No WW1: the Economic Factors.

[I Blame Communism]

Agreed. That ability to impact and somewhat decide the outcome of a budget is going to create and force some compromise that IMO can only lead to a much more parliamentary Germany. The SPD would reach a point in which rival parties combine into something to challenge them in the elected system and you have real policies being ironed out there. Could take time, and might even see some unrest but I think it's only a matter of time.

Germanophile that I am, I'm inclined to agree with much of thsi speculation. It will be a very gradul process, but I think Germany was clearly on that road until Ludendorff came along. Dick.

Again, I totally agree. A lot of variables with the factors of Russia and Austria-H remaining on the stage, markets, economic shifts, and changing military scenarios. They have the perfect solution/excuse for the public in forming some kind of partnership with Britain. A joint naval relationship can haev a positive effect on both parties. The UK can keep and essentially secure their leading position (by numbers) in the naval arena while negating by far the largest threat to just that role. Germany can claim naval pride in garnering a brother'ship' to the RN and has her markets and colonies protection assured. She can refocus the press/public on the advantages to the alliance of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. Both populations are going to need some time to reorient themselves but I think the pieces fit for a mutually good relationship.

But this can only come about when Britain is confident that Germany will not, cannot attempt to dominate Europe by military power. As I said, this is certainly possible if Russia becomes a real titan, but what does France do in this situation? That's a very important question. In 1913, Britain is totally commited to aid France against Germany (the fleet agreement in particular). I'd think Britain would keep that commitment even if France stayed with a rising Russia.

 

[Grey Wolf]

While we're in that part of the world, huge Greek butterflies. No National Schism, no flood of Anatolians... it will be practically unrecognisable.

I remember reading in Albertini about German efforts bringing Greece and the Ottoman Empire together in 1914. People usually kick me in the head and laugh at my prone body when I mention this, but some other of the Balkan alliances seemed unlikely when they did happen.

I think Germany is going to be focused on exploiting its links with the Ottomans. These will be economic primarily, but have strategic value, not least because it puts the Germans in a much better position in Persia than they could otherwise be

IMHO the Eastern Mediterranean could be quite complex, since Russia was planning an Aegean base, and to establish their own Med battle squadron by IIRC 1916. They had leased basing rights at both Bizerte in Tunis, and at Lemnos (IIRC)

I realise most of this is political not economic

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[I Blame Communism]

I remember reading in Albertini about German efforts bringing Greece and the Ottoman Empire together in 1914. People usually kick me in the head and laugh at my prone body when I mention this, but some other of the Balkan alliances seemed unlikely when they did happen.

Oh, absolutely. People always back-project national emnities. Look at Germany and Poland. Both sides have nationalist lunatics saying bullshit about the Teutonic Knights and Frederick the Great and yet in 1848 it briefly seemed like they were BFF. Given that Greece and Turkey had good relations after Greece invaded the country and killed hundreds of people, I see no reason why this can't come about.

I think Germany is going to be focused on exploiting its links with the Ottomans. These will be economic primarily, but have strategic value, not least because it puts the Germans in a much better position in Persia than they could otherwise be

The Ottomans, I think, will be the big question (in fact it they and Bulgaria are the things the war will probablky be about if it's not about Serbia, and the Balkans was much more about the straits than pan-Slavism... but I digress, this is a no-war scenario).

IMHO the Eastern Mediterranean could be quite complex, since Russia was planning an Aegean base, and to establish their own Med battle squadron by IIRC 1916. They had leased basing rights at both Bizerte in Tunis, and at Lemnos (IIRC)

I realise most of this is political not economic

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I think we went off-topic long ago! But yes... I think that just before the war we were witnessing the final reversal of the Crimean War settlement. Whereas previously the Russsian political reason to keep control of the straits was to shield themselves from Crimea 2: The Sequel, they were now thinking about throwing their weight around again. The economic reason, to keep some semblance of topicality, had been that the straits were the jugular vein of the whole south Russian economy, speaking of which I think French investment in Russia likely to continue in the absence of the Bolshies.

 

[Hashasheen]

I think we went off-topic long ago!

Less than a page. Rather impressive, even for Ah.com standards. But hey, if it's constructive, let it stay.

 

[Cornelius]

I think Austria-Hungary splits after Frans Joseph dies ... as I think he was the real link holding them together. I see them parting ways and in doing shifting things around.

