TLIAW- A Mamluk Congo

Deleted member 67076

Well, a Congo with per capita income in the modern Malaysian range would be still be an economic giant just because of its massive resources and population (which is going to skyrocket through most of the twentieth century, starting from roughly twice it was IOTL - earlier demographic transition of course too, but probably well over the 100 million mark and possibly closer to 150 ). The total dimension of the economy would be comparable to OTL's Brazil, even slightly larger.

Huh, neat. :D

-------

The Great War (I)

In the lead up to the Great War, the Congolese state was effectively dubbed "The Prussia of Africa". This was a relatively accurate description. In the vein of the old Prussian kingdom, Congo was very much an "army with a country", rather than the other way around.

A hodgepodge force of mercenaries, vassal troops, native auxiliaries, the ever growing support corps and the actual professional core, this ~200,000 or so bloated monstrosity of an organization is the largest (if not the most well trained or equipped) army on the African continent, dwarfing its neighbors, even after Britain, France and Portugal have massively upped their presence in response. It takes up the vast majority of state funds, and has geared nearly every single organization and economic activity within its borders to feed, equip, defend and supply the great beast.

The actual professional army was a sight to behold. The brainchild of Leopold II's personal security force- once his loyal enforcers no the premier champion of anticolonialism- had now become an entire system of their own. Perhaps an entire ethnic group if one were to be generous. Grown by both tribute and willing recruitment from the vast native states under the Congolese dominion alongside many foreign volunteers, these young men (and lets face it boys in a lot of places) were sent to an army complex based on the Prussian model where they received training, basic education, and religious ministry.

This educational/administrative complex was initially formed by the initial crop of Congolese troops during the Colonial era, but following the establishment of the Republic and the de facto alliance with Germany, increasing numbers of German officers (sometimes sent as a punishment from back home) and freelance retired troops from other nations (principally France) were given jobs as teachers and advisors. As a result, professionalism steadily increased within the troops and kept them up to date with modern techniques and technologies.
It is worth noting that though was a small scale attempt by the Germans to connect Tanganyika to Kamerun as part of the "Mittleafrika" strategy, but the realities of Congo's immense size and geographic difficulties put this on standstill.

On the logistical side of things, outside capital provided Congo with most of the factories it needed to equip its vast armies. Centered around the major river cities (for ease of transport) and the budding mining towns of the Savannah, the factories also provided the basis for the steady stream of internal migrants from the countryside looking for work (or being coerced into working) outside the grueling commodity extraction jobs, or were unable to enter into the business of trade and shopkeeping that supplied the budding boomtowns. Additionally, telegraphs and roads were built by the Europeans, principally to ease resource extraction but also to as part of concessions granted to capitalize on the swelling market that was the Congolese Army.

At the onset of hostilities, the Congolese army was no where entirely a 'modern' force. It was enough well equipped to make it a very hard nut to crack, which combined with European paranoia about the monopolization of the Congo's vast resources by rivals, ensured its theoretical safety. But /offensive/ warfare, well that's another story.

In any case, as hostilities broke out in 1920, Congo remained at first cautiously neutral. There was plenty of money to be made from the sharp rise in copper, bronze and nickel alongside the increased wartime investment by outside powers in their factory towns. But by 1922, when things seemed to be swinging over the side of the Central Powers (and Tanganyika was close to falling), the Congolese entered the war in a surprising (to the Entente) movie and fast strike.

At home, this was received quite well. This was their chance to strike against the colonial vultures, to avenge the injustices of the past. And to take more coastland and steal back all those concessions.

Initial moves saw wide success. The Congolese had an absolute monopoly of violence internally, and any and all resistance to commandeering foreign possessions was laughable. Swiftly, the Congolese took back what they could, reversing decades of creeping informal control in a few months. For the average worker, this meant absolutely nothing. Meet the new boss, same as the old. Actually no that's not right; meet the new boss, almost as insufferably smug as the old.

The Grand Strategy of Congo in the African Front was 2 fold: One, to prevent the fall of Tanganyika and two, to seize French Congo and Portuguese Cabinda. Everything else was merely to hold the position until the invaders were exhausted and peace came, which at the time seemed to be pretty soon.

Here, the initial advantage laid with Congo. Their armies had massive numerical advantage over colonial armies and could almost effortlessly swarm garrisons in French Congo and (after Portugal joined the war) Cabinda. By the start of 1923 a link up was established with Kamerun as French Congo fell to Congolese troops. The logistics were hell, the movement slow and grueling, but Congo had both native support (Thanks to promoting themselves as anti colonial) and plenty of troops to throw into the meat grinder. The Europeans lacked that advantage as disease carved a swath through the ranks more than bullets and artillery did, and their stalwart refusal to arm natives in the fight ensured a very bloody, embarrassing campaign. Sporadic revolts, armed by the Congolese in the colonies of Gabon, Sudan and Uganda, merely added to this paranoia and thinning of troops.

