WI different WWI lineup for CP victory

General Zod

Banned
I've noticed CP victory is a rather popular issue, so I apologize in advance if this comes up as too unoriginal (or too unplausible).

Basically, I wonder what kind of different Central and Entente line-up among great and medium powers might ensure an early and total CP victory. By early I mean in 1914-16, by total I mean Russia suffering surrender and/or revolution and a Brest-Litovsk peace, France suffering defeat and a reverse Versailles peace. Afterwards, the British Empire, assuming it even sided with the Entente in the first place, eventually throws the towel and signs a compromise peace, I guess.

My own initial idea for the scenario, which I kindly ask to assume as granted if it's not really too outlandish, would be that the CP do not suffer A-U instability and get Italy on their side from the start, since a more thorough Prussian-Italian victory and greater Hungarian unrest in 1866-67 leads to a collapse and partition of the Hapsburg Empire. Italy annexes Venetia, Trento, Trieste, Gorizia and Gradisca, and Istria. The a-borning Greater German Empire gets Austria, Slovenia, and Bohemia-Moravia. The Kingdom of Hungary gets Transylvania, Slovakia, and Croatia. Italy has no more any significant irredentist claims on Germany and Hungary, whileas it has several on France, so it stays faithful to the Triple Alliance. Germany is strengthened, and the rump Hapsburg empire is reorganized in a more manageable Greater Hungary.

So the core lineup would be

Central: (greater) Germany, (greater) Italy, (greater) Hungary
vs.
Entente: France, Russia, Serbia.

I assume USA never enters the war on the Entente side's simply because the war ends early and a greater CP success means provocative moves like unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman telegram are never used.

Beside this, I wonder what kind of variations of the lineup would be likely, compatible, and/or necessary, to ensure CP victory ?

UK: I assume it still enters the war on the Entente's side, if TTL Germany triggers a naval race, and invades Belgium. Missing the latter, it might stay neutral, and missing the former, it might even ally with Germany. Either outcome would ensure the CP victory.

Ottoman Empire: I wonder, would a CP with Italy still get Turkey on its side by late 1914, or would they stay neutral, or even side with the Entente ? Their loss weakens the CP considerably, their stay puts a rather greater pressure on Russia, with all of Hungary's strength focused on it, once Serbia is quickly dispatched.

Sweden: I seem to remember there were some definite sympathies for Germany, how plausible might be for them to enter the fray, and make a move to liberate the Finns and the Baltics ? if they side with the CP, would it mean France and an Entente UK may invade Norway, or they may woo it on their side, against their Scandinavian brethren ? How significant would a Swedish army be against Russia ?

Spain: might a more thorough German-Italian Alliance victory on France in 1870 mean a successful Hohenzollern or Savoia dynasty is installed in Spain, and might this (or another POD) mean they ally with the CPs ? A three-sided (Belgium/Lorraine, Alps, Pyrenees) assault on France might just overstretch the front and manpower of France (and Entente UK) beyond recovery, as it did happen to Napoleon, to a point. However, I wonder what course a USA vs. a German-Italian-Spanish Alliance 1898 war might take.

If Spain goes CP, what about Portugal ? Will it stay neutral, or go Entente according to its old UK ties, opening up an Iberian front ? Might this mean Spain eventually conquers Portugal and reunifies the peninsula as it almost did in the 1500s-1600s ?

Bulgaria: will they pick the side of the Ottoman Empire, or will they still side with the CP nonetheless, according to their German ties ?

Romania: will they be Entente, Central, or neutral ? They have claims on Hungary and Russia both.

Japan will honor its UK alliance, I guess.
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
What is the spark which ignites this ATL Great War with an ATL CP?

