In a war with France and Austria-Hungary, which country should Germany target first?

Thanks for all of this information! :)

Also, do you agree with my point about Italy jumping in at the last minute?
No problem, and yeah I think Italy probably would join at the last minute, so long as France was also on the verge of defeat at that point.

So, a coordinated German-Russian-Romanian-Serbian dogpile against A-H?
Actually with the given PoD, Austria's likely going to go to lengths to ensure that Serbia remains their client state. If Apis still goes through with the coup, there would be an Austrian Corps in Serbia before the day is done.

Romania likely can't join right away for the same reasons why it didn't do so OTL, no means of procuring replacement infantry weapons, and an industrial base that is only capable of producing one bullet per rifle per day.
 
The Franco-Italian border was unassailable in the 1940s, that goes doubly so for 1914.
If it was fully manned In 1914, the Austrians sent about a third of their army to fight the Italians Here they don't have the Germans to bail them out against the Russians.

*
If by quickly you mean two years sure. If you believe an industrial power on the scale of A-H, with 20+ years of butterflies preparing it for this conflict is going to fold in a number of weeks than there's a bridge to China I'd like to sell you.

I don't think you own a bridge in China and no, the Austrians aren't going to last more than a few weeks. In August 1914, the Russians sent four armies against the Austrians They drove they back behind the San river by the first week in September. If they sent the two northern armies south they would have been at the passes and beyond.

Or the Austrian navy operates from French and British ports and continues to punish Italy.

And how is the Austrian navy going to get out of the Adriatic? The idea that a naval bombardment can do much damage in the era is really bad.

Total devastation that would cost hundreds of billions of Lira to repair and a massive refugee crisis that would surely induce the collapse of the Italian government, lest it takes extreme measures and orders the army to begin interning Italian civilians (which would likely also lead to the Italian government's overthrow). [?Quote]

Oh please, the British Navy is tied down fighting the Russo-Germans in the north, the Austro-French fleet might periodically get control over part of the Mediterranean. But a coastal bombardment is basically out of the question. The British, French and Italian fleets never used that tactic against the far more vulnerable Ottomans

And I'm willing to bet Italy with it's great power pride isn't going to sign up to become an impoverished economic dependancy of Germany.



edit: *also, Savoy and Nice are both majority French, and Tunisia is a worthless desert that's only notable for having slightly more Italian settlers than French settlers. Corsica is the only really appealing prize you've listed, and it's also not worth the effort.
They'll take what they can get and they might just get a lot. There's the Austrian lands they desire but there's also Algeria, Morocco, Tunis, Egypt, Malta and Corsica for starters

Italy spent a lot of treasure to take Libya, which is even more worthless by your reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoda_305_mm_Model_1911#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bertha_(howitzer)#Service_history
(unfortunately I lent my copy of "For God and Kaiser" to a friend so I can't readily give you a more academic source)
The German "siege train" in 1914 consisted of 8 Skodas on loan from A-H (they had previously been stationed in Przemyśl) and two of Krupp's M-Gerät 14s, meaning Austrian howitzers accounted for 80% of the German siege train. Every other gun in the German Army lacked the power to quickly tear down the the Belgian forts and most of them would have to be fired from a range at which the fort's guns could fire back.


the Germans are in no need to hurry here. They don't have to worry about a Russian attack rather the Russians are allies coming to reinforce them. They use the Skodas OTl but without them, they would use the traditional tactic of heavy naval guns pulled from their coastal fortifications and naval yards. It might take a few more days

That's why Italy will only enter the war when Austria-Hungary is near collapse. Plus, even then, it might be hesitant to declare war on Britain and France--preferring instead to simply declare war on A-H and to grab its fair share of the spoils.

Also, do you have a source for the Austrian howitzers being crucial in Belgium in 1914 in our TL?

The real spoils are French and British. They will jump at the chance to get a share and the earlier they join the better their chances. Your going to have to double the Austrian army just to deal with the Russo-German forces facing each other. Not only is that economically impossible, the only way to do is to dramatically lower the fitness standards The poor quality of the Austrians is only going to get worse

the Austrians fought the Prussians in 1866 and the Russians in 1914 and lost both in a matter of weeks. In 1870, the French lost in rapid fashion against the Germans. In 1914, the Germans beat the French, the British and the Belgians. Only the need to send forces East prevented the war from ending in September Italian neutrality also allowed the french to move six divisions to the Marne

the French are drafting everyone in sight and making them serve three years just to keep even with a Germany that drafts half its men for two years. The room for expansion in t he German army is much greater than France and the Germans aren't spending anywhere near as much as the French on defense (as share of GDP)


No amount of butterflies is going to make this work. If anything, Russia and Germany grow even more powerful than OTL. Fran Joseph's entire foreign policy after his defeat in 1866 was to hide behind someone and throw rocks at the Russians to prove himself a great power.
 