Domestically, news of victory had given to widespread support of the war... for the first year of war. Public opinion quickly shifted after the shock of the economic situation was realized. In antagonizing the Entente, this meant Congo's International trade plummeted to virtually nil as Congo's overseas markets were strangled once British blockades began. Internal mobilization, seizure of foreign property and emergency wartime mobilization alongside wartime plundering (Which was beginning to get wear out the welcome amongst natives in East Africa) and weren't nearly enough to upset the balance, and Congo entered an economic free-fall as the years went on. Inflation skyrocketed, shortages were rampant and de facto forced labor with no payment was becoming increasingly the norm.

Militarily, the next year saw stalemates arising in Katanga against a South African invasion, another in French Congo following a counter attack and yet another front opening up in East Africa to push back the British. Congo was cracking under pressure, the question remained if she could hold out until the war ended, or fall into total chaos as total war undid decades of progress.
 
1920? Can't see how Congo's existence could butterfly the start of WWI from 1914 to 1920...
 
Last edited:
1920? Can't see how Congo's existence could butterfly the start of WWI from 1914 to 1920...
That's the point of butterflies. They don't always act linearly in ways we can understand, cause we can never know how every minute effect of a PoD affects everything.

Very interesting stuff here. The Congo ITTL are really quite interesting.
 
As fun as it would be to imagine a large scale Back to Africa movement, I don't think that's plausible. Conditions would be terrible in the Congo and pay would be pretty bad and somewhat sporadic for the time being as the switchover from barter to currency wouldn't be fully completed by the 20's.

I was imagining something on the level of Black American immigration to Liberia - i.e. only a couple thousand people in total.

Possibly, but Congo does have one ace in its sleeve to counter the rubber bust: Copper. And that's going to be in huge demand once the Great War breaks out.

The rubber boom ended in 1912. Whenever the great war happens, copper will boom, yes, but, just as OTL, the war will be followed by a bust for all commodities (and particularly for copper). I have a hard time seeing any real recovery from that before a generation had passed as per OTL. The economic failure of the world economic system in the wake of WW1 (including some sort of great depression) is very hard to avoid once WW1 has happened.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not envisioning a first world Congo by the modern era at all. Probably upper middle income ala Malaysia if everything goes well.

I think Congo reaching a per capita income that high is highly implausible. Malaysia started in 1900 leagues ahead of Congo. A more likely upper bound is per capita income on the level of Indonesia.

fasquardon
 
They'll be the force Germany never had in Africa OTL, but they won't change the course of the wider war. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck will find the Congolese useful, no doubt. If Germany wins, the Congolese will be helpful for expanding their colonial empire in Africa, something which I don't think victorious Germany would have ever been in the position to do. If Germany loses, the Congolese themselves will have to lose big to suffer any significant consequences (probably Katanga). Plus the Congolese military dictatorship seems like they'd be the type to quit while they were ahead and backstab their former allies if needed.

I think Congo reaching a per capita income that high is highly implausible. Malaysia started in 1900 leagues ahead of Congo. A more likely upper bound is per capita income on the level of Indonesia.

Yeah, it seems like they'd have to be very, very, very lucky to get that wealthy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Congo turns into another Haiti (although Haiti had several unique factors which impoverished it early on), although looking at the GDP of Haiti and Congo-Kinshasa, that's still an improvement from OTL. Of course, this scenario would butterfly the Congo Wars, so that's another improvement from OTL.

Speaking of Haiti, was there any dissent to the Force Publique's administration early on? Haiti was a divided country early on in its history, I'd expect to see something similar. And what is the title of the leader of the Congo? Are they a president, Latin American style? Because looking at Bokassa as well as Haitian history, I'd half expect the initial leader of the Congo to proclaim themselves Emperor.
 
This was one of the things I found while reading about the Congo that really surprised me. In contrast to so many other African states, the army was pretty much a uniform institution during the Colonial Era and the first few decades of Mobutu's regime (until terrible economic times reignited old ethnic tensions). The army pretty much became its own tribe, thanks to a combination of common education during boyhood (or training) and experiences. This common experience and extensive fraternization, alongside getting a taste of the best of the resources and privileges of the state basically forged a new ethnic group.

