PC: How plausible are these alliances for an alt WW1?

Yeah shipping through Switzerland could possibly work, would a way to convince the Swiss.
I've always found large piles of money to be very convincing. If a Swiss company run by a private citizen were to buy coal from Germany and sell it at a higher price to Italy then that's just good business.
 
You make a lot of good points here, and I didn't even think about the Far East, although I'm suspicious to just how much Japan would be willing to involve itself in a protracted war in Manchuria/Transbaikal. But although the Ottomans would be significantly stronger, I really can't see Austria-Hungary lasting too long against both Germany and Russia, and I think we'll need more information in the Balkan theater (i.e the position of Bulgaria, which could jeopardize Konstaniyye)

That's assuming the Germans focus on the south: its just as likely, like they did in our timeline, they continue to regard France as the bigger threat (And it being the front they'd have to more or less fight alone, since the Russians can do some of the heavy lifting in the south) and as such focus their primary offensive potential there, including the heavy artillery which would be key to breaking through A-H's border fortifications. This would be the most likely route for German war-planning to take, in my opinion, since A) Again, they have allies that can keep A-H at least in check or do the heavy lifting knocking them out. B) Low expectations of Italian military performance and recognition of their vulnerable naval and economic position (As I said before, even if the Germans can ship large amounts of coal via Swizterland, that doesn't mean much if the French make their way into Piedmont. C) For political and economic reasons, allowing the French to break into A-L and the Rhine valley, which contain so much of Germany's raw coal and iron resources, is a big no-no: even more so than OTL's dilemma for the French, since they don't have ready access to replacement materials from the world market, and D) Any Austria in this position isn't going to have a military set up with an offensive against Germany as a priority, so the Germans know a threat from the south in unlikely and can afford to turn their initiative elsewhere.

As for Japan, given their efforts at the time to gain further influence in China (For example, the Twenty-One Demands), their clear interest in Manchuria and the benefit control over its raw resources would give to the growth of domestic Japanese industry, as well as their experience in the Russo-Japanese war demonstrating (to them) that they could defeat Russia even when she wasen't distracted by a war in Europe, and I can certainly see them seizing control over the region and Russia Outer Manchuria (For security reasons). While there certainly aren't going to march deep into Siberia, its not only an easy conquest but also gives them a justified reason in the eyes of the rest of Europe for an increased military footprint in China... a presence which could easily be used to pressure for greater Japanese privileges from the weak Chinese government

In the Balkans, I'd personally say if the O.E was tied into a Franco-British alliance structure (And especially A-H) the Balkan states are less of a threat, given the likely lack of an Italo-Turkish and Balkan Wars in said scenario, since any of those would likely as not spark the powder keg and kick off The Great War early. If they did still happen, however, Bulgaria is just reproaching with the Turks and has pretty cold relations with everybody else in the region. Add that to the fact that Russia was very keen that nobody was taking the Straits except for THEM, and Bulgaria doesn't have much incentive to move against the Entente.
 
In the Balkans, I'd personally say if the O.E was tied into a Franco-British alliance structure (And especially A-H) the Balkan states are less of a threat, given the likely lack of an Italo-Turkish and Balkan Wars in said scenario, since any of those would likely as not spark the powder keg and kick off The Great War early. If they did still happen, however, Bulgaria is just reproaching with the Turks and has pretty cold relations with everybody else in the region. Add that to the fact that Russia was very keen that nobody was taking the Straits except for THEM, and Bulgaria doesn't have much incentive to move against the Entente.

I'm inclined to agree with Filly here, the Balkans are definitely something I'm going to have to look at and see what I can figure out. If the Entente is dumping crazy money into the Ottomans and AH, the rest are going to be in for a rough awaking. I've been toying with who would side where and so far I've come to think that like Aphrodite said, Romania will probably fall into the Russo-German camp, Bulgaria with Turkey. Leaving Serbia and Greece still up to decide. Serbia will probably try and take a swing at Austria (which would most likely end badly if they are the aggressor in this TL), but I'm not sure what I want to do with them yet. Greece however is in an interesting position. I know there was a political party and uprising that got them into the war for the Entente (the name escapes me, it was with a V) but if I remember correctly the king was more neutral if not pro german. In theory they would could get more from war with the Ottomans (the megali idea) then from war with Serbia, in my opinion. I could be wrong though.
 
