Serbia barely survived till Bulgaria and frankly Sofia entering the war merely speed the process as the endgame was never in doubt when AH launched his second invasion; Russia conquered Galicia sure but was also knocked up the war, had a revolution and later a nasty civil war, Romania was conquered or better overwhelmed and reentered the war at the last moment.
It's WWI so by your standard Germany was the winner as it conquered north France and great swat of Russian territory, instead she was the loser as conquer territory doesn't mean that much while stability of the nation system is the most important thing.
Sure Italy vs France will be difficult but also France vs Italy as the alps, unlike the AH border are an extremely good defensive line on both side and the offensive on the Isonzo occupied a great number of AH resources (and in OTL the 11th was almost a Caporetto on reverse, basically the reason of the 12th battle was that AH know that another italian offensive will have broken their line badly)
Have you read the scenario in which I'm talking?
What I wanted to say is that Italy is getting dispropotionate gains when you see how much they actually contributed.
 
Sure Italy vs France will be difficult but also France vs Italy as the alps, unlike the AH border are an extremely good defensive line on both side and the offensive on the Isonzo occupied a great number of AH resources (and in OTL the 11th was almost a Caporetto on reverse, basically the reason of the 12th battle was that AH know that another italian offensive will have broken their line badly)
France won't attack since they need resources elsewhere, Italy would probably try but wouldn’t be able to achieve much.
 
Have you read the scenario in which I'm talking?
What I wanted to say is that Italy is getting dispropotionate gains when you see how much they actually contributed.
It's a world war nobody get disporprionate gain usually is the contrary due to the sheer devastation, mass death, economic woe and social problem
 
Disproportionate when looking at how much they've contributed.
looking at the scenario Italy is involved in a two front war and while the French-Italian border will not see many great offensive it will involve men, artillery and horrible living condition because the main objective is to keep as much Anglo-French resources occupied as possible. At the same time, in the east we will see more or less the same show of OTL but at least for a shorter time due to the greater pressure on AH.
At all this one need to add, the mediterrean front as ITTL things will be more hot than OTL and the economic consequences of Italy being cut off the trade at least till AH is not knocked out the war and OTL we had 600.000 civilians deaths due to famine and other condition...so again no, nobody get out of a word war lightly
 
looking at the scenario Italy is involved in a two front war and while the French-Italian border will not see many great offensive it will involve men, artillery and horrible living condition because the main objective is to keep as much Anglo-French resources occupied as possible. At the same time, in the east we will see more or less the same show of OTL but at least for a shorter time due to the greater pressure on AH.
At all this one need to add, the mediterrean front as ITTL things will be more hot than OTL and the economic consequences of Italy being cut off the trade at least till AH is not knocked out the war and OTL we had 600.000 civilians deaths due to famine and other condition...so again no, nobody get out of a word war lightly
Comparing to what other nations would have to endure in the meantime, obviously it is very hard but the others are having more difficulties.
 
AH will receive minor help, anyways industries don't need to be massively built they just need to sustain a decent war effort.

I agree they’d get help, but lack of supplies wasn’t really what hampered Austria OTL. They still have to contend with ethnic issues and systemic inefficiency.

What I meant is that the 1918 total collapse doesn't happen here, some places will revolt but if you can't put them down it means you already are overstretched which brings other problems.

They WOULD be overstretched- are you imagining Austria’s frontline ITTL? It’s essentially every border they have. Except for Switzerland, but come on now.

But the Germans and Italians haven't fought for it at any moment.
The Germans also don't desire the ME, any territory they have there will be lost and of they havw to give something in Europe in exchange it’s a terrible deal for them.

They’re colonial empires. There’s only so much to agree upon in Europe- Germany is going to want some middle eastern resources. It’s not a terrible deal for them if things are all sorted out in Europe firsts, as they likely will be- having possessions in the area at least let’s them power project.

The Russians don't want this too much because it will make it easier for Germany to supply Arab rebels and any gains in ME will be 3 times smaller in Europe.

If they don’t split it, they’ll be dealing with a lot worse than German supplied Arab rebels- plus, it’s not like Germany would be extra enthusiastic about supplying Arabs if they have possessions in the ME.

Italy has already received more than it deserves.

So? This isn’t a game of who’s deserving, it’s a game of compromise and agreements- Italy is certainly more palatable to both of them than the other, and while they both have conflicts with Italy, they also can both recognize that having Italy on your side is valuable in case of a future war. Plus, a buffed Italy is also more likely to pursue its own foreign policy rather than side with one of the greater powers- and if nothing else, that’s better than them falling into the hands of your enemy.

The US had an incredible growth in the 20's thanks to WW1, here this doesn't happen and they continue to have steady growth as before. Even if there was a Wall Street crash, it would affect only the US.

That’s true. Well, at least it’s a reason to not have the US extinguish the CS immediately postwar.

Japan would be approached by Germany though I don't know if the Japanese want to try round two after what happened in WW1.

You certainly seem to underestimate the power of revanchism.

AFAIK Parlament had already decided to join the war, without the Schlieffen plan they would've joined a week later.

They’d join informally rather quick- they still need an excuse for a formal declaration, though.

No, the Italians were terrible the entire war and barely conquered anything and now they get absolutely everything they could desire since those territories don't end in Russian hands.

Dalmatia is a Serbian goal, not a Russian one. Diplomacy with Italy is important- I feel they’d make an exception.

