WI Fashoda War

Suppose things go bad in the Fashoda Incident (that single nervous soldier...) and we get a war between Britain and France erupting in Africa in 1898. I think that Germany would be happy to jump on France's back to reap their own share of the glory while Italy sit out to see who wins and then jumps on the back of France. Russia is a French ally and will have to assist and they'll likely attack in Central Asia as that is where their borders with Britain are while Germany finishes France first. The Japanese will be wise to assist in the butchering of France and Russia and not oppose Britain so we'll get a Russo-Japanese war a few years earlier unless Tokyo remains neutral of course as Russo-Japanese sentiments weren't that bad yet (although that'd anger Britain). In the chaos of war, they might try another stab at China again since their gains were cut short after the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-'95). The Ottomans will likely be wise enough to stay out of this slaughterfest unless Russia is dumb enough to attack them first and make it a three-front war for them. If anyone knows a plausible way to get the US in on either side (please tell me if you do), we have a three continent spanning world war on our hands. with these sides:

France & Russia and possibly China (maybe the US over the old 'answering the call to Lafayette', the Open-Door policy in China or over good Russo-American ties or any combination of these although I think the British/Germans would have to do something incredibly stupid first to get them out of isolationism).

vs.

Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Japan and Italy

I know France will lose, but I'm more interested in the aftermath. What will Britain, Germany and Italy gain? Will the Anglo-German alliance of convenience hold or will it break up? I don't think Britain will find good allies in Russia or France against Germany so maybe Splendid Isolation?France will be pissed off and prostrate at the feet of the Anglo-German combine and if this goes anything like WW1 or the RJW for Russia, they'll be facing serious internal upheavals at best, if not revolution. Nicholas II will be forced to step down in that case in favour of his brother Michael if the empire even survives. I doubt either of them could be allies if they wanted to. Where does the US stand in this if they remain neutral (or if they join and lose and get their Monroe doctrine stuffed up their butt)? The Ottomans in the meanwhile will see their arch nemesis Russia crippled. Might they do better in the Balkans now that their Russian patron is preoccupied? They could perhaps hold onto Macedonia and Thrace IMO.

Ideas? Thoughts?
 
I dont see a World War over this. Mostly just a Franco-British colonial war leading to British isolationism. This will mostly effect WWI (if it happens like OTL, of course), in the way that the Germans may only be facing France+Russia+Serbia, but even then you still have the problem of the Shlieffen Plan, and Belgian neutrality. This may cause the Germans to go after Russia first...

Also at the and of the war, the Germans will still be unable to achieve Mittelafrika without the UK (and more importantly, Belgian and Portugese) participence. But they stand to lose nothing in Asia if the UK stays neutral.
 
I dont see a World War over this. Mostly just a Franco-British colonial war leading to British isolationism. This will mostly effect WWI (if it happens like OTL, of course), in the way that the Germans may only be facing France+Russia+Serbia, but even then you still have the problem of the Shlieffen Plan, and Belgian neutrality. This may cause the Germans to go after Russia first...

Also at the and of the war, the Germans will still be unable to achieve Mittelafrika without the UK (and more importantly, Belgian and Portugese) participence. But they stand to lose nothing in Asia if the UK stays neutral.

Would Germany still violate Belgian neutrality via Schlieffen? And if so wouldn't the UK still get involved in the *Great War?
 
Would Germany still violate Belgian neutrality via Schlieffen? And if so wouldn't the UK still get involved in the *Great War?

I kind of said it would be an issue...

But here is a possibble scenario for WWI:

The Central Powers concentrate on Russia first, and defeat it. Minor allies could be added to speed up Russia`s fall. With no blocade in place, the German situation is far more favourable. Italy could go either way here (or stay neutral). And after Russia is beaten, the Germans could come up with a better Schlieffen, and then invade Belgium, causing the UK (and its allies) to enter the war. The Central Powers are in a much better position, and France might just go down in flames, leaving the (possibbly expanded) Quadrupile Alliance to make a white peace with the UK, achieving almost everything the they went to war for. On a side note this scenario negates US entry alltogether since no blocade in the first phase of the war means no unrestricted submarine warfare.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Suppose things go bad in the Fashoda Incident (that single nervous soldier...) and we get a war between Britain and France erupting in Africa in 1898. I think that Germany would be happy to jump on France's back to reap their own share of the glory while Italy sit out to see who wins and then jumps on the back of France.