If it was fully manned In 1914, the Austrians sent about a third of their army to fight the Italians Here they don't have the Germans to bail them out against the Russians.
France needed only 85,000 soldiers to halt the Italians in 1940, that's at a time when the mighty Regia Aeronautica could provide extensive air support to the Italian attackers.

I don't think you own a bridge in China and no, the Austrians aren't going to last more than a few weeks. In August 1914, the Russians sent four armies against the Austrians They drove they back behind the San river by the first week in September. If they sent the two northern armies south they would have been at the passes and beyond.
The Russians lost a quarter of a million men taking Austria's poorest and least defensible province. Hardly an indicator that the Russians could take anything beyond the Carpathians.

On entering OTL's WWI, Romania's situation was worse by order of magnitude than TTL's A-H. If Romania could hold out for more than a year against the Central Powers dog pile it faced OTL, there's no way that A-H could possibly fall in a matter of weeks.

And how is the Austrian navy going to get out of the Adriatic?
This is assuming the Italians get to min the Straits of Otranto. They, not the Italians, were the dominate naval force in the Adriatic, they can quickly clean up whatever Italian naval forces are unfortunate enough to be locked in the Adriatic with the KuK Navy. After that they need need only run some minesweepers through the straits.

The idea that a naval bombardment can do much damage in the era is really bad.
Which is clearly why Austrian naval bombardment played a key supporting role in both the Montenegrin and Isonzo fronts...

Oh please, the British Navy is tied down fighting the Russo-Germans in the north, the Austro-French fleet might periodically get control over part of the Mediterranean. But a coastal bombardment is basically out of the question. The British, French and Italian fleets never used that tactic against the far more vulnerable Ottomans
The British navy was able to spare plenty of ships for the Mediterranean OTL, and you're in need of a geography leason if you think Italy's coast are less vulnerable than those of the Ottomans.

They'll take what they can get and they might just get a lot.
A lot of French people ready to revolt against them.

Italy spent a lot of treasure to take Libya, which is even more worthless by your reasoning.
Yeah but they didn't have to enter a two front war where their coastal infrastructure was guaranteed to be subject to bombardment. It's called a costs and benefits analysis for a reason.

the Germans are in no need to hurry here. They don't have to worry about a Russian attack rather the Russians are allies coming to reinforce them. They use the Skodas OTl but without them, they would use the traditional tactic of heavy naval guns pulled from their coastal fortifications and naval yards. It might take a few more days
It would be more than a few days, and that is more time for the French army to organize and more time where the German army is either stalled or advancing without supply by rail. If it's the former the front line settles in Belgium (putting France's main industrial centres firmly in French hands, if it's the latter the cream of the Germans army is annihilated in 1914.

the Austrians fought the Prussians in 1866 and the Russians in 1914 and lost both in a matter of weeks.
The Austro-Prussian war was so short because the stakes were so low. Had the Prussians been trying to take Bohemia the Austrian army absolutely could have and would have fought on. Since the Prussian demands didn't harm Austria itself, it was much easier to take the L and begin licking their wounds.

In 1914, the Germans beat the French, the British and the Belgians. Only the need to send forces East prevented the war from ending in September
I think the First Battle of the Marne may have had just a little something to do with the failure of the German offensive. Just a little.

No amount of butterflies is going to make this work.
Except the obvious ones like Austria opting for a defensive rather than offensive strategy at the out set of the conflict, being prepared for a war with Russia, policing Serbia much more heavily, and receiving a lot of the French investments that OTL went to Russia.

If anything, Russia and Germany grow even more powerful than OTL.
How?

Fran Joseph's entire foreign policy after his defeat in 1866 was to hide behind someone and throw rocks at the Russians to prove himself a great power.
Oh another obvious victim of a butterfly!
 
France needed only 85,000 soldiers to halt the Italians in 1940, that's at a time when the mighty Regia Aeronautica could provide extensive air support to the Italian attackers.