And you are really underestimating Italian goals, they want to dominate the entire Balkans they won't remain on the Adriatic coast if they have the choice, they have more conflicts with Russia than they'll ever have with Germany, everybody knows on whose side they are.

That’s fascist Italy- an Italian empire sans Mussolini likely wouldn’t be quite as ambitious. They could very well be swayed by Russia handing over some Levantine concessions. In any case, I don’t see the coming WW2 as what it was IOTL- it would be more like an extension of great power politics between Russia and Germany, with Italy trying to form a 3rd front.
 
I feel like you’re underestimating the diplomacy at play here. Russia and Germany would be pragmatic- they don’t WANT to start another war, they’d give up claims and make concessions if it means the new balance of power is retained. Italy too- Russia isn’t going to be hostile to them over Dalmatia, if they have a chance to mend relations with Italy, then it’s beneficial to them that they do.
 
I agree they’d get help, but lack of supplies wasn’t really what hampered Austria OTL. They still have to contend with ethnic issues and systemic inefficiency
Ethnic issues and systemic inefficiency are increased tenfold when your people are dying of hunger or when the soldiers don't have ammo/weapons.
They WOULD be overstretched- are you imagining Austria’s frontline ITTL? It’s essentially every border they have. Except for Switzerland, but come on now.
Just as German troops, they are overstretched since they also need troops in France and they have a much longer front than OTL. And the Italians don't necessarily join the war immediately.
They’re colonial empires. There’s only so much to agree upon in Europe- Germany is going to want some middle eastern resources. It’s not a terrible deal for them if things are all sorted out in Europe firsts, as they likely will be- having possessions in the area at least let’s them power project.
What would you want to have in the ME? Kuwait isn't very useful since oil hasn't been discovered yet (or not in enough quantities), Jerusalem is out of the question and the Russians would prefer having their territories connected so they would prefer having all of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Southern Anatolia are an option but the Germans get colonies from the Entente and would prefer having territories to counter Russia in Europe and the Italians have already received more than they deserved, Russians wouldn't really love the idea of the one who is taking territories away from them getting even more.
If they don’t split it, they’ll be dealing with a lot worse than German supplied Arab rebels- plus, it’s not like Germany would be extra enthusiastic about supplying Arabs if they have possessions in the ME.
If Germany has territories in the ME it is much easier to supply rebellions than to ship equipment across the Med and it also depends on which territories they would get exactly.
So? This isn’t a game of who’s deserving, it’s a game of compromise and agreements- Italy is certainly more palatable to both of them than the other, and while they both have conflicts with Italy, they also can both recognize that having Italy on your side is valuable in case of a future war. Plus, a buffed Italy is also more likely to pursue its own foreign policy rather than side with one of the greater powers- and if nothing else, that’s better than them falling into the hands of your enemy.
Italy is clearly against Russia and it doesn't have many conflicts with Germany, so on whose side they are is obvious. Buffing Italy means shooting yourself in the leg in the next war and the territory who end up in Italian hands wouldn't end in German hands, Germany isn't likely to get Dalmatia.
You certainly seem to underestimate the power of revanchism.
They lost, they wouldn’t like it but I doubt they would want to go for round two.
Dalmatia is a Serbian goal, not a Russian one. Diplomacy with Italy is important- I feel they’d make an exception.
Everything that is a Serbian goal is by extension a Russian one since Serbia is a Russian puppet.
That’s fascist Italy- an Italian empire sans Mussolini likely wouldn’t be quite as ambitious. They could very well be swayed by Russia handing over some Levantine concessions. In any case, I don’t see the coming WW2 as what it was IOTL- it would be more like an extension of great power politics between Russia and Germany, with Italy trying to form a 3rd front.
Italians always wanted to revive the Roman Empire or at least claim descendance from it, Mussolini only took it to another level.
They would certainly have conflicts with the Russian camp since they occupy lands inhabotated by Slavs and the Italian camp may be a third option but this camp is aligned with Germany like Britain is aligned with the US, they both have a common enemy.
I feel like you’re underestimating the diplomacy at play here. Russia and Germany would be pragmatic- they don’t WANT to start another war, they’d give up claims and make concessions if it means the new balance of power is retained. Italy too- Russia isn’t going to be hostile to them over Dalmatia, if they have a chance to mend relations with Italy, then it’s beneficial to them that they do.
Russia maybe not, but Germany does 10000% OTL the High Command constantly asked to go to war with Russia, here they would be the same but worse.
And Italy always will tend to the German camp, Dalmatia isn't a choice, they have to give it in the peace deal.
 
Ethnic issues and systemic inefficiency are increased tenfold when your people are dying of hunger or when the soldiers don't have ammo/weapons.

Having more guns doesn’t make those things better, though; a more industrialized Austria would need reform.

Just as German troops, they are overstretched since they also need troops in France and they have a much longer front than OTL. And the Italians don't necessarily join the war immediately.

Germany doesn’t need to commit that many soldiers to Austria, though. A small professional force to beat back the Austrians while they’re being crushed on all sides would be enough. Austria’s overextension is chronic, they wouldn’t have the men needed to put down revolts at home, were they to arise.