Well, I can think of several. First of all, I assume that Serbian irredentism (with the backing of Panslav Russia) and Greater Hungary expansionism would still clash over Southern Slavs ITTL. Either a Serbia-backed terrorist campaign of shootings and bombings in Croatia and to a greater degree Bosnia eventually provokes Hungary to a "police action" vs. Serbia. It is quite possible, but not a given, that the specific Sarajevo shooting against FF might be butterflied away: it depends on the specifics of the Hapsburg succession ITL: I assume that Franz Joseph abdicates, but one of his heirs is placed on the throne of Greater Hungary, and another on the Kingdom, or Great Dukedom, of Austria and Bohemia-Moravia which gets incorporated in the German Empire like Hannover, Saxony, and Bavaria. Hard to say whom among Rudolf or FF or Maximilian (assuming he relinquishes the throne of Mexico and returns to claim one of these two thrones in time) would pick Hungary and whom Austria-Bohemia. Thoretically, the former Crown Prince of the late Hapsburg Empire would get the most important rump crown in the partition, Hungary, and a cadet (FF or Maximilian), Austria-Bohemia. However, would this butterfly away Mayerling ? Mental instability is mental instability, and on one hand, the added responsibilities of being a king in his own right in the 1880s more strain Rudolf's frail psyches. OTOH, he would have been king (under a regency) since 9 y.o., this might have ensured him a less stifled late childhood and adolescence and the freedom to run his own show including keeping a royal mistress as an adult) which might have eased the strain. Anyway, IIRC FF would still be next line after Rudolf, so he would be in place to be Hungary's King or Crown Prince in 1914, ready for a certain state visit in 1914...

Alternatively, we might assume that a gangbanged Bulgaria at the end of the Second Balkan war seeks the protection of Germany and Hungary, and Serbia seeks the aid of Russia, triggering WWI one year earlier.

Alternatively, there are other good sparks, even if some of them place UK in the CPs or neutral: e.g. the ever-popular Fashoda Incident provoking a clash between UK and France in 1898, with Germany and Italy taking the side of the British. Or the annexation of Bosnia by Hungary in 1908 triggering Russia's intervention, or a move on Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
The Hapsburg Empire breaking up in 1866 would cause so many enormous changes that it's really difficult to imagine how this scenario would play out. Hungary's hold on it's Slavic lands would be very tenuous outside the empire, so a close anti-Serb relationship with the Ottomans is likely, and that begs the question, what does the Ottoman Empire even look like in 1914? Probably a lot larger, and Serbia a lot weaker.

A Greater Germany is pretty impressive, but it will now have significant separatist minorities, like the Czechs, and Germany and Hungary are not as powerful as Germany and Austria-Hungary, especially vs Russia.
 

General Zod

Banned
The Hapsburg Empire breaking up in 1866 would cause so many enormous changes that it's really difficult to imagine how this scenario would play out.

Yet, IMO it is an entirely possible scenario, and one that places the Central Powers in a much better position for ATL WWI. Also one I rather fancy among the various CP victory options, since it completes Germanic and Italian unfications, and partailly deals with the settlement of the Hapsbrug heredity, already in the late 1800s.

Hungary's hold on it's Slavic lands would be very tenuous outside the empire,

Sorry, I lose you here. Do you mean that Hungary would not likely end up getting Bosnia ??

so a close anti-Serb relationship with the Ottomans is likely, and that begs the question, what does the Ottoman Empire even look like in 1914? Probably a lot larger, and Serbia a lot weaker.

Hmm, Russian encroachments still have to be taken into account, and they are difficult to curb much more than IOTL, unless one assumes a full Anglo-German-Hungarian-Italian alliance. It is possible that if stronger anti-Serb/Russian Triple Alliance and Ottoman links are forged in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Ottoman Empire gets to keep Albania, Macedonia, and Thrace up to the outburst of WWI, as their defeat in the Balkan Wars is butterflied away, with diplomatic pressure, military aid, or WWI starting them and there. I'm rather more uncertain whether this would allow them to keep Lybia and Bosnia, if Germany would be willing to curb its most importan allies' territorial ambitions, so much. And from OE's perspective, better a Bosnia in Hungary's hands than in Serbia's ones. About Libya, Italians would still want a big colony, and if they don't make a move on Tripoli, France will, eventually (unless the Great War starts earlier, AKA the Fashoda option). OTOH, if closer links with Germany help the Italian army to be in better shape and crush Ethiopia, this satisifes Italy's frustrated colonial ambitions somewhat.

I have rather more difficulty at seeing how the OE can prevent Greece and Bulgaria from regaining their essential irredentist claims with Thessalia, Epirus, and Rumelia, however. I doubt Russia can be curbed so much, without losing a big war.

So I think in this scenario the OE might be left with its pre-Balkan War borders, essentially.

A Greater Germany is pretty impressive, but it will now have significant separatist minorities, like the Czechs,

Yes, but they will be somewhat like 1/15-1/20 of the population of the German Empire, and historically, Bismarck's and Kaiser's state was much more successful in keeping restless miniorities cowed (see French Alsatians and Posen Poles), than the fragile Hapsburg empire, at least until total military defeat made rebellions possible. I assume Czechs would have been dealt the same Germanization lot the Posen Poles got.

and Germany and Hungary are not as powerful as Germany and Austria-Hungary, especially vs Russia.

