Which move is better for German Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1888?

Which move is better for German Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1888?


  • Total voters
    83

CaliGuy

Banned
Which move is better for German Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1888?:

1. Keep the alliance with Austria-Hungary and try eventually dismantling Russia with the help of Austria-Hungary.

2. Dump Austria-Hungary, ally with Russia, and try eventually dismantling Austria-Hungary with the help of Russia.

As for me, I initially thought that #2 was the better move here, but I'm gradually becoming more convinced that #1 is the better move here. Basically, if Germany and Russia jointly partition Austria-Hungary, then a lot of Catholic Austrian Germans might be extremely pissed off at you for dismantling their empire (where they were in charge--in contrast to Germany, where they'll have to fight for political power and prominence) and giving parts of it to various Austrian enemies (Italy, Russia, Serbia, and Romania). In turn, this might make integrating these Austrian Germans very difficult.

Meanwhile, if I will continue the alliance with Austria-Hungary, I would have a chance of dismantling Russia and creating a chain of friendly, pro-German vassal states in Eastern Europe. In turn, this would allow me to turn my desired Mitteleuropa vision (which is more equal than what Imperial Germany actually envisioned) into reality. :) Plus, even if Germany and Austria-Hungary will lose our war with Russia (and probably France as well, due to it likely being a Russian ally), Austria-Hungary will probably get broken up and thus Germany would still have a chance of eventually annexing Austria--but with the Austrian Germans begging to join Germany rather than being extremely resentful of Germany.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 
I went with #2 because in allying with Austria-Hungary Germany had shackled itself to a corpse. Russia has much greater potential. In any Great War analogue it would take a lot less than the three years it took to bring Russia to its knees to dismantle Austria-Hungary (especially given that Romania, Serbia and Italy are bound to starting feasting on A-H's corpse if the Germans and Russians are making good progress).

And there are plenty of pan-German nationalists to be found in the German speaking parts of A-H so I wouldn't worry about a lot of resistance there (additionally, the Habsburgs can still keep their thrones in Austria and Bohemia within the federal structure of the German Empire, just like the Wittelsbachs and others kept their thrones).

In such an alternate WW I Russia is not very likely to collapse as it did in OTL's WW I since the fronts will be far from its economic heartland in Poland, Ukraine and Western Russia. Germany in the meantime, can devote its undivided attention on France when A-H inevitable collapses trying to fight off all its neighbours.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
I believe Germany was content with the status quo in Europe. A German-Russian alliance is a beast from a military perspective, but OTL Germany struggled to fund its own industrial growth and certainly did not have the funds to feed the growing bear. OTL there were times when some in Germany feared even A-H would jump ship for French funding.
 
Germany has industry, Russia the raw materials so the two just naturally compliment each other. With the Austro-Hungarian power teetering, it made more sense to ally with the rising power of Russia especially since the latter can be used to distract the British in the Far East and Central Asia as Germany increases it's penetration into the Middle East and secure Germany's eastern border. There are blood ties to further bind the two powers plus the sheer manpower reserves dwarfs what the French and British could threaten them with. The goal of dismantling the Austro-Hungarians would garner support from Russia with it's Balkan objectives as well as keep the Italians in the fold.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I went with #2 because in allying with Austria-Hungary Germany had shackled itself to a corpse. Russia has much greater potential. In any Great War analogue it would take a lot less than the three years it took to bring Russia to its knees to dismantle Austria-Hungary (especially given that Romania, Serbia and Italy are bound to starting feasting on A-H's corpse if the Germans and Russians are making good progress).

Yes, this is absolutely correct. However, such a move would also significantly increase Russia's influence in Eastern Europe at Germany's expense (Austria-Hungary was a loyal German ally and, if it was allied to Germany during a major war, could even become a German vassal state).

And there are plenty of pan-German nationalists to be found in the German speaking parts of A-H so I wouldn't worry about a lot of resistance there (additionally, the Habsburgs can still keep their thrones in Austria and Bohemia within the federal structure of the German Empire, just like the Wittelsbachs and others kept their thrones).