What would you want to have in the ME? Kuwait isn't very useful since oil hasn't been discovered yet (or not in enough quantities),

A port in the gulf, like Qatar or Bahrain would be useful. The first large oil deposit was found in the gulf in 1908, if the Germans are willing to develop it, then it’s vital.

Jerusalem is out of the question and the Russians would prefer having their territories connected so they would prefer having all of the Levant,

At a stretch they’d want the entire Levant, but both it and Mesopotamia is too many Muslim people for them to handle. They don’t lose much from just giving away Syria, either- if their Jerusalem concession were to be threatened, it’s Syria sandwiched between Russian colonies, not the other way around.

Mesopotamia and Southern Anatolia are an option but the Germans get colonies from the Entente and would prefer having territories to counter Russia in Europe and the Italians have already received more than they deserved, Russians wouldn't really love the idea of the one who is taking territories away from them getting even more.

It wouldn’t even be “taking territories away”- it would just be negotiations. Russia doesn’t view the ME as theirs- they recognize they hold the most influence, but Jerusalem and Anatolia is already basically all of their prewar goals (and this is assuming they lean deep on the Christian identity thing). Germany would definitely be interested in the Iraqi oil- I can see them getting a protectorate over southern Iraq/Kuwait. And again, it’s not really a matter of who “deserves” what, Italy getting Syria in exchange for dropping some pretenses on the Balkans is a fair deal for Russia.

If Germany has territories in the ME it is much easier to supply rebellions than to ship equipment across the Med and it also depends on which territories they would get exactly.

Supplying Arab rebels when you have Arab colonies isn’t ideal, though.

Italy is clearly against Russia and it doesn't have many conflicts with Germany, so on whose side they are is obvious.

Not necessarily. These aren’t the radical expansionist axis of WW2- the conflicts between Russia and Italy aren’t concrete enough that they can’t compromise.

Buffing Italy means shooting yourself in the leg in the next war and the territory who end up in Italian hands wouldn't end in German hands, Germany isn't likely to get Dalmatia.

Germany could try to push, say, an independent Croatia, though. This way Serbia definitively gets inland Croatia at least.

They lost, they wouldn’t like it but I doubt they would want to go for round two.

You mean like France after the Franco-Prussian war?

Everything that is a Serbian goal is by extension a Russian one since Serbia is a Russian puppet.

Serbia is in Russia’s sphere of influence, not a direct puppet- Serbian expansion is beneficial in that it strengthens their ally, but Russia isn’t so bullheaded about panslavism that they can’t make deals with other powers if it’s more beneficial for them.

Italians always wanted to revive the Roman Empire or at least claim descendance from it, Mussolini only took it to another level.

I don’t think that any Italian who wasn’t a radical like Mussolini would legitimately think of restoring Roman territorial ambitions. It was certainly good for national pride- but it’s not a legitimate geopolitical ambition (if you’re not Mussolini). The goal for Italy would be to have influence over the Mediterranean, and if Russia promises Levantine ports and (potentially) Cyprus, that benefits them more in dominating their ambitions than Balkan sovereignty.

They would certainly have conflicts with the Russian camp since they occupy lands inhabotated by Slavs and the Italian camp may be a third option but this camp is aligned with Germany like Britain is aligned with the US, they both have a common enemy.

Russia isn’t so aggressively panslavic that they can’t do diplomacy. Germany has had Slavic lands since before they unified, they just also happened to be a very viable Russian ally against Britain.

Russia maybe not, but Germany does 10000% OTL the High Command constantly asked to go to war with Russia, here they would be the same but worse.
And Italy always will tend to the German camp, Dalmatia isn't a choice, they have to give it in the peace deal.

Decades of alliance with Russia and strengthened economic ties between the two would lead to there being a lot more people advocating for coexistence- that can’t be the end result, of course, but especially directly after WW1 no one wants to fight another devastating war, so the immediate goals for everyone is power balance.
 