That's nice, in 1914 they deployed 5 active and 1 reserve divisions

The Russians lost a quarter of a million men taking Austria's poorest and least defensible province. Hardly an indicator that the Russians could take anything beyond the Carpathians.
And the Austrians lost 400,000 men trying to defend it. Given that Russia's population is three times that of Austria, they can certainly take this loss ration

On entering OTL's WWI, Romania's situation was worse by order of magnitude than TTL's A-H. If Romania could hold out for more than a year against the Central Powers dog pile it faced OTL, there's no way that A-H could possibly fall in a matter of weeks.

In 1916. the Romanians didn't face a Central power dogpile. they faced the few troops that the CPs could spare from the Italian, French and Russian fronts. But now that you bring them up, they are joining in the attack on Austria. And where are the Austrians to find the troops to deal with this? How many German and Russians soldiers fought each other? Now they are all going against France, Britain and Austria. Austria couldn't last five weeks against Prussia and she's not lasting more than that against Russia

This is assuming the Italians get to min the Straits of Otranto. They, not the Italians, were the dominate naval force in the Adriatic, they can quickly clean up whatever Italian naval forces are unfortunate enough to be locked in the Adriatic with the KuK Navy. After that they need need only run some minesweepers through the straits.


Which is clearly why Austrian naval bombardment played a key supporting role in both the Montenegrin and Isonzo fronts...

Well, running a minefield is much more than just sending a few minesweepers. Didn't work at Gallapoli. Its not really going to work down there either. To point to some small incidents where Naval firepower played a supporting role into some scheme to total devestate the Italian coasts and spiral the country into revolution is beyond wishful dreaming

The British navy was able to spare plenty of ships for the Mediterranean OTL, and you're in need of a geography leason if you think Italy's coast are less vulnerable than those of the Ottomans.

Oh, but then the British were dealing only with the German navy not Germany's and Russia's. So instead of the Russians drawing some forces to the Baltic, you have the Russians backing them up. The Russians normally had a very powerful navy there but then the butterflies only work one way in your timeline. The truth is the British are going to have their hands full dealing with the Russo-Germans in the north

A lot of French people ready to revolt against them.

Not really but then only France and Britain can run colonial empires. Not. The population will soon accustom themselves to the change in government

Yeah but they didn't have to enter a two front war where their coastal infrastructure was guaranteed to be subject to bombardment. It's called a costs and benefits analysis for a reason.

Ok, lets go through this. The only guns that are big enough to do any damage are the 12in. ones. Nothing else carries a big enough shell nor the range. Shore batteries exist to defend important points and have the advantages:
1) of requiring a direct hit on them whereas any hit on a ship can cause irreperable damage
2) being much cheaper since you only buy the guns and not the ship
3) being elevated and having much greater range
4) much larger shell capacity

So even if you really tried to bombard an Italian city, the ships would quickly run out of ammo and be sitting ducks for anything that approached

It would be more than a few days, and that is more time for the French army to organize and more time where the German army is either stalled or advancing without supply by rail. If it's the former the front line settles in Belgium (putting France's main industrial centres firmly in French hands, if it's the latter the cream of the Germans army is annihilated in 1914.

Not really if the Germans have had years to prepare. You're also assuming the Belgians fight as in OTL. Unlikely as they are going to be doing the same math as everyone else. Nor are the Germans pressed for time. Without the need to beat France and turn East before the Russians arrive, the Germans have all the time in the world, knowing that after Austria is removed, their allies will be free to continue with the destruction of the remaining enemies

The Austro-Prussian war was so short because the stakes were so low. Had the Prussians been trying to take Bohemia the Austrian army absolutely could have and would have fought on. Since the Prussian demands didn't harm Austria itself, it was much easier to take the L and begin licking their wounds.

Yep, but then the Austrians don't have Bavaria, Saxony, Wurttemburg, Baden Hesse and Hanover as allies but they have the Russians and Romanians added to their enemies

I think the First Battle of the Marne may have had just a little something to do with the failure of the German offensive. Just a little.

And how do the Allies win the Battle of the Marne if they have six divisions tied down in the Alps and the Germans also have their 8th army as well as the two corps they send East?

Except the obvious ones like Austria opting for a defensive rather than offensive strategy at the out set of the conflict, being prepared for a war with Russia, policing Serbia much more heavily, and receiving a lot of the French investments that OTL went to Russia.

If the Austrians decide on a defensive strategy, the Russians are given even more time to ramp up their forces for the attack. Time is on Russia's side so the Austrians are actually going to have to be even more aggressive. As for the French investments pouring into AUstria, we have dealt with this endlessly. Austria would lose the trade advantages of the Triple alliance and suffer far more than gain by any French investment. The Russians are going to save far more by reduced army spending and trade advantags with Germany than they will lose in investment income- which can come from many other sources anyway. French investment in Russia was done by private individuals seeking private gain. The worse that can happen is that Russia would have to pay a slightly higher interest rate.

