WI a Russo-German-Italian Triple Alliance ?

General Zod

Banned
Continuing the exploration of better Alliance deals for the German Empire in WWI, it is the turn of the other obvious choice, Russia.

ITTL a Russo-German-Italian Alliance block solidifies vs. an Anglo-French-Austrian-Ottoman Entente, later possibly joined by the British and the Japanese. Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece join the Alliance as junior partners. Secret treaties are drafted by the Alliance for the partition of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, as well as standing protocols to transfer Russian and Italian troops on the French front, to send Russo-German troops to help defend the Italian coasts as it may be necessary, and for cooperation of the HSF and the Baltic Russian Fleet. And yes, Italy is true to her alliance.

The PoD might either be that Bismarck develops severe doubts about the long-term solidity of the Habsburg Empire, so he favours Russian interests in the Congress of Berlin. An enraged A-H, feeling betrayed, breaks the Dreikaiserbund and allies with France, while a grateful Russia forges a solid alliance with Germany and Italy.

Alternatively, but IMO this is less satisfactory PoD, the stillborn 1905 Russo-German alliance Treaty of Bjorko actually gets enforced by Czar Nicholas II, in one of his rare steely spine moments, so its leads to a rearrangement of the alliance system in Europe, with France and Austria allying.

How do you think the relationship pattern of the Great Powers would unfold, from this rearrangement ? Which is the sparking point for WWI, and how would it unfold ?
 
A German-Russian alliance alone is so strong that really nobody in Europe would want to challenge it. It, however, requires the Germans to accept that they are the junior partners (something they didn't want to do IOTL).
If this is supplemented by an Italo-German alliance, you can virtually hear Austro-Hungary cracking apart...
It should be based on Bismarck and Wilhelm I., who both could accept a junior partnership. Friedrich III. inherits it and keeps it alive.
The sparking point for WW1 could be one of the Marocco crises, when the German fall upon the French, which are allied to Great Britain and AuH.
While AuH quickly succumbs to the Allies, the French hold on with British help.
It's now: Western democracies against monarchic despots (should not be hard to paint Italy also like one...). In consequence, the US gets drawn in earlier.
 
Why would Germany be a junior partner? Historically they beat the crap out of Russia in WW1.

How do you think the relationship pattern of the Great Powers would unfold, from this rearrangement ? Which is the sparking point for WWI, and how would it unfold ?

If we get a Russo-German-Italian triple alliance with Romania, Greece and Serbia as junior partners, then we get a totally upset balance of power. I left out Bulgaria because they want Serbian territory. Romania and Serbia are in for Austro-Hungarian territory and Greece wants Ottoman territory. Nobody will dare to challenge Germany and Russia. The German army and fleet+Russian grain and resources is a good combination. If a war does happen then the triple alliance will beat the allies. An Anglo-French-Ottoman- Austro-Hungarian entente is just weaker. The last two of them are in a state if dissolution. Bulgaria might join to get Serbian territory and Japan might honor its agreement with Britain and seize German possessions in the Pacific.

Germany will likely opt for a Austria-Hungary first strategy since they share a long border with them (although I expect Russia to be able to defeat the Austrians on their own. The shorter French border is easier to defend. Austria-Hungary will be torn apart by the combined forces of Germany, Russia, Romania, Serbia and Italy. The Germans will likely annex Austria and Czechia. Russia will take Galicia and Romania will take Transylvania. The Serbs will annex Bosnia and the Italians will annex South Tyrol, Dalmatia and and Fiume (possible third balkan war between Serbia and Italy over these territories). This leaves a Hungarian kingdom (including Slovakia).

Germany will then turn all of its attention to France as will Italy. France might just cling on with British help. Unlikely though, as they have to fight a two front war with Germans advancing en masse through Belgium and Alpine fighting in southern France. We might even get a Russian Expeditionary Force (REF) in France. That'd be weird. The Ottomans will likely be crushed as there is nothing to stop the Russians from marching to Constantinople to get their ice free port and access to the Med. Britain will then likely sign a compromise peace when the High Seas Fleet, Baltic Fleet and Italian fleet start battling them. Japan will do the same when the HSF, Baltic fleet and Russian forces (possibly including a German and Italian expeditionary force, again weird) arrive east to drive them out of Siberia, Korea and Germany's Pacific possessions. The result is an unbeatable Central Powers alliance.