Austria splitting is another cliché. Without a lost war to exacerbate the various nationalisms the austrian empire could have survived, maybe in a federalistic form. It wouldn't have been an easy trasition, but it could have been possible.

Germany will be forced to change her continental politics, again I think this (along with the above statements) should push Germany into a systematic reapproachment to England.

I disagree. Kaiser Wilhelm wanted to gain a predominant position in Europe, something the british always were wary to allow. Unless there's a really good reason for Germany to change direction (but I don't see any), Kaiser Wilhelm will continue to push her nation toward "glory". Besides there was the little problem of Alsace-Lorena with France...

Italy will do whatever cowardly things Italy will do. Italy will balk at staying with Germany unless an alliance with England is a sure thing and might look to France.

Care to explain, please? While there will surely be tensions between Italy and Austria in this TL, the problems could have been easily resolved. Many people overrate the italian irredentistic sentiment. It was a strong power in the 19th century, but had long waned in the early 20th. Before WW1 Austria and Italy had spent nearly 49 years in peace. Italy could shift her alliance to Britain and France, but only if the entente nations will make the first move.

I see most tend to think Russia is bound to be heading for revolution. I tend to agree that there is just too much social unrest with the classes and population for something not to happen. The real question for me is what type of government does Russia end up with in the event of a non-Lenin based revolution or reform. Depending on the timing, both France and Germany could lose their key ally around the same time. Poland could appear again if they throw off the Russian chains in Warsaw, for once by their own initiative too.

I disagree with the idea that a revolution was unavoidable. Changes had to be made, but you're clearly understimating the role that war had into making a revolution possible. Without a war to trigger the disaster, other paths could have been followed.

As for Poland, even if she manages to gain independence, she's going to be swallowed into the german sphere of influence. The kaiser could not allow such a state to exists freely, since it would have been a menace to the empire stability.

 

[Grey Wolf]

French investment in Russia likely to continue in the absence of the Bolshies.

Since a lot of French investment was IIRC in the form of old loans, then continuing investment makes sense in order to provide maximum returns on the existing investment

I'm sure that makes sense but rereading it seems like nonsense...but its Economics !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[I Blame Communism]

Austria splitting is another cliché. Without a lost war to exacerbate the various nationalisms the austrian empire could have survived, maybe in a federalistic form. It wouldn't have been an easy trasition, but it could have been possible.

Possible, but the '17 Ausgleich, probably conducted under the influence of everybody's favourite Magyarophobe Franz Ferdinand, would be problematic.

About those various nationalisms... what will become of the west Ukrainians? Do they spin off and become "Ruthenes" or "Galicians"? The loyalty of the Croats and Slovenes is largely dependent on whether the Italians are making noises (IIRC, the London Treaty caused those nations to rouse themselves mid-war and give support to Austria).

I disagree. Kaiser Wilhelm wanted to gain a predominant position in Europe, something the british always were wary to allow. Unless there's a really good reason for Germany to change direction (but I don't see any), Kaiser Wilhelm will continue to push her nation toward "glory". Besides there was the little problem of Alsace-Lorena with France...

Well, while Ludendorff certainly thought in terms of Power Unleemeeted Power, the Kaiser wasn't as influential as people often think and Bethmann-Hollweg was pretty moderate. The Germans, although of course they were threatening European dominance, saw the conflict at first in terms of protecting themselves and the ungrateful rest of Europe from Russia. My idea is that, while it will take time, the rest of Europe may come round to this point of view.

About Alsace... most irredentism has a cause, whether diplomatic or in some national malaise, more than being purely about the territroies in question. I think that in the right circumstances France can be persuaded to bite her tongue about Alsace and co-operate with Germany, especially if that's the way Britain is tugging her.

Care to explain, please? While there will surely be tensions between Italy and Austria in this TL, the problems could have been easily resolved. Many people overrate the italian irredentistic sentiment. It was a strong power in the 19th century, but had long waned in the early 20th. Before WW1 Austria and Italy had spent nearly 49 years in peace. Italy could shift her alliance to Britain and France, but only if the entente nations will make the first move.

I agree with you as to what the Italian government can and will do, but remember that the most enthusiastic irredentists were also social radicals. The Tyrol and Istria could find themselves intwined in those interesting times I mentioned.

I disagree with the idea that a revolution was unavoidable. Changes had to be made, but you're clearly understimating the role that war had into making a revolution possible. Without a war to trigger the disaster, other paths could have been followed.

