Trigger point for GRI/BFAHOE WWI

What is the trigger point for GRI/BFAHOE WW1 ?

  • The Russo-Japanese War escalates

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Germany and France fight for Morocco

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • Italy and the Ottoman Empire fight for Libya

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Britain and Russia fight for Persia or Afghanistan

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • Two great powers fight for some corner of the Balkans

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • TTL's version of the Balkan War escalates

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • A Balkan irredentist organization kills someone important

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Two great powers fight for some colonial possession (describe)

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Something else entirely (describe)

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • Total voters
    23

General Zod

Banned
A recent thread (here) has been discussing the strategic developments of this alt-WWI lineup, but I thought it might be interesting also discuss what the trigger point for this WWI lineup might be, as well as any significant butterfly, if any, that might occur between the PoD and beginning of WWI:

Triple Alliance: Germany, Russia, Italy. Junior partners: Greece, Romania, either Bulgaria or Serbia.

Triple Entente: Britain, France, Austria-Hungary. Associated members: Ottoman Empire, Japan. Junior partner: either Bulgaria or Serbia.

Neutral countries that in all likelihood remain so throughout the conflict: USA, South America, Scandinavian countries, Iberian countries.

Neutral countries that may become involved at some point: Benelux, Switzerland.

Description of the PoD:

Sometime in the early-mid 1870s, German Chancellor Bismarck awoke one night with a sweat. In a nightmare, he had foreseen the future: the inevitable collapse of his carefully-woven diplomatic web to isolate France owning to Russo-British rivalry, the encirclement of the Reich owning to misguided naval competition with Britain and Austrian rivalries with Russia and Italy, the growing internal instability and decay of the useless Habsburg ally, the Fatherland starved by British blockade, invaded by French and Russian hordes, the monarchy collapsing in Socialist revolution...

It was horrible, and intolerable. He saw everything so clearly, what had escaped him so far. The diplomatic strategy he had followed up to that moment, might work in the short term, but was doomed to failure in the long term, when the fertile land of Prussia would have embraced him, and the inept sycophants that would surround some future Emperor would let his careful construction go to ruin. He would have to do better, build a alliance system that would be the strongest possible and absolutely able to ensure the success of the Reich in the general war that was coming, sooner or later.

But what to do ? In the coming days and weeks, a possible strategy dawned: He could solidify the alliance with Russia by supporting their claims on the Balkans. Let's face it, the Habsburg Empire was bound to collapse sooner or later, it made no sense to exhaust the strength of the Reich trying to breathe life in that corpse. Better to abandon that alliance, and make an agreement with Russia and Italy to support their interests instead. In perspective, to make a pact for the eventual partition of the Habsburg and the Ottomans with those nations, in the contingency of a war or their internal collapse. With Russia and Italy allied to Germany, the Reich could cower any coalition of rival powers, be them Britain, France, Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, out of war, or win it in short order.

During the Congress of Berlin, according to his new geopolitical and strategic insight, Bismarck supports Russian interests as much as he can short of causing a general war. He is unable to get many of the Russian aims satisfied, but his support ensures that Britain and Austria-Hungary are unable to undo the effects of Russian victory in the Russo-Turkish War as much as they wished.

The large autonomy (de facto independence) of Bulgaria as a Principate and its full ownership of Eastern Rumelia is recognized but it is forced to give all of Macedonia back to the Ottoman Empire. The Austrian candidate for the throne, Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, is picked. The independence of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro is also recognized. Austria-Hungary is allowed to "occupy and administer" Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Sanjak of Novi Pazar. Greece receives Thessaly and the district of Arta in Epirus but its hopes to gain Crete are frustrated. Russia keeps Ardahan, Batum and Kars. Britain gets the occupation and administration of Cyprus, the powers' guarantee that the Straits shall remain in Ottoman possession (but they are declared open to all neutral ships in war and peacetime), and a free hand to establish a protectorate of Egypt. France is allowed to establish a protectorate in Tunisia. Italy is much angered over Franch expansion in Tunis and Austrian expansion into Bosnia, but is granted the right to establish a protectorate in Tripolitania. Romania gets Dobruja but must return southern Bessarabia to Russia.

