I'm pretty sure it's worse than that, considering there are statues of him all over Belgium, and many Belgians see Leopold II as one of their better kings. Hell, there's even more than a bit of Japanese-style apologia, i.e. the Belgian government acknowledges the horrors of the Free State, but downplays his role in it, much like how the Japanese government acknowledges their war crimes but downplays its official - or the involvement of the Imperial Family therein - role in said crimes.
Place In the Sun: What If Italy Joined the Central Powers? (1.0)
- Thread starter Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth
- Start date
Rattenfänger von Memphis
Donor
This topic really caught my interest and probably other readers of this thread too, Kylia. As a New York Times Sunday subscriber, I have access to their online back issues and I did a search. There were basically 5 terms for the Allied side but many, many more for what we would eventually call the Central Powers.
The Allies (and they were being called “Allies” at the war’s very beginning in August 1914) were AKA the Triple Entente, the Entente Powers, the Entente and (after Italy joined them) the Quadruple Entente.
Germany and Austria-Hungary had been in the Triple Alliance with Italy but when Italy declared her neutrality, the New York Times(NYT) first called them the Dual Alliance, the older 1879 non-Italian alliance (or Zweibund in German)
On August 5, 1914, the NYT had a chart entitled “The Dual Alliance” versus “The Triple Entente And Its Allies.” Later, when Turkey and Bulgaria entered the war on Germany’s side, they were almost always considered distinct from what the NYT referred to as the Central Powers, just as the smaller Allied nations (Belgium, Serbia, Romania, etc) were considered distinct from the Entente. “Allies” almost always referred to Britain and France on the Western Front (and Gallipoli). Individual Allied names predominated: the Italians, the Russians, the Serbs, etc.
The first use of “central powers” (and it was lower case) that I noticed was November 2, 1914 when the NYT referred to “the two central powers” and their new ally Turkey. On June 12, 1915, Turkey was described as “the Islamic ally of the central powers” (Lower case again) and on December 10, 1915 “the central powers and their allies Bulgaria and Turkey.” Sporadic use of “central powers” seems to have continued until that term became fairly regular in the last half of 1915 and by 1916, it was fairly often used.
It almost seemed like the NYT was trying to find a shorthand term that fit. Other terms were Germanic Powers, Germanic Allies, Teutonic Powers, Teutonic Allies (and the shorter Teuton Allies), Austro-German Alliance, and Central Empires. And all of these terms overwhelmingly referred to only Germany and Austria-Hungary. Bulgaria and Turkey would usually be added to these terms except in one instance when “Quadruple Alliance” began to appear. (And at least once, confusingly, as the “Quadruple Entente” which had previously been used to describe the alliance of Britain, France, Russia and Italy.) None seem as "catchy" I guess as “Central Powers”.
On March 6, 1918, the NYT published what it called the text of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Russia. In Article 1, the NYT used the term “Central Powers” and in Article 2 the term “Quadruple Entente” . The German original text lists the 4 allies individually in Article 1 (No “Central Powers”) and in Article 2, the term “Mächten des Vierbundes ” (literally translated as “Powers of the 4 League” or “Quadruple Alliance”)
At the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, Leon Trotsky was quoted as calling these 4 powers “Zentralmächten” or “Central Powers” . German Wikipedia uses 3 terms: “die Mittelmächte”, “die Zentralmächte” and “Vierbund”. ( I really enjoyed this research, some of it was day by day. It was interesting to see the Lusitania arriving and leaving the United States several times and knowing what her ultimate fate would be in just a few months...)
Last edited:
Indeed
I only know it because my sister is a medical student.In the peace treaty Russia accepted the existing frontline as the new international border. That included the western parts of Belarus. Only the Ukraine remains completely with the Russian Empire. Germany had conquered the Baltics in TTL's 1916 offensive.
According to the map posted after the peace treaty, five states were created:
1) Finland
2) United Baltic Duchy
3) Lithuania
4) Poland
5) a rump Belarus
Last edited:
Actually, Nepal fought in ww1 otl with the entirety of its army even though they were branded as British colonial troops, throughout ww1. 2 Regiments were fighting even in France! The majority however fought against Turkey and in Africa. I see no mention to the contrary so Nepalese troops should have fought in Africa and the middle east ittl as well. Around 50,000 troops fought directly in the war otl. In 1916 the Law of Military Preparedness saw Nepal expand the army into 100,000 standing forces, and 20,000 reserves. By this point without a war, the number would have been reduced to 80,000 active troops and 30,000 reserves however. However the presence of 80,000 Nepalese veterans will throw a massive wrench into the plans. Around 150,000 Nepalese during this time were also a part of the Royal Gurkha Rifles which were placed in India and Burma during peacetime, making a grand total of 230,000 troops from Nepal available to fight for the British in India. Until the 1980s otl, Nepal also produced its own licensed weapons for the army, making them self-sufficient. In ww2, the Royal Nepalese Army actually supplied itself on the Burmese Front! Nepalese troops had been present during the 1911 Xinhai Revolution in Tibet, and would be especially beneficial for Britain to use them to clear out the Himalayas.