Oh another obvious victim of a butterfly!

Yes it is. FJ will realize that his days of being a Great power are over. He can go hat in hand to the Russo-Germans, make peace and live as a minor princeling or he can go into exile and his lands partitioned
 
That's nice, in 1914 they deployed 5 active and 1 reserve divisions
They evidently over estimated the Italian Army's capabilities.

And the Austrians lost 400,000 men trying to defend it. Given that Russia's population is three times that of Austria, they can certainly take this loss ration
That's because the Austrians tried to go on the offensive with no plans to fall back. Forget having Conrad hold the idiot ball, you'd have to have Conrad's brain surgically removed and replaced with the idiot ball for him to try such a thing TTL.

In 1916. the Romanians didn't face a Central power dogpile. they faced the few troops that the CPs could spare from the Italian, French and Russian fronts.
Which is the only reason why they though they had a chance OTL.

But now that you bring them up, they are joining in the attack on Austria.
Oh the meme of Romania going to war without rifles or bullets. It's an old meme, but it's a good one.

And where are the Austrians to find the troops to deal with this?
A few Honved divisions would probably be sufficient. After the first few days of combat Romania's ammo reserves are spent.

Austria couldn't last five weeks against Prussia and she's not lasting more than that against Russia
Way to ignore what I said about the Austro-Prussian War. If Germany and Russia are looking to wipe Austria off the map then it's going to fight tooth a nail rather than waving the white flag after the first set piece battle.

Well, running a minefield is much more than just sending a few minesweepers. Didn't work at Gallapoli.
Evidently you didn't take my advice to brush up on your geography. The Turkish straits are far tighter than those of Otranto. Mine sweepers at Gallapoli were always in range of shore batteries.

Its not really going to work down there either. To point to some small incidents where Naval firepower played a supporting role into some scheme to total devestate the Italian coasts and spiral the country into revolution is beyond wishful dreaming
The Bombardment of Ancona was quite devastating to the civilian infrastructure of the city, especially its rail system. It only killed 63 people, but devastation without proportionally massive casualties just means more refugees.

Oh, but then the British were dealing only with the German navy not Germany's and Russia's. So instead of the Russians drawing some forces to the Baltic, you have the Russians backing them up.
I will admit that I did forget about the Russian Baltic fleet. Sorry about that.

The Russians normally had a very powerful navy there but then the butterflies only work one way in your timeline.
Not my timeline, I'm just pointing out that in a scenario where Austria is unable to work out an agreement with Germany or Russia* it isn't going to follow OTL's example of massive military underspending.

*which is the scenario posited by the OP.

Not really but then only France and Britain can run colonial empires. Not. The population will soon accustom themselves to the change in government
Yeah the Voortrekkers were never a thing.

Ok, lets go through this. The only guns that are big enough to do any damage are the 12in. ones. Nothing else carries a big enough shell nor the range. Shore batteries exist to defend important points and have the advantages:
1) of requiring a direct hit on them whereas any hit on a ship can cause irreperable damage
2) being much cheaper since you only buy the guns and not the ship
3) being elevated and having much greater range
4) much larger shell capacity
And how extensive were Italian shore batteries back then? I admit that this could be subject to some butterfly or another, even though OTL Italy was still in the alliance opposing France and Britain.

So even if you really tried to bombard an Italian city, the ships would quickly run out of ammo and be sitting ducks for anything that approached
And what's going to approach them? The Italian Navy's best option is to opt for the "fleet in being" strategy.

Not really if the Germans have had years to prepare. You're also assuming the Belgians fight as in OTL. Unlikely as they are going to be doing the same math as everyone else. Nor are the Germans pressed for time. Without the need to beat France and turn East before the Russians arrive, the Germans have all the time in the world, knowing that after Austria is removed, their allies will be free to continue with the destruction of the remaining enemies
Allowing France time to prepare benefits France more than it benefits the Germans.

Yep, but then the Austrians don't have Bavaria, Saxony, Wurttemburg, Baden Hesse and Hanover as allies but they have the Russians and Romanians added to their enemies
And in turn they have France as an ally, and a strong likelihood that Italy will keep to itself, at least until Austria's already beyond its breaking point.

