The Panther Powderkeg

The idea here is that the Agadir Crisis leads to World War One three years early, as the situation deteriorates into a real shooting war between England and France and Germany.

How does this earlier Great War play out in Europe, and for the United States?
 
WestVirginiaRebel

For the allies bad points:

a) Russia has 3 years less to recover from the defeat by Japan and 1905 revolution. Also 3 years less time to develop their infrastructure and mobilisation so they may not strike west as early. [Not totally a bad thing as a more cautious offensive or butterflying the personal conflict between the Russian commanders of their 1st and 2nd armies - by possibly having more compatable people in command. Or simply, presuming no Serbian trigger you have Austria fully committed to its eastern borders which also makes things more difficult for the Russians.

b) With 3 years less of naval race Germany might be in a marginally better position - would have to check my records to be sure but it was only really after ~1910 that the British government started to put it's foot down on the naval race and pull away. On the other hand I think the Germans are only starting to get a few dreadnoughts so could be seriously weaker in comparison to the RN.

c) Possibly more dangerously without the extra period of tension with Germany Britain might be less likely to join a conflict. On the other hand a war triggered by a Morocco crisis is likely to drag Britain in from the start.

For the allies, good point:
a) Not sure about the Belgium fortresses and when they were completed but the Germans have only just got their fortress smashing heavy artillery in 1914 so their likely to take longer and heavier losses getting through Liege and the other fortresses in Belgium.

b) I don't think the French had the disastrous Plan 17 in place so their likely to meet the Germans head to head near the border. This is likely to mean very heavy losses for both sides but much heavier for the Germans in comparison to OTL.

c) The Balkan wars haven't yet started and the 1st might be triggered by this, as the great powers might be considered too distracted to intervene. That could complicate matters but their unlikely to last long given the resources of the powers involved. If it doesn't there's probably more likelhood of avoiding Enver Pasha's rise to power. Coupled with the fact the Turkish BBs are not a factor at this point, which he used for propaganda effect very skillfully, there is probably less chance of the Ottomans being drawn into the conflict.

On the other hand Italy is shortly [OTL] to launch it's attack on the Ottomans in Libya so the effects there could be complex.

Steve
 
Is The German General staff already comitted to Atack in the west and defense on th eastern front?If not we could see France getiing blodied on the german defenses and the germans making gains against the Russians.How is Austr-Hungarian army at this time?
 
Is The German General staff already comitted to Atack in the west and defense on th eastern front?If not we could see France getiing blodied on the german defenses and the germans making gains against the Russians.How is Austr-Hungarian army at this time?

The plan Von Schilfred was already do, in fact Von Schilfred is still alive and that can make a pretty interesting effects.

i think much like 3 year after for A-H in general was in war when they proved to modernized... even with the problems(sabotage)
 
I wonder if an Agadir-sparked war might have had more of a naval component than did the actual conflict IOTL? That is, might there have been battles in the Mediterranean, near the site of the original flash point?

I also have to wonder about the presence/absence of Italy (somehow, I have difficulty in believing Italy would join its Alliance partners over a the Agadir crisis), and whether Sweden might have jumped and joined the Central Powers, as they almost did IOTL.

As to the US: at first, I don't believe there would have been much sentiment favoring involvement. At that point, the US had no stake in the proceedings. Perhaps Taft might have offered his own services as an arbitrator (who better, one might ask, than a judge?), or perhaps offered the services of the US in general, with, say, Elihu Root as the chief mediator (by then, the Taft/TR split had probably deepened sufficiently that TR wouldn't have had a chance at an encore to his '06 Nobel Peace Prize).
 
Is The German General staff already comitted to Atack in the west and defense on th eastern front?

The German General Staff is not committed to attack in the west and defend in the east. That came about thru Moltke's decisions. There is no 'Schlieffen Plan' as we know it, but there are a series of plans which Schlieffen had devised and tested thru various 'wargames'. The last few war plans that he drew up concentrated on defending in the west and attack in the east IIRC.
 
The Austrians made it quite clear to the Germans that they were not going to aid them in any war brought about because of the Agadir Crisis. The Germans are tied to an ally that will only go to war in their own interests. This happened historically and is one reason Germany backed down.
 
The Austrians made it quite clear to the Germans that they were not going to aid them in any war brought about because of the Agadir Crisis. The Germans are tied to an ally that will only go to war in their own interests. This happened historically and is one reason Germany backed down.

So, maybe a shorter Great War? And perhaps as an offshoot, a delayed Russian Revolution? (Also, I'm guessing that maybe France and Britain might have an advantage over Germany in any African campaigns).
 
So, maybe a shorter Great War? And perhaps as an offshoot, a delayed Russian Revolution? (Also, I'm guessing that maybe France and Britain might have an advantage over Germany in any African campaigns).

I doubt the Germans would move by themselves, unless they are hoping for both AH and Italy to remain friendly neutrals.
 
Top