The Bhutanese Themselves also had an army of around 9,000 veterans during this time.
Needless to say the Brits already have around ~240,000 friendly troops in North India. Well-armed and well-trained and veterans as well.
If Britain can take advantage of this, then Britain is still within the game. Much of India during this time had the manpower, but did not have the equipment or experience. Coupled with Loyalist regions like the Central Provinces, Assam, Manipur, Arunachal, Nagaland, Tripura, Burma etc the British are still within the game.
bguy
Donor
Why would Japan want to spice things up in India? Isn't Japan currently allied to the British? And even if they are thinking of getting out of the alliance, it's not exactly in the interest of any imperial power to encourage colonial rebellions. (A successful rebellion in India would likely inspire independence activists in Korea and Indochina after all.)
Thanks; glad you like it! Poland and the Baltics are already in Germany's pocket. As for the Ukraine, it's still under Russian rule but once the Reds rebel there will be opportunities for a Ukraine either independent or as a German protectorate.
We've already got the basic foundations for such a thing- Poland and the Baltics- so it's definitely a possibility!
Oh dear. I shall have to retcon those numbers!
Ouch, I didn't know about that- that's nasty. Well, ITTL I'm sure the Germans will make a big deal over being "better, more humane stewards of the Congo" than the Belgians. Who knows, perhaps Leopold II will be seen as a real villain ITTL?
Wow, you did all that just for my TL? Blimey, I'm humbled!! Also- very cool that you can read the back issues, I shall have to think about subscribing for a Christmas gift-to-self.
So, "central powers" (lowercase 'c') was the norm in summer 1916 when the war ended, eh? Well, that gives me some options. I think the best term for now would be "Central Powers"- perhaps this will change later on when we get to GWII.
But by all means, if you have a better idea, shout out!
Indeed.
Rump Belarus is under German control; this includes Minsk, which was snapped up during TTL's even-more-successful Gorlice Tarnow.
Haha!Indeed
Exactly right. However, I am thinking about doing some retcons vis-a-vis the puppets in the Baltic, so what I've posted earlier isn't infallible.
It would've been, yes. As it stands though, Russia's borders are roughly similar to those of the USSR pre-1939 (less bits of Belarus), so their resource base isn't too different.
Japan and Britain are allied, even if the Japanese are getting stronger while Britain's declining, and Tokyo has no real reason to try and destroy the Raj. As you say, Britain'd try and get Korea, Taiwan, and Indochina fired up and the IJN doesn't want to try its luck against the RN yet.
Thanks for that, I'll retcon the numbers! Let's say a quarter of a million Brits in India plus 75,000 coming over from this new update, 80,000 Nepalese/Bhutanese combined.
Wow, that's actually a lot! I imagine the princely states are throwing in something as well.
Thanks for giving me those numbers.
Actually, they're not. India's a long way away and the Japanese have enough on their plate as is in Indochina. No one in Tokyo wants to go to war with Britain right now or even make a real enemy out of London.
See chapter 14, I think, for an update.
Thank you to everyone for reading and commenting! We should have an update tomorrow!
More likely Japan will use the British activity in India to try and expand their influence elsewhere. Maybe tear out a chunk of Russia
A few years down the road
We will be seeing an independent Siberian Republic during the RCW... under Tokyo's protection of course
I would like to point out that according to the 1912 agreement between Tibet and Nepal for the period between 1912 - 1937, Nepal and Tibet were military allies. Tibet would have to join the war as well, if Nepal activates the alliance.
It will come as a shock, for sure. While we can see the butterflies, people in TTL are shocked by Japan's audacity in trying to just steal Indochina like that... and even more shocked by their skill and success! Unfortunately, this means that the Japanese are swelling with their Victory Disease....
And so Tibet will be in! How many troops (roughly) would they be providing?
they had around 35,000 troops in 1930. I would say something of 20,000 troops would be the case during this time.
Brilliant, thanks. We'll see them in the future, then...