Were the Pan-Germanists in Austria mostly the types who wanted a union of German Austria with Germany proper (like Adolf Hitler) or the types who wanted both Austria-Hungary and Germany to be inside of a German-led Mitteleuropa? After all, these two types of Pan-Germanists are very different from one another.

In such an alternate WW I Russia is not very likely to collapse as it did in OTL's WW I since the fronts will be far from its economic heartland in Poland, Ukraine and Western Russia. Germany in the meantime, can devote its undivided attention on France when A-H inevitable collapses trying to fight off all its neighbours.

Yes, all of this is probably correct. However, I am also unsure that Germany would have been able to totally defeat France in this TL due to logistics and due to the likely large-scale British military involvement in France.

Of course, Germany could try getting Russian, Italian, Serbian, and Romanian troops help it fight France on the Western Front in this TL's World War I, but I am unsure as to just how popular such a move would have been.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
I believe Germany was content with the status quo in Europe. A German-Russian alliance is a beast from a military perspective, but OTL Germany struggled to fund its own industrial growth and certainly did not have the funds to feed the growing bear. OTL there were times when some in Germany feared even A-H would jump ship for French funding.
When exactly was Austria-Hungary's loyalty to Germany questioned? Indeed, I have never heard about that before.

Also, if Germany wanted to keep the status quo in Europe, then it should have tried harder to prevent the outbreak of war in 1914; after all, after 1917, a German-British rapprochement and perhaps even eventually alliance would have been likely and thus peace could have been maintained in Europe for decades longer.*

*Well, Austria-Hungary could have still eventually collapsed and broken up--with disagreements and disputes over this break-up triggering a World War in this TL. However, otherwise peace might have been maintained until the 1940s or 1950s or perhaps even indefinitely (due to the successful development of nuclear weapons in time).
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Germany has industry, Russia the raw materials so the two just naturally compliment each other. With the Austro-Hungarian power teetering, it made more sense to ally with the rising power of Russia especially since the latter can be used to distract the British in the Far East and Central Asia as Germany increases it's penetration into the Middle East and secure Germany's eastern border. There are blood ties to further bind the two powers plus the sheer manpower reserves dwarfs what the French and British could threaten them with. The goal of dismantling the Austro-Hungarians would garner support from Russia with it's Balkan objectives as well as keep the Italians in the fold.
All of your points here are actually very good. However, the issue of allying with Russia is that it would result in a much smaller sphere of influence for Germany than would have been the case with an Austro-Hungarian alliance.

Also, please keep in mind that Germany wins either way if it allies with Austria-Hungary and fights Russia--if it wins, it gets to create Mitteleuropa; however, if it loses, it also wins by having the chance to eventually annex German Austria--with the people there begging to join the German Reich instead of being resentful of Germany.
 
Yes, this is absolutely correct. However, such a move would also significantly increase Russia's influence in Eastern Europe at Germany's expense (Austria-Hungary was a loyal German ally and, if Allied to Germany during a major war, could even become a German vassal state).

I'm sure Germany and Russia could conclude an agreement on spheres of influence in the Balkans. Besides that, victory over France - and Belgium, assuming an alt Schlieffen Plan - means obtaining French colonies in Africa that could to the realization of Mittelafrika. That would seem like a good alternative to Mitteleuropa.

Were the Pan-Germanists in Austria mostly the types who wanted a union of German Austria with Germany proper (like Adolf Hitler) or the types who wanted both Austria-Hungary and Germany to be inside of a German-led Mitteleuropa? After all, these two types of Pan-Germanists are very different from one another.

I don't have the answer to that, I must admit.

Yes, all of this is probably correct. However, I am also unsure that Germany would have been able to totally defeat France in this TL due to logistics and due to the likely large-scale British military involvement in France.

They got to the Marne IOTL, with a couple more corps I could see Paris falling. After that it's game over for the French.

Of course, Germany could try getting Russian, Italian, Serbian, and Romanian troops help it fight France on the Western Front in this TL's World War I, but I am unsure as to just how popular such a move would have been.

