Season of our Fears

New timeline! This is a ROUGH DRAFT, so say if it is realistic or not but BE SPECIFIC. I can change the things you don't think are realistic.

July, 1911
-The German warship Panther arrives in Agadir as a show of force during a period of unrest in Morocco.
-The British become worried about the fact that a German gunboat has arrived in a revolting French colony. The British think that Germany means to use Agadir as a naval base.
-The British send battleships to Agadir in case a war breaks out, which now seems quite likely.
-The Germans make an incredibly gutsy move and send two battle cruisers to Agadir. But midway through the trip they are intercepted by British ships. The British have orders to stop the Germans at any cost, the German orders are to get to Agadir… At any cost. When the Germans refuse to return the British, in desperation fire a shot across the bow of the lead German ship. The Germans think that it is an attack and open fire. The British return fire.
-Although the battle is more or less inconclusive (only a German destroyer was sunk) the Germans are outraged by the fact that German ships were fired upon in peacetime and demand an apology from the British.
-The British refuse. War is declared on Germany by France and Britain.

August, 1911
-Germany and France begin mobilization of ground troops against each other. The process is painfully slow, especially for the Germans who also have a naval war to fight with the British.
-The German ships Thuringen, Helgoland and Ostfriesland are commissioned into the German navy.
-The first battle of the war occurs near the Helgoland Bight, the battle is a British victory over the German navy. At first the battle was swaying towards the Germans until an attack by British torpedo boats sunk the German battleship Nassau. The only notable British casualty being the Agamemnon, which in any case was a pre-dreadnaught.
-German troops invade Belgium and go like a hot knife through butter on to France. The French are caught completely off guard and only manage to stop the German advance at the Somme river. The period of warfare that continued from there was a bloody Hell fought in the mud and slush of northern France.
-The first official “kill” of a submarine occurs, the British battlecruiser Inflexible is torpedoed by German submarine U-17. Although the Inflexible was not sunk, it was still damaged enough to have to return to Scapa Flow.

September-December, 1911
-The Germans make a minor breakthrough across the Somme. Despite massive casualties on both sides the French resolve continues to amaze the Germans.
-The first zeppelin attack made by the Germans on London causes a massive demoralization of the British people. Although only 27 people died the sheer fact that the Germans hit the British capitol without notice and at night made even the prime minister admitted that it was a “grave new development.”
-In late October the German fleet makes one of the gutsiest moves in the history of naval warfare. A German attack on Scapa Flow. The attack began on the night of October 29th, the ships in the German fleet included two of the Helgoland ships as well as the Rheinland. The fleet also included most of the pre-dreadnaughts in the German navy as well as various cruisers, destroyers and torpedo craft. The battle itself began when a British scout saw the Germans approaching. The Germans caught the British off guard and destroyed several ships. But the British rallied after that, after the loss of the Rheinland the German fleet attempted to retreat with the Thruingen covering them. This did help at all though because the Germans had already lost many capitol ships, which meant that no one would be saved by the retreat.
List of Destroyed ships at the Battle of Scapa Flow
British

Bellerophon
Lord Nelson
Queen
Africa
Inflexible
Two Tribal Class destroyers

Beagle
German
Rheinland
Thuringen
Schleswig-Holstein
Pommern
Deutschland
Moltke
Köln
Six Torpedo Boats

The battle was a clear British victory, despite being caught off guard the British destroyed about half of the German navy. This battle more or less won the naval war for the British.
-After a major breakthrough at the Somme the Germans lay siege to Paris. The French began to divert thousands of troops away from the Alsace front to break the siege at Paris. This allows a German breakthrough in Alsace as well.

January-February, 1912
-An American-negotiated treaty ends the naval war on January 29th. The treaty of Amsterdam was fairly light on the Germans in most cases. The only harsh part of the treaty was the limits put on the German navy, the Germans could not maintain a navy larger then one quarter the size of the royal navy, and they were only allowed one operational dreadnought at a time.
-The siege of Paris continues. The French attacks seem fruitless, between this and the fact that the British had abandoned them reduced French morale terribly. Despite this the French refuse to surrender.
-In early February the Germans turn over many of their ships to the Royal Navy, with the exception of the Ostfriesland which the Germans decide to keep as their one permitted dreadnought
-The German breakthrough in Alsace is miraculously contained by the French. The siege of Paris continues though. French high command decides to wait for another French victory to try to relieve the siege, meanwhile the people of Paris starve.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
You'd think the Belgians would be pissed that German troops cut through their territory, but hot knives through butter...