Soldiers frequently gave testimonials that they felt like outsiders when returning to their native villages, not understanding why they do certain things; such as practicing their heavily syncretized Christianity. Here this is exacerbated as the army is now its own caste that runs the state. To be in the army is a privilege and traditionally comes with a larger number of perks than anything else (such as education and a regular salary). Hence the Mamluk comparison in the title.
They really do see themselves as a different people from the natives, and combined with their power this further reinforces a worldview of the army as superior, and 'above' the petty ethnic and clan differences of the myriad of peoples they rule over.
I mean among the heads of the army.I think it's crazy to think that the army chiefs wouldn't have different ideas between themselves.It isn't unusual for military dictatorships to have army chiefs trying to coup each other or fight one another in civil wars.


Ouch. The Khmer Rouge? That's harsh. :p
I'm quite serious.I did an essay once on the Khmer Rouge summarizing how they fucked up.One of the points, along with the fact that communism didn't work and that the cadres were fucking insane ,was that many of the officials from the politburo downwards had an appalling education and they couldn't do jack shit.A lot of the administrative regions in Kampuchea were also similar to private domains of warlords,where the local party chief had a lot control--there were several instances IIRC where the local party chief waged war upon the Party Center.I think Congo's bound to run into these problem as well.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

That's the point of butterflies. They don't always act linearly in ways we can understand, cause we can never know how every minute effect of a PoD affects everything.

Very interesting stuff here. The Congo ITTL are really quite interesting.
Yeah, I figured it would be kinda unlikely that after ~20 years after the POD WWI would break out exactly the same, and I needed a convenient excuse to prep Congo for any war that won't break the state after 3 months.

I was imagining something on the level of Black American immigration to Liberia - i.e. only a couple thousand people in total.
Oh, that makes sense! My bad. That could happen, and would be pretty good for Bas Congo.

The rubber boom ended in 1912. Whenever the great war happens, copper will boom, yes, but, just as OTL, the war will be followed by a bust for all commodities (and particularly for copper). I have a hard time seeing any real recovery from that before a generation had passed as per OTL. The economic failure of the world economic system in the wake of WW1 (including some sort of great depression) is very hard to avoid once WW1 has happened.
I agree. Well I think (unless you guys prove me wrong) Congo in the 8 years between the runoff of rubber and World War I the Congo would be able to float by the maturation of the mining industry and the improvements of infrastructure that would make shipping from the Savanna, Katanga and the East profitable. Granted, Katanga would be oriented to shipping goods to Rhodesia and Tanzania, the Eastern provinces would be split between the German and British colonies (as they have the ports).

Which creates the problem of a whole bunch of separate markets and a de facto fractured economy, but we'll get to that later.

I think Congo reaching a per capita income that high is highly implausible. Malaysia started in 1900 leagues ahead of Congo. A more likely upper bound is per capita income on the level of Indonesia.

fasquardon
Yeah that was my guess for an absolutely best case scenario. Which of course won't happen, because that's a boring story. :p That and because a whole host of structural economic problems that are entrenching themselves at this time.

They'll be the force Germany never had in Africa OTL, but they won't change the course of the wider war. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck will find the Congolese useful, no doubt. If Germany wins, the Congolese will be helpful for expanding their colonial empire in Africa, something which I don't think victorious Germany would have ever been in the position to do. If Germany loses, the Congolese themselves will have to lose big to suffer any significant consequences (probably Katanga). Plus the Congolese military dictatorship seems like they'd be the type to quit while they were ahead and backstab their former allies if needed.
The issue I see with backstabbing is that it sort of goes against the anti colonial rhetoric that's been going around. Germany has been seen as the 'nice' guy, relatively speaking compared to Britain and France on the continent. (Despite being on the whole anti colonial. But its not like propaganda is immune Cognitive Dissonance :rolleyes:)

Yeah, it seems like they'd have to be very, very, very lucky to get that wealthy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Congo turns into another Haiti (although Haiti had several unique factors which impoverished it early on), although looking at the GDP of Haiti and Congo-Kinshasa, that's still an improvement from OTL. Of course, this scenario would butterfly the Congo Wars, so that's another improvement from OTL.
Congo won't be as bad as Haiti on level of general poverty. Its important to note that Haiti's 1960 GDP per capita was twice as high as today's, but was utterly wrecked by the Duvaliers, AIDS, brain drain, and the whole environmental collapse thing. These things can't affect Congo as bad as Haiti because short of a combination of the historical factors that led to Mobutu and the Congo wars its hard to get a string of bad luck which undermine general prosperity. At at this time Congo literally has no where to go but up.