And how do the Allies win the Battle of the Marne if they have six divisions tied down in the Alps and the Germans also have their 8th army as well as the two corps they send East?
You're really certain that Italy will commit national suicide aren't you. And I really doubt that German will leave matters on its southern flank solely to the Russians.

If the Austrians decide on a defensive strategy, the Russians are given even more time to ramp up their forces for the attack. Time is on Russia's side so the Austrians are actually going to have to be even more aggressive.
If the Russians take their sweet time invading Austria, the Austrians have more time to fortify the mountain passes. Time is much more beneficial to the Austrians.

As for the French investments pouring into AUstria, we have dealt with this endlessly. Austria would lose the trade advantages of the Triple alliance and suffer far more than gain by any French investment.
I don't fear too much for Austria's trade, OTL the French and Germans were massive trade partners, and central european economic cooperation is simply too valuable for either side to be dumb enough to throw up tariff walls.

The Russians are going to save far more by reduced army spending and trade advantags with Germany than they will lose in investment income- which can come from many other sources anyway. French investment in Russia was done by private individuals seeking private gain. The worse that can happen is that Russia would have to pay a slightly higher interest rate.
I don't think you own a bridge in China and no, the Austrians aren't going to last more than a few weeks. In August 1914, the Russians sent four armies against the Austrians They drove they back behind the San river by the first week in September. If they sent the two northern armies south they would have been at the passes and beyond.
So Russia's going to spend substantially less on it's army, yet you're assuming its army will be qualitatively and quantitatively the same if not better?

Yes it is. FJ will realize that his days of being a Great power are over. He can go hat in hand to the Russo-Germans, make peace and live as a minor princeling or he can go into exile and his lands partitioned
At least we can both agree that the very premise of a war pitting Austria-Hungary against both Russia and Germany is a silly concept, even if we disagree over how lengthy and costly it would be (On that note I may as well clarify that I think Austria would inevitably lose, but it has the power to lose slowly).

edit:
wait
Not really if the Germans have had years to prepare.
Are you trying to say the Germans didn't plan for the Schlieffen Plan?
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
So, a coordinated German-Russian-Romanian-Serbian dogpile against A-H?

Also, what about afterwards? Immediately seek peace terms or attack France (either through Belgium or directly)?

Depends on the battlefield result. You get better terms if you can defeat France, and then negotiate the peace. You get worse terms if France holds, then you negotiate.
 
It would be more than a few days, and that is more time for the French army to organize and more time where the German army is either stalled or advancing without supply by rail. If it's the former the front line settles in Belgium (putting France's main industrial centres firmly in French hands, if it's the latter the cream of the Germans army is annihilated in 1914.

But will the Germans be in Belgium anyway?

The whole point of the Schlieffen Plan was to knock out France before the Russians can arrive in large numbers. So if the Russians are on Germany's side, would the SP be adopted at all?
 
But will the Germans be in Belgium anyway?

The whole point of the Schlieffen Plan was to knock out France before the Russians can arrive in large numbers. So if the Russians are on Germany's side, would the SP be adopted at all?
You gotta weight the fact that Germany now has an alliance with Russia against the fact that it still wouldn't want a long war with France. It depends entirely on the butterflies, which is why I really dislike this sort of discussing the end of a proposed TL, without any idea or indication how exactly it got there.
 
The easiest was would be to go for Austria first. While Vienna and Innsbruck are out of reach for Germany and Russia, they could easily take some of the more important border towns in the first few weeks and thus cripple the Austrians. Salzburg and Linz are easy to take from Bavaria and the northern part of the Bohemian border is hard to defend. At the same time Germany can use the Danube to supply the advancing forces.
 
They evidently over estimated the Italian Army's capabilities.

Really? Did the Italians attack France in 1914? Therefore, this comment has no merit. The historical example stands In a war in TTL we can expect the French to deploy the six divisions to the south

That's because the Austrians tried to go on the offensive with no plans to fall back. Forget having Conrad hold the idiot ball, you'd have to have Conrad's brain surgically removed and replaced with the idiot ball for him to try such a thing TTL.

Of course the Austrians will take the offensive. They are outnumbered by the Russians alone and have the Italians and the Romanians to deal with as well. They can't sit back and wait a minute

Which is the only reason why they though they had a chance OTL.
Oh the meme of Romania going to war without rifles or bullets. It's an old meme, but it's a good one.
A few Honved divisions would probably be sufficient. After the first few days of combat Romania's ammo reserves are spent.