Precisely.

As for Poland, even if she manages to gain independence, she's going to be swallowed into the german sphere of influence. The kaiser could not allow such a state to exists freely, since it would have been a menace to the empire stability.

In fact even without any conscious effort, little landlocked Congress Poland can basically pick whether it wants to be a German economic sattellite or a Russian one.

Since a lot of French investment was IIRC in the form of old loans, then continuing investment makes sense in order to provide maximum returns on the existing investment

I'm sure that makes sense but rereading it seems like nonsense...but its Economics !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Hail Adam Smith!

 

[W.W.A.F.T.]

oooo, this is good stuff, as I see it this is more or less what the world will look like:

In russia the situation will be quite tense for a little bit, maybe even an uprising or two, but without the war to break the back of the army and foster public outrage the czar will stay in power. and russia, in whatever form it emerges from this period in, will be on solid footing by the 30's. it will also be very, very, dangerous.

In europe it will be interesting to see how the tensions of 1914 diffuse, or dont diffuse, this will be the defining factor in continental politics, at least until the situation in russia cools off. austria-hungary has a choice, it can federalise or die, integration will be difficult and face much resistance, but if done properly it is the only way that the country can survive. if austria-hungary falls apart, austria proper will become a part of germany, and romania will probably excersize a lot of influence over what's left. and the european arms race will likely slow down a bit but not stop all together.

In the americas, the united states' economy won't grow in the leaps and bounds it did OTL, but under the guidence of the likes of coolidge and hoover it will grow quickly and stedily. with europe still standing the US will likely set its economic focus southward, to latin america, wheather this makes for boom or bust in the latin countries i'm not yet sure.

In africa, there will still be german colonies.

In Asia, warlordism is an inevitability for china, and when that happens there will almost certanly be a "scramble for china". the united states which already controll the philippenes wil certanly participate in this venture, along with, britain, germany, portugal, japan, russia,the netherlands and france, this of couse means that there is (horror of all horrors) an american empire in the far east. furthermore, all this colonialism is going to put one massive bee in Mao tse tung's bonnet, and he might or might not have a few expatriate russians working for him as well.

and finally, In the Middle east, the ottomans are in a very serious situation and and quite probably they are going to lose some territory (the saudis, the russians, who knows). but with german capital probably pouring into the region it looks like the middle east is set for long term stability.

 

[I Blame Communism]

and finally, In the Middle east, the ottomans are in a very serious situation and and quite probably they are going to lose some territory (the saudis, the russians, who knows). but with german capital probably pouring into the region it looks like the middle east is set for long term stability.

I'm not so sure. There are other points of view, but I think the Reform Package was nost so much a way to seize territory as a way for Russia to meddle in Ottoman affairs and thus keep their foreign policy compliant (you do as we say with the straits and we don't hand invade Anatolia and hand it to the Dashnags), just as they'd tried to set up a protectorate in the 1850s based on the "protection of Christianity".

 

[Cornelius]

Possible, but the '17 Ausgleich, probably conducted under the influence of everybody's favourite Magyarophobe Franz Ferdinand, would be problematic.

About those various nationalisms... what will become of the west Ukrainians? Do they spin off and become "Ruthenes" or "Galicians"? The loyalty of the Croats and Slovenes is largely dependent on whether the Italians are making noises (IIRC, the London Treaty caused those nations to rouse themselves mid-war and give support to Austria).

Austria will have to navigate through some dire strats, true, the mindset of the time wasn't ready for a multicultural nation yet. But it's not impossible. After all many of the existing problems were made worse by the war and Franz Ferdinand, while a slavic minorance supporter, wasn't an unreasonable man.

Well, while Ludendorff certainly thought in terms of Power Unleemeeted Power, the Kaiser wasn't as influential as people often think and Bethmann-Hollweg was pretty moderate. The Germans, although of course they were threatening European dominance, saw the conflict at first in terms of protecting themselves and the ungrateful rest of Europe from Russia. My idea is that, while it will take time, the rest of Europe may come round to this point of view.

Maybe yes, I think that it mainly would depend by the reason why WW1 never happens. A common enemy could make the european nations to set aside some of their differences...

I agree with you as to what the Italian government can and will do, but remember that the most enthusiastic irredentists were also social radicals. The Tyrol and Istria could find themselves intwined in those interesting times I mentioned.