I'd like to see more (and see the British commit some troops to France).
 
You'd think the Belgians would be pissed that German troops cut through their territory, but hot knives through butter...

I'd like to see more (and see the British commit some troops to France).

The British plan before Agadir only called for the destruction of the German navy. Since the war happens because of Agadir they never change there plans and abandon France.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Why do the Germans get through Belgium so easily? IOTL, the Belgians fought like devils and held the Germans up for quite some time.
 
Maybe if actual strategic surprise was obtained the Germans could smash through Belgium... easier anyways. This is the age of the machine gun and artillery though, rapid movement just isn't possible. A small number troops can hold back a larger number with relative ease.

Also, what's up with the naval treaty? Odd truce of a single front, or is Britain just abandoning France altogether?
 
Maybe if actual strategic surprise was obtained the Germans could smash through Belgium... easier anyways. This is the age of the machine gun and artillery though, rapid movement just isn't possible. A small number troops can hold back a larger number with relative ease.

Also, what's up with the naval treaty? Odd truce of a single front, or is Britain just abandoning France altogether?

I keep on telling you that was the British plan. And right now the British do not want to get involved any more because of how the land war is progressing, that is, it isn't.
 
February-July, 1912
-The French beg the British to help, the British refuse saying that by the time they could supply any troops it would be useless. The siege of Paris continues. The French public begins to sway towards surrender after more obscenely large casualty reports.
-A suggestion for British intervention in the land war is shot down by Parliament. Anti-French sentiment is rampant not just in Britain but also in the United States.
-After a period of civil strife in the Austro-Hungarian empire the Germans slowly begin dismantling the age old alliance, because the alliance could spark war with Russia, which would turn the second Franco-German war into a two-front war. The old fear of the German empire.
-The Japanese Emperor Meiji dies and is replaced by Emperor Taishō.
-The French finally surrender after about one year of fighting. The brutal trench warfare that was experienced during the war will prompt many of the new strategies that will be used in conflicts like the three Balkan Wars.

July, 1912-December, 1913
-The peace treaty that the French sign does not include much. It agrees to have the French army significantly smaller then the German army. Because of the treaty of Amsterdam the Germans cannot take any French colonies but they do force the French to recognize Moroccan independence. The other major condition is to terminate the French alliance with Russia. This allows relitive safety for the Germans because in case of a war with Russia it will be with only Russia.
-The first Balkan war breaks out. Most of the Ottoman Empires remaining European territory is lost during the war. It is also the first major land war since the Franco-German war to use modern equipment and strategies. But after the Balkan league won a desicive victory they could not decide how to partition the spoils. The only concrete thing was that the Greeks got many of the Aegean islands along the Turkish coast.
-The second Balkan war ends with the defeat of Bulgaria by the other Balkan league powers, this ends squabbling over the spoils of war and more or less ushers in a period of reletive stability. Even if it only lasts for a year.
-Woodrow Wilson wins the presidential election in the US. Although it was hotly contested from Progressive nominee Theodore Roosevlet, who planned on running again and said so.
 
Last edited:
January-July, 1914
-Germany and Britain slowly begin to reestablish trade. Despite the naval war earlier in the decade the Germans desperately want to be on Britain’s good side to avoid another war. The British also want another trading ally because of France’s decimation in the second Franco-German war. The British abandoned the Americans as serious allies due to the growing distrust between the Japanese and the Americans.
-The already deteriorating situation in the Balkans explodes into open conflict. When Franz Ferdinand is assassinated by the Black Hand group in Serbia Austria declares war on Serbia. Russia subsiquantly declares war on Austria, and so the third Balkan War begins.
-The Germans, who were being counted on by the Austrians to support them against Russia, do not in fact support the Austrians because they do not want to get involved in another war. This allows the Russians to concentrate their forces against the Austrians, despite the numerical advantage trench warfare quickly sets in.
-Riots in Lille and Amiens calling for German troops to leave are put down with almost brutal force.