I have to disagree. With the possible exception of Galicia and Austrian Poland, which might well end up as Russia's prize to keep them content with the partition. Hungary and Germany keep everything A-H had, and what they do not, it goes to their Italian ally. It's a reshufflement. Sure, the most valuable parts of the old empire (Austria and Bohemia) go to Germany, but this makes the latter proportionally stronger. Germany is better able to contain Czech nationalism, and the deal gives Hungary a strong alliance with Italy, which makes it able to focus all of its residual strength on Russia. This changes the Triple Alliance from a Great Power, a borderline steadily weakening Great Power, and an unfaithful Medium Powers that will jump ship to first opportunity, to a stronger Great Power, a faithful Medium Power, and another Medium Power with less internal nationalist troubles. Hungary may have less residual resources than A-H, but all of them can be focused on Russia

Of course, if they can still keep the Ottoman Empire in their ranks, too, their chances of dealing a crippling blow to Russia in a year or two improve significantly. That's the goal of this thread, assuming Great Germany, Hungary, and Italy, which other allies do the CPs need, if any, to win a total victory vs. Russia and France in a year or two ?
 
Last edited:
What is the spark which ignites this ATL Great War with an ATL CP?
If all else fails, you can always assume that eventually the Great Game goes hot and drags the other Great Powers into the mess.

Yet, IMO it is an entirely possible scenario, and one that places the Central Powers in a much better position for ATL WWI. Also one I rather fancy among the various CP victory options, since it completes Germanic and Italian unfications, and partailly deals with the settlement of the Hapsbrug heredity, already in the late 1800s.
German, not Germanic. Germanic unification would create a horrible, ungovernable mess not seen since the late Merovingians.

Sorry, I lose you here. Do you mean that Hungary would not likely end up getting Bosnia ??
Hungary was very much against getting more Slavs into AH, which was done against better knowledge by Franz Joseph to show that AH was not dead yet and could still expand its frontier (which hurt AH massively in the short and middle run). I'd expect that these Hungarians are having their hands too busy with their minorities to even contemplate annexing more Slavs.

as their defeat in the Balkan Wars is butterflied away,
Considering that it is not unlikely that the whole Balkan Wars are butterflied away, I'm not too sure if the scenario plays out at all. Considering that Russia now borders Hungary, I'd expect a pretty solid alliance of convenience - both Hungary and the OE would not want Russian client states right next to them (especially not Romania).
Hell, with these changes, the Ottoman Empire might even regain all of Egypt and Sudan in the 1880s because of no Russo-Turkish war in 1878, which would make acquiring Libya pretty much a pipedream.
 

General Zod

Banned
If all else fails, you can always assume that eventually the Great Game goes hot and drags the other Great Powers into the mess.
Indeed. Although this, like the Fashoda one, is a trigger that necessitates the UK siding with the Central Powers. Of course, nothing bad about it, but it shortens the duration of the war even further, a year likely, two at the very most. I suppose a Great Game goes hot trigger likely involves the Uk and Russia eventually going to blows over Afghanistan.

German, not Germanic. Germanic unification would create a horrible, ungovernable mess not seen since the late Merovingians.
So very true. A slip of the typing hand, sorry. That would have been feasible in a "Carolingian Empire evolves toward centralization and expands to cover all of Western Europe" TL, such as the excellent Song of Roland, not in modern times. The closest one might get to that in a CP victory time is that an European Commonwhealth early EU is established in the 20s and takes root (even if it's likely to get some heavy rocking from resurgent Franco-Russian revanchism and possibly some German-British competition for leadership, if there was an Anglo-German alliance).