Also, Congo has 2 other advantages that's being formed that prevents it from crashing and burning like Haiti did: thanks to the lack of long term colonialism, the Congo is able to develop a native bourgeois, and the place is so big its able to have a diverse economy by default. (unless you get a Mobutu who crashes the formal economy so badly all infrastructure is rusted away)

Speaking of Haiti, was there any dissent to the Force Publique's administration early on? Haiti was a divided country early on in its history, I'd expect to see something similar. And what is the title of the leader of the Congo? Are they a president, Latin American style? Because looking at Bokassa as well as Haitian history, I'd half expect the initial leader of the Congo to proclaim themselves Emperor.
There would be within the FP. The massive expansion of the army combined with limited logistics would mean its impossible to centralize effectively under one man.

As for political division and or a proclaiming a monarchy? There isn't nor would anyone try to do so. The Congo here isn't like Haiti or OTL style recently independent postcolonial African states where the nascent leadership began under a pretext of liberal ideas. There's no legislature to subvert.

Additionally, the state is surrounded by all sides by potential enemies, and this siege mentality helps glue the state together from would be usurpers.

For leadership, there wouldn't be a president. There'd just be the Field Marshal as undisputed leader and commander of the highest military cabal of the military.

All in all, don't think of the Congo as a bigger Haiti here. Completely different colonial history and economies that led to the formation of different social groups so the comparison is iffy past the superficial level.

I mean among the heads of the army.I think it's crazy to think that the army chiefs wouldn't have different ideas between themselves.It isn't unusual for military dictatorships to have army chiefs trying to coup each other or fight one another in civil wars.
They would, but a great thing about the massive size of the Congo combined with the simplicity of the state is you can have de facto substates (in which each trading post/military base could be one) forming places free to experiment under local army commanders. As well, like I've said above, siege mentality is a great way for the rally the army around a single leader, and to keep the infighting to a minimum. Most of the time.

I'm quite serious.I did an essay once on the Khmer Rouge summarizing how they fucked up.One of the points, along with the fact that communism didn't work and that the cadres were fucking insane ,was that many of the officials from the politburo downwards had an appalling education and they couldn't do jack shit.A lot of the administrative regions in Kampuchea were also similar to private domains of warlords,where the local party chief had a lot control--there were several instances IIRC where the local party chief waged war upon the Party Center.I think Congo's bound to run into these problem as well.
That is terrifying.

At the very least I can argue against this outcome by the fact Congo doesn't nearly as much restrict or control economic activity as a Communist movement would try to combined with being boxed in by all sides and, like the Ottomans, the formation of an elite that shares a similar culture and values.
 
Really enjoying the alternate Congo, especially seeing its successes against the European powers. Speaking of, do the Europeans have any military formations sizable enough to challenge the Congolese to a large-scale battle? And what does the front look like within a year of the start of the war?
 

Deleted member 67076

Really enjoying the alternate Congo, especially seeing its successes against the European powers. Speaking of, do the Europeans have any military formations sizable enough to challenge the Congolese to a large-scale battle? And what does the front look like within a year of the start of the war?

Thanks! Always a pleasure to have people enjoying this.

To answer the question, nope, not really. At least initially. The European armies in Africa were always small in their garissoning, even counting native contingents. For example, French Central Africa had a mere 20,000 soldiers garissoning the place. Even here after the powers start upping their presence in response to the fear of military revolt ala Congo the powers would be limited in the scope of their armies.

Colonial budgets were absolutely shoestring, thus this limits their ability to mobilize and equip large forces, and if they do that than profits go down as that money could be used to better extract minerals. Even should say France decide to increase investment to the colonies it would not be enough, and such a move would be unpopular back home given that the voting masses would want the money to be spent domestically instead of faraway Senegal or Gabon.

And there's also the problem of attrition in battle as disease cuts a swath in European forces. Did historically in the West Africa front; more troops = more deaths.

However, all this is moot once war in Europe breaks out because every man is needed back home to defend the homeland, particularly with regard to France who shares a land border with Germany. Interestingly enough not using colonials as troops would rob France and Britain of hundreds of thousands of able body troops they would otherwise use.

Hence why its a cakewalk initially for Congo to spam troops and swallow entire garrisons whole and withstand assault after assault.

As the powers get more and more desperate, they'll be more willing to relax restrictions on recruitment. Though O think Britain will just resort to using Indians and the French Viet's first.
 
How is this war? Who's fighting whom? The alignments of OTL's 1914 were not set in stone, particularly with regard to Italy.

