PC/WI: A much later WWI with an Austro-German-British-U.S. alliance?

NoMommsen

Donor
For the record, whether or not the Franco-Russians actually end up winning this TL's WWI is a completely separate question.

However, in response to your point here, I would like to point out that, in this TL's WWI, most of Germany's army will be stationed on the eastern front to fight against Russia. Thus, France will probably only have to fight against a fraction of the German Army in this TL's WWI.
Not going to happen.

With a continuing Franco-Russian alliance Germany will ALWAYS look very keen on its western border. They will always put about half of their forces against France. And with the developing time there will be an awfull lot of fortifications on the german western borders ... as well as at its eastern borders, plans were already for quite some time in the working/thinking before August 1914, only lack of funds hindered that.


Also I HAVE to ask how you will delay a WW I of whatever form for so long.
Serbia, even if they bow to austrian demands in August 1914 will stay a mayor powderkeg.
There are the Greco-Turkish ... troubles.
Russia will further pursue its drive for the straits, maybe by teasing/pressing on Bulgaria, which again will keep things ... interseting on the Balkans.
There is also the bulgarian-serbian-greek mingling about Macedonia.
There is also the bulgarian-romanian quarrel about the Dobruscha.

Not to forget the domestic problems of Russia, which were at the beginning of August 1914 only slightly covered by the "spirit of August'.
Not to forget the domestic development in Germany ... you know : growing SPD-power politically.
And France ... Jean Jaures still killed ?

I really have problems to see NO WW I happen for such a long time until the 30ies.
 
For the record, whether or not the Franco-Russians actually end up winning this TL's WWI is a completely separate question.

However, in response to your point here, I would like to point out that, in this TL's WWI, most of Germany's army will be stationed on the eastern front to fight against Russia. Thus, France will probably only have to fight against a fraction of the German Army in this TL's WWI.
Oh yeah sure the French have a massive numerical advantage, assuming they don't bother trying to send men to defend their colonies and ignore the threat of British naval invasion and invade through the eslass meat grinder to avoid drawing in the Belgians and the British don't reinforce the Germans, yeah assuming all those things, they should out number the Germans by a fair bit.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Not going to happen.

With a continuing Franco-Russian alliance Germany will ALWAYS look very keen on its western border. They will always put about half of their forces against France.

Wouldn't the growing threat of Russia cause Germany to plan on putting more of its troops east?

And with the developing time there will be an awfull lot of fortifications on the german western borders ... as well as at its eastern borders, plans were already for quite some time in the working/thinking before August 1914, only lack of funds hindered that.

Completely agreed. Indeed, it would make a lot of sense in such a scenario for Germany to fortify both of its borders as much as it could. Plus, in such a scenario, France might be compelled to invade Germany through Belgium, which would likely guarantee British entry into the war on Germany's side.

Also I HAVE to ask how you will delay a WW I of whatever form for so long.
Serbia, even if they bow to austrian demands in August 1914 will stay a mayor powderkeg.
There are the Greco-Turkish ... troubles.
Russia will further pursue its drive for the straits, maybe by teasing/pressing on Bulgaria, which again will keep things ... interseting on the Balkans.
There is also the bulgarian-serbian-greek mingling about Macedonia.
There is also the bulgarian-romanian quarrel about the Dobruscha.

Local wars are certainly a possibility. However, France and Russia are probably going to be very careful about sparking a war which they are likely to lose; after all, they wouldn't be able to compete with Germany and Britain for a while.

Not to forget the domestic problems of Russia, which were at the beginning of August 1914 only slightly covered by the "spirit of August'.

Oh, sure, Russia can certainly experience another revolution ... and/or a palace coup, for that matter.

Not to forget the domestic development in Germany ... you know : growing SPD-power politically.

Yes; correct! However, the SPD were also willing to go to war when necessary--as evidenced for their support of war in July-August 1914 in our TL.

And France ... Jean Jaures still killed ?

Not in July 1914. As for later, maybe, but maybe not.

I really have problems to see NO WW I happen for such a long time until the 30ies.

