New partecipants to WW1

WW1 was a war that the CP should have won but threw away victory.
On the contrary. It was a war that with all their resources the Entente should have won easily but almost threw away victory.

If you ran a Monte Carlo simulation, the CP wins at least 75% of the time.
Source?

  • The years the powers join makes a lot of difference.
  • Italy - Even neutrality lets the CP win easily. Italy joining the war is a huge help for the CP.
  • Spain - Easy CP win. By tying up French and UK troops, we get a much better German performance in Flanders in 1914/15. Spain will also mess with UK shipping routes and likely close the Med Sea to UK shipping.
  • Romania. Huge help. Allow supplies to Ottomans from day 1 of Ottomans entering war. Messes up Russian war plans which have to divert troops down there. Frees up German and A-H troops.
  • Albania - Main benefit is randomizing events to help CP win. We cutoff the Serbian retreat route. We cut off some supplies to Serbia. Frees up some A-H troops for use elsewhere.
  • Japan - Hard to see this one since UK ally. But anyway, it cause UK fits in Pacific. UK has plenty of ships to deal with if the UK can avoid the temptation to keep most of fleet in British Island. ANZAC forces only used in Pacific. Likely cancels Gallipoli. Likely cancels East African campaign. This is an Ottoman wank, but it does give you a CP win. You will see German do a bit better as some UK flanders forces are weaker. But starting about 1916, you will see the Ottomans get their game together and open offensives in various areas. Things like hold Palestine easily. Prevent Arab revolt. Retake Basra. Push into parts of Persia.
  • Siam. Not so sure important.
  • All of them. War is over by Christmas.
You are only listing events favorable to the Central Powers and omitting events that would be favorable to the Entente. It's very unlikely that Spain, Romania or Albania join the Central Powers. On the other hand, Bulgaria joining the entente would doom the Ottoman Empire already in 1915, open an easy supply route to Russia and more than likely lead to an Entente victory before a Russian revolution.
 
You are only listing events favorable to the Central Powers and omitting events that would be favorable to the Entente. It's very unlikely that Spain, Romania or Albania join the Central Powers. On the other hand, Bulgaria joining the entente would doom the Ottoman Empire already in 1915, open an easy supply route to Russia and more than likely lead to an Entente victory before a Russian revolution.

OP post was about additional countries joining the Central Powers so we are looking at those effects.
 
Map of Europe after the war, with Updated german puppet Poland:
immagine per sito 4.png

1)Finland(German puppet)
2)United baltic dutchy(German puppet)
3)Poland(German puppet)
4)Ukraine(Austro-Hungarian puppet)
 
Map of Africa after the war:
Immagine per sito 5.png

I don't see a surviving Ottoman Empire being happy about Russia or Soviets in Persia, and would expect the Ottomans to have the northern half in their sphere of influence with the British in the southern half.

Also very good chance Soviet union does not form as the extra participants means no need to send Lenin to Russia by the Germans. And a russia/Soviet without Ukraine is a lot weaker.

And no puppet Poland/Lithuania?

Edit and why is modern day Pakistan not part of the Raj?
The Ottomans have other issues, such as surviving and not falling apart.
Just added Poland, the United Baltic Dutchy(which includes Lithuania) and Finland as German puppets, with Ukraine as an Austria-Hungary puppet and Caucasia as an Ottoman puppet.
Pakistan is an Ottoman puppet too.
 
How about something like this?

Spain avoids the Spanish American War by selling its Pacific Empire to Germany. AFAIK the Germans were very keen on this IOTL and that Kaiser Wilhelm was furious when the Americans beat them to it. The Spanish Government uses the money (and the money saved by no SAW) to develop the Iberian economy.

The latter would include bringing the 1908 Navy Law of OTL forward by 5 or even 10 years to 1898 itself. Thus by 1914 the Spanish Navy would have been larger with more modern warships and have attained a greater degree of self-sufficiency in naval arms manufacture.

However, as I know nothing about Spanish domestic history in the 1897-1914 period I don't know if that's possible.
This is a sort of Spain Does a Meji TL.

With a POD of 1898 could Spain have developed an economy and armed forces (particularly a navy) equal in terms of quality and quantity to Italy?

