"Three Emperors' League" monarchist bloc established before WWI

What if the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Russian Empire formed a stable alliance before WW1? Reforming the League of Three Emperors, they come to an agreement on the Balkans, Baltic, and Black Sea, redirecting their ambitions outward at the expense of Romania, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire, and Italy. Bulgaria also joins in 1913 right before WW1 would have started, adding yet another "Caesar" to the alliance of nominally absolute monarchies.

1. If this alliance existed and fought WW1 starting in 1914, would they win? And if the Three Emperor's League won WW1, what would the treaty look like? Can the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires survive or be propped up to make this bloc continue?

2. What sort of economic connections develop between these empires? Would it end up being German dominated, co-dominated by Germany and Russia at the expense of Vienna, or could they be almost equal partners depending on policy?

3. Assuming the Russian Revolution is averted, and all three empires remain monarchies. Would a Cold War develop with the monarchist bloc considered to have its own ideology? Would it be considered Western by the Entente?

4. Would a shared culture develop between these three empires as mass media emerges? At the same time, would it start to socially and culturally diverge from the west in the 1920s, or would it probably remain just as connected with the west as before? After a few decades, I could see these areas becoming sort of a "time capsule" of the late 19th century in terms of culture, even if they adopt new trends and ideas, partially due to the prevalence of the aristocracy.

5. What sort of nicknames or rhetorical phrases would be used to refer to a Central and Eastern Europe dominated by these three empires?
 
Last edited:
Is this a DBWI? You are aware, are you not, that in the latter parts of the 19th century there was the "Dreikaiserbund" of The German Emperor, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, and the Russian Tsar. This fell apart due to some conflicting priorities/desires, and the maladroit actions of Wilhelm once he had put Bismarck in to retirement.
 
Is this a DBWI? You are aware, are you not, that in the latter parts of the 19th century there was the "Dreikaiserbund" of The German Emperor, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, and the Russian Tsar. This fell apart due to some conflicting priorities/desires, and the maladroit actions of Wilhelm once he had put Bismarck in to retirement.
No, he's putting forth the scenario in which the alliance stays intact. I consider this extremely difficult due to the conflicting interests of Austria and Russia. But if it does stick together, nobody would need to be propping up either Austria or Russia, because while both countries had large discontented populations both of them were capable of handling that discontent while not engaged in a massive war. And there will be no massive war, because neither France nor Britain will bother fighting against this unbeatable alliance.
 

trajen777

Banned
You need to have either 1. Russa win Russo japenese ear, with the focus in the east or 2 a Balkans with Russia supported in turkey with the straits and getting Bulgaria and ah getting the Adriatic and Serbia.

Russia in the east would be in conflict with gb, and would support ah and germany
 
Yeah the circumstances of otl ww1 likely don't exist and France/Britain would be on drugs to attack such an alliance.
So in the long run we might see a Cold War of sorts - Three Emperors vs enough European powers to effectively threaten them but not enough to equal them (with Turkey certain to be in this group, due to Russian desire to get the Straits). Italy, Japan and the US sell to both sides?
 
So in the long run we might see a Cold War of sorts - Three Emperors vs enough European powers to effectively threaten them but not enough to equal them (with Turkey certain to be in this group, due to Russian desire to get the Straits). Italy, Japan and the US sell to both sides?
Forgot about the Ottomans, if they can sort their shit it might balance things somewhat, maybe Japan and the UK maintain their alliance also (no WWI, no UK/US cozying up, Japan is Britains Asian policeman)?
 
Forgot about the Ottomans, if they can sort their shit it might balance things somewhat, maybe Japan and the UK maintain their alliance also?
I suppose Turkey could be a neutral here - with the biggest focus being on 1) the areas that contained the heart of the OTL Western Front, and 2) Asia, with Japan and UK being solid allies?
 
Ottomans strongly aligning with UK to detriment of German and Russian interest in the region would help to push them together.
But this would be rather difficult to achieve. British political establishment was pretty strongly leaning against Ottomans. Liberals disliked them for their backwardness, Tories wanted to grab their land (and there was large overlap there). The only reason they didn't push for outright invasion and partition, was because Ottomans were keeping Russians bottled in Black Sea.

Let's say that Central Powers don't humiliate Russians in Bosnia (so they don't feel obliged to react so strongly in Serbia), and British build stronger relations with both Japanese and Ottomans, alienating Russia. Suppose that Central Powers somehow alienate Italy over their interests in Balkans, causing Italians to align with Entente openly (Franz Ferdinand was very anti-Italian IIRC, so I could see it happening if he survives). We could end up with semi-balanced camps of Germany-Russia-Austria-Bulgaria vs UK-France-Italy-Ottomans-Japan-Serbia. I assume British would expect German invasion of France with repeat of 1870s, and embark on army-buildup program to cover for lack of Russian invasion of Prussia. Similarly French, who OTL were planning to change conscription law to one that would be less expensive, would take another turn and rather rake up the debt to prepare for war.
 
With Russia allied with Austria-Hungary, I doubt the Black Hand and its child organisations will go for assassinating Franz Ferdinand. Their whole idea assumed;

A. The Serbians in Bosnia and Banat were discontent and would revolt and welcome the Serbian army.

B. Russia would support them and destroy the Austro-Hungarian army.

C. Thus, provoking a war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary would lead to the realisation of Greater Serbia.