But the social radicals were a fringe movement. The catholic and socialist, the main parties, were strongly for peace. Unfortunately the royal court was another "fringe" which cultivated "glorious ideals". The decision to enter war was actually taken by the king and enforced on the goverment (IIRC, italian constitution allowed a lot of freedom of action to the king). Anyway it should be noted that the british diplomats worked a lot to achive this...
A different king, a less determinated british diplomatic corp or, simply put, more bloody common sense would have kept Italy out of the war OTL.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I see here that a lot of people seem to think that the Hungarians are just going to grab their toys and leave when Franz Ferdinand comes around. I have to disagree. They realized what was waiting in the wings for them-Romania and Serbia, not to mention Russia wanting to support her allies. Hungary was by far the least industrialized half of the empire, so if they don't get invaded and conquered a la 1849, they lose their industrialized benefactors, the Habsburgs, and have to deal with the now industrial equal (nearly) Romania. But there is the issue of Croatia and Bosnia, who may not want to be part of the Hungarian empire. Plus the vast majority of Hungarians hated the nobility, who oppressed and disenfranchised them. In 10 years (1890-1900) 1.5 million Hungarians left their own country because only 20 families own 80% of the land/wealth. They had no means of survival other than sharecropping and had no say in their government, as the 5% of the country that were members of the nobility were franchised. There was a reason the country went communist post-war.

Despite all the noise the Hungarians nobility made, it was on very weak ground and would have an extremely tough time breaking away from the Habsburgs without WW1. If their bluff was called, they would get slaughtered, with help from the Germans. Then their worst nightmare comes true: Slavic dominantion of the Magyars, as after a revolt, there is no way the dual crown system is going to remain in place. The independence of Hungary is getting revoked, and the back of Hungarian nobility, whom Franz Ferdinand hated, will be broken, letting the peasantry free.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Austria will have to navigate through some dire strats, true, the mindset of the time wasn't ready for a multicultural nation yet. But it's not impossible. After all many of the existing problems were made worse by the war and Franz Ferdinand, while a slavic minorance supporter, wasn't an unreasonable man.

Certainly it can survive. It will be tricky but possible. And nobody except perhaps Russia and Italy, and neither of those are certain, wants to see it collapse.

Maybe yes, I think that it mainly would depend by the reason why WW1 never happens. A common enemy could make the european nations to set aside some of their differences...

It would be pretty hard to manouvre that far without war, though. Still, that's besides the point: Russia can rise to become a serious menace.

But the social radicals were a fringe movement. The catholic and socialist, the main parties, were strongly for peace. Unfortunately the royal court was another "fringe" which cultivated "glorious ideals". The decision to enter war was actually taken by the king and enforced on the goverment (IIRC, italian constitution allowed a lot of freedom of action to the king). Anyway it should be noted that the british diplomats worked a lot to achive this...
A different king, a less determinated british diplomatic corp or, simply put, more bloody common sense would have kept Italy out of the war OTL.

I think you know more than I do here, so I'll stay quiet. I believe that a large part of Britain's diplomatic effort was in lones to finance the war, is this so?

 

[I Blame Communism]

I see here that a lot of people seem to think that the Hungarians are just going to grab their toys and leave when Franz Ferdinand comes around. I have to disagree. They realized what was waiting in the wings for them-Romania and Serbia, not to mention Russia wanting to support her allies. Hungary was by far the least industrialized half of the empire, so if they don't get invaded and conquered a la 1849, they lose their industrialized benefactors, the Habsburgs, and have to deal with the now industrial equal (nearly) Romania. But there is the issue of Croatia and Bosnia, who may not want to be part of the Hungarian empire. Plus the vast majority of Hungarians hated the nobility, who oppressed and disenfranchised them. In 10 years (1890-1900) 1.5 million Hungarians left their own country because only 20 families own 80% of the land/wealth. They had no means of survival other than sharecropping and had no say in their government, as the 5% of the country that were members of the nobility were franchised. There was a reason the country went communist post-war.

Despite all the noise the Hungarians nobility made, it was on very weak ground and would have an extremely tough time breaking away from the Habsburgs without WW1. If their bluff was called, they would get slaughtered, with help from the Germans. Then their worst nightmare comes true: Slavic dominantion of the Magyars, as after a revolt, there is no way the dual crown system is going to remain in place. The independence of Hungary is getting revoked, and the back of Hungarian nobility, whom Franz Ferdinand hated, will be broken, letting the peasantry free.