July, 1914-February, 1915
-The Serbians win a decisive victory over the Austrians near the border. The Russian front seems to be shaping up to be an endless stalemate.
-The first true armored vehicles are deployed by the Austrians. Taking several tractors, putting armored plating on them and putting a machine gun on top makes a great weapon to break through trenches. Especially because they don’t get mired down in the mud like armored cars.
-Demonstration in Ulster become increasingly violent, the British send troops which only makes things worse. Demonstrators kill several British soldiers prompting an exchange of fire and prompting a war in Ireland.
-Russian defeat in Galacia, the Austrians hold their ground wanting to whittle down the Russian army into surrender or mutiny.
Armored Vehicles
Although armored cars had been in use since the Franco-German war they had not been used strategically or usefully. This was mostly due to the nature of early twentieth century combat. Cars would often get mired down in mud and simply stay there until they were destroyed or dug out. This changed when the Austrians equipped an old tractor with tracks and mounted armor and a machine gun on it. The new machines would not get stuck in the mud and generally would be used quite effectively.

February-December, 1915
-The German aircraft manufacturer Fokker develops the interrupter gear. This allows aircraft to fight with machine guns in the sky facing straight forward. It is sold to the Austrians for a hefty price.
-Germans seem to be going back on their word that they would not interfere with the 3rd Balkan war. The Germans start mobilizing troops on the border in late October.
-Battles on the Austrian front begin swaying towards the Austrians, mostly due to the new armored vehicles.
-The first signs of unrest begin showing up in Russia. Sick of seemingly endless war and scared to death of German intervention protesters take to the streets in Petrograd.
 
Good to know someone appreciates my work.

I have great plans for this thing. I was not giving up! I was just going slower for the lack of responses. The one thing I need to do is go more away from my comfort zone. I need to do something crazy with Japan and the US. Or Russia, or BOTH.
 
-German troops invade Belgium and go like a hot knife through butter on to France.
The British plan before Agadir only called for the destruction of the German navy. Since the war happens because of Agadir they never change there plans and abandon France.
But you have them abandoning Belgium.
-After a period of civil strife in the Austro-Hungarian empire the Germans slowly begin dismantling the age old alliance, because the alliance could spark war with Russia, which would turn the second Franco-German war into a two-front war. The old fear of the German empire.
?What happened to the Franco/Russian Alliance?
-The first Balkan war breaks out. Most of the Ottoman Empires remaining European territory is lost during the war.
OTL the Ottomans lost more [due to intervention by the Great powers] at the peace conferences than in the Battles.
Given no GP Intervention, I don't see the Ottomans losing the Balkan War.
the Germans cannot take any French colonies but they do force the French to recognize Moroccan independence.
Which means that it gets taken by Spain.
-The first signs of unrest begin showing up in Russia. Sick of seemingly endless war and scared to death of German intervention protesters take to the streets in Petrograd.
After only one Year, with Russia apparently winning:rolleyes:
-Woodrow Wilson wins the presidential election in the US. Although it was hotly contested from Progressive nominee Theodore Roosevlet, who planned on running again and said so.
?What happened to the Republicans?
OTL Wilson only won because TR's Moose Party split the Republicans.
 

LittleSpeer

Monthly Donor
He brings up a good point. Russia and France had been Allies ever since Bismark stopped juggling Austria and Russia.

He is wrong about the Russians panicking. Russia is locked in trench warfare and hundreds are dieing. Food shortages will soon become a factor and Germany just won a huge victory over the french. I could see there being fear if the Russians cant take down Austria fast, how could they take on the Germans too.
 
He brings up a good point. Russia and France had been Allies ever since Bismark stopped juggling Austria and Russia.

He is wrong about the Russians panicking. Russia is locked in trench warfare and hundreds are dieing. Food shortages will soon become a factor and Germany just won a huge victory over the french. I could see there being fear if the Russians cant take down Austria fast, how could they take on the Germans too.

That was the angle I was going for. And I'm not just saying that. And about Russia and France, France just got out of a war with Germany and for sure doesn't want another one.

About the Republicans, yeah to be quite honest I don't know where that came from. But the next election where Hughes wins, that's plausible, OTL he only lost by a small margin.

About Belgium, looking back on it I guess that doesn't really work. But I'm telling you, the British plan was to not get into ANY land war, I was just assuming that that would include Belgium. BTW the thing about German forces moving like that through Belgium I will edit right now.
 
Checkmate, I believe you wanted honesty. As you said, if something is unrealistic it can usually be juggled to work with new data.

Calling Morocco a revolting French colony is a bit of a misnomer, it still has self government but is not IMHO at this juncture a colony rather than a protectorate.