The economic part might not be so difficult because Spain has more minerals (including coal and iron ore) than Italy. I don't have any figures for before 1920, but from 1921 to 1930 Spain's steel production was about half that of Italy.

As an aside Belgium and Italy produced about 750,000 long tons of steel in 1921. However, in 1929 Belgium produced 4 million long tons and Italy only 2 million long tons.
 
This is a sort of Spain Does a Meji TL.

With a POD of 1898 could Spain have developed an economy and armed forces (particularly a navy) equal in terms of quality and quantity to Italy?

The economic part might not be so difficult because Spain has more minerals (including coal and iron ore) than Italy. I don't have any figures for before 1920, but from 1921 to 1930 Spain's steel production was about half that of Italy.

As an aside Belgium and Italy produced about 750,000 long tons of steel in 1921. However, in 1929 Belgium produced 4 million long tons and Italy only 2 million long tons.

To get some of these changes in alignment I think we delve back past 1900 and rick altering the shape of Europe to arrange a very different European war (if at all). But this is still a valuable exploration of who might have shifted rather than assuming you can grab all as a basket and still get the WWI. Logically I think a CP aligned Spain makes more sense than Italy, especially if instead of a SAW you have Germany negotiate to buy her colonials, that infusion of cash and focus home might spur a new Spain that has German seeds set. It might bleed off some of the investment directed to the OE and give Germany a presence through Spain to butterfly the Moroccan crisis one and two. I guess a German Rota is going to put the RN in a state of pure disgust. This is departure worthy of a TL.

For steel making it is best to have the coal and good water routes in and rail connections out, iron ore is easier to ship to coal as pig iron needs yet more processing that uses coal and once made into steel is better shipped to industry closer. Thus we see a Ruhr valley so industrialized and founded upon steel, it has coal, Silesia the same, Belgium should out perform Italy who lacks coal, same with France, for this early heavy industry it is best to have ample coal and next to have iron ore or easy sources to ship from, preferable by water, thus we have Gary and Cleveland and Pittsburgh, all bring ore from farther away, the coal is closer and they sit on water.
 
If Albania can get a functioning government and army that can block the Serbs' retreat to IIRC Durazzo, then the Serbs are out for the count, complete with their royal family and any ability to fight on.

Of course it is a rather big "if" and if we are talking William of Wied he's going to need a lot of help to achieve this
 

BlondieBC

Banned
On the contrary. It was a war that with all their resources the Entente should have won easily but almost threw away victory.


Source?


You are only listing events favorable to the Central Powers and omitting events that would be favorable to the Entente. It's very unlikely that Spain, Romania or Albania join the Central Powers. On the other hand, Bulgaria joining the entente would doom the Ottoman Empire already in 1915, open an easy supply route to Russia and more than likely lead to an Entente victory before a Russian revolution.

The thread author listed favorable CP events, so that is what the replies list.

If you want to get into the favorable Entente events that did not happen, and why they are more common than favorable CP events that did not happen, you will need to explain you facts and reasoning a bit more.
 
To get some of these changes in alignment I think we delve back past 1900 and rick altering the shape of Europe to arrange a very different European war (if at all). But this is still a valuable exploration of who might have shifted rather than assuming you can grab all as a basket and still get the WWI. Logically I think a CP aligned Spain makes more sense than Italy, especially if instead of a SAW you have Germany negotiate to buy her colonials, that infusion of cash and focus home might spur a new Spain that has German seeds set. It might bleed off some of the investment directed to the OE and give Germany a presence through Spain to butterfly the Moroccan crisis one and two. I guess a German Rota is going to put the RN in a state of pure disgust. This is departure worthy of a TL.

For steel making it is best to have the coal and good water routes in and rail connections out, iron ore is easier to ship to coal as pig iron needs yet more processing that uses coal and once made into steel is better shipped to industry closer. Thus we see a Ruhr valley so industrialized and founded upon steel, it has coal, Silesia the same, Belgium should out perform Italy who lacks coal, same with France, for this early heavy industry it is best to have ample coal and next to have iron ore or easy sources to ship from, preferable by water, thus we have Gary and Cleveland and Pittsburgh, all bring ore from farther away, the coal is closer and they sit on water.
I don't know much about its location, but Spain certainly had the raw materials for a decent sized steel industry. OTL Spanish coal production rose from 4.2 million long tons in 1913 to 7.0 million tons in 1918. Meanwhile Spanish iron ore production declined from 9.7 million tons to 4.6 million tons over the same period. Though I think that's due to lack of demand rather than the reserves being worked out.