I understand that your need to focus upon Congo, but a Great War in 1920 changes the whole world considerably, and we have to assume that it is the result of much earlier changes. I wonder how this Congo modifies the picture.

This independent Congo emerge right in the aftermath of Adowa, which would change the European perceptions of Africa very deeply and modify the approach of the European powers.
You touched it by saying that native troops are much less trusted, requiring more investment in national forces in Africa. I believe that this may reflect also on less willingness to engage in conquest of the remaining areas. The distribution of land in Africa may not match exactly our TL's one. The French may slower or less willing to engage, crucially in Morocco, further delaying diplomatic tensions around it, and lessening pressure leading to the Italian aggression to the Ottoman Empire. Which changes greatly the context for the Balkan Wars, beautifully helping explaining how the Great War is delayed.
Sudan plays differently too (no Fashoda crisis, altered diplomatic context - a later Entente perhaps? - also consistent with later war). I don't see how Congo may affect the Boer War (it probably still occurs).

There are going to be other consequences. The diplomatic situation in Europe probably still has two essential axes in the Franco-Russian and Austro-German alliances, and there is no doubt that Britain would be allied with France - but by 1920 Russia might be regarded as more serious rival in London than Germany.
Italy could go many ways, but it was drifting increasingly closer to France IOTL, and I don't see anything affecting that trend here - but you never know.
(There's also Japan, and the Russo-Japanese war, to consider. If it is similar to OTL, in its aftermath the belief in White racial superiority must be seriously shaken).
 

Deleted member 67076

How is this war? Who's fighting whom? The alignments of OTL's 1914 were not set in stone, particularly with regard to Italy.
I originally was going to have it as Italy in the Central Powers against standard Entente with the US remaining neutral, but upon reading the analysis I'm not as sure.

I understand that your need to focus upon Congo, but a Great War in 1920 changes the whole world considerably, and we have to assume that it is the result of much earlier changes. I wonder how this Congo modifies the picture.

This independent Congo emerge right in the aftermath of Adowa, which would change the European perceptions of Africa very deeply and modify the approach of the European powers.
You touched it by saying that native troops are much less trusted, requiring more investment in national forces in Africa. I believe that this may reflect also on less willingness to engage in conquest of the remaining areas. The distribution of land in Africa may not match exactly our TL's one. The French may slower or less willing to engage, crucially in Morocco, further delaying diplomatic tensions around it, and lessening pressure leading to the Italian aggression to the Ottoman Empire. Which changes greatly the context for the Balkan Wars, beautifully helping explaining how the Great War is delayed.
Sudan plays differently too (no Fashoda crisis, altered diplomatic context - a later Entente perhaps? - also consistent with later war). I don't see how Congo may affect the Boer War (it probably still occurs).
Oh wow, that's an awesome explanation for delaying the Great War!

Sudan is weird here. Britain is probably not to wholescale colonize it what with the need to consolidate other forces elsewhere and might just go for economic control and using Egyptian control as a proxy. Cape to Cairo and the need for controlling "The Spine of the Continent" would perhaps be mainly focused on the Canal and direct colonies. Oh, and the Mahdist war would end earlier as the Brits pull out.

Most likely situation is I think it would be de jure Egyptian territory under heavy British influence, especially economic. Ironically this benefits the Sudanese as it gives them the flexibility to go to and from Congo whenever they want, which of course suits them just fine as plenty of good land just got opened up.

There are going to be other consequences. The diplomatic situation in Europe probably still has two essential axes in the Franco-Russian and Austro-German alliances, and there is no doubt that Britain would be allied with France - but by 1920 Russia might be regarded as more serious rival in London than Germany.
Would this mean Russia just stays out the Great War? Or is begrudgingly on the side of the Entente as Germany and Austria block Pan Slavic attempts to liberate the Balkans from the Ottomans?

Italy could go many ways, but it was drifting increasingly closer to France IOTL, and I don't see anything affecting that trend here - but you never know.
(There's also Japan, and the Russo-Japanese war, to consider. If it is similar to OTL, in its aftermath the belief in White racial superiority must be seriously shaken).
So Italy-France-UK confirmed, against Germany-Austria and the Ottomans. At the very least.

I'd still have Japan win against the Russians. The fallout would be fun to imagine, and it'd have important implications for Congolese ideology later on.
 
I don't think Ottomans will necessarily throw their lot with the Germans.IOTL,they tried to be neutral but the Britain forced their hand by confiscating Ottoman battleships unilaterally while offering harsh terms on reparations.This will definitely be butterflied.It's doubtful whether Churchill will remain First Lord of the Admiralty by 1920 or whether he remains politically relevant.
I originally was going to have it as Italy in the Central Powers against standard Entente with the US remaining neutral, but upon reading the analysis I'm not as sure.