Hungary was very much against getting more Slavs into AH, which was done against better knowledge by Franz Joseph to show that AH was not dead yet and could still expand its frontier (which hurt AH massively in the short and middle run). I'd expect that these Hungarians are having their hands too busy with their minorities to even contemplate annexing more Slavs.
Well, the most vociferous minority in the A-H were themselves and they are running the whole show now, plus the second most problematic one (Czechs) is now in the tender hands of Bismarck's and Kaiser's rather more efficient police, which will teach them one thing or two about the foolishness of open disloyal agitation against the Reich, like it did OTL with the French Alsatians and the Posen Poles. But as a general point, I deem you may be right. Greater Hungary now has loads of Croats, Romanians, and Slovaks to digest. I'm rather more uncertain about the fate of Poles in ex-Austrian Poland and Ukrainians in Galicia. The realpoliticker me assumes that Russia would have been loathe to let Hapsburg partition happen, unless they would have been Galicia as a boon, or been distracted by a crisis elsewhere. IIRC, no one was at hand in 1866-67, so unless we make an additional POD by postponing the Second Polish revolt by three years, I assume it is more plausible if the Czar gets its Galician biscuit.

However, you make a good point about Hungarians not to be willing and annex Bosnia. OTOH, I'm skeptical about the OE being able to keep it till the breakout of ATL WWI. It's a bit too of an overextension in the very middle of Europe for the sorry state of late Ottoman administration, the restless Serb-Croat population would make it an hotbed of irredentist agitation under continued OE rule, and the Czar would object to it in the Berlin 1878 settlement (I don't see the annexation of Galicia appeasing Russia so much that it gives up its focus on getting the spoils of the OE with the assistance of irrendentist Slav-Orthodox successor states, hence the Russo-Turkish war and Berlin Congress). I may see a good case for increased German-Hungarian-Italian-British assistance giving the late OE the added lease on life that it needs to cling to its 1912 borders, keeping Thrace, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Albania under its thumb. But not much more. Keeping the Czar away from the Straits themselves was a good casus belli, but there was also a powerful ongoing political-religious undercurrent in the popular opinion of Western Europe that longed for near-complete expulsion of the Turk from mainland Europe and the liberation of its Christian subjects. Since the breakout of the War of Greek Independence, the Great Powers that had been provided assistance to the OE and prop up its rule in the Balkans has been forced to do it half-heartedly and subtly, in order not to antagonize popular sentiment too much.

Hence, if Bosnia is refused by Hungaria as an annexation, I see two possible fates for it: either it is set up as an independent minor state like a bigger Montenegro, under the rule of some cadet, or Hungary gets just the administration like a protectorate, and nominal suzerainety remains to the Sultan. Either way, it likely becomes an hotbed of Serbian irredentism, like Kosovo and Macedonia (Bulgarian, too, for the latter). Disorders from such irredentism are another good trigger point for TTL Great War.

Considering that it is not unlikely that the whole Balkan Wars are butterflied away, I'm not too sure if the scenario plays out at all. Considering that Russia now borders Hungary, I'd expect a pretty solid alliance of convenience - both Hungary and the OE would not want Russian client states right next to them (especially not Romania).
I'm not so persuaded that the whole Balkan Wars would be butterflied away. True, their outcome may change. This scenario might see Italy being able to annex Ethiopia with greater German (and maybe British) assistance and freed resources from wholehearted Triple Alliance. This may, or may not, sate the colonial ambitions of Italy enough that they are not interested to make a war for Tripoli (The "Fourth Shore" irredentist-expansionist claim was significant nonetheless, esp. since France had got Tunis). OTOH, if Italy doesn't claim Tripoli, France most likely will. Lack of the Italo-Turkish war, and greater Triple Alliance (and British) military assistance might allow the OE to win, or draw a stalemate, in the First Balkan War. Yet, the most likely effect of this, would be to draw Russia in, as the Balkan states clamor for assistance. If diplomacy fails, this might indeed be another excellent trigger point for the Great War. Its main effect would be that all of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria would end up in the Russo-French side. yet, if war breaks out on this, it is very likely that the UK ends up neutral or on the Central Powers side (depending on how much good Anglo-German relations are ITTL), Belgium or no Belgium.

But I don't see the Balkan War as such, butterflied away. That would require Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria giving up their irredentist aspirations, Russia its centuries-old expansionist drive in the Balkans and the Straits, and the Ottoman Empire acomplishing Ataturk reforms in the late 1800s.
Hell, with these changes, the Ottoman Empire might even regain all of Egypt and Sudan in the 1880s because of no Russo-Turkish war in 1878, which would make acquiring Libya pretty much a pipedream.
But the Russo-Turkish War will happen on schedule, and Egypt and SUdan will be claimed by the British nonetheless. Because of the Suez canal, and the Cape-Cairo program, they would be willing to get them up to the risk of a war with an healthy Great Power, plus the UK were their most precious protectors against Russia, I see no way that TTL might grant the OE the resource, and the cojones, to go to war with the British Empire over Egypt in the late 1800s. After Suez, it would be taboo.
 