Edit

From the same source, Spanish iron ore exports fell from 8.6 million long tons in 1913 to 4.2 million in 1918.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about its location, but Spain certainly had the raw materials for a decent sized steel industry. OTL Spanish coal production rose from 4.2 million long tons in 1913 to 7.0 million tons in 1918. Meanwhile Spanish iron ore production declined from 9.7 million tons to 4.6 million tons over the same period. Though I think that's due to lack of demand rather than the reserves being worked out.

Edit

From the same source, Spanish iron ore exports fell from 8.6 million long tons in 1913 to 4.2 million in 1918.

In very rough terms it takes about one tone of coal to convert one ton of ore into pig iron, the base metal for further steel production, and further production consumes more coal as well as various other minerals for alloys. Thus the history of steel is that it is economic to ship ore or coal either way ut as an industry it flourishes where the coal is and is influenced greatly by transport costs with waterborne being the most economic, therefore you look for water routes, ports, rivers and coal seams to locate the blast furnaces. Spain could develop a decent steel industry but its coal does not out produce its ore, thus I would guess on that disparity alone it exports ore and has a tiny local serving steel industry. After all the coal is being used for far more stuff than firing blast furnaces and ovens to make steel. And we have no idea if the domestic industries exist to use it. This is why so many mineral rich countries still end up industrially deficient. It is more complex than merely gaining the capital to build it. My guess for the fall in ore exports during the war is that its natural export markets simply cannot afford the bottoms to move the ore. Thus why a domestic shipping industry has value too.

In some alternate war with French ore captured but the rest of its industry not occupied, i.e. a far more limited German drive into French territory, France could buy ore it o longer mines, but France still needs coal, something it can buy from Britain. Using our pedestrian economics that argues for France having an even better ability to sustain her war effort on the industrial side. But that also means she spends gold or gets credit to buy both coal and ore and shipping, to the detriment of other things, and uses manpower to do it. The knife cuts both ways, France is either making more stuff with a smaller Army or buying what it needs and filling the ranks. Gross generalizations that serve the balancing we do on a grand sweep. And this is how I settled on a vague draw where Germany does not drive through Belgium, France is better off and can reorient her industry, but it is not a panacea, Germany might still secure just the ore mines or threaten then enough to strangle production, but she also might gain no UK at war, no blacklisting that sticks with neutrals as she is not the evil aggressor, etc. And Germany has a shipping industry that could get to that ore if needed, if the RN stands neutral and those bottoms reflagged USA or Swiss, we spin off into some speculative territory. Could France impose a blockade?
 
In very rough terms it takes about one tone of coal to convert one ton of ore into pig iron, the base metal for further steel production, and further production consumes more coal as well as various other minerals for alloys. Thus the history of steel is that it is economic to ship ore or coal either way ut as an industry it flourishes where the coal is and is influenced greatly by transport costs with waterborne being the most economic, therefore you look for water routes, ports, rivers and coal seams to locate the blast furnaces. Spain could develop a decent steel industry but its coal does not out produce its ore, thus I would guess on that disparity alone it exports ore and has a tiny local serving steel industry. After all the coal is being used for far more stuff than firing blast furnaces and ovens to make steel. And we have no idea if the domestic industries exist to use it. This is why so many mineral rich countries still end up industrially deficient. It is more complex than merely gaining the capital to build it. My guess for the fall in ore exports during the war is that its natural export markets simply cannot afford the bottoms to move the ore. Thus why a domestic shipping industry has value too.