Oh wow, that's an awesome explanation for delaying the Great War!

Sudan is weird here. Britain is probably not to wholescale colonize it what with the need to consolidate other forces elsewhere and might just go for economic control and using Egyptian control as a proxy. Cape to Cairo and the need for controlling "The Spine of the Continent" would perhaps be mainly focused on the Canal and direct colonies. Oh, and the Mahdist war would end earlier as the Brits pull out.

Most likely situation is I think it would be de jure Egyptian territory under heavy British influence, especially economic. Ironically this benefits the Sudanese as it gives them the flexibility to go to and from Congo whenever they want, which of course suits them just fine as plenty of good land just got opened up.


Would this mean Russia just stays out the Great War? Or is begrudgingly on the side of the Entente as Germany and Austria block Pan Slavic attempts to liberate the Balkans from the Ottomans?


So Italy-France-UK confirmed, against Germany-Austria and the Ottomans. At the very least.

I'd still have Japan win against the Russians. The fallout would be fun to imagine, and it'd have important implications for Congolese ideology later on.
I think what's implied here is that Britain might actually join the Central Powers camp or remain neutral,and only join the war when there's a clearer picture as to who's winning and who's losing.
 
I don't see how Russia stays out once Germany goes to war with France- for all the fact that Russia and Britain would have serious tension in this scenario, a German victory over France makes the Kaiser the master of Europe west of Russia.
I think the Russians will go to war, and probably do a great deal better in 1920 than they did in 1914. In fact, 1920 would probably be a high water mark for the Tsar's army- the industrialisation and modernisation programs would have born fruit, but before any real economic slumps in the twenties.
So on the one hand, Germany is well served by having a powerful ally in Africa who would draw away British and French troops but the eastern front would probably go much worse for the central powers.
 
I don't see how Russia stays out once Germany goes to war with France- for all the fact that Russia and Britain would have serious tension in this scenario, a German victory over France makes the Kaiser the master of Europe west of Russia.
I think the Russians will go to war, and probably do a great deal better in 1920 than they did in 1914. In fact, 1920 would probably be a high water mark for the Tsar's army- the industrialisation and modernisation programs would have born fruit, but before any real economic slumps in the twenties.
So on the one hand, Germany is well served by having a powerful ally in Africa who would draw away British and French troops but the eastern front would probably go much worse for the central powers.

To my knowledge,the Russian economy was already slumping by 1914.
 
I originally was going to have it as Italy in the Central Powers against standard Entente with the US remaining neutral, but upon reading the analysis I'm not as sure.

That remains possible (and is a huge boon to CP if Italy is in from the start) depending on what is at stake, who is in charge, and how exactly the war begins. However, Italy has very valid strategic reasons NOT TO enter a war against Britain. In one word: coal.

Oh wow, that's an awesome explanation for delaying the Great War!

Yeah, but delaying it means changing it significantly.

Sudan is weird here. Britain is probably not to wholescale colonize it what with the need to consolidate other forces elsewhere and might just go for economic control and using Egyptian control as a proxy. Cape to Cairo and the need for controlling "The Spine of the Continent" would perhaps be mainly focused on the Canal and direct colonies. Oh, and the Mahdist war would end earlier as the Brits pull out.

Most likely situation is I think it would be de jure Egyptian territory under heavy British influence, especially economic. Ironically this benefits the Sudanese as it gives them the flexibility to go to and from Congo whenever they want, which of course suits them just fine as plenty of good land just got opened up.

May the southernmost part of the country be attached to Uganda in this context (parts of modern South Sudan, probably not all of it)? It was considered IOTL and might make a lot of strategic sense as the Egyptians are more in control of the rest. Britain wouldn't want the three largest African states to meet in the upper Nile, which would be the case otherwise, even if they are effectively in charge in Egypt.

Would this mean Russia just stays out the Great War? Or is begrudgingly on the side of the Entente as Germany and Austria block Pan Slavic attempts to liberate the Balkans from the Ottomans?

I don't see France going to war without Russia, even with Britain and Italy on side. There's a ton of butterflies by this point, but probably Russia is involved in some way or another.
I can see the war beginning as a Russo-Ottoman conflict here, actually, like a delayed Balkan War that spirals out of control, or something happening in Armenia. This means that Russia, Turkey and Austria are involved from the start, with the Western powers and Germany getting drawn into it somewhat later. In this scenario, Britain is the one begrudgingly siding with the Russian behemot against her best senses, in order to protect France/Belgium.
Otherwise, you can have the war starting over, say, Morocco/Libya, statrting out as France (possibly supported by Italy from the start) against Germany and likely the Ottomans. Spain would be involved immediately (but I don't on which side) and Russia might want to out this one or be forced to enter at a later stage. Britain would also be unwilling to fight for the sake of letting France rule in Rabat.
Either way, you have a probably a less functional, more divided Entente.