With Russia allied with Austria-Hungary and thus with no intention to support Serbia in a war against Austria-Hungary, the Serb nationalists will look elsewhere to realise their nationalist dreams and will probably not aim to provoke a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia nor incite the Serbs in Bosnia and Banat to revolt.

The question is if the 1903 coup happens at all in Serbia, which could lead to Austria-Hungary and Serbia partitioning Bosnia between them and becoming allies instead of enemies.
 
Ottomans strongly aligning with UK to detriment of German and Russian interest in the region would help to push them together.
But this would be rather difficult to achieve. British political establishment was pretty strongly leaning against Ottomans. Liberals disliked them for their backwardness, Tories wanted to grab their land (and there was large overlap there). The only reason they didn't push for outright invasion and partition, was because Ottomans were keeping Russians bottled in Black Sea.
While this is true IOTL, one in which there's no detante between the British and Russians due to Russia continuing to align with Germany is one in which the British lense on the region changes dramatically (To say nothing of Abdul Hamid likely behaving rather differently; in direction if not in temperment). All of a sudden, his "strict security measures" are taking place in a more sympathetic context of being pressed by enemies on its entire northern front (It's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you) and the threat of Russian expansionism also takes on a much harder level of importance in a budgetary context (The Liberals need to find a way to not have to expand defense spending if they ever want to push through their desired social safety net reforms, for example). Furthermore, the reactionary leanings of the Ottoman government would be less exceptional if juxtaposed against a highly autocratically-constructed alliance system, the British are more likely to have a bigger share of the economic pie since the Imperial government is hardly as likely to extend the level of "sweetheart" deals it did IOTL towards German firms associated with a state hostile to their interests, and capital that would have otherwise been funneled to Russia now seeking out other underdeveloped markets in which to produce high yields. Combined, this likely means active British support (with definative carrots and sticks) to promote liberalization of the Ottoman state in a combination national defense/economic profitability/morale crusade initiative; quite likely leading to an earlier re-instatement of the Constitution through appeal to cold hard interests. (As the Rothschilds told Vienna back in the mid-19th century; "No Constitution, no Credit), which would produce a huge number of butterflies that can really only benefit the Caliphate; fewer internal rifts in the army, less external perception of vulnerability, more solid financial footing, earlier and more comprehensive/durable reforms, ect., resulting in a much more formidable state than the sorry, shattered remnant that went into war in our 1914.

Russia, meanwhile, likely finds her own industrial development slowed down not only due to weaker access to external capital (The Germans have it, but they're still plowing it into their own build-up rather than investing it abroad) but if the alliance includes customs reductions between the League members what local firms they have will be swamped by the far better established and more efficent German imports, which shifts the relative balance between Konstantinye and St. Petersburg to the point that the former would be less likely to be perceived as a complete burdan that than a second-tier useful ally.
 
Last edited:
Could there be a "last-minute" formation of a Three Emperor's League, if Russia and Austria-Hungary both agreed to support Bulgaria against the Ottoman Empire in 1913? Perhaps World War One could start from the Second Balkan War?
 
With Russia allied with Austria-Hungary, I doubt the Black Hand and its child organisations will go for assassinating Franz Ferdinand. Their whole idea assumed;
The question is if the 1903 coup happens at all in Serbia, which could lead to Austria-Hungary and Serbia partitioning Bosnia between them and becoming allies instead of enemies.
Austria-Hungary already had de facto control over all of Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1878. I don't think they would give up any of it to Serbia, even if the Austria-friendly Obrenovic dynasty was still in charge.
 
My question would be, if the Russians are allied to Germany than how does World War One start? I would like to see how Serbia would be dealt with in a world where the Russians and Germans are on the same side.
 
Austria-Hungary already had de facto control over all of Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1878. I don't think they would give up any of it to Serbia, even if the Austria-friendly Obrenovic dynasty was still in charge.
Yeah, it is unlikely, but some kind of more Serb-friendly government in Vienna is needed in order for the Obrenovic dynasty to survive - more equal trade agreements, no Serbo-Bulgarian war of 1885 (or more direct Austrian support and a better result for Serbia) and a partition of Bosnia could do a lot to help the prestige of the Obrenovics and have them survive.
 
Could there be a "last-minute" formation of a Three Emperor's League, if Russia and Austria-Hungary both agreed to support Bulgaria against the Ottoman Empire in 1913? Perhaps World War One could start from the Second Balkan War?
No, because Russia dosen't want a Bulgaria expanding any further against the Ottomans, particularly if it means pulling a diplomatic 180 on the geopolitical equivalent of a dime. Not only do you toss your trustworthiness into the toliet and mess up your commercial flow, but whomever made this decision (Czar Nicky I presume) just alienated the diplomatic and military elite who power and the faith of the army and bureaucracy. If anything would trigger a coup, it's this
 

bernardz

Donor
My question would be, if the Russians are allied to Germany than how does World War One start? I would like to see how Serbia would be dealt with in a world where the Russians and Germans are on the same side.
I would go further and say if Russia and Germany are allies, then Austria-Hungary is irrelevant as she is bordered by both countries, she is too weak to do anything. France is neutralized as she cannot take on Germany without Russia. No WW1
 
As long as Austria and Russia have conflicting aims in the Balkans, the Three Emperors League won't work.

If the Ottomans win in 1876-1877 however, I could see it possibly lasting. There wouldn't be the same Balkans competition between the two as historically and the Ottomans would strong enough to be something of a counter to them.
 
Top