Having more guns doesn’t make those things better, though; a more industrialized Austria would need reform.
If your soldiers don't have guns and ammo they won't last long.
Germany doesn’t need to commit that many soldiers to Austria, though. A small professional force to beat back the Austrians while they’re being crushed on all sides would be enough. Austria’s overextension is chronic, they wouldn’t have the men needed to put down revolts at home, were they to arise.
They will send the majority of troops against AH, you don't need much troops to fend off French offensives and your offensives are unlikely to succeed so the plan is to take AH down first.
A port in the gulf, like Qatar or Bahrain would be useful. The first large oil deposit was found in the gulf in 1908, if the Germans are willing to develop it, then it’s vital
Because you think you can hold Kuwait in a war against Russia? Most of oil was extracted in Iran, it has potential but the Germans may not be willing to do this.
At a stretch they’d want the entire Levant, but both it and Mesopotamia is too many Muslim people for them to handle. They don’t lose much from just giving away Syria, either- if their Jerusalem concession were to be threatened, it’s Syria sandwiched between Russian colonies, not the other way around
Russians would prefer not have to pass trough enemy lands when they go to Jerusalem.
It wouldn’t even be “taking territories away”- it would just be negotiations. Russia doesn’t view the ME as theirs- they recognize they hold the most influence, but Jerusalem and Anatolia is already basically all of their prewar goals (and this is assuming they lean deep on the Christian identity thing). Germany would definitely be interested in the Iraqi oil- I can see them getting a protectorate over southern Iraq/Kuwait. And again, it’s not really a matter of who “deserves” what, Italy getting Syria in exchange for dropping some pretenses on the Balkans is a fair deal for Russia.
It doesn't make sense to strenghten Italy if they constantly prevent you from getting more lands for your puppets. Italy could be interested in the deal but they still want what they got in the Balkans. Germant would understand that their hold on Mesopotamia wouldn't last when they get to war with Russia and would prefer strengthening their hold over Europe using the excuse that they are getting territories in ME.
Supplying Arab rebels when you have Arab colonies isn’t ideal, though.
How long do you think these colonies will last?
Not necessarily. These aren’t the radical expansionist axis of WW2- the conflicts between Russia and Italy aren’t concrete enough that they can’t compromise.
But they definitely won't like each other and why would you give up on land anyways? Italy isn't going to give up on Dalmatia for Syria.
I don’t think that any Italian who wasn’t a radical like Mussolini would legitimately think of restoring Roman territorial ambitions. It was certainly good for national pride- but it’s not a legitimate geopolitical ambition (if you’re not Mussolini). The goal for Italy would be to have influence over the Mediterranean, and if Russia promises Levantine ports and (potentially) Cyprus, that benefits them more in dominating their ambitions than Balkan sovereignty
They did want to be the successor to Rome and the Balkans still would be a target, guys like Mussolini would still be there and many will be dissatisfied due to the economic situation post-war.
Russia isn’t so aggressively panslavic that they can’t do diplomacy. Germany has had Slavic lands since before they unified, they just also happened to be a very viable Russian ally against Britain.
They were panslavic, just less with non-orthodox Slavs and especially with the Poles.
Decades of alliance with Russia and strengthened economic ties between the two would lead to there being a lot more people advocating for coexistence- that can’t be the end result, of course, but especially directly after WW1 no one wants to fight another devastating war, so the immediate goals for everyone is power balance.
German High command has other ideas, obviously most people would try to co-exost but the German heads of state probably have different plans.
 
If your soldiers don't have guns and ammo they won't last long.

I’m talking in the context of the Austrian empire- more guns doesn’t fix their inherent problems.

They will send the majority of troops against AH, you don't need much troops to fend off French offensives and your offensives are unlikely to succeed so the plan is to take AH down first.

Austria is being attacked on all sides; Germany is essentially carrying the offensive against France. France likely remains their priority.

Because you think you can hold Kuwait in a war against Russia? Most of oil was extracted in Iran, it has potential but the Germans may not be willing to do this.

The alternative is essentially having Russia monopolize the world’s oil supply, which isn’t ideal. Significant investment could make it a defensive stronghold- the British did so with Gibraltar.

Russians would prefer not have to pass trough enemy lands when they go to Jerusalem.

With the conquest of Constantinople and Anatolia Jerusalem is a stones throw away for the Black Sea fleet and Russian merchant vessels.

It doesn't make sense to strenghten Italy if they constantly prevent you from getting more lands for your puppets. Italy could be interested in the deal but they still want what they got in the Balkans.

Russia would be fine with giving up Dalmatia and to Italy. It’s more beneficial for them, even if Serbia might be slightly pissed.

Germant would understand that their hold on Mesopotamia wouldn't last when they get to war with Russia and would prefer strengthening their hold over Europe using the excuse that they are getting territories in ME.

it diverts Russian forces from the main front and, if significanr investments are made, a strong defence is possible. Overseas colonies are vulnerable no matter what, and Germany will likely still be able to check Russia, at least in the sea.

How long do you think these colonies will last?

It doesn’t matter how long I think they last, it matters how long Germany and Russia want them to last- in that case, indefinitely.

But they definitely won't like each other and why would you give up on land anyways? Italy isn't going to give up on Dalmatia for Syria.

That’s not what I mean; Italy can be persuaded from further actions in the Balkans with concessions elsewhere. They still get Dalmatia.

They did want to be the successor to Rome and the Balkans still would be a target, guys like Mussolini would still be there and many will be dissatisfied due to the economic situation post-war.

Being dissatisfied with the economy doesn’t translate to being dissatisfied with your expansion like Italy was OTL; Mussolini won’t be influential enough to shift Italian foreign policy into legitimately aiming for a restoration of Rome. No sane Italian politician will legitimately see that as a geopolitical goal- you could make the argument that they channel the idea of Rome and the “Mare Nostrum” to exert influence over the Mediterranean, but that would entail an alliance with Spain and colonies in North Africa, not the realization of Roman borders.

They were panslavic, just less with non-orthodox Slavs and especially with the Poles.

There was a panslavic element, but it does not decide Russian foreign policy. In the case that hostilities arise with Italy and Germany, they can certainly use panslavism to their advantage- but they’re not going to make disadvantageous choices to realize panslavism- much like the idea of Rome for Italy.

German High command has other ideas, obviously most people would try to co-exost but the German heads of state probably have different plans.

German High Command won’t be able to exert significant political influence once the war is finished, and they can’t exactly turn on their biggest ally mid-conflict.
 