If Russia is only fighting the unstable and defunct Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empire, I don't see why Russia would have such financial woes. It's not like Russia was nearly as incompetent militarily as Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire.
The Russian economy wasn't exactly a model of efficiency or productivity, not compared to France, the UK, Germany, USA, etc. It was burgeoning, true, but their industrialization was being funded largely by French capitalists, which is part of why the Russians and French came together in the first place. Plus, the Russian Empire was bleeding money fighting Japan alone a decade before and this situation has them fighting on three front with no chance at getting imports or exports anywhere by sea. Russia needed loans from the French, the French needed friends.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If the Entente is dumping crazy money into the Ottomans and AH, the rest are going to be in for a rough awaking.
And this scenario might be even beneficial for the Entente, unless A-H is too dumb to follow an all-out offensive strategy. If they stay defensive behind their mountainous borders (most likely ITTL), both Germany and Russia would find a hard time launching offensives. France might also follow Victor Michel's proposal, as it's likely that they would not be able to persuade A-H to drop their defensive strategy ITTL.

The problem with supporting Ottoman is that you can piss off Italy (as in the case of supporting A-H), Greece and even Bulgaria.

The Russian economy wasn't exactly a model of efficiency or productivity, not compared to France, the UK, Germany, USA, etc. It was burgeoning, true, but their industrialization was being funded largely by French capitalists, which is part of why the Russians and French came together in the first place. Plus, the Russian Empire was bleeding money fighting Japan alone a decade before and this situation has them fighting on three front with no chance at getting imports or exports anywhere by sea. Russia needed loans from the French, the French needed friends.
Can we replace France with Germany? Germany needs raw materials, Russia needs money and foreign expertise.
 
And this scenario might be even beneficial for the Entente, unless A-H is too dumb to follow an all-out offensive strategy. If they stay defensive behind their mountainous borders (most likely ITTL), both Germany and Russia would find a hard time launching offensives. France might also follow Victor Michel's proposal, as it's likely that they would not be able to persuade A-H to drop their defensive strategy ITTL.

The problem with supporting Ottoman is that you can piss off Italy (as in the case of supporting A-H), Greece and even Bulgaria.


Can we replace France with Germany? Germany needs raw materials, Russia needs money and foreign expertise.

1. Italy is already leaning towards Germany though, so who cares if you piss them off? Its better to hedge your bets with a power you know to be loyal and shares mutual geographic interests with you (I.E limiting Russian expansionism) and in whom you have a much larger financial stake. Plus, its not like Italy is a glittering prize.

2. I'd need to do a little more research on that before I can confidently answer, but I think German capital is mostly being plowed into Germany proper's industrial growth, rather than in France and G.B with their already mature industries looking for markets abroad.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
2. I'd need to do a little more research on that before I can confidently answer, but I think German capital is mostly being plowed into Germany proper's industrial growth, rather than in France and G.B with their already mature industries looking for markets abroad.
By 1914, Germany was the second or third largest foreign investor.
 
Why would France want to shackle itself to that particular corpse though? A-H isen't exactly in a position to offer France that much assistance... though I assume in this TL they're going to be spending more on their military than our own, they're still isolated from their allies. Unless this timeline includes the Ottomans avoiding their Balkan and Italo-Turkish war (Which, given the alliances as they stand, is pretty likely)

Given that, then Italy's the one who's in an incredibly vulnerable position, given how exposed she is to Hapsburg-Franco-British naval dominance and seeing her entire system of commerce fall to pieces right at the war's start. If the French can get into the Lombard plains (Which I'd wager they can), any rail connection to Germany via the Swiss would be a moot point, and Italy would quickly lose her most industrially potent region. Sure, while that's happening the Hapsburgs are getting hammered along the Carpathians and in Bohemia, but given the terrain advantage in those areas and the almost inevitable shift to a more defensive focus for her military given the strategic situation and I can see the Italians easily cracking first... at which point the Med. is an Entente lake.

This results in Russia being isolated from international commerce, since thanks to the Anglo-Japanese alliance (And the strong rivalry between Japan and Russia) Japan is also going to be fighting on the Entente side. And the German militarists being aligned with the Czarist autocracy isen't going to do so well for the alliance's reputation abroad (Say, in The United States).

Nobody knew how shit the Austrian army was until after the war started. Before her catastrophic defeats, she was assumed to be one of the great powers.
 
By 1914, Germany was the second or third largest foreign investor.
Sure, but I'm pretty sure France was first by a large margin.

Works in which French capital participated accounted for over 60 per cent of the pig iron and coal output of Russia by 1913.The French were holders of nearly 23 per cent of the total capital of the ten largest Russian joint stock banks, and they were also large suppliers of short-term credits to these banks.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-02307-3_8

If France doesn't support Russia's finances from the start, a Russo-German alliance works but Russia's economy is going to be years, maybe decades at worst, behind where it was OTL. That means even worse performance due to lack of modern equipment, presumably, while the Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans are going to be getting British and French supplies freely. That, I think, balances out matters very nicely.