Russia, thankful for German diplomatic support, soon formalizes the alliance with Germany in the Dual Alliance of 1879. Italy, angered over French occupation of Tunis, resentful over A-H expansion in the Balkans without a settlment of Italian irredentist claims, and eager to get powerful allies against both France and A-H, joins Germany and Russia in the Triple Alliance of 1882. Austria-Hungary, angry with Germany for its support to Russian interests, breaks the Dreikaiserbund and makes the Dual Entente with France in 1881.

Britain maintains its “splendid isolation” up into the 1890s. Subsequenty, growing concerns for Russian expansionism in Central Asia and the Far East, and naval rivalry with Germany, move it to join France and Austria in the Triple Entente in 1901, and sign an alliance with Japan in 1902. Both Bismarck and his successors work to solidify the Triple Alliance by heavily investing German capital and expertise to develop and modernize Russian and Italian economy, infrastructure, and military. France, and later Britain as well, does likewise with Austria-Hungary.
Now, some possible ideas for the alt-WWI trigger point:
a) the Russo-Japanese War escalates, with the intervention of Germany/Italy/Britain;
b) Germany and France have a clash over the ownership of Morocco;
c) Italy and the Ottoman Empire have a clash over the ownership of Libya;
d) The Great Game turns hot as Britain and Russia pick a fight over Persia or Afghanistan;
e) A couple of great powers from opposite alliances pick a fight over some corner of the Balkans;
f) TTL's version of the Balkan War (e.g. a war between Bulgaria and Serbia for Macedonia) occurs, and it escalates with great powers' intervention;
g) Nothing really new under the Sun: some Balkan irredentist organization stages some really nasty assassination or terrorist act and it all escalates;
h) A couple of great powers from opposite alliances pick a fight over some un-mentioned colonial possession (describe);
i) Something else entirely (describe);
What do you prefer and why ?
 
Last edited:
If the Ottoman Empire had been stronger and more ambitious do you think they could have shown interest in Bulgaria, or possibly Romania? If they had, and eventually invaded, this could spark a Great War.

The United Kingdom, uninterested with the Ottomans or an agressor would not side with them, and I dont believe they had any treaty with any Balkan state. (Then again, I dont study the Balkans, or anything else, with great intensity)
 
My proto-timeline doesn't feature a Germany-Russia alliance, but it offers an alternative spark for the war: Boulanger takes control of France and in the 1890s an Italian crackdown on proto-fascist groups near the French border escalates to an alt-WW1. Plausible or not, it shows that there are all sorts of possibilities for devastating wars that kill millions for no good reason.
 

General Zod

Banned
I've rewritten the PoD owing to ongoing discussion in the sister thread. TTL's Congress of Berlin not longer supervises the full dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. Notice how this makes the Balkan War(s) much more likely.
 
Let's assume 2 possible outcomes which define the envelope of the agreements which come out from this alternative Congress of Berlin: the best outcome for OE is what happened IOTL; the worst outcome is that the treaty of St. Stephan is not substantially changed.

Given the POD of a pro-Russian epiphany by prince Bismarck, it is likely that TTL Congress of Europe will agree on something in between the extremes, but in any case closer to the St. Stephan treaty: a happier Russia looks with more confidence to the last 20 years of the 19th century.