Austria is being attacked on all sides; Germany is essentially carrying the offensive against France. France likely remains their priority.
Not really, Germany tried to defeat France first because they were worried about a war on two fronts with Russia, AH isn't scary enough for them to make a gamble like the Schlieffen plan
The alternative is essentially having Russia monopolize the world’s oil supply, which isn’t ideal. Significant investment could make it a defensive stronghold- the British did so with Gibraltar.
Gibraltar wasn't defensible because of investments, it simply was very difficult to attack due to geography.
You cannot defend Kuwait, the British managed that OTL because they were fighting OE, against this Russians you simply cannot defend it.
With the conquest of Constantinople and Anatolia Jerusalem is a stones throw away for the Black Sea fleet and Russian merchant vessels.
The Levant is worth something while Southern Anatolia isn't and you still have to worry about Italy in the Med and fleets still need to be present on the Baltic and Far East.
Russia would be fine with giving up Dalmatia and to Italy. It’s more beneficial for them, even if Serbia might be slightly pissed.
It doesn't have positive effects since Italy would still want more and giving up Dalmatia wasn't a choice in the peace deal.
it diverts Russian forces from the main front and, if significanr investments are made, a strong defence is possible. Overseas colonies are vulnerable no matter what, and Germany will likely still be able to check Russia, at least in the sea
It diverts more troops from your front than from Russia's, if you seriously try to hold Mesopotamia then you would need a lpt of troops which will lack in the home front.
If you don’t try to hold it seriously then Russians won't need much troops to conquer it.
Russia has an absolute numerical advantage, you can't waste your troops like this.
The navy won't help you since Russia has a land route to the ME or they can ship troops trough the Black Sea and then pass trough the ME.
And making investments there won't save it, it can last longer with fortifications but it will still fall and investments made there will lack on the European front.
It doesn’t matter how long I think they last, it matters how long Germany and Russia want them to last- in that case, indefinitely.
How do you defend it indefinitely? Both sides know that the Russians can send troops to defend it and the Germans cannot.
That’s not what I mean; Italy can be persuaded from further actions in the Balkans with concessions elsewhere. They still get Dalmatia
Italy was always over ambitious.
Being dissatisfied with the economy doesn’t translate to being dissatisfied with your expansion like Italy was OTL; Mussolini won’t be influential enough to shift Italian foreign policy into legitimately aiming for a restoration of Rome. No sane Italian politician will legitimately see that as a geopolitical goal- you could make the argument that they channel the idea of Rome and the “Mare Nostrum” to exert influence over the Mediterranean, but that would entail an alliance with Spain and colonies in North Africa, not the realization of Roman borders.
Being dissatisfied with the economy always makes people things they wouldn’t do normally, ultra-nationalists would certainly gain influence, persons like Mussolini were influential before the peace deal was even signed and they were influential enough to force the diplomats to be hard-liners about Italian gains.
There was a panslavic element, but it does not decide Russian foreign policy. In the case that hostilities arise with Italy and Germany, they can certainly use panslavism to their advantage- but they’re not going to make disadvantageous choices to realize panslavism- much like the idea of Rome for Italy.
And how is fighting Italy a bad choice? They are very much not on your team, prevent you from having gains and have desires over your Balkan ally. Not really the best neighbour.
German High Command won’t be able to exert significant political influence once the war is finished, and they can’t exactly turn on their biggest ally mid-conflict.
They were always influential, when there are tensions which could lead to war you call your war cabinet to make choices, the same situation as before the Great War would probably happen since the German government also was worried about Russia and would therefore also make choices for the eventual conflict.
 
Not really, Germany tried to defeat France first because they were worried about a war on two fronts with Russia, AH isn't scary enough for them to make a gamble like the Schlieffen plan

thinking about it, yeah, you're right. they'd want to knock out Austria first while defending against France

Gibraltar wasn't defensible because of investments, it simply was very difficult to attack due to geography.
You cannot defend Kuwait, the British managed that OTL because they were fighting OE, against this Russians you simply cannot defend it.

It's a relatively small, narrow area- well defended forts built would be able to hold out for a good bit, no?

The Levant is worth something while Southern Anatolia isn't and you still have to worry about Italy in the Med and fleets still need to be present on the Baltic and Far East.

Southern Anatolia is relevant in that it gives you a land bridge to essentially surround Syria- even if Italy goes to war with Russia, their Syrian holdings would be attacked from two sides.

it doesn't have positive effects since Italy would still want more and giving up Dalmatia wasn't a choice in the peace deal.

giving it up without a fuss (or telling Serbia not to make a fuss) would be an act of goodwill, though.

It diverts more troops from your front than from Russia's, if you seriously try to hold Mesopotamia then you would need a lpt of troops which will lack in the home front.
If you don’t try to hold it seriously then Russians won't need much troops to conquer it.
Russia has an absolute numerical advantage, you can't waste your troops like this.
The navy won't help you since Russia has a land route to the ME or they can ship troops trough the Black Sea and then pass trough the ME.
And making investments there won't save it, it can last longer with fortifications but it will still fall and investments made there will lack on the European front.

I don't think the idea is to hold it forever in a war; just to hold it long enough that its a problem for Russia.

How do you defend it indefinitely? Both sides know that the Russians can send troops to defend it and the Germans cannot.

ah, I thought you meant decolonization. Obviously its vulnerable, but forcing Russia to diver more and more troops there and wasting more lives to capture fortifications is beneficial.

Italy was always over ambitious.

That isn't as a rule. Italy will have sated all its most pressing needs; they may have postwar aims, but they're not concrete and can be diverted elsewhere.