A Greater Germany is pretty impressive, but it will now have significant separatist minorities, like the Czechs, and Germany and Hungary are not as powerful as Germany and Austria-Hungary, especially vs Russia.

In OTL germany was counting upon aurtria/hungary largely to fight of the russians,witch they didn't instead they send most of there troops against serbia.
In ATL they will probarly not have the same confidence in there new hungarian ally
there fore increasing there army sending and/or troop commitment vs russia.
there for i rather doudt that the alternate CP would do worse against russia than they did OTL.

and from what i read the czech nationalisem prior to ww1 wasnt al that big (relatively speaking), i dont see a reason why that should increase i ATL.
 

General Zod

Banned
In OTL germany was counting upon aurtria/hungary largely to fight of the russians,witch they didn't instead they send most of there troops against serbia.
In ATL they will probarly not have the same confidence in there new hungarian ally
there fore increasing there army sending and/or troop commitment vs russia.
there for i rather doudt that the alternate CP would do worse against russia than they did OTL.

Well, ITTL Austrian and Bohemian manpower is diverted from A-U to Germany, which is a mere reshuffling, as the CP might is concerned. Hungary doesn't have Cisleithania, but what manpower it does have (OTL Hungary, Croatia, Transylvania, Slovakia) may be mostly focused on Russia, since Italy is an ally from the start and is pounding France on the Alps.

We have seen that depending on the trigger of the war, all of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece might be allied with the Entente, but if it is so, then the Ottoman Empire sides with the CPs from the start, too.

All in all, still a net gain for the CPs.

The wild card here is the UK, which depending on the specific trigger point and the relationship with Germany, Russia, and France in the previous decades, might be Entente, Central, or neutral.

So a possible line-up for TTL Great War might be:

Greater Germany

Italy

Greater Hungary

Ottoman Empire

vs.

France

Russia

The Balkan Alliance (Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, maybe Romania)

UK might side with either alliance, or stay neutral.

Japan most likely takes the side of the UK, or if the British Empire stays neutral, likely declares war on whatever side seems to be losing after the first year of war or so.

USA stays neutral.

We have discussed very little on the possible partecipation of nations like Sweden and Spain (and Norwegia or Portugal, as a consequence).

and from what i read the czech nationalisem prior to ww1 wasnt al that big (relatively speaking), i dont see a reason why that should increase i ATL.

Yup, they go from being one of the most powerful minorities into a decaying multinational dynastic empire, to be a smallish minority into a very powerful nation-state. From being Hapsburg California, they get to be German Wales. It is reasonable to assume they are more cowed.
 
Well, ITTL Austrian and Bohemian manpower is diverted from A-U to Germany, which is a mere reshuffling, as the CP might is concerned. Hungary doesn't have Cisleithania, but what manpower it does have (OTL Hungary, Croatia, Transylvania, Slovakia) may be mostly focused on Russia

True however thats not realy what i meant to say.

In OTL germany developt the schlieffen plan on the assumption that russia couldn't mobilize that quickly and that when they do the austrians could succesfully keep them at bay (atleast for some time) and there for they could do with a rather smal force in the east.

in ATL it is highly doudt full that the german high command would think
the same of the hungarians.
There for there overall war strategy would probarly change as well.

Now i am not saying that they won't attack france first or
that they will cordinate better with there allies.
Just that there plans for such a war would probarly be some what diffrent from OTL
because they would probarly have less fate in the ability's of there allies.
Even if they might not deserve that.

an army of an greater hungary might well be more effective that that of austria.
since it would have to rebuild it self and there for might be more modern than OTL,
austrian army was and probarly better oragnized aswell.

also if the balkan nations look like joining the entent side sometime before the war.
The german high command might even consider an eastern strategy to propup there ally.
 

General Zod

Banned
True however thats not realy what i meant to say.

In OTL germany developt the schlieffen plan on the assumption that russia couldn't mobilize that quickly and that when they do the austrians could succesfully keep them at bay (atleast for some time) and there for they could do with a rather smal force in the east.

in ATL it is highly doudt full that the german high command would think
the same of the hungarians.
There for there overall war strategy would probarly change as well.