A total war effort it wouldn't be, but a Russian Expeditionary Corps seems feasible to me and Italy could be encouraged to settle its irredentist claims on Nice and Savoy.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I'm sure Germany and Russia could conclude an agreement on spheres of influence in the Balkans.

They would, but the problem is that the German sphere of influence would have been much less in this TL in comparison to what it would have been had Germany allied with Austria-Hungary.

Besides that, victory over France - and Belgium, assuming an alt Schlieffen Plan - means obtaining French colonies in Africa that could to the realization of Mittelafrika. That would seem like a good alternative to Mitteleuropa.

Actually, Mittelafrika is a very poor alternative to Mitteleuropa. It's far away, much less defensible, and lacking in human capital.

I don't have the answer to that, I must admit.

Yeah, this is a major concern of mine; after all, if they are most the pro-Mitteleuropa types, then dismantling Austria-Hungary and putting them inside of Germany might be very problematic.

They got to the Marne IOTL, with a couple more corps I could see Paris falling. After that it's game over for the French.

I am unsure that a couple more corps would have made a difference when one's troops didn't have adequate food and supplies, though. Also, it is possible that this could make a difference later--after Germany's logistical situation stabilizes--but the thing is that this would give Britain time to get some--if not a lot--of its own troops to France.

A total war effort it wouldn't be, but a Russian Expeditionary Corps seems feasible to me and Italy could be encouraged to settle its irredentist claims on Nice and Savoy.

Italy would be smarter to attack France together with Germany in the north and northeast; after all, the Alps are extremely great defensive terrain and would thus almost certainly result in the Italians getting massacred.
 
They would, but the problem is that the German sphere of influence would have been much less in this TL in comparison to what it would have been had Germany allied with Austria-Hungary.

True, but was Germany ever that interested in the Balkans to begin with? Additionally, they can count on Italy to help counterbalance the Russians.

Actually, Mittelafrika is a very poor alternative to Mitteleuropa. It's far away, much less defensible, and lacking in human capital.

Everybody else's colonies were far from the metropole and therefore difficult to defend as well. As far as human capital is concerned, the region mostly requires unskilled labour and can yield a lot. The Belgian Congo is extremely resource rich (it could provide the necessary materials for an alt-German atomic bomb program).

Yeah, this is a major concern of mine; after all, if they are most the pro-Mitteleuropa types, then dismantling Austria-Hungary and putting them inside of Germany might be very problematic.

If OTL is anything to go by I don't see a lot of trouble.

I am unsure that a couple more corps would have made a difference when one's troops didn't have adequate food and supplies, though. Also, it is possible that this could make a difference later--after Germany's logistical situation stabilizes--but the thing is that this would give Britain time to get some--if not a lot--of its own troops to France.

AFAIK German forces on the Western front in 1914-'15 didn't suffer from inadequate supplies. Even if they did, I imagine the problem would be greatly mitigated by having to deal with only one front. As far as the BEF in 1914 goes, it was small and if the Germans had had another corps somewhere it would have made all the difference.

Italy would be smarter to attack France together with Germany in the north and northeast; after all, the Alps are extremely great defensive terrain and would thus almost certainly result in the Italians getting massacred.

True, though the issue of national pride may come into play.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
True, but was Germany ever that interested in the Balkans to begin with?

Actually, I was talking about Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states here.

Additionally, they can count on Italy to help counterbalance the Russians.

True, but they could also do that if they ally with Austria-Hungary, fight the Russians, and win.

Everybody else's colonies were far from the metropole and therefore difficult to defend as well. As far as human capital is concerned, the region mostly requires unskilled labour and can yield a lot. The Belgian Congo is extremely resource rich (it could provide the necessary materials for an alt-German atomic bomb program).

Yes, some African countries were rich in resources; however, what I meant is that their lack of human capital would have prevented them from becoming as wealthy as the West is. (Indeed, this appears to be a part of the reason why Africa lags today.)

Also, a relationship with Eastern European countries might be more permanent than one with African countries; for instance, Germany can try creating a proto-E.U.

If OTL is anything to go by I don't see a lot of trouble.