So the Austrians triple their defense spending (somehow) and the Romanians just twiddle their thumbs. Talk about desperation. And you were the one proclaiming how the Romanians were in worse shape OTL and held out for a year. But now they are being dispatched by a few Hungarian irregulars

Way to ignore what I said about the Austro-Prussian War. If Germany and Russia are looking to wipe Austria off the map then it's going to fight tooth a nail rather than waving the white flag after the first set piece battle.

You're ignoring the implications: The Austrians could still mount some resistance in 1866 so fighting on was possible. In this scenario, there is no way to survive a defeat. All her enemies are pouncing on her and the situation has no chance of reversing itself. FJ and his crowd might want to fight on but the troops are going to have other ideas

Evidently you didn't take my advice to brush up on your geography. The Turkish straits are far tighter than those of Otranto. Mine sweepers at Gallapoli were always in range of shore batteries.
It is your geography that needs boning up. The Straits of Otranto are quite narrow enough that the minesweepers are just going to be under the range of the Italians the whole time but then how Austria is keeping this navy while doubling its army spending you've never come close to explaining

The Bombardment of Ancona was quite devastating to the civilian infrastructure of the city, especially its rail system. It only killed 63 people, but devastation without proportionally massive casualties just means more refugees.
No where near as effective as you make it out to be and was carried out by almost the entire Austrian navy. How the Austrians are going to afford these continual bombardments and carry them out despite not being done in OTL you don't explain. The French coast is also vulnerable to the Italians and then there are those North African divisions that are going to be attacked in transit.

Not my timeline, I'm just pointing out that in a scenario where Austria is unable to work out an agreement with Germany or Russia* it isn't going to follow OTL's example of massive military underspending.

*which is the scenario posited by the OP.

The Austrians have neither the oney nor the men to match the Russo-Germans. They can't match either one and then they still have to deal with the Italians and the Romanians. If they try to match them, the pathetic excuse of an economy is going to tank even worse





Allowing France time to prepare benefits France more than it benefits the Germans.
An assertion issued with no support means nothing. The French and Germans are fully mobilized within three weeks. How does one side or the other gain by waiting? Oh wait, that would be the Germans who would see the small Austrian forces in their south destroyed. The French can't wait. They get to attack against the whole German army. An attack against a larger force is doomed- and the only way to deploy the French army would be through Belgium So the French now get to fight the Belgians as well. So let's see, six divisions sent to deal with the Italians, six Belgian divisions lost as allies but now enemies. That's 18 divisions the French need to find just to get to even OTL

And in turn they have France as an ally, and a strong likelihood that Italy will keep to itself, at least until Austria's already beyond its breaking point.
You're really certain that Italy will commit national suicide aren't you. And I really doubt that German will leave matters on its southern flank solely to the Russians.

Again, so what good are the French? They lost OTl to the Germans who didn't even commit their 8th army or Eastern garrisons Given that OTL, the Germans have the Italians and Belgians on their side, their victory is assured

If the Russians take their sweet time invading Austria, the Austrians have more time to fortify the mountain passes. Time is much more beneficial to the Austrians.

So now the Austrians are going to give up Galicia and a fifth of her population without a fight. That should help recruiting

I don't fear too much for Austria's trade, OTL the French and Germans were massive trade partners, and central european economic cooperation is simply too valuable for either side to be dumb enough to throw up tariff walls.

Thank you for proving the point. Trade relations would continue as long as they remain profitable. So almost all that French investment will still find its way to Russia. It was private capital seeking private returns after all. As for Austro-German trade- the Austrians are going to find the trade concessions that they won for being in the Triple alliance gone. The higher tariffs that Russia faced on her grain will now be faced by Austria. This doesn't hurt Germany at all as the concessions are the same just given to different countries

So Russia's going to spend substantially less on it's army, yet you're assuming its army will be qualitatively and quantitatively the same if not better?

Um, let's see. In OTL the Russians send four armies to the south against Austria and two north against the Germans. They can send them all to the south against Austria and won't need the six more armies mobilizing in the rear. This means the Austrians will have to increase their army by 50% just to get walloped like they did OTL. The Russians are going to have a really big Navy to go with their really big Army. They are going to stomp on the Japanese, save themselves 3 billion rubles and have a really big railroad net. Oh they are going to so stomp on the Austrians
 
You gotta weight the fact that Germany now has an alliance with Russia against the fact that it still wouldn't want a long war with France. It depends entirely on the butterflies, which is why I really dislike this sort of discussing the end of a proposed TL, without any idea or indication how exactly it got there.