There's plenty of other possibilities, of course, such as internal troubles in Austria upon the Ausgleich negotiations, which would roughly coincide with FF being crowned (or trying to).


So Italy-France-UK confirmed, against Germany-Austria and the Ottomans. At the very least.


Look like plausible alignments. Italy was likely going to opt out from the triple Alliance at the next renewal, which would have forced Berlin and Vienna to look around for other potential partners (Japan? Spain?) and change their plans.

I'd still have Japan win against the Russians. The fallout would be fun to imagine, and it'd have important implications for Congolese ideology later on.

Seems reasonable.


Note that, assuming the inherent reality of an "encircled" Germany, this war is going to be planned VERY differently from a 1914 one.
Motorized logistics and radio communications would be A LOT more prominent, as would be aviation. You'd probably see crude tanks appear very early in the conflict, so trench warfare might not be that a dominant feature (although still present). All countries involved would HAVE TO plan for a longer war, as there is no way for the OKW to stick to the Schlieffen Plan into 1920. Which also calls into question what Germany is thinking in chosing to enter a war against the traditional Entente with a clearly unfavorable correlation of forces. Do they see a "window of opportunity" like they did in 1914? More likely, the war begins in a way where it is not immediately clear that Germany is facing the whole team at once.
 
I'm not sure why all these options have Britain at war with the Ottomans. Before WW1 if you'd said Britain would be at war with them it would have been laughable as they were alies only a few years before, and if you said they would be at war with Britain while fighting alongside Austria-Hungary it would have been considered utterly absurd as they themselves were at war not too long ago and a great deal of tension still existed.

if you want a interesting conflict, how about Germany/AH/Russia/China vs Japan/Ottomans/Britain/France with Italy potentially being on either side or even both (or just staying neutral and profiting from the war) depending on the circumstances.
 
I'm not sure why all these options have Britain at war with the Ottomans. Before WW1 if you'd said Britain would be at war with them it would have been laughable as they were alies only a few years before, and if you said they would be at war with Britain while fighting alongside Austria-Hungary it would have been considered utterly absurd as they themselves were at war not too long ago and a great deal of tension still existed.

if you want a interesting conflict, how about Germany/AH/Russia/China vs Japan/Ottomans/Britain/France with Italy potentially being on either side or even both (or just staying neutral and profiting from the war) depending on the circumstances.

China's not in any position to fight any wars.It should be in the midst of massive civil wars during this era unless it's doing much better than otl.As for Russia,I don't see how they will join Germany.On the other hand,I think Britain joining on Germany's side is much plausible given the British did see Russia as a threat as well.Ottomans will most likely try and stay neutral unless someone forced their hand.
 
I'm not sure why all these options have Britain at war with the Ottomans. Before WW1 if you'd said Britain would be at war with them it would have been laughable as they were alies only a few years before, and if you said they would be at war with Britain while fighting alongside Austria-Hungary it would have been considered utterly absurd as they themselves were at war not too long ago and a great deal of tension still existed.

if you want a interesting conflict, how about Germany/AH/Russia/China vs Japan/Ottomans/Britain/France with Italy potentially being on either side or even both (or just staying neutral and profiting from the war) depending on the circumstances.

Sounds pretty lopsided, but it is certainly possible. EDIT: such a scenario would likely involve a large scale Chinese civil war, which may trigger it.

The fundamental enmity for the Ottomans was with Russia, and by WWI they had a long history of cooperation with Austria (better said, a long history of Austrian interest in the integrity of the OE as a buffer against Russian power - that's why they did not annex Bosnia until 1908 for example.). So, as long as Britain and Russia are aligned (which is not necessarily a given ITTL) the Ottomans are on the opposing front to Britain.
Essentially, the Ottomans were brought into the German camp by the Anglo-Russian rapprochement. However, regardless of what Britain does, the Ottomans are likely to be on the German side in the event of a Russo-German conflict.
It is true, of course, that Britain had for a long time a huge stake in the Ottoman integrity, even more so than Austria (so, to a lesser extent, did France indeed - Germany simply did not care for a long time) and an Anglo Ottoman alliance is perfectly plausible if Germany and Russia are on the same side - or if in any event the conflict is Britain vs. Russia.
We already know that in this conflict France and Britain are fighting Germany at the very least (and almost certainly Austria as well). It's hard to see how Russia cannot be fighting alongside France, since the Franco-Russian alliance was the basis of French security and the axis of French foreign policy: France would not have dared war with with Germany without Russia on her side. This suggests at least the likelihood of a German-aligned Ottoman Empire (true, they could still reimain neutral, as could Italy).
 