So we'd have the Triple Alliance with the geographical advantage (Austria-Hungary being surrounded almost completely) while the Entente has a massive resource (Italy having no coal plus a Russia without French capital is a Russia whose industry is terribly behind every one of the other Great Powers) and naval advantage. A-H might fold but it wouldn't be nearly as much of a stomp as people are saying if Russia can't afford to stay at war for long and on three fronts (Galicia-Lodomeria, Caucasus, Far East) without being able to use any of its ports. The Ottomans are way better off, after all (they have the European GP sugar daddy they needed so badly) and Italy and Russia will both be starving for industrial resources very quickly (unless Germany can supply all three of them, which I'd figure is unlikely).
 
Capital investment overseas amounted to roughly 30 Billion among the top 3 European powers. Britain (20), France (6)and then Germany (4). Half of French capital went to Russia, British capital in Russia amounted to 1/3 of the French, with German investors at half the British. French capital was also larger than either of the others in the OE. They also had significant capital in AH.

If you change the dynamics of investment you will alter the situation such that Russia is more than just a little less developed and both AH and the OE will also be correspondingly stronger in terms of everything from military supplies to industry but particularly infrastructure.
 
Capital investment overseas amounted to roughly 30 Billion among the top 3 European powers. Britain (20), France (6)and then Germany (4). Half of French capital went to Russia, British capital in Russia amounted to 1/3 of the French, with German investors at half the British. French capital was also larger than either of the others in the OE. They also had significant capital in AH.

If you change the dynamics of investment you will alter the situation such that Russia is more than just a little less developed and both AH and the OE will also be correspondingly stronger in terms of everything from military supplies to industry but particularly infrastructure.

I'm sorry but this is completely wrong.

Total foreign investment in Russia from 1890-1914 totaled 3,800,000,000 rubles. This comes from Paul Gregory and is among the highest estimates of foreign investments around. It assumes a large amount of foreign travel and counts exports of precious metals as foreign investment (Gatrell, The Tsarist Economy p. 225)

Not all of this came from France- if we add Belgian to nominally French capital we would get about 50%. This overstates the case. Not all Belgian capital is French and not all nominally French capital is really French. An unknown amount is Russian taking advantage of tax breaks. Bonds sold on the Paris exchange were bought by investors everywhere.

This is also private capital seeking private gain. People invested in Russia because the Russians paid the highest rate among the Great Powers.

Direct foreign investment is not what it appears. The number is inflated because the Russian business tax was based on the rate of return on nominal capital. The issuance of shares was a nightmare requiring the personal approval of the Tsar. For these reasons, businesses tended to inflate their nominal shares and never issued the full amount the product of these investors at a very low rate of returm.

Many investments were done because of such high subsidies that they represent net economic losses to the country- i.e. Russia would have been better off without them. The steel industry would be a good example. Russia put an insane tariff on steel that raised the price to three times the international rate. The government agreed to purchase

Russia would get many economic benefits from a German alliance. First, the need of the army are greatly reduced. Russia spent 700,000,000 rubles on her army in 1900 in cash and kind. From 1908-1914, Russia spends 3 billion rubles cash on the army alone. Well over half of this was to defend against Germany. With a German alliance, that spending can be slashed and Russia has already gained more than the entire foreign investment- investments which earned interest.

More likely is that much of this is spent on the Navy- Russia spent 300,000,000 rubles on naval construction 1898-1904. Doubling it would make the Russian fleet invincible against Japan. Japan was already spending more on defense than she collected in taxes so its hard to see how they can match a Russian build up. Avoiding the Japanese War (or winning it and collecting a huge indemnity) solves all of Russia's economic problems and is most likely

We also need to remember the large economic benefits that Germany gave to her alliance partners. The biggest was tariff concessions- originally given to Italy, the Germans matched them to Austria to preserve balance in the alliance. These are considerable. In OTL, the Russians paid 40% on grain exported to Germany.
 
Hey y'all, sorry for the lack of replies on my part, midterms week at college (funny enough I just had my WWI midterm today). Now I know the odds of this are unlikely, but could the Germans replace the capital that the French were pouring into Russia in OTL. I would have to think that Germany could see the benefit in putting money into Russia so that they can make more money off of them in the long term? Also, similar to what @Aphrodite said, the tariff reduction and trade deals that Germany would forge with Russia and Italy would be a good thing for the alliance members right?

Also @Aphrodite, in response to what you said about the Russian Navy that would actually be an interesting sight seeing them build up a large Asian naval task force and Black sea fleet with the money they no longer need to be spending on the army.


Finally just another thing I'm going to through out there, If say the Russians were to win an Alt Russo-Japanese war (i assume this would happen one way or another due to conflicting interests in Manchuria), would that help to butterfly away some of the resentment that led to the revolution in 1905?
 
Top