The problem, however, is that it is quite hard to jump from 1878 to the start of TTL WW1 without agreeing on what is going to happen in the world over the next 25 years at least. Consider the following problems:
  • UK: UK comes out from Berlin with what they wanted (OE reduced but substantially untouched, and no Russian bear in the Straits; plus they get Cyprus on the side). The problems will start around mid-eighties, when it becomes clear that Germany and Russia are buddy friends, and they have pulled on board Italy too. Russia will be certainly more pushy all over Asia, from Manchuria to China to the Afghan border, to northern Persia and the Caucasus. 10 years later (maybe earlier) it will also be clear that the German empire is well positioned for an European supremacy. Italy is not (yet) a significant player in the European game, but as a German and Russian ally its geographical position in the Mediterranean will constitute a strategical threat. On the plus side, France will be forced to ally with A-H (a dubious advantage) and will also be forced to court British friendship (which means less competition in the scramble for Africa: no Fashoda ITTL)On the plus
  • France: France gets Tunisia and a promise for the future on Morocco; on the other hand their hope for revenge against the boches is much slimmer now (the game of alliances has left them just A-H as a prospective ally (and at the same time has strengthened Italy, which is coming out of Berlin very much pissed with France). They have also to thread more carefully, because it's not difficult to realise that if they piss UK they are automatically toast) and this might induce them to privilege the far-east colonial option vs. the African one.
  • Italy: formally Italy gets nothing at Berlin (same as IOTL); strategically they get much better allies (in particular they get allies who do not covet the same real eastate they do, and who are quite complementary: German technology and Russian resources). My guess is that the relation with France will be worse than IOTL (where they were already very very bad) and that there will be a boost of nationalism (the natural enemies - France and A-H - are clearly in the opposite camp). Economically they should benefit from the alliance partners, and at the same time I espect that British financing will not be worse than IOTL, and possibly even better (a stronger Italian economy will be more attractive for British investment too, and there will be also the incentive of trying to keep Italo-British relations sweet). Better economy, and an Italian army more closely patterned on the German one plus the nationalism I mentioned before: Italy will be more active in East Africa, and more successful (the 1st Ethiopian war might even be butterflied away, since a stronger Italy is more likely to achieve the protectorate without a need of a war, or if a colonial war is required the new Italy is much more likely to be successful) and is also likely to be a tiny bit more present and active in the Far East (obviously on the coat tails of Germany and Russia) and in the opening up of China.
  • Germany: what happens in Germany? Certainly an economic boom; probably a stronger influence of the liberals (democratization and economic boom go very often side by side in my book - and this is true also for both Italy and Russia). More colonial adventures? Given the parthership with Russia, it would make more sense to go for China and the Pacific rather than Africa.
  • A-H: I do not see an improvement for them (I'm possibly biased) ITTL. My take is that A-H will go on mostly as per IOTL, possibly worse feeling besieged by the unholy Alliance.
  • OE: I do not expect anything major here too. The Berlin Congress did not deliver anything substantially different from IOTL. Likely to have closer relations with A-H (they were buddies IOTL too) and less money for modernization (German financiang being re-diverted to Russia and Italy)
  • Russia: TTL could be a very nice one for Russia, but IMHO the key is to see if the economic boom and the earlier industrialization will be mirrored by an increase in democracy. I would expect that Russia in 1905 will be at least 7 years more advanced than IOTL (and this might mean that the RJW might not come, or if it comes goes the other way)
  • Spain and USA: no significant change here. Let's assume that they war in 1898 as per OTL, and the USA gain the Philippines (otherwise the butterflies would be really gigantic). After the war, both stay out of major events.








A couple of things I forgot: Persia should also go on mostly as per OTL, but given the premises I would anticipate more pressure from the Russian side. ITTL Mohammed Ali Shah does not go into exile: the Cossack Brigade and Russian help keep him on the throne. Northern Iran is a solid Russian client, and there is more pressure and more tension on British concessions in SW Iran. I will also predict that the Boer war starts on schedule, but ITTL there might be more German support for the Boers.

Any comment??
 
Well, I actually wrote a trigger in the main thread on this where Mohammed is still exiled, but the Russsians give him much greater support in a return to power in exchange for protectorate over all of Persia, the British move troops from India to counter, and it develops into a shooting war between Russia and Britain and things escalate from there.
 

General Zod

Banned
Let's assume 2 possible outcomes which define the envelope of the agreements which come out from this alternative Congress of Berlin: the best outcome for OE is what happened IOTL; the worst outcome is that the treaty of St. Stephan is not substantially changed.

