No WWI

Thats silly. Unless there is a good reason, Austria isnt going to join Germany.

This "law of physics" stuff is a humourous exagerration, but in the opinion of a safe majority of Austrians, "having nothing better to do" counts as a good reason. As soon as Austria-Hungary does (which is not nearly as inevitable as often imagined), Austria will try for Germany is at all possible.

Blame could be laid at many peoples feet. But it must be said that the Kaisers had some stupid policies which seems to be desighned to turn all posible neutrals into enemies.

Germany indulged in some supremely inelegant diplomacy, and did so in the Wilhelmine era, but the blame can't be placed squarely at the feet of the Kaiser. Prior to the war, he was a more important political figure and I don't doubt his desire for a "modern" and "German" policy was a major contributor to Germany's attempt to do everything at once, but while he allowed it, the cause was contradictory currents in domestic politics all being given their say in foreign policy.

Building the German fleet of dreadnoughts was unnecesary and pushed Britain towards the entente.

Absolutely.

Giving Austria the "blank check" was posibly an accident that allowed Austria to give ridiculouse demands to Serbia that could not posibly be accepted.

Also true. Whether it was an accident or not, it was a mistake.

And the Sleiffen plan is idiotic in the event of Russia mobilising invade first through France, via nuetral Belgium in order to provoke Britain and fight a war with as many people as posible at the same time while looking like the agressor, thats smart!

The Schlieffen plan had no chance of achieving its objective and knocking out France, but this is a caricature. Schlieffen had real strategic reasons for these decisions. The Germans believed that they had to destroy one power quickly or be caught in a vice, and a glance at the map tells you that France has massively inferior strategic depth. Russia, afterall, took the disaster of 1915 and simply got up and started fighting again, more effectively than before.

And as for invading Belgium, it was believed to be the only way to quickly defeat France. The German general staff didn't mind treading on Britain's toes, but really Britain was pretty certain to come in for France at some point. We were commited to oposing continental hegemony for any one power even before we got into extensive security arrangements with France.

Although after all that Britain could of decided that the treaty with Belgium had lapsed and allowed a relatively quick CP victory. The only person arguing for war in the British government for a long time was the foreghn affair minister replace him and Britain could stay out.

British neutrality, in my opinion, would require avery careful timing of Ireland blowing up, any number of other domestic crises, and some extremely lucky Germany offensives. Britain had staked our national safety on France with the fleet agreements..
 
This "law of physics" stuff is a humourous exagerration, but in the opinion of a safe majority of Austrians, "having nothing better to do" counts as a good reason. As soon as Austria-Hungary does (which is not nearly as inevitable as often imagined), Austria will try for Germany is at all possible.

Guess you didnt read the entire conversation. Of course, Austria will definately go for Germany (and vice versa) if the A-H falls apart on its own, but Austria (and Germany) will not merge if the A-H is in place and doesnt desindegrate, and its desintegration is by no means inevitable, like claimed in this post:

But Austria-Hungary has to implode, because if it doesn't then Anschluss (which every soul in Europe except the French want) can never happen and it's impossible to have a Europe based TL post 1900 without Austria as part of Germany.
 
Top