In our TL, Germany allied with Austria against Russia and Pan-Slavism; in this TL, Germany will ally with Russia and Pan-Slavism against Austria.

AFAIK German forces on the Western front in 1914-'15 didn't suffer from inadequate supplies.

Actually, this video explains that the Germans were lacking in various supplies during their 1914 offensive in the West:


Even if they did, I imagine the problem would be greatly mitigated by having to deal with only one front.

That would only be true after a year or two, though.

As far as the BEF in 1914 goes, it was small and if the Germans had had another corps somewhere it would have made all the difference.

After two years, though, Britain's army is going to become much more formidable.

True, though the issue of national pride may come into play.

Well, if Italy wants to get slaughtered, then it can go ahead. However, it won't help defeat France and will only make Italy weaker.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that the AATL's version of WW1 is basically the same with France having A-H instead of Russia as an ally you're going to see a lot shorter of a war in the east. A-H most likely collapses within a year or two and once that's done Russia can ship their army to help Germany on the western front. Real question though is do the Ottoman's get involved in the war? Because if both Russia and Germany are allied I can see them sitting out completely.
 
Actually, I was talking about Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states here.

I see. That said, Germany never controlled those areas (apart from a short time after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), so it's not like it's a net loss to them.

True, but they could also do that if they ally with Austria-Hungary, fight the Russians, and win.

They did just that and wound up losing WW I.

Yes, some African countries were rich in resources; however, what I meant is that their lack of human capital would have prevented them from becoming as wealthy as the West is. (Indeed, this appears to be a part of the reason why Africa lags today.)

Also, a relationship with Eastern European countries might be more permanent than one with African countries; for instance, Germany can try creating a proto-E.U.

We know that due to 20/20 hindsight. Would the late 19th century Germans realize this?

In our TL, Germany allied with Austria against Russia and Pan-Slavism; in this TL, Germany will ally with Russia and Pan-Slavism against Austria.

I see.

Actually, this video explains that the Germans were lacking in various supplies during their 1914 offensive in the West:


Not in the position to watch that right now. What's the summary?

That would only be true after a year or two, though.

A rather pessimistic estimate (see below).

After two years, though, Britain's army is going to become much more formidable.

The war will be over by then. Germany, Russia, Italy, Serbia and Romania will crush Austria-Hungary in six months at the most. After that Germany can devote its undivided attention to France and Germany WILL win because its population and industrial base are larger than France's. I don't believe the BEF can expand quickly enough to offset the lack of a Russian ally.

Well, if Italy wants to get slaughtered, then it can go ahead. However, it won't help defeat France and will only make Italy weaker (due to the loss of men, equipment, and materials in a failed offensive).

Shit happens...
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
Assuming that the AATL's version of WW1 is basically the same with France having A-H instead of Russia as an ally you're going to see a lot shorter of a war in the east. A-H most likely collapses within a year or two and once that's done Russia can ship their army to help Germany on the western front.

Yes, that is correct.

Real question though is do the Ottoman's get involved in the war? Because if both Russia and Germany are allied I can see them sitting out completely.

The Ottomans will almost certainly remain neutral and pray to God that Germany will protect them from any future Russian attack.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I see. That said, Germany never controlled those areas (apart from a short time after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), so it's not like it's a net loss to them.

Actually, if we want to get technical, Germans controlled some of those areas back in the days of the Teutonic Knights. ;)

However, on a more serious note, I consider it a loss for Germany because it deprives it of tens of millions of people--a population which is rapidly growing--of potential allies and close partners. Indeed, a German-Russian alliance will eventually result in Russia becoming the dominant partner; in contrast, Germany's relations with Poland, Ukraine, et cetera can be more balanced.

They did just that and wound up losing WW I.

Winning the war means not losing on the Western Front later on, though.

We know that due to 20/20 hindsight. Would the late 19th century Germans realize this?

Almost certainly Yes; after all, there was a widespread belief back then that non-Europeans were incapable of thriving as well as Europeans did. That's what the White Man's Burden poem is about.


Yeah.

Not in the position to watch that right now. What's the summary?