Pressimistic, but largely true. I think the Magyars are too sensible to turn down a good compromise. Romania, going manno-a-manno with Hungary, will probably have to contend with Bulgaria on the flank and Russian disapproval, though.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Pressimistic, but largely true. I think the Magyars are too sensible to turn down a good compromise. Romania, going manno-a-manno with Hungary, will probably have to contend with Bulgaria on the flank and Russian disapproval, though.

Why would Russia care? This would give Serbia an opportunity to march in and take Bosnia and maybe Coatia. The Bulgarians could be trouble, but I doubt as much as you might think, especially if Serbia is in the war and has Russian backing.

The Hungarian nobility was not very sensible, they were greedy. I think that given the choice between losing political power or economic power, they would not behave completely stupidly, but there are no guarantees in life

 

[I Blame Communism]

Why would Russia care?

They weren't very fond of Romania. Besserabia was obviously an issue between them and if Hungary secedes, Bukovina is another one. They suspected Romania of being a stooge for Germany or France and generally felt they were obstructing Russian policy in the Balkans. If Hungary and Romania came to blows, they would probably rather back Hungary in order to make it a dependency (thus allowing them to loom over the Balkans).

This would give Serbia an opportunity to march in and take Bosnia and maybe Coatia.

Bosnia wasn't part of Hungary and would fall to Serbia in the event of collapse anyways, whereas I'm not sure they'd march into Croatia, which became part of Yugoslavia mostly by default (the cause of much trouble). King Peter wanted a Greater Serbia, not a Yugoslavia. In any case Croatia will very likely leave Hungary, so even if, say, they argue over Bosnia, Srem, and Kotor, Hungary is out of it. And the ToL, with a war one, only guaranteed the Serbs Bachka. Pan-Slavism in Russia is something of a red herring: they had pragmatic reasons to support Serbia as well.

The Bulgarians could be trouble, but I doubt as much as you might think, especially if Serbia is in the war and has Russian backing.

Well, if anybody in the Balkans isn't sensible, its the Bulgarians and their scheming revolutionaries.

The Hungarian nobility was not very sensible, they were greedy. I think that given the choice between losing political power or economic power, they would not behave completely stupidly, but there are no guarantees in life

There are indeed no guarantees. Anything is possible.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

They weren't very fond of Romania. Besserabia was obviously an issue between them and if Hungary secedes, Bukovina is another one. They suspected Romania of being a stooge for Germany or France and generally felt they were obstructing Russian policy in the Balkans. If Hungary and Romania came to blows, they would probably rather back Hungary in order to make it a dependency (thus allowing them to loom over the Balkans).



Bosnia wasn't part of Hungary and would fall to Serbia in the event of collapse anyways, whereas I'm not sure they'd march into Croatia, which became part of Yugoslavia mostly by default (the cause of much trouble). King Peter wanted a Greater Serbia, not a Yugoslavia. In any case Croatia will very likely leave Hungary, so even if, say, they argue over Bosnia, Srem, and Kotor, Hungary is out of it. And the ToL, with a war one, only guaranteed the Serbs Bachka. Pan-Slavism in Russia is something of a red herring: they had pragmatic reasons to support Serbia as well.

Why wouldn't Hungary fight to retain Croatia or Bosnia? Croatia was consider part of the crown of St. Stephen, and adding Bosnia was an ambition of the Hungarians since it entered into Habsburg control.
You're very right about the greater Serbia angle, but if Croatia is not part of Serbia, which they did have ambitions on, then the only sensible option would be to stay with the Hungarians. Croatia was not a viable state sandwiched between two much stronger powers that want to conquer it.

Russia has no worries from Romania, which is a gnat compared to a bear. Besides, Russia had designs on Hungary, so why would they not want Romania to tie them down, have both worn down in a grinding struggle, have Serbia take Bosnia, and then sweep the field when they are ready?

 

[I Blame Communism]

Why wouldn't Hungary fight to retain Croatia or Bosnia? Croatia was consider part of the crown of St. Stephen, and adding Bosnia was an ambition of the Hungarians since it entered into Habsburg control.

Most Trianon memorials lack Croatia, which had practically no Hungarians. I don't think the Hungarians would mind letting it go. As for Bosnia I've never seen much proof, but it would be added to Croatia if it was, taking us back in a loop.