Whilst Britain is DEFINITELY worried about Germany and Agadir its more about political influence than possible naval bases. And the Panther is a gunboat, only particuarly useful for coastal intimidation.

But the British response you have here makes sense, except when it escalates. For a start, does Germany HAVE two battlecruisers in 1911 ? Hmmm, maybe it does - Moltke probably, as well as Von der Tann. But even if not it doesn't matter since you have Blucher to throw in in reserve

Regarding the accidental battle, do note British battleships shadowing Rozhestvensky's fleet in 1904 through the Channel after it had shot up N Sea trawlers. The shadowing was close amidst an atmosphere of extreme tension, but British warships did not open fire. They had a cool commander in Beresford, and notably the Russians had an iota of sense.

Now, maybe something would blow up between British and Germans and I guess it goes along the same lines as you have

I don't think mobilisation is going to be slow for Germany - the railways and plans are all co-ordinated. The idea that they also have a naval war to fight against the British is rather fanciful - for several reasons. For one, the British plan at this period of time still included close blockade - if this happens, then yes the Germans will have a fierce war on, but not one that is going to interfere with army mobilisation at all.

The first battle of the war occurs near the Helgoland Bight, the battle is a British victory over the German navy. At first the battle was swaying towards the Germans until an attack by British torpedo boats sunk the German battleship Nassau. The only notable British casualty being the Agamemnon, which in any case was a pre-dreadnaught.

This is in keeping with close blockade. Regarding Agamemnon, people didn't think like that. OK, its not a dreadnought, but its a semi-dreadnought, but more than that its a modern warship, its loss is going to reduce active strength, and other than the most modern dreadnoughts (which do not yet include so-called super-dreadnoughts) its a VERY important ship in 1911

Belgium... I have read that Leopold II was so in awe of German arms he might have stood back, but he's dead 2 years in 1911. HOWEVER, the OTL Anglo-French military co-operation agreements only really date to the aftermath of the Moroccan crises. Its quite feasible that without them, King Albert might well decide he doesn't want Belgium to become a battlefield and agree to the German "request" to cross Belgian territory. In a sense this is an ultimatium, but if acceded to would not have great repercussions if the result was victory - only if the Germans get bogged down, does it really matter as Belgian territory becomes intrinsic to their frontline

Scapa Flow 1911... I don't THINK it was chosen as the fleet base at this time. Its a good question, though, so I guess I better look it up !

OK, I looked it up and found nothing - not in Churchill's memoirs, or Lloyd George's or in either of Massie's books. Oh, Scapa Flow is mentioned but almost in passing, with the history of the decision omitted. So, OK, maybe in 1911 it was already a thought, an idea, a possible

OK, so you have the Germans attacking Scapa (at the far end of their range) and being defeated, the likely outcome. One could I guess reconcile this with an early close blockade by having the Bight battle more or less mark the end of that policy as too risky. If the British then revert to a distant blockade, the Germans could see an undefended naked base like Scapa as worth the risk.

I do wonder why Britain would make a separate treaty. Perhaps if France is about to fall, a victorious peace would make sense, but in that case the Germans would not bother. If France looks like holding out, then Britain gains little by making a separate peace, and will get labelled a traitor in future.

- - - part 2 comments - - -

-A suggestion for British intervention in the land war is shot down by Parliament. Anti-French sentiment is rampant not just in Britain but also in the United States.

This whole things seems odd - if the British HAVE imposed a naval truce (uh ?) on Germany then surely its ended ALL of the war, for the naval theatre is a front and you can't have a peace treaty on one front and not the others. Either Britain is already out of the war or its not

And if somehow you CAN fudge this (and I don't see how) then for some crazy reason you have the British government's own MPs decide to vote down the next proposal that the victorious government comes up with ! This is shooting their balls off, not just shooting themselves in the foot

Why is their anti-French feeling ? A lot has happened since Fashoda, and Britain entered this war to defend French interests. Even if pissed off with French performance, and pessimistic about French prospects thats going to make the British antagonistic maybe, but not "anti-French". And I can't see why on Earth the USA has any feelings one way or another in this. At best they are going to be affected by "moral panic" but I can't see France committing those kind of atrocities especially in defeat, so why on Earth does the USA even care, let alone take against poor France ?

After a period of civil strife in the Austro-Hungarian empire the Germans slowly begin dismantling the age old alliance, because the alliance could spark war with Russia, which would turn the second Franco-German war into a two-front war.