By long war you mean what a couple of months? The French will have to attack or watch the Austrians go down and then take on the Russo-German-Italian alliance alone. This is suicidal. The day war is declared, the French and Austrians are going to fall on their needs and beg for terms
 
By long war you mean what a couple of months? The French will have to attack or watch the Austrians go down and then take on the Russo-German-Italian alliance alone. This is suicidal. The day war is declared, the French and Austrians are going to fall on their needs and beg for terms

Did OP specify that Italy will join from the start? Because I dont think so. And dont forget OTL Italy when making the tripple alliance made a declaration that it cant be directed against England. Reason being their huge and vulnerable coast line and the Royal Navy. So I dont see Italy jumping to war against Great Brittain. Because the British will try to stop the Russo-German alliance.

Regarding Fleets strengths: You say that German and Russian Baltic Fleet together would be enough to make the Royal Navy concentrate completly on the North see or at least render it unable to do anything in the mediterranean. However OTL after its destruction in the Russo-Japanese war Russia managed to have 4 dreadnoughts in the Baltics by the end of 1914. If you dont batterfly its destruction Russian Baltic fleet is not much of a treet. Also if it seemed that either the German or Russian navy would be a serious challenge I think Brittain would have reacted with a naval war before its too late/dangerous.

End regarding Austria: you are forgetting that Austria has some incredibly defensible borders that OTL werent fortified because Italy and Romania were allies. I wouldnt count on that this time line. Also if they conclude they cant hold Galicia - which is correct - they will fortify the complete Carpathians. The German border - if fortified can be held as well.

Its also disturbing how you are once stating that the Russians would spend less on they military and in the next are counting on the same troop numbers who should have the same quality. You also disregard the small fact that AUstria was the least militarised of the GP's in 1914. Dont bet on that being the case TTL.
 
You have to wonder if the Ausgleich will even endure in the face of being open enemies of a Russo-German alliance whose ambitions are mostly focused on Cisleithania. And talking about drastically increasing A-H's military spending as if there would be no political cost to doing so is making the issue a little too convenient.

And Bohemia cannot be held in the event of a war against Russia and Germany, and without it A-H will not have the industry to sustain a war.
 
So almost all that French investment will still find its way to Russia. It was private capital seeking private returns after all.
My mistake, since it tends to just be referred to as "French Investment" I had assumed that a substantial portion of it had been from the French government. Sorry about that.

Talk about desperation.
Yes, let's.

Now there are a few contradictions you've made.
The Russians are going to save far more by reduced army spending and trade advantags with Germany than they will lose in investment income- which can come from many other sources anyway. French investment in Russia was done by private individuals seeking private gain. The worse that can happen is that Russia would have to pay a slightly higher interest rate.
I don't think you own a bridge in China and no, the Austrians aren't going to last more than a few weeks. In August 1914, the Russians sent four armies against the Austrians They drove they back behind the San river by the first week in September. If they sent the two northern armies south they would have been at the passes and beyond.
You're arguing that Russia will invest substantially less in its army, yet at the same time you're using OTL as a qualitative and quantitative baseline for the Russian military.

Wait actually it's worse.
Um, let's see. In OTL the Russians send four armies to the south against Austria and two north against the Germans. They can send them all to the south against Austria and won't need the six more armies mobilizing in the rear. This means the Austrians will have to increase their army by 50% just to get walloped like they did OTL. The Russians are going to have a really big Navy to go with their really big Army. They are going to stomp on the Japanese, save themselves 3 billion rubles and have a really big railroad net. Oh they are going to so stomp on the Austrians
You're arguing that Russia, by spending less on its military, will actually make its military bigger and better!

The Austrians have neither the oney nor the men to match the Russo-Germans.
Again, so what good are the French? They lost OTl to the Germans who didn't even commit their 8th army or Eastern garrisons
Is Germany committing 100% of its forces to the fight with France or is it committing a portion to its southern border? Please be consistent.

The French can't wait. They get to attack against the whole German army. An attack against a larger force is doomed- and the only way to deploy the French army would be through Belgium So the French now get to fight the Belgians as well. So let's see, six divisions sent to deal with the Italians, six Belgian divisions lost as allies but now enemies.
The French will have to attack or watch the Austrians go down and then take on the Russo-German-Italian alliance alone. This is suicidal.
The French are going to commit suicide because not committing suicide is suicidal.