You're very right about the greater Serbia angle, but if Croatia is not part of Serbia, which they did have ambitions on, then the only sensible option would be to stay with the Hungarians. Croatia was not a viable state sandwiched between two much stronger powers that want to conquer it.

But the point of the "greater Serbia angle" is that the Serbs don't. The most they want is Kotor and Srem (for Montenegro, which is another interesting question absent the war). And I doubt the Hungarians, having let it go, would be so stupid as to try and get Croatia back. Domestically, neither side has much interest in conquest.

Russia has no worries from Romania, which is a gnat compared to a bear. Besides, Russia had designs on Hungary, so why would they not want Romania to tie them down, have both worn down in a grinding struggle, have Serbia take Bosnia, and then sweep the field when they are ready?

Actually, they did. The Russians didn't want Romania to be involved in WW1 while they thought they could win it themselves, so I see no reason why they want apply some pressure under these much less dire circumstances. As I said, Serbia can snaffle Bosnia without fighting Hungary. And what "designs" were these? Domination of the Balkans is worth a lot more than Carpathian Ruthenia, assuming the Russians knew the place existed.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Most Trianon memorials lack Croatia, which had practically no Hungarians. I don't think the Hungarians would mind letting it go. As for Bosnia I've never seen much proof, but it would be added to Croatia if it was, taking us back in a loop.



But the point of the "greater Serbia angle" is that the Serbs don't. The most they want is Kotor and Srem (for Montenegro, which is another interesting question absent the war). And I doubt the Hungarians, having let it go, would be so stupid as to try and get Croatia back. Domestically, neither side has much interest in conquest.



Actually, they did. The Russians didn't want Romania to be involved in WW1 while they thought they could win it themselves, so I see no reason why they want apply some pressure under these much less dire circumstances. As I said, Serbia can snaffle Bosnia without fighting Hungary. And what "designs" were these? Domination of the Balkans is worth a lot more than Carpathian Ruthenia, assuming the Russians knew the place existed.

Again, Croatia was considered part of Hungary, regardless of the ethnic composition. Only 51% of Hungary was of Magyar decent, but the land was considered part of the country. In fact there had been an ancient deal with the Croatians going back for several hundred years, binding them to Hungary in exchange for special priveleges. Holding Croatia is important to them, as much as Slovakia ever was.

Croats were considered Serbs until quite recently, a distinction that essentially artificial and from what I have read, Serbia was very interested in the Dalmatian coast line, an integral part of Croatia to the Croatians.

As far as Russian designed on Hungary, I cannot quote which book I had read that in, but I have seen it purposed that the Russians wanted to annex Hungary at some point. Of course that could have been back in the 1800's, so I may be wrong on that one point.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Ignore please

 

[I Blame Communism]

Again, Croatia was considered part of Hungary, regardless of the ethnic composition. Only 51% of Hungary was of Magyar decent, but the land was considered part of the country. In fact there had been an ancient deal with the Croatians going back for several hundred years, binding them to Hungary in exchange for special priveleges. Holding Croatia is important to them, as much as Slovakia ever was.

Except that their interbellum irredentism didn't touch Croatia, and I think they only wanted Slavonia in 1848. And of course there's a clear differance between Slovakia and Croatia in that the latter had an autonomous existence, and at times the Hapsburgs had legally considered it a seperate crownland. In general, it was rather a special case.

Croats were considered Serbs until quite recently, a distinction that essentially artificial and from what I have read,

The distinction is religious (how legitimate that is is up to you, but the Serbs and Croats take it pretty seriously and did throughout the interbellum) but also ancient. King Peter specifically wanted to aggrandise Serbia and not unite it with Croatia.

Serbia was very interested in the Dalmatian coast line, an integral part of Croatia to the Croatians.

Serbia wanted access to the sea, to which end they were after Dubrovnik and Kotor. I said their could be quarrels concerning that, and Srem.

As far as Russian designed on Hungary, I cannot quote which book I had read that in, but I have seen it purposed that the Russians wanted to annex Hungary at some point. Of course that could have been back in the 1800's, so I may be wrong on that one point.

That's insane. Thousands of disloyal new subjects, geographically bizarre (cut clean off by the Carpathians), and certainly not an aim of the Russians in WW1. Since you don't actually have a source for this most unusual claim, we can discount it.