Hmm, nuts. Far more realistic to have a weakish Russia deadlocked in the East, and the Austrians smashed in some frontier battles. Otherwise what on Earth does "a period of civil strife" mean ? There won't be any such thing if the empire is not at war.

July, 1912-December, 1913
-The peace treaty that the French sign does not include much. It agrees to have the French army significantly smaller then the German army. Because of the treaty of Amsterdam the Germans cannot take any French colonies but they do force the French to recognize Moroccan independence. The other major condition is to terminate the French alliance with Russia. This allows relative safety for the Germans because in case of a war with Russia it will be with only Russia.
-The first Balkan war breaks out. Most of the Ottoman Empires remaining European territory is lost during the war. It is also the first major land war since the Franco-German war to use modern equipment and strategies. But after the Balkan league won a desicive victory they could not decide how to partition the spoils. The only concrete thing was that the Greeks got many of the Aegean islands along the Turkish coast.
-The second Balkan war ends with the defeat of Bulgaria by the other Balkan league powers, this ends squabbling over the spoils of war and more or less ushers in a period of reletive stability. Even if it only lasts for a year.
-Woodrow Wilson wins the presidential election in the US. Although it was hotly contested from Progressive nominee Theodore Roosevlet, who planned on running again and said so.

Why does OTL history suddenly jump into place at the conclusion of this ATL war ? OK, I could see Italy, if it stayed neutral in the war, decide to go ahead with its attack on Libya, and in so doing spark the first general conflict in the Balkans

BUT Germany is both victorious and mobilised, and with Austria maybe its proxy it will want to intervene in any Balkan conflict as a matter of policy. At the same time, if France and Russia are removed from the equation, or perhaps in Russia's case neutralised, then the power considerations are different

OK, maybe butterflies could allow Wilson to defeat TR in a straight fight. The US is going to be affected in SOME WAY by the general war in Europe, but not in the way of "anti-French feeling" which is just illogical. Its more logical for TR to have perhaps made some comment in support of German arms, or inate strength, or something and had this used against him.

Do note of course, that TR is NOT the incumbent - that is Taft, so you really have to explain how he does not stand again, and how the Republicans accept TR as the unity candidate

The 1914 third post builds so heavily upon the others that it can not be treated in its own right. I'll wait and see what I should do when I see if you take much notice of my other comments

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Checkmate, I believe you wanted honesty. As you said, if something is unrealistic it can usually be juggled to work with new data.

Calling Morocco a revolting French colony is a bit of a misnomer, it still has self government but is not IMHO at this juncture a colony rather than a protectorate.

Whilst Britain is DEFINITELY worried about Germany and Agadir its more about political influence than possible naval bases. And the Panther is a gunboat, only particuarly useful for coastal intimidation.

But the British response you have here makes sense, except when it escalates. For a start, does Germany HAVE two battlecruisers in 1911 ? Hmmm, maybe it does - Moltke probably, as well as Von der Tann. But even if not it doesn't matter since you have Blucher to throw in in reserve

Regarding the accidental battle, do note British battleships shadowing Rozhestvensky's fleet in 1904 through the Channel after it had shot up N Sea trawlers. The shadowing was close amidst an atmosphere of extreme tension, but British warships did not open fire. They had a cool commander in Beresford, and notably the Russians had an iota of sense.

Now, maybe something would blow up between British and Germans and I guess it goes along the same lines as you have

I don't think mobilisation is going to be slow for Germany - the railways and plans are all co-ordinated. The idea that they also have a naval war to fight against the British is rather fanciful - for several reasons. For one, the British plan at this period of time still included close blockade - if this happens, then yes the Germans will have a fierce war on, but not one that is going to interfere with army mobilisation at all.



This is in keeping with close blockade. Regarding Agamemnon, people didn't think like that. OK, its not a dreadnought, but its a semi-dreadnought, but more than that its a modern warship, its loss is going to reduce active strength, and other than the most modern dreadnoughts (which do not yet include so-called super-dreadnoughts) its a VERY important ship in 1911

Belgium... I have read that Leopold II was so in awe of German arms he might have stood back, but he's dead 2 years in 1911. HOWEVER, the OTL Anglo-French military co-operation agreements only really date to the aftermath of the Moroccan crises. Its quite feasible that without them, King Albert might well decide he doesn't want Belgium to become a battlefield and agree to the German "request" to cross Belgian territory. In a sense this is an ultimatium, but if acceded to would not have great repercussions if the result was victory - only if the Germans get bogged down, does it really matter as Belgian territory becomes intrinsic to their frontline

Scapa Flow 1911... I don't THINK it was chosen as the fleet base at this time. Its a good question, though, so I guess I better look it up !

