Regional "WW1" - course of events and after effects?

hey, all. one big change i decided on a long time ago for my ASB ATL is that WW1 is much more limited than IOTL (to the point that it isn't a world war at all) and WW2 as pretty much entirely butterflied away (though a number of smaller conflicts take its place)

anyway, before i completely lose myself to sleepiness, i wanted to write up a thread to discuss what a regional war with the same trigger as OTL WW1 could be like, as well as what would happen afterward. just as importantly, i'd also like to discuss what specific changes to the TL beforehand could result in this (so the POD may be in pre-1900 even though i placed this in post-1900)

ITTL, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand triggers an Austro-Serbian War, in which major powers in eastern Europe (and later the Middle East) join forces as TTL's Central Powers while various Balkan states join forces for survival against them. it starts out as just Austria-Hungary vs. Serbia, but eventually includes these states as well:

  • "Outer Powers"
    • Austria-Hungary
    • Ottoman Empire
  • "Balkan Allies"
    • Albanian rebels (country arguably owned by Turks; may require earlier minor POD)
    • Bosnian rebels (country technically owned by Austrians)
    • Bulgaria
    • Montenegro
    • Romania
    • Serbia
    • various rebel organizations in the Outer Powers


if anyone has any recommendations for how could make this more plausible, PLEASE tell me
 
Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, cooperatively piling into the Balkans?

Well to begin with, Russia must have the mother of all distractions because this is possibly the worst event imaginable relative to their foreign policy. Not easy.
 
IMHO you need to remove the 1908 annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina by Austria-Hungary or else there is no way Russia is going to stay out of this. Removing that may mean the Balkan Wars go differently, or less, which means when you get to 1914 and Franz Ferdinand is assassinated, maybe because Vienna is imposing more Austrification in B-H even though it is still only a protectorate, Russia will look more at this being dangerous terrorists, than at Austrian imperialism

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, cooperatively piling into the Balkans?

Well to begin with, Russia must have the mother of all distractions because this is possibly the worst event imaginable relative to their foreign policy. Not easy.
my tiredness last night must have made me forget: Russia is a part of this war, but it only comes in later: Nicholas II is trying to improve his image and transition into a constitutional monarchy, so he holds off on sending Russia into the war as well until near the end. the Bolsheviks still revolt and momentarily seize power, but are defeated and Lenin is hanged. Nicholas II uses the aftermath to justify joining his allies in the Balkans and single-handedly turns the tide of the war in favor of Serbia and the other Balkan states

sorry for forgetting to post that before :eek:
IMHO you need to remove the 1908 annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina by Austria-Hungary or else there is no way Russia is going to stay out of this. Removing that may mean the Balkan Wars go differently, or less, which means when you get to 1914 and Franz Ferdinand is assassinated, maybe because Vienna is imposing more Austrification in B-H even though it is still only a protectorate, Russia will look more at this being dangerous terrorists, than at Austrian imperialism

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
i'd never thought of that. thanks! :)


how long do you suppose the Balkans would be able to last in this war? for what i wrote before, they last until at least the "Bolshevik Uprising", which takes a few months for Nicholas II and Russian loyalists to put down (part of the reason behind that being that the Bolsheviks don't have as much support as IOTL, which instead either isn't socialist or goes to the Mensheviks). this could always change, but that's how i'd written it before.

keep in mind that there would be plenty of trench and mountain warfare in this conflict, and both sides would be bringing new weapons to the battlefield, including poison gas, tanks, airplanes, and machine guns
 
No, but it seems interesting if you're keeping the OTL major powers out, especially considering how they'll develop with less WW1/ 2.
 
that's the idea ;) it was originally just a simple means to a simple end: my opinion is that the outbreak of the world wars are what ultimately led to decolonization happening so quickly and the resulting chaos in post-colonial states (particularly Africa), so take the WWs away and you get a slower decolonization (that was the idea at least :p). at the time, i had never even considered the repercussions relating to the use of weapons first used in the WWs, such as (potentially) poison gas not being mutually forbidden if there's fewer fatalities, on a smaller scale, and in a much narrower region
 
  • "Balkan Allies"
    • Albanian rebels (country arguably owned by Turks; may require earlier minor POD)
    • Bosnian rebels (country technically owned by Austrians)
    • Bulgaria
    • Montenegro
    • Romania
    • Serbia
    • various rebel organizations in the Outer Powers
SC2-General743.jpeg


Yeah... thats not gonna happen. Macedonia and other Macedonia would appeal to Bulgaria more than Istanbul (which due to their experience at San Stefeno they know the Great Powers would probably cock block them anyways). They have every reason to want to join the Outer Powers and no reason to side with Serbia.

And with Bulgaria on the side of Austria and the Ottomans, the Balkan Alliance doesnt stand a chance.
 
Top