The problem with that is that the opposite is far more likely, Austria was more likely to be divided up with Russia than Prussia was, you would have to go all the way back to the seven years war for what you are proposing to be all that likely imoHave Austria unify Germany, and then have Russia and Germany plot to split up Prussia.
But that's clearly not at all what you're looking for.
The problem with that is that the opposite is far more likely, Austria was more likely to be divided up with Russia than Prussia was, you would have to go all the way back to the seven years war for what you are proposing to be all that likely imo
It's doable I mean even otl when they were allies France and Russia didn't actually like each other that much.I'm obviously not being too serious.
Anyways, a serious answer has to do with the League of Three Emperors. But, of course, it's not just going to hold by itself, and you need a major POD for this. I recommend one could be Boulanger overthrowing the Third Republic and establishing a revanchist, militaristic French state. He's going to be considered Napoleonic by the rest of Europe, and I cannot imagine that many Russians would be too enamoured by him. Assuming Boulanger is still able to form a rapprochement with Britain, he then fumbles into a war with Germany in the 1890s. Britain then declares war on Germany, and then we can assume that one of the many territorial disputes in the Great Game turns into war as a result. This then means the League of Three Emperors fights a war together against France and Britain.
Austria could hardly afford to be antagonistic to a Russo-German alliance as there would be no hope of any power saving them from quick destruction.
Neither Serbia nor Romania had serious trade relations with Britain. Even Italy isn't as dependent on British trade as that coal number implies. If Italy thinks war with Britain is possible, she will stockpile some reserves. Italy's coal imports ran about $50,000,000 a year. At 5% a years supply would cost only $2,500,000 a year. Hippie money. There's also rationing, substitution (wood can replace a lot of the coal) and alternate suppliers. All expensive but war is expensiveHow dependent were Serbia and Romania on British imports during this time, though?
Also, Yes, I actually do agree with your general point here. Of course, as far as I know, Germany didn't have as much money to invest abroad as France had; in turn, this could result in a slower Russian industrialization in this TL (but also in a later/delayed WWI in this TL).
Come now, even the Austrians would fight long enough to make the Italians look ineptThere's a reason the Austro-Prussian War is called the Seven Weeks War. In 1914, Russia sent only four of her twelve armies against Austria and had Conrad hiding behind the San
Neither Serbia nor Romania had serious trade relations with Britain. Even Italy isn't as dependent on British trade as that coal number implies. If Italy thinks war with Britain is possible, she will stockpile some reserves. Italy's coal imports ran about $50,000,000 a year. At 5% a years supply would cost only $2,500,000 a year. Hippie money. There's also rationing, substitution (wood can replace a lot of the coal) and alternate suppliers. All expensive but war is expensive
But if Russia, Germany, Serbia, Romania and Italy declared war on Austria, I doubt if the Austrian army would even bother to show up. Most likely the troops just don't answer the call and the active duty army deserts. This isn't meant as an insult to the Austrian troops but men don't fight for hopeless causes. You see that in the end of all wars- the losing army simply melts away
Another reason Ottomans winning their 1877 war with Russia would work as a PoD then; presumably, Austria may not be able to make pretensions to Bosnia if the issue Serbia and Montenegro were resolved differently.Getting a Russo-German alliance requires only that Germany end support for Austria's pretensions in the Balkans.
I can see only one argument against an alliance with Russia: A breakup will hurt Germany a hundred times more than Russia and both sides know it.
But the advantages are huge:
- The two-front-war is averted
- Germany can expand without getting any more foreign nationals in
- If they still want to challenge Britain, they now have another wannabe sea power in the boat - giving them the capacity to actually accomplish something.
- All disputes with Russia and Italy are settled - since they were with Austria not Germany itself.
Have Austria unify Germany, and then have Russia and Germany plot to split up Prussia.
But that's clearly not at all what you're looking for.
I'm obviously not being too serious.
Anyways, a serious answer has to do with the League of Three Emperors. But, of course, it's not just going to hold by itself, and you need a major POD for this.
There is a simple reason why Prussia united Germany and Austria didn't: The Germans were the majority in Prussia and the minority in Austria.
Agreed with all of this. Indeed, allying with Russia appears to be a much safer option for Germany if Germany is OK with becoming the junior partner in an alliance in the long(er)-run.I can see only one argument against an alliance with Russia: A breakup will hurt Germany a hundred times more than Russia and both sides know it.
But the advantages are huge:
- The two-front-war is averted
- Germany can expand without getting any more foreign nationals in
- If they still want to challenge Britain, they now have another wannabe sea power in the boat - giving them the capacity to actually accomplish something.
- All disputes with Russia and Italy are settled - since they were with Austria not Germany itself.
By that point in time Russia was already allied with France, though.I think chance of Russo-German reconciliation was permanently removed by Bosnian crisis, and Russians being double-crossed by Austrians with German support. This was also why Russians protected Serbia so aggressively in 1914, they tried being nice with Germans in 1908, and they ended up blackmailed and humiliated for their effort.
If Germany tries to reign in Austria, but Austria for some refuses to accept her status as junior alliance partner, annexes Bosnia anyway, and by doing so humiliates both Germany and Russia, well, they just removed main reason why Germany and Russia couldn't be allies. That's the latest POD I can think of that results in German-Russian alliance.
If Germany sponsors Pan-German agitators inside of Austria-Hungary, though, Austria-Hungary might have a hell of a time trying to avoid angering Germany. After all, if even a crackdown on Pan-German agitators can result in a war with Germany and Russia, Austria-Hungary is totally screwed!Austria could hardly afford to be antagonistic to a Russo-German alliance as there would be no hope of any power saving them from quick destruction.
Yes--in fact, up to the point of stabbing Russia in the back!Does anyone forget that Peter III liked Prussia (pre-Germany) and was willing to make dipomating concessions to court them?
Peter III of Russia was friendly with the Prussians and lukewarm with the Austirnas. It could form an alliance. But Peter was a bit of a nutjob, prone to bouts of insanity like Henry VI of England, and his internal policies were either erratic (keep changing) or more rarely a disaster (he made up his mind on something worse than doing nothing). If he was a competent administrator (good not even great) and was not insane, he could have left an impact on Russia's future foreign policy instead of being deposed by his wife.
Does anyone forget that Peter III liked Prussia (pre-Germany) and was willing to make dipomating concessions to court them?
Yes--in fact, up to the point of stabbing Russia in the back!