OK, I looked it up and found nothing - not in Churchill's memoirs, or Lloyd George's or in either of Massie's books. Oh, Scapa Flow is mentioned but almost in passing, with the history of the decision omitted. So, OK, maybe in 1911 it was already a thought, an idea, a possible

OK, so you have the Germans attacking Scapa (at the far end of their range) and being defeated, the likely outcome. One could I guess reconcile this with an early close blockade by having the Bight battle more or less mark the end of that policy as too risky. If the British then revert to a distant blockade, the Germans could see an undefended naked base like Scapa as worth the risk.

I do wonder why Britain would make a separate treaty. Perhaps if France is about to fall, a victorious peace would make sense, but in that case the Germans would not bother. If France looks like holding out, then Britain gains little by making a separate peace, and will get labelled a traitor in future.

- - - part 2 comments - - -



This whole things seems odd - if the British HAVE imposed a naval truce (uh ?) on Germany then surely its ended ALL of the war, for the naval theatre is a front and you can't have a peace treaty on one front and not the others. Either Britain is already out of the war or its not

And if somehow you CAN fudge this (and I don't see how) then for some crazy reason you have the British government's own MPs decide to vote down the next proposal that the victorious government comes up with ! This is shooting their balls off, not just shooting themselves in the foot

Why is their anti-French feeling ? A lot has happened since Fashoda, and Britain entered this war to defend French interests. Even if pissed off with French performance, and pessimistic about French prospects thats going to make the British antagonistic maybe, but not "anti-French". And I can't see why on Earth the USA has any feelings one way or another in this. At best they are going to be affected by "moral panic" but I can't see France committing those kind of atrocities especially in defeat, so why on Earth does the USA even care, let alone take against poor France ?



Hmm, nuts. Far more realistic to have a weakish Russia deadlocked in the East, and the Austrians smashed in some frontier battles. Otherwise what on Earth does "a period of civil strife" mean ? There won't be any such thing if the empire is not at war.



Why does OTL history suddenly jump into place at the conclusion of this ATL war ? OK, I could see Italy, if it stayed neutral in the war, decide to go ahead with its attack on Libya, and in so doing spark the first general conflict in the Balkans

BUT Germany is both victorious and mobilised, and with Austria maybe its proxy it will want to intervene in any Balkan conflict as a matter of policy. At the same time, if France and Russia are removed from the equation, or perhaps in Russia's case neutralised, then the power considerations are different

OK, maybe butterflies could allow Wilson to defeat TR in a straight fight. The US is going to be affected in SOME WAY by the general war in Europe, but not in the way of "anti-French feeling" which is just illogical. Its more logical for TR to have perhaps made some comment in support of German arms, or inate strength, or something and had this used against him.

Do note of course, that TR is NOT the incumbent - that is Taft, so you really have to explain how he does not stand again, and how the Republicans accept TR as the unity candidate

The 1914 third post builds so heavily upon the others that it can not be treated in its own right. I'll wait and see what I should do when I see if you take much notice of my other comments

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Okay, first of all thank you for the CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

Second. Yes calling Morocco a French colony is a bit overboard but I wanted to make it clear that it was basically the French's problem.

Third. I believe that it was you actually on the thread about an Anglo-German Naval war who brought up that the British plans used in WW1 were a direct result of Agadir. Since Agadir turns into a war they hardly have enough time to change their plans do they? The plan before WW1 was to destroy the German navy and then leave the conflict alone. In the words of whoever linked that place to me "For all they[British] cared there could be another Sedan or Jena after they destroyed the German Navy, as long as they did destory the German navy." The British simply didn't want to get involved in a land war at all.

Fourth. i don't quite get what your getting at with Russia. COuld you please explain it again?

Fifth. The Elections are kind of weird, I don't know what I really did with the PRogressive party, I suppose it was just butterflies.

Sixth. I REALLY like your idea for Italy invading Libya and that setting off a conflict. But I don't exactly get why that would set off a conflict.
 