The French and Germans are fully mobilized within three weeks. How does one side or the other gain by waiting? Oh wait, that would be the Germans
Again, so what good are the French? They lost OTl to the Germans
So the Germans aren't going to widen the frontline, creating the conditions necessary of OTL's Battle of the Frontier, yet they're still going to win just as in OTL?

So the Austrians triple their defense spending (somehow)
but then how Austria is keeping this navy while doubling its army spending you've never come close to explaining
Did I say Austria would triple its military budget or did I say they'd double it? Wait, I said neither! If you're going to strawman me at least keep it consistent.

Now let's move on to some abject falsehoods.

It is your geography that needs boning up. The Straits of Otranto are quite narrow enough that the minesweepers are just going to be under the range of the Italians the whole time
The Straits of Otranto are, at their narrowest, 72km wide. Please find me the pre-WWI artillery piece that had even 30km range, I'd be interested in seeing such a marvel of engineering. Since you decided that Galipoli would be the benchmark for comparison I may as well point out that the width of the Dardanelles varies between 6km and 1.2km.

They can't match either one and then they still have to deal with the Italians and the Romanians. If they try to match them, the pathetic excuse of an economy is going to tank even worse
The Austrian economy was by no means weak, let alone "pathetic". It was by all accounts strong, diverse, and growing fast. Sure it had a trade deficit, but that's not an indication of weakness (unless you also believe the current Russian economy is stronger than the current American economy).

Now to address your other points.

The French coast is also vulnerable to the Italians and then there are those North African divisions that are going to be attacked in transit.
In the face of overwhelming Austro-French naval superiority the Italian navy will be roaming the Mediterranean with impunity?

You're ignoring the implications: The Austrians could still mount some resistance in 1866 so fighting on was possible. In this scenario, there is no way to survive a defeat.
You're saying Austria can't possibly fight on after an initial defeat, even though that's exactly what happened OTL? More Russian soldiers isn't going to help them outrun the retreating Austrians, and that's assuming the Austrian's opt for a suicidal maneuver war on the plains of Galicia.

you were the one proclaiming how the Romanians were in worse shape OTL and held out for a year. But now they are being dispatched by a few Hungarian irregulars
Their ability to wage a hybrid conventional/guerrilla defence in the mountains of Moldova does not serve as an indicator for their ability to reach the plains of Pannonia.

So the Austrians triple their defense spending (somehow) and the Romanians just twiddle their thumbs.
OTL the Romanian's viewed the Russians as their primary great power threat, they didn't built an army to match Russia OTL. Of course this could be butterflied, but it wouldn't be a logical butterfly.

The historical example stands In a war in TTL we can expect the French to deploy the six divisions to the south
OTL France was worried about the entire Italian army, not an Italian army that would be primarily focused on Austria.

So now the Austrians are going to give up Galicia and a fifth of her population without a fight. That should help recruiting
Shouldn't matter in a war that at most lasts two years, and historically Vienna didn't put much value in Galicia.

FJ and his crowd might want to fight on but the troops are going to have other ideas
Germany and Russia will do to the Czechs and Ukrainians what Italy did to the Croats and Slovenes: make them realize that Austrian rule is better than being the minority in an ethnostate.

The Austrians have neither the oney nor the men to match the Russo-Germans. They can't match either one and then they still have to deal with the Italians and the Romanians. If they try to match them, the pathetic excuse of an economy is going to tank even worse
A-H spent a smaller portion of its budget on its military than any other great power. It's not going to crash its economy by by spending a more reasonable proportion on the military, especially since a lot of the expense can go towards "civilian" matters like rail lines. Should TTL's Austria go to war at a speed greater than that of a bicycle, it'd already be a humongous improvement over OTL.

edit: forgot these two

How does one side or the other gain by waiting?
The French gain additional reinforcements from the UK.

How the Austrians are going to afford these continual bombardments and carry them out despite not being done in OTL you don't explain.
OTL the Franco-British-Italian navy forced the Austrian navy to opt for becoming a fleet in being, so another raid would invite their own destruction. Dismissing it out right is like saying the Great Tokyo Air Raid is impossible on the basis that the Dolittle Raid was of little value and was not immediately repeated.
 
Last edited:
I was rereading my posts and I remembered that that I had initially brought up the threat of naval bombardment as a threat that would deter Italy from joining. In that sense whether such a bombardment would actually ruin Italy or be worth maintaining is irrelevant as all that matters is what the Italians are lead to believe.

I apologize for initiating a discussion about the potential potency of WWI naval bombardments, it created a very long side discussion that did not directly pertain to the OP's topic or the matter of if Italy actually would enter the war.
 
Top