That the Germans often ran out of supplies and ammunition because they were advancing too fast.

A rather pessimistic estimate (see below).

OK.

The war will be over by then. Germany, Russia, Italy, Serbia and Romania will crush Austria-Hungary in six months at the most. After that Germany can devote its undivided attention to France and Germany WILL win because its population and industrial base are larger than France's. I don't believe the BEF can expand quickly enough to offset the lack of a Russian ally.

Six months for an Austro-Hungarian defeat is very optimistic; after all, in this TL, Austria-Hungary will exclusively play defense on all fronts and will likely spend decades preparing itself for such a dogpile.

Shit happens...

Yep--if one makes stupid decisions! :(
 
Actually, if we want to get technical, Germans controlled some of those areas back in the days of the Teutonic Knights. ;)

However, on a more serious note, I consider it a loss for Germany because it deprives it of tens of millions of people--a population which is rapidly growing--of potential allies and close partners. Indeed, a German-Russian alliance will eventually result in Russia becoming the dominant partner; in contrast, Germany's relations with Poland, Ukraine, et cetera can be more balanced.

Russia becoming dominant I anticipated/speaking like Yoda :p

Winning the war means not losing on the Western Front later on, though.

Agreed, which leads us back to the question of how Germany can win the Spring Offensives.

Almost certainly Yes; after all, there was a widespread belief back then that non-Europeans were incapable of thriving as well as Europeans did. That's what the White Man's Burden poem is about.

The question is thus: why would the Germans care at this point?

That the Germans often ran out of supplies and ammunition because they were advancing too fast.

OK

Six months for an Austro-Hungarian defeat is very optimistic; after all, in this TL, Austria-Hungary will exclusively play defense on all fronts and will likely spend decades preparing itself for such a dogpile.

How is it optimistic? Austria-Hungary will literally be facing all of its neighbours. It would be like a heavy weight boxer trying to fight off two other heavy weights and three middle weights.

Yep--if one makes stupid decisions! :(

History is filled with stupid decisions, unfortunately.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Russia becoming dominant I anticipated/speaking like Yoda :p

I don't get it. :(

The question is thus: why would the Germans care at this point?

Well, I would care if I was the German Kaiser in 1888. Also, again, I would rather have a relationship of relative equals with Eastern European countries than a colonial relationship with African countries; indeed, I simply don't care much about colonies.

How is it optimistic? Austria-Hungary will literally be facing all of its neighbours. It would be like a heavy weight boxer trying to fight off two other heavy weights and three middle weights.

Israel was able to not only hold off, but defeat all of its neighbors in 1948-1949.

Also, Yes, Austria-Hungary is weaker than Germany and Russia; however, it would fight in a way that is suited to its strength--specifically defense. Plus, it certainly helps that Austria-Hungary has some excellent mountain ranges which can be used for defensive purposes.

History is filled with stupid decisions, unfortunately.

Yep. :(
 

BooNZ

Banned
When exactly was Austria-Hungary's loyalty to Germany questioned? Indeed, I have never heard about that before.
It was more a case of the Germans being worried an increased role of French finance in the A-H Empire would undermine German influence. One of the perceived selling points of MittleEuropa was that it would bind A-H more firmly to Germany.

Also, if Germany wanted to keep the status quo in Europe, then it should have tried harder to prevent the outbreak of war in 1914; after all, after 1917, a German-British rapprochement and perhaps even eventually alliance would have been likely and thus peace could have been maintained in Europe for decades longer.*
How? Initial German support for A-H had a realistic expectation a military conflict would be localized - the later support Russia/France provide Serbia was with the eager expectation of a European wide conflict. The ongoing activities and expectations of the Serbian regime were simply not compatible with the status quo.

With the benefit of hindsight, Germany could have thrown its only continental ally under a bus and hope for: continued Serbian and Russian belligerence to alienate the British, the French socialists to slash French military budgets and undermine French-Russian military understandings and A-H to increase military spending to be comparable to its peers. Would those things happen before Russia or one of its minions initiates a war in circumstances less favourable than 1914?
 
Top