Basically, I am operating on the premise that France and Russia are going to be very careful for a very long time considering that they wouldn't want to fight against an Anglo-German coalition this early. After all, no one wants to lose a war, and France and Russia are likely to lose such a war if they spark it too early.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Oh yeah sure the French have a massive numerical advantage, assuming they don't bother trying to send men to defend their colonies

Defending the colonies is problematic considering that it would be a losing fight (France probably can't beat Britain in the war over the colonies) and considering that, in the event of a Franco-Russian victory in Europe, France and Russia can trade some of their territorial gains/conquests in Europe in exchange for a restoration of some or all of France's colonies.

and ignore the threat of British naval invasion

That threat probably won't be actualized for at least a couple of years, though.

and invade through the eslass meat grinder to avoid drawing in the Belgians and the British don't reinforce the Germans, yeah assuming all those things, they should out number the Germans by a fair bit.

Actually, France might be compelled to invade through Belgium sooner or later. After all, if Germany is able to fortify its border before the start of this TL's WWI, France might view invading Belgium as the lesser evil in comparison to launching a direct attack on Germany through heavily fortified Alsace-Lorraine.
 
Defending the colonies is problematic considering that it would be a losing fight (France probably can't beat Britain in the war over the colonies) and considering that, in the event of a Franco-Russian victory in Europe, France and Russia can trade some of their territorial gains/conquests in Europe in exchange for a restoration of some or all of France's colonies.



That threat probably won't be actualized for at least a couple of years, though.



Actually, France might be compelled to invade through Belgium sooner or later. After all, if Germany is able to fortify its border before the start of this TL's WWI, France might view invading Belgium as the lesser evil in comparison to launching a direct attack on Germany through heavily fortified Alsace-Lorraine.
Not defending the colonies means Britain gets to seize all of the resources they contain with the up most ease, making it all the easier for them to support Germany.

I'm sure the Germans thought it would take awhile for the british to make an impact in otl ww1 too, didn't work out that way did it?

Belgium is heavily fortified itself and it gives the Germans more of the fresh bodies they need to hold the West.
 
What does France get out of this hypothetical conflict? She's got Britain on one side and Germany on the other... not an enviable position. By this point Alsace-Lorraine will have German for seventy years.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Agreed; in turn, this is why exactly I talked about a significantly delayed WWI here. However, by 1948 (as per the information from my link above), Russia's population--almost 350 million--would be 3 times that of Germany, 6 times that of Britain, and 8 times that of France. With those odds, Russia might feel sufficiently confident that it can quickly defeat Germany and Austria-Hungary (together with France's help, of course) before Britain (and the U.S.) is able to send significant numbers of its own troops to continental Europe.
Your link is from some guy who visited Russia at the turn of the century: the problem is that at the time the concept of demographic transition and economic convergence (higher gdp per capita is linked to lower growth) was not understood, so he straight up just projects linearly the trend from 1900-1913 onto 1950 which isn't what actually happens in history to any country. Population growth and economic growth both slows down as per capita income increases.

What I'm saying is that the projection of Russian power is not accurate.
Disagreed. After all, as our TL's WWI showed, France certainly had a lot of fight inside of her. Thus, I expect France to hold out at least for a couple of years.
France folded within a few month in 1871 and again in 1940

In 1914 the French had the Russian AND the British alliance keeping them alive, without the British directly helping the French their economy can't fight the war: their key war industries are in NE of the country which is first in line to get taken over or bombed by the Germans. And in otl WWI France had to redirect a huge portion of their economy to war footing and basically balanced out the need to keep the civilian part of the population alive by using British credit to borrow money and buy stuff from the US.

Without the British the French economy can't fight the war, and that is if the British remains neutral, if the British are actively hostile France lose their key industries and starts starving very fast.

If Russia's per capita GDP would be, say, between one-half and two-thirds of the U.S. level in the late 1940s in this TL, then I could see Russia being close to being a U.S.-level superpower in this TL.
You have to assume Russian population is gonna be twice as much as the US, which is dubious
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
Very confident, no? After all, Japan would be able to focus all of its energies on Russia while Russia would have to simultaneously focus on several of its enemies.
They weren't all that confident about beating the Soviets in 1941: even when Germany was 10 miles from Moscow
 

RousseauX

Donor
The other thing is I really do wonder how geopolitics turnout without a general European war in the early 20th century

Does the Ottoman Empire and A/H even exist by 1948 or so?
 