In some alternate war with French ore captured but the rest of its industry not occupied, i.e. a far more limited German drive into French territory, France could buy ore it o longer mines, but France still needs coal, something it can buy from Britain. Using our pedestrian economics that argues for France having an even better ability to sustain her war effort on the industrial side. But that also means she spends gold or gets credit to buy both coal and ore and shipping, to the detriment of other things, and uses manpower to do it. The knife cuts both ways, France is either making more stuff with a smaller Army or buying what it needs and filling the ranks. Gross generalizations that serve the balancing we do on a grand sweep. And this is how I settled on a vague draw where Germany does not drive through Belgium, France is better off and can reorient her industry, but it is not a panacea, Germany might still secure just the ore mines or threaten then enough to strangle production, but she also might gain no UK at war, no blacklisting that sticks with neutrals as she is not the evil aggressor, etc. And Germany has a shipping industry that could get to that ore if needed, if the RN stands neutral and those bottoms reflagged USA or Swiss, we spin off into some speculative territory. Could France impose a blockade?
I don't know.

There are a few articles about the Spanish steel industry on the internet, which I haven't read properly. If I have interpreted what they said correctly the steel works were in the wrong place, i.e. close to the iron ore fields instead of the coal fields. As to coal production I haven't time to check my sources properly, but IIRC Spanish coal production does exceed the figures I have quoted for 1913 and 1918 over time. Iron ore production on the other hand never recovers to the 1913 level, but steel production increases from (IIRC) about 350,000 long tons in 1921 to nearly a million long tons for 1929. Unfortunately the source I am using only gives world steel production from 1921 onwards.

The source I am using also shows that coal and iron ore production decreased for nearly all the combatants between 1913 and 1918. (Swedish iron ore production and exports also declined but not as much as Spain's did.) I'm guessing that was because many of the workers were serving in the armed forces.

One of the reasons for saying that it's unlikely that Italy would have joined the Central Powers is that they wouldn't be able to supply the raw materials (including coal) that they received from Britain. However, IIRC several hundreds of thousands of Italians went to work in the French economy during World War One to take the place of Frenchmen serving in the Army. In a TL where Italy joined the Central Powers the French economy wouldn't have had the Italian workers, which ITTL would have been available to work in the German and Austro-Hungarian economies some of which could have worked in the coal and iron ore mines. This aught to have made up for the lost imports from the UK, provided the transport system had the capacity to take it to Italy.
 
Isn't the problem with Italy joining the Central Powers that they depended to a large extent on British coal and iron? Also A-H stubbornness over Trento. Depending on when they join, they may have to resolve the issue with Libya and the Dodecanese, which they recently took off the Ottomans, so that might push the Ottomans to the Entente.

Yes, those are all issues. The coal will partially be made up by Germany. IMO, a neutral Italy is probably best for A-H. But one should not dismiss a Italy who joins the CP. It will look different if we start in August 1914 versus May 1915, but both are huge wins. The most notice impact of the early Italian entry will be tying down additional French Corp in the South which will make the German operations much more likely to win. We also could see Italian Corps showing up to fill holes in the line. While not the most likely scenario, the following will make it easier to visualize. Imagine the BEF is used to tie up Italian forces. Then imagine OTL battles. The Germans win the Battle of the Marne. Put in another few Italian corp somewhere else. Imagine the three German corps are not transferred east but used in the race to the Sea. By winter 1914/15, we have the Germans holding Flanders and the Somme river to the sea. The Germans have traded the Italian coal issues for winning all these additional lands.
Part of what I wrote in Post 53 is also applicable to the above.
The source I am using also shows that coal and iron ore production decreased for nearly all the combatants between 1913 and 1918. (Swedish iron ore production and exports also declined but not as much as Spain's did.) I'm guessing that was because many of the workers were serving in the armed forces.

One of the reasons for saying that it's unlikely that Italy would have joined the Central Powers is that they wouldn't be able to supply the raw materials (including coal) that they received from Britain. However, IIRC several hundreds of thousands of Italians went to work in the French economy during World War One to take the place of Frenchmen serving in the Army. In a TL where Italy joined the Central Powers the French economy wouldn't have had the Italian workers, which ITTL would have been available to work in the German and Austro-Hungarian economies some of which could have worked in the coal and iron ore mines. This aught to have made up for the lost imports from the UK, provided the transport system had the capacity to take it to Italy.
 
I don't know.