Given the POD of a pro-Russian epiphany by prince Bismarck, it is likely that TTL Congress of Europe will agree on something in between the extremes, but in any case closer to the St. Stephan treaty: a happier Russia looks with more confidence to the last 20 years of the 19th century.

Yes, I do agree with you on that. IMO the actual outcome of the Congress is a united, de facto independent Bulgaria in close to modern borders, as discussed upthread.

The problem, however, is that it is quite hard to jump from 1878 to the start of TTL WW1 without agreeing on what is going to happen in the world over the next 25 years at least.

Very true.

UK: UK comes out from Berlin with what they wanted (OE reduced but substantially untouched, and no Russian bear in the Straits; plus they get Cyprus on the side). The problems will start around mid-eighties, when it becomes clear that Germany and Russia are buddy friends, and they have pulled on board Italy too. Russia will be certainly more pushy all over Asia, from Manchuria to China to the Afghan border, to northern Persia and the Caucasus. 10 years later (maybe earlier) it will also be clear that the German empire is well positioned for an European supremacy. Italy is not (yet) a significant player in the European game, but as a German and Russian ally its geographical position in the Mediterranean will constitute a strategical threat. On the plus side, France will be forced to ally with A-H (a dubious advantage) and will also be forced to court British friendship (which means less competition in the scramble for Africa: no Fashoda ITTL.

Yes, your assessment about the British Empire is essentially correct: the British are confronted with a coalition of rivals to its international hegemony that in a couple decades grows too strong to be faced safely even by the resources of the British Empire alone, and they shall be forced with the only rival block of importance, France and A-H. Since this bloc is much stronger and tight-knitted than Germany, A-H, and Italy IOTL, this shall happen earlier. The net outcome is that it leaves "splendid isolation" and joins the French-Austrian Entente significantly but not substantially early than OTL: 5-10 years before is a reasonable assessment. Not mindful at present of any significant international event that would be butterflied by that. Otherwise, the UK is essentially unchanged economically, politically, and militarily.

France: France gets Tunisia and a promise for the future on Morocco; on the other hand their hope for revenge against the boches is much slimmer now: the game of alliances has left them just A-H as a prospective ally (and at the same time has strengthened Italy, which is coming out of Berlin very much pissed with France). They have also to thread more carefully, because it's not difficult to realise that if they piss UK they are automatically toast) and this might induce them to privilege the far-east colonial option vs. the African one.

The assessment is mostly correct: France is militarily and economically unchanged ITTL, but its strategic and diplomatic position is much weaker than IOTL. They are facing not just frustration of their revanchist aspirations, but strategic encirclement from a stronger Germany and an up-and-coming Italy, in an united front with Russia they have scarce hope of breaking. So they are going to be even more rabidly nationalist and militarist than IOTL. They ought to swing more to far-right nationalism, and grow somewhat more poltitically polarized. Perhaps the Third Republic falls to a conservative-nationalist proto-fascist regime sometime between the late 1880s and 1912 ?

A takeover by Boulanger is the obvious option, but he would take over with a platform of strong revanchism and expansionism, I'm not sure he can defer putting it into action for two full decades. OTOH, France attacking Germany and Italy, not to mention Russia, before the alliance with Britain can be finalized is sheer suicide, and it won't be finalized until late 1890s at the earliest. So maybe instead the Dreyfus scandal causes a right-wing swing instead of a left-wing one. A rabidly-nationalist proto-fascist France constantly itching for a war with the Triple Alliance and prodding Britain and A-H to escalate any decent casus belli can be a rather substantial factor in precipitating WWI in this scenario.

I agree that they should be extremely eager to get an alliance with Britain, and redirect theri colonial ambitions accordingly. This most likely butterflies Fashoda away, and again accelerates the completion of the Triple Entente accordingly, but does not justify redirecting the focus of theri colonial expansion from Africa to the Far East. If anything, increased colonial competition in Asia would have even more potential to PO the British. Rather, they give up their aspirations to complete their West-East Axis in Africa, and steer clear of the Nile Valley. Britain had actually little interest in Western Africa, so if France sticks to that area, it can actually have limited colonial competition with Britain (they shall have more with Germany and Italy, but they are the enemy anyway).