Now i am not saying that they won't attack france first or
that they will cordinate better with there allies.
Just that there plans for such a war would probarly be some what diffrent from OTL
because they would probarly have less fate in the ability's of there allies.
Even if they might not deserve that.

an army of an greater hungary might well be more effective that that of austria.
since it would have to rebuild it self and there for might be more modern than OTL,
austrian army was and probarly better oragnized aswell.

also if the balkan nations look like joining the entent side sometime before the war.
The german high command might even consider an eastern strategy to propup there ally.


I see. Sorry for having misunderstood your argument. You give a good argument for ATL Central Powers to pick a Russia First strategy.

However, there is also a plausible counterargument that an ATL Schliffen Plan could have rather good chances to knock France out of the war quickly, with the vast majority of the Italian Army pounding France on the Alps (a minor part of the Italian forces would likely combine with the Hungarians and the Ottomans to do a mop-up of the Balkan nations), and depriving French generals from the reserves they badly needed to accomplish the Miracle of the Marne. I wonder how much of this would be evident to CP planners' foresight before the war, although.

So a Russia First strategy might deprive the CPs of an good window of opportunity to cripple France effectively in a few months, 1870-style. OTOH, it is also very true that throwing Schliffen in the dustbin would at the very least prevent the UK from entering the war, or, depending on the interplay of alliances before the war, side UK with the CPs. A Central Power Britain would most likely push for a Russia First strategy, as they were their true strategic enemy.

Also, having the UK neutral or allied most likely outshines the benefits of knocking France out early, in the medium and long term. No economic blockade, for one thing. SInce this is a CP victory scenario, I think it's better to assume that Germany's High Staff sees this and plans for a Russia First strategy. Which means they have to take at least a year to waste away Russia's strength, with a combined German/Hungarian/Ottoman assault, then another six months at least to transfer the bulk of their forces in Alsace-Lorraine, and exaust France with a combined Italo-German assault from Sedan to Menton.

Of course, there is another possibility, but only one that is viable for a full Anglo-German alliance before the war: the Waterloo scenario. The UK greenlights Germany's advance into Belgium (if the UK is allied with Germany against France, they have no more usefulness for a neutral Belgium; the Belgians are told to behave and open the borders to the Anglo-German forces or else) and they send the BEF along. Combined with an Italian attack on on the Alps, this could indeed cripple France in a few months. However, this would require the UK to have been in the CPs since the 1890s (quite possible with a POD or two: say Frederick III survives and tones down the naval arms race, Fashoda turns hot to a minor war), and British commanders to agree on a combined effort to knock France out first, which wasn't their main enemy. I'm uncertain whether Belgium would obey the CP ultimatum and open its borders, or resist and ally with France. The first looks like the most reaonable option, but it's not a given. Not that it matters much militarly: with the BEF marching with the Wehrmacht, and the Royal Navy making amphibious actions on Belgian and French ports, the Belgian army would be steamrolled anyway. But it matters a lot about the fate of Belgium in the peace settlement. A CP-friendly Belgium would be possibly given territory compensations from France, whileas an Entente Belgium would get significant territorial cuts and limitations to its political and economical independence.
 
Last edited:
So a Russia First strategy might deprive the CPs of an good window of opportunity to cripple France effectively in a few months, 1870-style. OTOH, it is also very true that throwing Schliffen in the dustbin would at the very least prevent the UK from entering the war, or, depending on the interplay of alliances before the war, side UK with the CPs. A Central Power Britain would most likely push for a Russia First strategy, as they were their true strategic enemy.

Also, having the UK neutral or allied most likely outshines the benefits of knocking France out early, in the medium and long term. No economic blockade, for one thing. SInce this is a CP victory scenario, I think it's better to assume that Germany's High Staff sees this and plans for a Russia First strategy. Which means they have to take at least a year to waste away Russia's strength, with a combined German/Hungarian/Ottoman assault, then another six months at least to transfer the bulk of their forces in Alsace-Lorraine, and exaust France with a combined Italo-German assault from Sedan to Menton.

