holdings in the Pacific like New Guinea and Samoa. That's what I mean by that. Japan did send military advisers to the Western Front (unsure of where else they were sent) as nations due during large scale war. As to the benefits of what those advisers were I can't remember or find, their was a thread on here a while ago talking about it and I'll try to find it.
You're looking at that in Hindsight, the Japanese did not know that they would be going to war any-time soon. Many thought that China would kneel below them or easily whip them on the field of battle, like they did in 1897 and the Russians in 1905.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
By being an active ally, they can demand German holdings in the Pacific like New Guinea and Samoa. That's what I mean by that. Japan did send military advisers to the Western Front (unsure of where else they were sent) as nations due during large scale war. As to the benefits of what those advisers were I can't remember or find, their was a thread on here a while ago talking about it and I'll try to find it.

How much would a Japanese acquisition of German territories in the Pacific have strengthened Japan, though?

You're looking at that in Hindsight, the Japanese did not know that they would be going to war any-time soon. Many thought that China would kneel below them or easily whip them on the field of battle, like they did in 1897 and the Russians in 1905.

Actually, I am looking at this from the vantage point of 1919; indeed, in the 30 years before 1919, Japan has fought one war with China and another war with Russia. Thus, why not a future war against some country which will threaten Japan's interests in East Asia and/or the Pacific (whether that country is Britain, France, the Netherlands, the U.S., or some of these countries together)?
 

Deleted member 94680

I've got a question--couldn't enlarging Afghanistan actually have the opposite effect to the one that you are thinking of? After all, if a lot more non-Pashtuns are put into Afghanistan, then the Afghan government might be busy dealing with these non-Pashtuns for the next several decades and thus lack the ability and resources to invade British India during this time!

It might very well have that effect, I don't really know enough about the inter-ethnic aspects of Afghan politics. Afghanistan wasn't a monoethnic state in the era of the Great Game, but was always considered a threat to India. Maybe the other non-Pashtuns will provide troops for the Afghan army, maybe they won't - but it's a stretch to suggest they'd be up in revolt the minute they became part of a Muslim state as soon as they were 'released' from a Christian one that suppressed their autonomy. Afghanistan was fairly lose on the concept of central government at the time, I imagine that would suit them far better than Russian taxes and Cossacks marauding accross their grazing lands.

Isn't Afghanistan's population totally puny in comparison to India's, though?

Yeah dude totally, like, puny maaaaaaaan. But it was always considered a threat - mainly because of the constant fear gnawing at the back of the British mind that an invasion would result in a general uprising. A fear that was misplaced, IMHO, but Delhi saw it that a defeat on the NWF could mean a new Mutiny and a massacre of the White population.

Technically speaking, though, some Pashtun-majority areas can be annexed while a rump independent Afghanistan remains in northern Afghanistan.

They could, I suppose. Going by your ethnic map, the Pashtun areas would take the majority of the south of the country below the Hindu Kush, so it would still be defendable in the military logic of the age. It might even stop the cross-border issues (that still happen today) by moving the border northwards.

Also, though, I myself am actually a fan of national self-determination; indeed, I simply want to explore all of the options here.

In all due respect, you don't sound it. Constantly arguing for annexations and population exchanges, arbitrarily moving borders, you seem to view AH through the prism of a wargaming simulation where the guy with the most squares his colour wins.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
It might very well have that effect, I don't really know enough about the inter-ethnic aspects of Afghan politics. Afghanistan wasn't a monoethnic state in the era of the Great Game, but was always considered a threat to India. Maybe the other non-Pashtuns will provide troops for the Afghan army, maybe they won't - but it's a stretch to suggest they'd be up in revolt the minute they became part of a Muslim state as soon as they were 'released' from a Christian one that suppressed their autonomy. Afghanistan was fairly lose on the concept of central government at the time, I imagine that would suit them far better than Russian taxes and Cossacks marauding accross their grazing lands.

It might suit them better than Russian rule would; however, the Afghan government might still need to keep a wary eye on them to reduce the risk of a future rebellion among them. Indeed, why exactly do you think that Afghan colonized its northern frontier with ethnic Pashtuns in the late 19th and 20th centuries in our TL?

Yeah dude totally, like, puny maaaaaaaan. But it was always considered a threat - mainly because of the constant fear gnawing at the back of the British mind that an invasion would result in a general uprising. A fear that was misplaced, IMHO, but Delhi saw it that a defeat on the NWF could mean a new Mutiny and a massacre of the White population.

OK; fair enough, I suppose.

They could, I suppose. Going by your ethnic map, the Pashtun areas would take the majority of the south of the country below the Hindu Kush, so it would still be defendable in the military logic of the age. It might even stop the cross-border issues (that still happen today) by moving the border northwards.

OK; of course, in such a scenario, the Afghan kingdom might need to become a full part of British India (like, say, Hyderabad was). After all, I am unsure that Afghan kings would want to rule over an independent country with few Pashtuns inside of it!