Being dissatisfied with the economy always makes people things they wouldn’t do normally, ultra-nationalists would certainly gain influence, persons like Mussolini were influential before the peace deal was even signed and they were influential enough to force the diplomats to be hard-liners about Italian gains.

Yes, but without the frustration of "we didn't get what we were promised!" its going to be a lot harder to justify outward expansion. Any extremist leader will need to be populist on economic terms rather than on territorial expansion like OTL; you're also not taking into account the influence the communists will have to counterbalance Mussolini.

And how is fighting Italy a bad choice? They are very much not on your team, prevent you from having gains and have desires over your Balkan ally. Not really the best neighbour.

Bad as their performance was in the war, they were the third most important player on the CP side. The gains they "block" you from aren't actually worth all that much and they have the potential to be a lot stronger than OTL. If nothing else, it's beneficial to appease them to ensure their neutrality, because they are NOT your biggest concern in Europe.

They were always influential, when there are tensions which could lead to war you call your war cabinet to make choices, the same situation as before the Great War would probably happen since the German government also was worried about Russia and would therefore also make choices for the eventual conflict.

The main concern isn't on Russia during the war, though; they want their place in the Sun, and beating France/Britain is vital for that. Russia will be a more distant concern, even for most of the high-command.
 
It's a relatively small, narrow area- well defended forts built would be able to hold out for a good bit, no?
I would like to remember you we're in the middle of the desert and Kuwait isn't exactly a small area.
The only place which has a reasonable chance of being fortified is the coast but that would leave the oil fields in danger. Also building a lot of fortifications from scratch os very costly.
Southern Anatolia is relevant in that it gives you a land bridge to essentially surround Syria- even if Italy goes to war with Russia, their Syrian holdings would be attacked from two sides.
The Italian colonies would be lost in the event of a war in both cases, they would prefer holding what has more value for them.
ah, I thought you meant decolonization. Obviously its vulnerable, but forcing Russia to diver more and more troops there and wasting more lives to capture fortifications is beneficial
It is costly to take fortifications only when you need to take them immediately and therefore order them to charge immediately on enemy lines, otherwise it costs more manpower than the opponent but the losses aren't disproportionate and a lot of artillery shells.
giving it up without a fuss (or telling Serbia not to make a fuss) would be an act of goodwill, though.
But it doesn't change much, Italy would be the same no matter how Russia gives them territories in the peace deal.
That isn't as a rule. Italy will have sated all its most pressing needs; they may have postwar aims, but they're not concrete and can be diverted elsewhere.
I doubt they wouldn't join Germany.
Yes, but without the frustration of "we didn't get what we were promised!" its going to be a lot harder to justify outward expansion. Any extremist leader will need to be populist on economic terms rather than on territorial expansion like OTL; you're also not taking into account the influence the communists will have to counterbalance Mussolini
Communists didn't have influence in politics at the time and if communism becomes popular that actually helps the fascists, one of the main reasons why Mussolini was allowed to take power is because the king was worried that leftist would become too dangerous and the fascists were the "solution"; that absolutely didn't backfire.
Bad as their performance was in the war, they were the third most important player on the CP side. The gains they "block" you from aren't actually worth all that much and they have the potential to be a lot stronger than OTL. If nothing else, it's beneficial to appease them to ensure their neutrality, because they are NOT your biggest concern in Europe.
Seeing their performance in WW1, the Russians will have no problems to understand that they are no actual threat nor a problem to defeat in combat.
The main concern isn't on Russia during the war, though; they want their place in the Sun, and beating France/Britain is vital for that. Russia will be a more distant concern, even for most of the high-command.
I'm saying after WW1, many in the German government would be worried about Russia and they would try to go to war ASAP to prevent them from becoming any stronger.
 
I would like to remember you we're in the middle of the desert and Kuwait isn't exactly a small area.
The only place which has a reasonable chance of being fortified is the coast but that would leave the oil fields in danger. Also building a lot of fortifications from scratch is very costly

They’d still have the rest of Mesopotamia to fall back on- if they play things right, they could potentially defend Mesopotamia for at least a year. And I doubt cost will be an issue- Germany needs its own oil bad, and Kuwait would be vital.

The Italian colonies would be lost in the event of a war in both cases, they would prefer holding what has more value for them.

It gives Italy more influence in the Mediterranean- which they want- and it further splits up the Arabs, which is beneficial for Russia.

It is costly to take fortifications only when you need to take them immediately and therefore order them to charge immediately on enemy lines, otherwise it costs more manpower than the opponent but the losses aren't disproportionate and a lot of artillery shells.

Isn’t that a staple of Russian military doctrine, though (Imperial Russian, at least.)

But it doesn't change much, Italy would be the same no matter how Russia gives them territories in the peace deal.

I disagree- Italy can be dissuaded from further Balkan action, especially directly after WW1 where the radicals have little sway in the government.

I doubt they wouldn't join Germany.

I agree they’d be more inclined to Germany, but I don’t see them being so loyal as to immediately join the war in their side- they’d stay neutral, at least at first.

Communists didn't have influence in politics at the time and if communism becomes popular that actually helps the fascists, one of the main reasons why Mussolini was allowed to take power is because the king was worried that leftist would become too dangerous and the fascists were the "solution"; that absolutely didn't backfire.

Communism becoming popular is kind of inevitable after a Great War in Europe- especially among the more industrialized nations. I don’t know if I’d say fascists would have the same role as a counterbalance, though- they won’t have the same support base as OTL.