Of course, there is another possibility, but only one that is viable for a full Anglo-German alliance before the war: the Waterloo scenario. The UK greenlights Germany's advance into Belgium (if the UK is allied with Germany against France, they have no more usefulness for a neutral Belgium; the Belgians are told to behave and open the borders to the Anglo-German forces or else) and they send the BEF along. Combined with an Italian attack on on the Alps, this could indeed cripple France in a few months. However, this would require the UK to have been in the CPs since the 1890s (quite possible with a POD or two: say Frederick III survives and tones down the naval arms race, Fashoda turns hot to a minor war), and British commanders to agree on a combined effort to knock France out first, which wasn't their main enemy. I'm uncertain whether Belgium would obey the CP ultimatum and open its borders, or resist and ally with France. The first looks like the most reaonable option, but it's not a given. Not that it matters much militarly: with the BEF marching with the Wehrmacht, and the Royal Navy making amphibious actions on Belgian and French ports, the Belgian army would be steamrolled anyway. But it matters a lot about the fate of Belgium in the peace settlement. A CP-friendly Belgium would be possibly given territory compensations from France, whileas an Entente Belgium would get significant territorial cuts and limitations to its political and economical independence.


I think that if britain would join this alternate CP than france and russia would probarly not dare to go to war with them and practise an appeasement policy
after all it isn't like the people in power back then where stupid.

CP:Greater Germany (and not just a tat bigger but quite a bit),greater hungary,greater italy,ottoman empire,Great britain,Canada,australia,newzeeland,southafrica,portugal,japan,sweden.

entente:Russia,France,serbia,romenia,bulgaria,greece (tough i find that one a bit hard to belive considering that there king was pro german and they are in a rather vunarable position)

It doenst need a master mind to know what side would win a war like that,so i geuse that if you want a war with britain on the CP side there are 4 tings you could do.

1: have a PoD in witch britain is attacked first for instance doggerbank,and have the CP join on the side of the GB/japan alliance,i am sure that there are several ways to make a creddibale PoD for this.

2: have the entente make several stupid mistakes that can be exploited as propaganda against them and than have them do something stupid that triggers a war with one of there allies....japan for instance.
With public opinion firmly against the entente and them at war with one of there allies, i could see the GB declareing war against the entente.

3: have the USA for one reason or a nother join the entente, the GB would than need to join the CP to restore the ballance of power after all:

CP:Greater Germany,greater hungary,greater italy,ottoman empire,Great britain,Canada,australia,newzeeland,southafrica,portugal,japan,sweden.

entente:USA,Russia,France,serbia,romenia,bulgaria,greece

sounds a lote more evenly matched if you ask me.

4:the war drags on altough the CP seems clearly to win (this was a CP victory TL right?) the entente seems to be able to drag this war out for years to come and refuse any reasonable peace terms the CP puts forward,
britain steps in to (save the day) restore peace in europe by sideing with the already winning CP.
 

General Zod

Banned
OK folks, I have shamelessly neglected this thread, for various reasons, not the last of which is that I became engrossed in discussing another TL. Now, armed with insight from that source, I can maybe return to this topic with a considerably changed view.

The changed issue is that I now postulate a Super-USA exists too in this TL which due to PoDs during the American Revolution now owns all North America and most of South America. Canada, the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, Venezuela, Colombia, the Guyanas, Ecuador. It is also likely, but not certain, to own also Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. Not yet decided about that.

Yeah, I am aware that this change of perspective technically changes the first Pod of the TL to pre-1900, but I suppose it's still less of cluttering to keep using the old thread, and besides, this is essentially about WWI lineups.

Such a Super-USA will have fought a victorious Civil War against Confederacy, Britain, France, rump Mexico, and maybe some of Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. I assume that because of that war, it has remained hostile to UK and France, and will eagerly enter alliance with the Central Powers.

It is also possible but not certain that Spain and Brazil may align with the Entente, out of lingering hostility to the Super-USA after the Spanish-American War and the Civil War.

The changes to European history would proceed unaffected as I described in the previous posts (I assume in this TL unsuccessful intervention in the Civil War will take the place of the Mexico fiasco for France).

So a new possible WWI lineup might be:

Quadruple Alliance: Super-USA (all of North and Central America, most or all of Spanish South America, possibly Australia and New Zealand), Greater Germany, Greater Italy, Greater Hungary, possibly Ottoman Empire, possibly Sweden.

Triple Entente: Great Britain (minus Canada, West Indies, and possibly Australia, New Zealand), France, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, possibly Japan, possibly Spain, possibly Brazil, and possibly Portugal.

I'm still wholly uncertain about the role of China, and not yet fully certain about some belligerants, as noted above. USA-Germany-Italy-Hungary vs. Russia-UK-France is a given, although.

Opinions about this modified lineup ?
 
Last edited:
Top