China's not in any position to fight any wars.It should be in the midst of massive civil wars during this era unless it's doing much better than otl.As for Russia,I don't see how they will join Germany.On the other hand,I think Britain joining on Germany's side is much plausible given the British did see Russia as a threat as well.Ottomans will most likely try and stay neutral unless someone forced their hand.

China is interesting.
I did not think about the Boxers Revolt ITTL, but it is going to be affected.
On one side, Britain's forces are not as heavily engaged in Sudan, OTOH, more white troops overall are used in Africa.
The White Race (tm) also needs to show its Superior Civilization (tm) in the face of the twin blows to its prestige, and the Boxers provide the perfect opportunity to do exactly that at relatively little cost (relative to OTL). This means that, while a Scramble for China in terms of territorial carving up is improbable (and would probably change the world too much for the purposes of the TL) the conditions are going to be harsher on China. This, in turn, probably leads to even weaker late Qing and possibly a messier demise.
All in all, I think that China is likely to be a front in TTL's Great War, although I don't think that Germany alone has much staying power in that theatre, unless it allies with Japan (but why? Japan taking on France, Britain and Russia at the same time is EXTREMELY stupid. Even in WWII, they managed to avoid conflict with Russia until 1945).
 

Deleted member 67076

So I've decided (mainly in the interest of keeping thing moving smoothly) on the first phase of the war being Britain/France/Russia/Serbia/Greece vs Germany/Austria/Ottomans with Italy staying neutral for at least up until where we are now (1923).

War begins due to a Balkan Conflict between Russia and the Ottomans which leads to the Turks calling the Germans which leads to Russia calling France and in turn, Germany calls Austria to deal with the Balkans while Germany attempts to focus on the bigger powers.

By 1922, the Congolese decide to take the German's call, and begin to invade French Congo and Portuguese Cabinda while simultaneously giving troops (mainly Zanzibari) to defend German East Africa.

As of 1923, the Balance of Power in Africa has drastically swung back in the favor of the Central Powers. France, Portugal and Britain are bleeding out and losing thousands upon thousands of men and an insane amount of resources they'd otherwise have alongside having to put down small revolts within the colonies are probably being tried and suppressed (not much of an overall impact, but a nuisance). Critically, the lack of Congo's rubber and copper following its entry into the war is both huge and damaging to the Entente. Not crippling, but damaging.

I also imagine that the Middle Eastern Front has been greatly affected. The Gaza line is having a much easier time being held by the Ottomans thanks to drastically better infrastructure and communications alongside simply not being utterly exhausted from the Balkan wars. Meanwhile, Britain has to stretch more and more of her forces alongside calling greater amounts of (white) colonial troops. The Dominions are not happy.

At the same time, the Russians are stuck having to battle the more developed Austrian Empire, the motorized Germans and fight a third front in the Caucus against a better supplied Ottomans (although in turn, the Ottomans are stuck fighting in the Balkans).

I also imagine this probably means Ethiopia would declare war on the Entente given ties with Congo and opportunity to take some coastland via conquering Djibouti and British Somaliland. Yet another headache for the Entente :p. The Ethiopian army here would be stronger than it would historically due to veterans who served Congo, a larger army and economy because of the Congolese trade, and because of more armaments (critically artillery) from Congo.

Would be fun to see them fight against the (relatively) tiny garrisons in Djibouti, Somaliland and Egypt. Although the South Sudan front would not be pretty for anyone.

All in all, its a bigger, bloodier, more widespread and much more destructive conflict that sees the Entente have to put out many small fires alongside focusing on their main targets of Germany and Austria. Very bad news for France, who's going to be taking a battering in this war.

Re: Sudan. I do agree, having what's South Sudan be part of Uganda makes sense, even if those borders are just disgusting (Then again which border in colonial Africa isn't?) and it allows Egypt to control a much easier territory. Darfur is probably de facto independent but no one really cares about some nomads in the desert at this time.

Re: China. A messier dissolution of the Qing would lead to a whole mess of a Warlord era and all sorts of problems that Japan would be eager to exploit. Can't really say anything further. Any suggestions on what a China front in WWI would look like?
 
Top