Seeing their performance in WW1, the Russians will have no problems to understand that they are no actual threat nor a problem to defeat in combat.

They open up an entirely new front on mountainous, difficult terrain, they threaten previously unmolested Russian shipping and colonies in the Mediterranean (especially since the Italian navy, incompetent though it may be, would still wipe the floor with Russia’s meagre Black Sea Fleet), and they lock off another massive trade partner. Russia would end up being forced to rely on trade in the pacific, potentially making them rely on American support. Yeah, it’s pretty important for Italy to at least be neutral in the coming conflict. Also, it’s not clear whether the Italians have improved their military since the Great War- if WW2 starts later ITTL and Italy finishes its military reforms, they could well be a threat.

I'm saying after WW1, many in the German government would be worried about Russia and they would try to go to war ASAP to prevent them from becoming any stronger.

No? Suffering through a conflict as big as WW1 would make any large scale war in the near future unpopular, especially an offensive one against an ally- the people (and, most likely, soldiers) would riot. They’d also be shooting themselves in the foot economically- IOTL Germany suffered a food shortage due to the British blockade. This wouldn’t happen ITTL due to Russian imports- but it would also make Germany partially rely on those said imports. They’d at the least need time to recover a domestic food industry and find other partners.
 
They’d still have the rest of Mesopotamia to fall back on- if they play things right, they could potentially defend Mesopotamia for at least a year. And I doubt cost will be an issue- Germany needs its own oil bad, and Kuwait would be vital.
Assuming they do get Mesopotamia, the cost would be much greater than the benefits, they would have to build last technology fortifications across all of Mesopotamia and assuming they do what will you do once the Russians conquer it? You are back in your original situation, so it makes more sense to get things in Europe.
It gives Italy more influence in the Mediterranean- which they want- and it further splits up the Arabs, which is beneficial for Russia.
But if they do renounce on parts of Dalmatia that will make them more likely to side with Germany, following your line of thinking.
Isn’t that a staple of Russian military doctrine, though (Imperial Russian, at least.)
Senseless charges against enemy lines? No. It was a military doctrine of trench warfare.
It was occasionaly used by the USSR to test enemy lines though.
I disagree- Italy can be dissuaded from further Balkan action, especially directly after WW1 where the radicals have little sway in the government
I disagree with your disagreement.
I agree they’d be more inclined to Germany, but I don’t see them being so loyal as to immediately join the war in their side- they’d stay neutral, at least at first
They could very well be persuaded.
Communism becoming popular is kind of inevitable after a Great War in Europe- especially among the more industrialized nations. I don’t know if I’d say fascists would have the same role as a counterbalance, though- they won’t have the same support base as OTL.
They very much would, fascists literally created paramilitaries to fight commies, the government allowed it because they feared commies and I think it would still happen.
They open up an entirely new front on mountainous, difficult terrain, they threaten previously unmolested Russian shipping and colonies in the Mediterranean (especially since the Italian navy, incompetent though it may be, would still wipe the floor with Russia’s meagre Black Sea Fleet), and they lock off another massive trade partner. Russia would end up being forced to rely on trade in the pacific, potentially making them rely on American support. Yeah, it’s pretty important for Italy to at least be neutral in the coming conflict. Also, it’s not clear whether the Italians have improved their military since the Great War- if WW2 starts later ITTL and Italy finishes its military reforms, they could well be a threat.
Russia has plenty of time to build a better navy and the Italian one has been completely crushed during WW1.
Also Russia unlike its opponents doesn't rely on trade with the rest of the world, it doesn't lack the resources and without Stalin its military command and equipement is good.
Suffering through a conflict as big as WW1 would make any large scale war in the near future unpopular, especially an offensive one against an ally- the people (and, most likely, soldiers) would riot. They’d also be shooting themselves in the foot economically- IOTL Germany suffered a food shortage due to the British blockade. This wouldn’t happen ITTL due to Russian imports- but it would also make Germany partially rely on those said imports. They’d at the least need time to recover a domestic food industry and find other partners.
Obviously starting the conflict immediately would be suicidal but the German leadership would be thinking about the war with Russia in the next decade. They have time to find other partners.
 
Assuming they do get Mesopotamia, the cost would be much greater than the benefits, they would have to build last technology fortifications across all of Mesopotamia and assuming they do what will you do once the Russians conquer it? You are back in your original situation, so it makes more sense to get things in Europe.

What else is there to get in Europe? And they don’t really have a choice. Giving up Mesopotamia to Russia means they control the worlds oil prices, and that’s unacceptable to an industrial power.

But if they do renounce on parts of Dalmatia that will make them more likely to side with Germany, following your line of thinking.

What do you mean? How does Italian Syria affect that?

Senseless charges against enemy lines? No. It was a military doctrine of trench warfare.
It was occasionaly used by the USSR to test enemy lines though.

When was the Russian empire probe to trench warfare? The eastern front was much more mobile than the west.

I disagree with your disagreement.

I disagree with your… you get it.

They could very well be persuaded.

Germanys offer will have to be lucrative- as in, the Balkans alone aren’t worth it.

They very much would, fascists literally created paramilitaries to fight commies, the government allowed it because they feared commies and I think it would still happen.