They focus their economic power into building up the only completely reliable ally they are left, Austria-Hungary, of inferior value as it may be.

Italy: formally Italy gets nothing at Berlin (same as IOTL);

Except a greenlight to expand into Libya that they shall not be strong enough to fulfill for a decade or so, but this TL might well see a somewhat anticipated colonization of Libya by a stronger Italy, say by a decade or two. ITTL the Ottoman Empire shall be weaker, just like Italy shall be stronger, so they may give up Libya without a fight, just as they did with Tunisia. if so, ITTL the Balkan Wars are precipitated by worse internal decay of the OE and not by the Italo-Ottoman War.

strategically they get much better allies (in particular they get allies who do not covet the same real eastate they do, and who are quite complementary: German technology and Russian resources). My guess is that the relation with France will be worse than IOTL (where they were already very very bad) and that there will be a boost of nationalism (the natural enemies - France and A-H - are clearly in the opposite camp). Economically they should benefit from the alliance partners, and at the same time I espect that British financing will not be worse than IOTL, and possibly even better (a stronger Italian economy will be more attractive for British investment too, and there will be also the incentive of trying to keep Italo-British relations sweet). Better economy, and an Italian army more closely patterned on the German one plus the nationalism I mentioned before:

This is all very true. Italy shall be both militarily and economically stronger, and politically they get to be more nationalist, but they reap more success in colonial expansion and international prestige, so more liberalism from economic development and increased nationalism should more or less cancel themselves out. Probably Italy becomes somewhat more democratic than IOTL, but they are more militarist and expansionist. They crave that French, A-H, and Ottoman booty, but for now they fulfill their aspiration to greatness by successful expansion into Libya and Ethiopia, and the coattails of Germany and Russia in the Far East.

Italy will be more active in East Africa, and more successful (the 1st Ethiopian war might even be butterflied away, since a stronger Italy is more likely to achieve the protectorate without a need of a war, or if a colonial war is required the new Italy is much more likely to be successful) and is also likely to be a tiny bit more present and active in the Far East (obviously on the coat tails of Germany and Russia) and in the opening up of China.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. They manage to grab that Ethiopia colony, and play junior partner to their German and Russian buddies in the Far East.

Germany: what happens in Germany? Certainly an economic boom; probably a stronger influence of the liberals (democratization and economic boom go very often side by side in my book - and this is true also for both Italy and Russia). More colonial adventures? Given the parthership with Russia, it would make more sense to go for China and the Pacific rather than Africa.

Yep, Germany is just as strong militarily ITTL, and reaps even more impressive economic development by their strategic partnership with the Russians. The combination of German capital, technology, and know-how, and Russian manpower and resources creates an economic boom which spreads to Italy, as they build up an industry complementary to Germany's one (as they eventually did IOTL, but the process starts two generations ealry ITTL). This helps cement the strategic partnership. You are correct that this means more democratization for all three partners: Germany turns somewhat more liberal, even if the basic constitutional model remains unchanged. Probably the democratic reform of the Prussian electoral system, the Reichstag gets more influence, and the welfare system gets more expansion (something that Italy and Russia shall strive to copy). Despite Willy's occasional blunderings still happen, as a whole Germany reaps far more diplomatic success, since they do not feel encircled and hence act less bullish, and they have the reliable support of their partners. They are likely just as eager as Russia and Italy to achieve the partition of decaying A-H and the OE, so that they can pull the Balkans in their budding economic sphere. Hence, they are more liberal, but even more Pan-German. Build the fleet and seize colonies as much as you can, Britain is going to be the enemy sooner or later anyway from your Russian strategic partnership, so no point in courting them over, at the very most German diplomacy can try to delay the formalization of the British-French Entente, but it's a lost fight anyway. If courting UK as a possible ally is not longer a priority, most likely different locations for the African colonies are chosen: Germany would likely focus on achieving their continous big colony in Equatorial and southern Africa, displacing the Belgians in Congo, and striving to get middle Congo and Gabon, instead of seizing Tanganyka. They likely still get Namibia, but maybe they sell Tanganyka to London for Nigeria or Beciuanaland or Zambia. They proabably equally divide their efforts equally between Africa and Far East/China, probably they seek to develop a bigger sphere of influence in Central China, but Ireally don't see them refocusing on Asia exclusively.