RousseauX

Donor
@CaliGuy

At the end of the day the concept bhind your Russia scenario is imo fairly plausible even if some of the specifics aren't, Russia basically just replaces Germany as the big-bad of the mid-20th century and otl Nazi Germany fought the UK-France-USA-Russia alliance by itself pretty much. I don't see why Russia with more industry can't do it.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What does France get out of this hypothetical conflict? She's got Britain on one side and Germany on the other... not an enviable position. By this point Alsace-Lorraine will have German for seventy years.
In spite of the length of time that Alsace-Lorraine was a part of Germany, France would probably still want it back. Indeed, in our TL, Pakistan still wants Kashmir even though it has been a part of India for almost 70 years.

Of course, France would probably also be extremely cautious in regards to sparking a war (and that includes restraining Russia); after all, France certainly wouldn't want to spark a war which it is likely to lose (which is what would happen if this war is sparked early enough).
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Your link is from some guy who visited Russia at the turn of the century: the problem is that at the time the concept of demographic transition and economic convergence (higher gdp per capita is linked to lower growth) was not understood, so he straight up just projects linearly the trend from 1900-1913 onto 1950 which isn't what actually happens in history to any country. Population growth and economic growth both slows down as per capita income increases.

What I'm saying is that the projection of Russian power is not accurate.

You are absolutely correct in regards to the demographic transition. However, an increase from 180 million to 344 million over a 35 year time period while a country is undergoing a demographic transition doesn't seem too far-fetched; for instance, South Korea's population doubled between 1946 and 1980 in our TL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea#Registered_births_and_deaths

Plus, keep in mind that, even if the Russian birth rate will decline, the Russian death rate will also decline to improvements in medical technology.

France folded within a few month in 1871 and again in 1940

That was without Russia as its ally. Plus, France only lost so quickly in 1940 due to its own mistakes.

In 1914 the French had the Russian AND the British alliance keeping them alive, without the British directly helping the French their economy can't fight the war: their key war industries are in NE of the country which is first in line to get taken over or bombed by the Germans.

Just how much did Britain help France in our TL, though?

And in otl WWI France had to redirect a huge portion of their economy to war footing and basically balanced out the need to keep the civilian part of the population alive by using British credit to borrow money and buy stuff from the US.

Was the British credit absolutely crucial in regards to this, though?

Without the British the French economy can't fight the war, and that is if the British remains neutral, if the British are actively hostile France lose their key industries and starts starving very fast.

Perhaps; however, I need to see more information about this.

You have to assume Russian population is gonna be twice as much as the US, which is dubious

Not twice as much; rather, just 1.5 times as much, which might very well be possible.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
@CaliGuy

At the end of the day the concept bhind your Russia scenario is imo fairly plausible even if some of the specifics aren't, Russia basically just replaces Germany as the big-bad of the mid-20th century and otl Nazi Germany fought the UK-France-USA-Russia alliance by itself pretty much. I don't see why Russia with more industry can't do it.
Thanks.

Also, though, please keep in mind that Nazi Germany had the benefit of using industry and slave labor from all of Europe for the benefit of its war effort; in contrast, Russia in this TL probably wouldn't have this.

In addition to this, if France decides to remain neutral in this TL's World War I/Great War, then this war would essentially be a case of multiple powers--Germany, Britain, and perhaps Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Japan, and/or the U.S.--ganging up on Russia after Russia overreaches and tries expanding even more. In turn, the dynamics of such a war would certainly be very interesting. :)
 
We're talking a curb stomp before the united States could get involved.France is isolated and will be taken out first,then it's a matter of time before Russia goes down.
 
I think you have to have a pre-1900 POD, say with the Prussians losing the Franco-Prussian War. Germany in this TL is held-back a lot by the 1910s. Especially if it's an economic power but not a military machine, an Anglo-German alliance is quite possible.

For Russia, have them win the Russo-Japanese War big and make some political reforms a bit early.
 
Top