Okay, first of all thank you for the CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

Second. Yes calling Morocco a French colony is a bit overboard but I wanted to make it clear that it was basically the French's problem.

Third. I believe that it was you actually on the thread about an Anglo-German Naval war who brought up that the British plans used in WW1 were a direct result of Agadir. Since Agadir turns into a war they hardly have enough time to change their plans do they? The plan before WW1 was to destroy the German navy and then leave the conflict alone. In the words of whoever linked that place to me "For all they[British] cared there could be another Sedan or Jena after they destroyed the German Navy, as long as they did destory the German navy." The British simply didn't want to get involved in a land war at all.

Fourth. I don't quite get what your getting at with Russia. Could you please explain it again?

Fifth. The Elections are kind of weird, I don't know what I really did with the PRogressive party, I suppose it was just butterflies.

Sixth. I REALLY like your idea for Italy invading Libya and that setting off a conflict. But I don't exactly get why that would set off a conflict.

Hi there

Yes, the British plans didn't anticipate fighting on the continent, but if the war drags on its what the British have always done in the past. They would either send some forces to help the French, or they would make a landing somewhere (see Rev/Nap wars when they twice invaded strange bits of the Netherlands, as well of course as choosing to fight in Portugal/Spain).

If it WAS decided to make a peace with Germany, then from Britain's point of view that would be a final peace - it would cover the navy, colonies (most of which would not have had time to fall), and so on. And it would also be EXPLICIT that Britain would not remain in the conflict in any way, or re-enter it at any time, since otherwise the Germans have no purpose in signing a naval defeat into a treaty when if they win on land they can make what peace they want afterwards

Not sure what I said about Russia that you don't quite get. I think I said that they HAVE to be in this war (not only are they bound by treaty to France, French loans and investment powers their economy so they are both not going to piss France off, and also going to be under immense pressure of all types from Paris). Thus, if you want to disregard them, you basically need the Eastern front to bog down quickly, and stay that way

In OTL, Italy's attack on Libya (an Ottoman possession) sparked a general attack upon the Ottomans in the Balkans since they were clearly busy and under pressure, so it seemed a good time for everyone to get in on it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Hi there

Yes, the British plans didn't anticipate fighting on the continent, but if the war drags on its what the British have always done in the past. They would either send some forces to help the French, or they would make a landing somewhere (see Rev/Nap wars when they twice invaded strange bits of the Netherlands, as well of course as choosing to fight in Portugal/Spain).

If it WAS decided to make a peace with Germany, then from Britain's point of view that would be a final peace - it would cover the navy, colonies (most of which would not have had time to fall), and so on. And it would also be EXPLICIT that Britain would not remain in the conflict in any way, or re-enter it at any time, since otherwise the Germans have no purpose in signing a naval defeat into a treaty when if they win on land they can make what peace they want afterwards

Not sure what I said about Russia that you don't quite get. I think I said that they HAVE to be in this war (not only are they bound by treaty to France, French loans and investment powers their economy so they are both not going to piss France off, and also going to be under immense pressure of all types from Paris). Thus, if you want to disregard them, you basically need the Eastern front to bog down quickly, and stay that way

In OTL, Italy's attack on Libya (an Ottoman possession) sparked a general attack upon the Ottomans in the Balkans since they were clearly busy and under pressure, so it seemed a good time for everyone to get in on it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I agree with most of what you said except for the thing about Russia. The deal with ALL of the great powers at the time was that if a power like France entered into a war with only one power no one would do anything. But if it was a war with to powers then the ally would intervene. That is why I kept Russia out of the earlier conflict.
 
I agree with most of what you said except for the thing about Russia. The deal with ALL of the great powers at the time was that if a power like France entered into a war with only one power no one would do anything. But if it was a war with to powers then the ally would intervene. That is why I kept Russia out of the earlier conflict.

Hmmm, but isn't Germany facing two powers, thus Austria-Hungary would join it, thus France is facing two powers, thus Russia will join it ?

I'll look up the exact alliance conditions if you like

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Hmmm, but isn't Germany facing two powers, thus Austria-Hungary would join it, thus France is facing two powers, thus Russia will join it ?

I'll look up the exact alliance conditions if you like

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I kind of danced around the fact that Austria should have supported Germany, because in OTL during the Agadir crisis they didn't support Germany, no one did. So I figured that if a war broke out no one would want to support them either.
 
Top