A-H: I do not see an improvement for them (I'm possibly biased) ITTL. My take is that A-H will go on mostly as per IOTL, possibly worse feeling besieged by the unholy Alliance.

Well, A-H is a definite loser of TTL, even they get it slightly less worse than the OE. Militarily they shall be substantially weaker (France is not as good a partner as Germany to keep one's army in fitting shape), economically they shall get all the French investment that went to Russia IOTL, so they ought ot be basically unchanged or maybe slightly better. Politically, they are going to be even more instable, as restive nationalities perceive that the Empire is doomed in the long term, the Empire is encircled and primed for partition at the first big internal or European crisis, and trapped into an alliance with a rabid revanchist great power; the only avenue for expansion is the Balkans but this only invites more hostility by the rival power bloc and more internal proablems in the long run; likely they undergo spastic shifts between being the cowed wallflower of the Triple Entente, and reactive-premptive aggressiveness in the Balkans.

OE: I do not expect anything major here too. The Berlin Congress did not deliver anything substantially different from IOTL. Likely to have closer relations with A-H (they were buddies IOTL too) and less money for modernization (German financiang being re-diverted to Russia and Italy).

The OE is an even bigger loser of TTL. They are both significantly weaker militarily and econimically, as they lack German support and investment. Probably theys till get some meagre Anglo-French investment, but nothing to make up for the loss. As a result, their spiral of decay is even more quck and severe ITTL: there is more and more successful separatism from Balkan nationalities, to a degree Britain and A-H prop up the integrity of the Empire, but eventually even they despair and support their proxies, Serbia and Greece, in opposition to Russo-German proxy Bulgaria, as a backup plan. As said before, Italy grabs Libya earlier, the OE may or may not oppose them, likely not, and the Balkan Wars occur because the decay of the OE has become too obvious. They become the unofficial junior partner of the Entente, but they too weak to get full alliance.

Russia: TTL could be a very nice one for Russia, but IMHO the key is to see if the economic boom and the earlier industrialization will be mirrored by an increase in democracy. I would expect that Russia in 1905 will be at least 7 years more advanced than IOTL (and this might mean that the RJW might not come, or if it comes goes the other way).

Yes, Russia is another big winner ITTL, like her buddies Germany and Italy. Militarily they shall be stronger from the German partnership, and economically they are much sturdier. Politically, the boom and the earlier industrilization make growth pains but eventually ensure a much less traumatic modernization to a constitutional monarchy patterned on the German Empire. At the very least, the reforms by Witte and Stolypin and the Duma take root earlier and more extensively. I have come to realize that a natural completion of the PoD is a second one (actually, a butterfly: a different alliance system can easily butterfly the schedule of a monarch): Alexander II survives the assassination, he outlives his reactionary son, and the shift to a constitutional monarchy and basic liberalization unfolds in the 1880s and 1890s, and the Witte-Stolypin partnership only oversee their further expansion to an industrialized liberal empire.

They shall be more aggressive in the Balkans, Middle East, and the Far East all along. Their stronger economic and military performance means that the RJW is most likely significantly better: quite possibly a victory (which would butterfly Japan hugely), at the very least a draw (they would still make mistakes from racist overconfidence). Say that the Japanese still manage to secure Korea, but they fail to dislodge the Russians from southern Manchuria, Tsushima is an inconclusive Jutland-like skirmish and the Russian Fleet survives with limited losses. The peace treaty leaves Manchuria to Russia and Korea to Japan.