Possible triggers might be the Moroccan crisis or the Russo-Japanese war if the Japanese are stupid enough to challenge the Russians when they have such powerful allies.
 
Last edited:
There's no Russo-German Alliance without Austria!

A Russo-German Alliance would never distance itself of Austria. They were really good friends as the centers of "reactionarism" (is that a word?) of Europe since the partitions of Poland and I don't see why the Hohenzollerns would turn back to their ideological buddies. Stability in Austria is stability in Russia and in Germany, remember Hungary, 1848. Actually, what really screwed russo-german relations was the Balkans Question. Just make the germans close their eyes about San Stefano and Russia would never turn to the french. For the WWI we will have the Central Powers as Germany, Austria, Russia and Bulgaria and the Entente will be France, Britain, the Ottomans and Serbia. I think Italy would never took a side before the beginning of the war, the italians would wait, as they actually did. Ok, they wanted the italian parts of Austria but they also needed colonies, Tunisia and Malta are natural choices and they wanted to took part of a probable partition of the Ottoman Empire too, they took Rhodes IOTL.
 
To keep Austria-Hungary in you need to solve its disputes in the Balkans with Russia. And Russia was conservative and an ideological buddy too just like Austria-Hungary. That didn't stop the Germans from dumping Russia in favour of Austria-Hungary. I still don't understand the German fetish with everything from Vienna they had at the time.
 

General Zod

Banned
Concerning the ideological conservative loyalty between Russia, Prussia/Germany, and A-H, it ought not to be any problem for the scenario, because:

As it concerned Russia, it got a deadly blow when Austria failed to support Russia in the Crimean War after Russia had svaed Habsburg butts in 1848-49. At that point, Russia started growing increasingly disullusioned about safeguarding A-H as an ally/proxy, and began cultivating Panslavism as the various Balkan states as its proxies for expansion in the Balkans. The shift was noticeable in the mid-lete 60s, largely complete in the mid-late 70s, and complete in the 1880s.

As it concerns Prussia/Germany, such conservative loyalty to Austria and the other German monarchies was precisely the fact that crippled Prussia in the early-mid 1800s, and stopped the Prussian elites from acknowledging that Prussia's best intest laid in dismantling/assimilating the Habsburg Empire and the German minors and taking the lead of German unification. Bismarck acknowledged that, to a large but not complete extent (he took the lead of German unification, but let A-H live), and was able to woo most of the Prussian ruling elite his way.

The PoD is predicated on his complete acknowledgement of this fact, that the Habsburg Empire is both completely useless as an ally (too much internal instability and by ditching it, you can secure two better ones, one much more so) and its survival is contrary to Germany's long-term geopolitical best interest. Also, he acknowledges that he cannot keep France completely isolated forever with his diplomatic webs. Because of Russo-British rivalry he has to pick one as an ally, to secure Germany's position. ITTL, he chooses Russia.

ITTL, he refrains from purposefully seeking the partition of A-H in the '60s and 70s (which would have been another valid choice), but he still gets a full grasp of geopolitical realities (he was a fine realpoliticker, and lamost never let ideology get in the way of international relaions: the Habsburg alliance was one big mistake, and much wanted the Russian alliance). So he fulfills this policy to its logical extent, dumps A-H and earmarks it and the Ottomans for future partition as contingencies (a future general European war, an internal crisis) may arise and builds a Triple Alliance with Russia and Italy since the Congress of Berlin, where he favors Russia and Italy over A-H and OE.

As it concerns Serbia and Bulgaria, I have purposefully earmarked the latter instead of the former as the main Balkan proxy of the Triple Alliance (and I agree that you cannot have all of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece in the same alliance, too many conflicting claims, at least one has to go). I did so because in the 1870s-1880s, when according to the PoD, the Alt-Triple Alliance takes shape, Bulgaria, and to a lesser degree Greece, was the main Russian proxy in Balkans. Serbia took that role later. Also Bulgaria had links both to Germany and Russia, and its interests did not impinge so much on the ones of Italy. So Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece may be natural proxies of this Alliance. Serbia ITTL may stay an Austrian ally/puppet.
 
Last edited:
Top