There are a few articles about the Spanish steel industry on the internet, which I haven't read properly. If I have interpreted what they said correctly the steel works were in the wrong place, i.e. close to the iron ore fields instead of the coal fields. As to coal production I haven't time to check my sources properly, but IIRC Spanish coal production does exceed the figures I have quoted for 1913 and 1918 over time. Iron ore production on the other hand never recovers to the 1913 level, but steel production increases from (IIRC) about 350,000 long tons in 1921 to nearly a million long tons for 1929. Unfortunately the source I am using only gives world steel production from 1921 onwards.

The source I am using also shows that coal and iron ore production decreased for nearly all the combatants between 1913 and 1918. (Swedish iron ore production and exports also declined but not as much as Spain's did.) I'm guessing that was because many of the workers were serving in the armed forces.

One of the reasons for saying that it's unlikely that Italy would have joined the Central Powers is that they wouldn't be able to supply the raw materials (including coal) that they received from Britain. However, IIRC several hundreds of thousands of Italians went to work in the French economy during World War One to take the place of Frenchmen serving in the Army. In a TL where Italy joined the Central Powers the French economy wouldn't have had the Italian workers, which ITTL would have been available to work in the German and Austro-Hungarian economies some of which could have worked in the coal and iron ore mines. This aught to have made up for the lost imports from the UK, provided the transport system had the capacity to take it to Italy.

My theory in a TL where Germany does not push West (aka Schlieffen Plan via Moltke) would result in the war being fought at the frontiers, I think the French are unable to mine iron ore and need a new source, thus Spain gets the seductions. Thus I have almost no way to make her a CP ally without some other big changes. Now Italy has reason enough to tell A-H to pound sand but Germany is the real suitor, if she is wooed then I think your observations give us a notion of the thing. Rail connections to Italy are likely woefully inadequate to bring her coal in the quantity she needs, but can it be routed to Trieste using the A-H rail network? If not rail from there then seaborne? Italy will see a big hit as this supply is redirected and worst of all infrastructure needs built. I think these short falls despite demand show us the lag between changing things and getting it done, many of these exporters were geared to flow over certain rail lines to certain ports to certain customers, too many think it is merely a matter of shunting things another way. So I do think Italy is a hard sell, but with her it is no easy breezy Alliance win. But I prefer Italy to at minimum stay neutral, tip that scale and the CP might stave off defeat or pull a win.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
What about China?

POD would be Germany not sending troops after the Boxer rebellion, but somehow Kaiser Wilhelm II makes a favorable comment. And the empire survives
 
I'm sure more knowledgeable members than me will continue the conversation on the other nations, but I thought I would wade in with a bit about the feasibility of Siam joining, and what they'd actually get if they did join a winning Central Powers.

Siam joined the Entente in WW1 primarily as a means to earn the respect of France and Britain, both of whom had secured a number of unequal treaties as well as sections of Siam previously (albeit, areas not inhabited by Thais but rather by Khmers, Malays, etc). The Siamese king Vajiravudh had actually been partially educated in England, and had even been a member of the Bullingdon Club during his time there. Quite simply put, the man was enamoured with the United Kingdom rather than Germany, and the absolute monarch's being weighed against the complete lack of Central Powers presence in Southeast Asia and Siam's relative weakness compared to Britain and France mean that unless things seriously change, Siam would not join the Central Powers as it is.

If you really wanted to stretch things though, I suppose you could have the Palace Revolt of 1912 succeed making Siam more of a Constitutional Monarchy. The men involved looked to Japan as a model, and a Siam not under the grip of an Anglophile absolute monarch may well consider its options if things started going really well for the Central Powers (like, taking Paris well).

But I don't see a victorious Siam's borders being enlarged a great deal. Certainly Kedah and Kelantan would return to Siamese rule, but I think that the rest of the Malay Peninsula with all its tin and rubber is too economically useful to be given over to a non-European power by the victorious Central Powers. Otherwise we may see Siam recover land from French Indochina. Certainly she would be something of a beacon to Southeast Asians under colonial rule, but is it worth earning the enmity of Britain and France? (assuming their colonial empires survive of course) I'm not convinced.
 
Top