Spain and USA: no significant change here. Let's assume that they war in 1898 as per OTL, and the USA gain the Philippines (otherwise the butterflies would be really gigantic). After the war, both stay out of major events.

I would essentially agree. The most liekly outcome is that both steer away from WWI, since Spain is too weak and the USA totally lack any motive of animosity towards Germany and Russia (no invasion of Belgium, no unrestricted submarine warfare). If anything, there is a less probable but by no means unplausible chance that the USA join the Alliance later in the war, if British naval blockade pisses them enough. It would require a set of appropriate butterflies (an interventist, less Anglophile President - TR wins Republican nomination in 1912 thanks to the early breakout of the war in Europe; the British get their usual mix of stobborness, imperial arrogance, plus the mistaken fervent expectation that the blockade shall win the war for them just as OTL Germans did with their submarines, so they won't really appease the USA on the issue, there are repeated incidents between the RN and American merchant ships with loss of American lives, tensions escalate on the Canadian border and on the high seas, and TR declares war), but it may happen.
 

General Zod

Banned
An idea I got about a possible butterfly, and maybe a trigger point as well:

Let's assume that a result of a stronger and more successful Triple Alliance, France significantly swings towards a far-right conservative-nationalist regime in the late 1880s: i.e. the Boulanger coup succeeds, and he nominally restores the Kingdom of France, while setting himself as a neo-Napoleonic strongman and the true dictator of France. He pursues an expansionist-revanchist program, but the Triple Alliance is still just too strong to attack, even with the A-H alliance, and Britain won't yet committ to a full alliance, so he focuses on pulling Spain in his Catholic-Royalist alliance system. He sets up Carlos, Duke of Madrid, as King of France, who was both the Legitimist pretendent to the throne of France, and the Carlist pretendent to the throne of Spain. Boulanger gives lavish financial and military support to revive the Carlist movement in Spain, and a fourth Carlist insurrection occurs in Spain in the early 1890s, only with French support, it is successful, and a Franco-Spanish personal union is built. How would the Triple Alliance react to this development ? And Britain ? The Franco-Spanish union would have to face a war with the USA in a few years. How would French and Austrian intervention in the Spanish-American War affect it ? Would the Triple Alliance intervene on the side of the USA ?
 
Last edited:
Excellent idea Zod. I recommend posting it in the main Alternate WWI Alliances thread.

I don't think this would lead to a general European war, but it creates interesting complications. Would the Franco-Spanish fight harder for the Phillipines/Cuba/Puerto Rico? Would the US take the opportunity to grab the French Pacific Islands in addition to what they took OTL?
 

General Zod

Banned
Excellent idea Zod. I recommend posting it in the main Alternate WWI Alliances thread.

Done. :)

I don't think this would lead to a general European war, but it creates interesting complications. Would the Franco-Spanish fight harder for the Phillipines/Cuba/Puerto Rico?

Almost surely. Of course, fighting harder does not mean being eventually successful, since the USA shall still have a substantial advantage in manpower and industrial potential. OTOH, the French fleet may give them some serious problems, but dedicating too much effort to the Americas would leave Boulanger's back dangerously exposed to the Triple Alliance, who would just love an alliance with America to corner the British empire. But nationalist-expansionist dictators who lose major wars are prime targets for coup or revolution. Decisions, decisions...

Hmm, what if the Alliance governments seize the opportunity to tack F-S a peg lower, without a formal intervention, by organizing a sizable German-Russian-Italian Volunteer Expeditionary Corps to fight for America, and maybe make some pro-US naval demonstrations ? Would it be politically plausible ? If they distinguish themselves, and reap good press coverage in the USA, it would be an excellent sympathy plea with the Yankees, and might cause the USA to swing its sympathies towards the Alliance considerably, even if they would not committ to any formal alliance.

Would the US take the opportunity to grab the French Pacific Islands in addition to what they took OTL?

Well, first of all they would add Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guyana to their list of basic claims, and New Caledonia too. Dunno whether they would be interested in French Polynesia as well, if they have both New Caledonia and the Philippines.
 
Top