How will you make paramilitaries if your influence is confined to the wealthy and middle class? There isn’t going to be as much nationalistic fervor motivating the working class given Italy isn’t shafted in the peace deal.

Russia has plenty of time to build a better navy and the Italian one has been completely crushed during WW1.
Also Russia unlike its opponents doesn't rely on trade with the rest of the world, it doesn't lack the resources and without Stalin its military command and equipement is good.

Russia has to divide its fleet three ways, and the bulk of that will be in the Baltic facing Germany- the Italian navy OTL was one of the largest in Europe and have only one area to focus on. This Russia is not the USSR of OTL- it is connected to the world economy, and requires trade as any other country does.

Obviously starting the conflict immediately would be suicidal but the German leadership would be thinking about the war with Russia in the next decade. They have time to find other partners.

Rebuilding takes longer than a decade- they’ll need to be full power to face Russia.
 
What else is there to get in Europe? And they don’t really have a choice. Giving up Mesopotamia to Russia means they control the worlds oil prices, and that’s unacceptable to an industrial power.
Not really, at the time most oil was extracted in the US and Iran, Iran is the British supply but the US would probably accept to sell oil to the Germana, oil found in the OE wasn't relevant at the moment.
What do you mean? How does Italian Syria affect that?
Russia would give Syria in exchange for parts of Dalmatia going to Serbia but then Italy has a claim on Serbian Dalmatia meaning that they are more likely to ally with Germany.
When was the Russian empire probe to trench warfare? The eastern front was much more mobile than the west.
Exactly, the Russians never charged like idiots against enemy lines, they did other potentially stupider things OTL but I think this Russia has a better leadership than OTL.
How will you make paramilitaries if your influence is confined to the wealthy and middle class? There isn’t going to be as much nationalistic fervor motivating the working class given Italy isn’t shafted in the peace deal.
The government would still allow the fascist to do so, your influence is everyone who is anti-communist - Freikorps didn't lack recruits OTL.
Russia has to divide its fleet three ways, and the bulk of that will be in the Baltic facing Germany- the Italian navy OTL was one of the largest in Europe and have only one area to focus on. This Russia is not the USSR of OTL- it is connected to the world economy, and requires trade as any other country does.
When you are in war machine mode, the only thing you need is some specific resources to make your war machine work, Russia has the luxury of having everything they could potentially need being part of their empire unlike Germany or Italy meaning that they don't need to trade during the war.
Italian navy may be dangerous on paper but I would be more worried about the Greek one.
And they don't need a particularly powerful navy in the Baltic, it only needs to prevent German ships from reaching St.Petersburg
Rebuilding takes longer than a decade- they’ll need to be full power to face Russia.
You also need to be ready before Russia has rebuilt, also it’s much easier for them ITTL since no fighting happened on their soil
 
Not really, at the time most oil was extracted in the US and Iran, Iran is the British supply but the US would probably accept to sell oil to the Germana, oil found in the OE wasn't relevant at the moment.

Where is US oil largely sourced from? Remember, they have neither Alaska nor Texas ITTL. And even then- Russia has domestic oil supplies which it can continually exploit, Germany has to buy from either Britain (who wouldn’t exactly be their best buddy) or the CSA (who would be more open to it- but I’m planning a communist revolution there, so it will also be unreliable). If they have Mesopotamia, they can at least cheaply stockpile as much as they can before it’s overrun.

Russia would give Syria in exchange for parts of Dalmatia going to Serbia but then Italy has a claim on Serbian Dalmatia meaning that they are more likely to ally with Germany.

No, I don’t think they’d ask Italy to give up Dalmatia- just to refrain from any further ambitions in the Balkans.

Exactly, the Russians never charged like idiots against enemy lines, they did other potentially stupider things OTL but I think this Russia has a better leadership than OTL.

ITTL they’ll have the opposite problem of OTL; not enough nepo baby noble generals have been taken out of the picture to allow the rising stars to effectively shine through- they’ll have to sort out the good generals while they’re at war just like OTL

The government would still allow the fascist to do so, your influence is everyone who is anti-communist - Freikorps didn't lack recruits OTL.

The Freikorps were largely returning soldiers from a massive war where the communists were seen as traitors- ITTL, they may have some diehard supporters, but they don’t have the fertile grounds for radicalization like they did OTL. I suspect they’ll end up like Moseley’s BUF- somewhat successful, but the communists are overwhelmingly more popular among the people.

When you are in war machine mode, the only thing you need is some specific resources to make your war machine work, Russia has the luxury of having everything they could potentially need being part of their empire unlike Germany or Italy meaning that they don't need to trade during the war.

The Soviet Union managed to successfully survive with the bare minimum consumer goods OTL because of the way the system had been for the past few decades- a people who are used to living better are going to be much more demoralized when that’s taken away. Also, they have one critical resource with no domestic production: Rubber.

Italian navy may be dangerous on paper but I would be more worried about the Greek one.

Whatever misgivings you may have against the Italian navy- the Russian navy is just as bad if not worse, I assure you.

And they don't need a particularly powerful navy in the Baltic, it only needs to prevent German ships from reaching St.Petersburg

Germany will be one of the foremost naval powers in the world, that’s no easy feat.

You also need to be ready before Russia has rebuilt, also it’s much easier for them ITTL since no fighting happened on their soil

Russia has the disadvantage of being politically unstable, an issue Germany will be more than content to exploit.
 
Top