In all due respect, you don't sound it. Constantly arguing for annexations and population exchanges,

When exactly am I arguing for population exchanges, though?

arbitrarily moving borders,

Where exactly?

you seem to view AH through the prism of a wargaming simulation where the guy with the most squares his colour wins.

Frankly, I can't say that doing this wouldn't be very interesting; however, at best, that is only one of the perspectives from which I view alternate history. :)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
1. Did the Brits actually use poison gas in WWI?
Yes. They always had a policy of second-use of any given gas, but had often developed the gas in question first.


As for British India, there were hundreds of thousands of British Indian forces fighting against the Ottomans. Since this was a campaign that resulted from mission creep, to divert a few divisions to Afghanistan would not be giving up anything vital.
 

Deleted member 94680

however, the Afghan government might still need to keep a wary eye on them to reduce the risk of a future rebellion among them. Indeed, why exactly do you think that Afghan colonized its northern frontier with ethnic Pashtuns in the late 19th and 20th centuries in our TL?

Well as you said, to dilute the ethnic concentrations of other tribes and avoid troubles. The King of Afghanistan was a Pashtun, so it was putting his "own people" in a sensitive region where he needed reliable troops. It seems (from a brief reading of the history of Afghanistan) that a fair part of the inter-ethnic conflict in Afghanistan was a proxy of political and familial competition for the Throne. If the "troublesome tribes" followed a Pashtun pretender, it seems the ethnicity of a ruler isn't an insurmountable problem to an Afghan.



OK; of course, in such a scenario, the Afghan kingdom might need to become a full part of British India (like, say, Hyderabad was). After all, I am unsure that Afghan kings would want to rule over an independent country with few Pashtuns inside of it!

That's a fair point, but Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country and has been for a long time. There have been Pashtuns dotted all over Afghanistan for a long time, but it wouldn't be the first country in the region to have a ruler of a different ethnicity/tribe/religion to majority of the population - Hyderabad itself for instance had a Muslim ruler of a Hindu population.

When exactly am I arguing for population exchanges, though?

Come on, that's implicit in redefining countries that depend on an ethnic identity for their cohesion. Or are you saying it hasn't occurred to you that it would be a logical correlation to the wholesale changes you're always proposing?

Where exactly?

Well this whole thread you've proposed annexing parts of Afghanistan to India, dividing the nation up, removing parts of southern Russia, in another thread it was handing Transylvania over to Romania, in another Northern France becoming part of Germany. None of these (in the time periods you propose them) are even-handed or even logical but you throw them out there constantly. It's just an observation, but for someone a "fan" of self determination, I don't remember you even once proposing to have a plebiscite or vote on any told these changes.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well as you said, to dilute the ethnic concentrations of other tribes and avoid troubles. The King of Afghanistan was a Pashtun, so it was putting his "own people" in a sensitive region where he needed reliable troops. It seems (from a brief reading of the history of Afghanistan) that a fair part of the inter-ethnic conflict in Afghanistan was a proxy of political and familial competition for the Throne. If the "troublesome tribes" followed a Pashtun pretender, it seems the ethnicity of a ruler isn't an insurmountable problem to an Afghan.

OK.

That's a fair point, but Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country and has been for a long time. There have been Pashtuns dotted all over Afghanistan for a long time, but it wouldn't be the first country in the region to have a ruler of a different ethnicity/tribe/religion to majority of the population - Hyderabad itself for instance had a Muslim ruler of a Hindu population.

OK.

Come on, that's implicit in redefining countries that depend on an ethnic identity for their cohesion. Or are you saying it hasn't occurred to you that it would be a logical correlation to the wholesale changes you're always proposing?

Actually, one can support drawing borders approximately based on ethnic lines without insisting on ethnic purity; for instance, I like Hungary's and Romania's current border but also have no problems with either Hungarians in Romania or Romanians in Hungary!

Well this whole thread you've proposed annexing parts of Afghanistan to India,

Yes--specifically in order to see if this is actually plausible.

dividing the nation up,

Yep.

removing parts of southern Russia,

Yes; after all, as events in our TL showed, these areas ended up breaking away from Russian rule in 1991!

in another thread it was handing Transylvania over to Romania,

Based on national self-determination, though?

in another Northern France becoming part of Germany.

Perhaps.

None of these (in the time periods you propose them) are even-handed or even logical but you throw them out there constantly.

Really? Giving Transylvania to Romania can't be justified?

It's just an observation, but for someone a "fan" of self determination, I don't remember you even once proposing to have a plebiscite or vote on any told these changes.

Fair enough, I suppose; however, I genuinely am curious as to what exactly plebiscites in all of these areas would have actually shown! :)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Oh it can be justified, but not by Austria-Hungary in the WWI period. Which is why I specifically said:
Franz Ferdinand might have actually been willing to do this, though; indeed, if you want, I can provide a source for this.
 
Top