True for Germany, but wholly wrong for Italy. Expecting Italy to behave as IOTL Great War is rather unreasonable. An European coalition with Britain and Germany shall always look definitely stronger than the opposition to Rome, they are never going to fight it. And they have little incentive to staty neutral, too. In the 1890s, their foreign policy and strategic stance is still strongly anti-French and pro-German. And France has a lot of irredentist and colonial claims that Italy covets: Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia, Dijbuti, eastern Algeria, the Riviera. Maybe to a somewhat lesser degree than the Austro-Hungarian claims, but they are not going to pick the definitely weaker coalition (they are not really going to care about America) for it. French stuff is more than good enough to justify a war, and they have been preparing to fight this one for a couple decades. They declare war to France and Russia a few days after Germany does.

Russia is a French ally and will have to assist and they'll likely attack in Central Asia as that is where their borders with Britain are while Germany finishes France first.

It depends on what the Triple Alliance decide to do, and to what degree they coordinate their strategy with Britain. This is pre-Plan Schliffen, after all, so France first is not a given. But I think that it is a reasonable assumption that, by relying on the 1870 experience, The CPs decide to finish France first and then wear Russia down gradually with encirclement. So defensive stance on the Eastern front, since in 1898 Russian mobilization shall be even slower than in 1914, and concentrating the bulk of Italo-German manpower against France (Italy activates standing protocols to send part of its forces on the German front, it may otherwise take an offensive or defensive stance on the Alps). Britain takes a defensive stance (initially) Central Asia, the BEF may either land in Belgium or make landings against Channel and Atlantic French ports. Germany and Britain are likely to send Belgium a "polite" request for military access. Belgian response is a toss-up: they might refuse and plead for French help, or concede transit to the CP: they are genuinely committed to neutrality, but defying their British patrons is terribly risky (London might decide that after all, resturning it to Netherlands is te best option).

The main issue here is that France, especially if Britain and Germany go through Belgium, and the latter concedes transit, is quite overstretched and has strong chances of failing to stabilize the front with trench warfare. There may be no "miracle of the Marna" here.

The Japanese will be wise to assist in the butchering of France and Russia and not oppose Britain so we'll get a Russo-Japanese war a few years earlier unless Tokyo remains neutral of course as Russo-Japanese sentiments weren't that bad yet (although that'd anger Britain). In the chaos of war, they might try another stab at China again since their gains were cut short after the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-'95).

There was already some Russo-Japanese antagonism building about Korea and Manchuria. Tokyo may either backstab Russia (say 65% chance) or China (say 35% chance) unless Russia concedes Korea and southern Manchuria without a fight.

The Ottomans will likely be wise enough to stay out of this slaughterfest unless Russia is dumb enough to attack them first and make it a three-front war for them.

True, but the wild cards here are the Balkan powers. At least some of them are going to exploit the chaos and try to grab a piece of the Ottoman or the Habsburg empires (and their rivals might cooperate, as they did in the First Balkan War, or take the opposite side, esp. Serbia and Bulgaria). If some Balkan states attack Turkey, and bit more than they can chew, Russia would be forced to expand the war or left its southern flank exposed anyway. Depending on diplomatic and political butterflies, you have various options here, from the Balkan states trying an Ottoman curbstomp, Greece staying neutral (fearing Anglo-Italian invasion) and Serbia + Bulgaria making an anti-Ottoman alliance of convenience, Serbia + Romania trying to backstab Austria, Serbia-Romania entering for Russia and Bulgaria for the CPs.

If anyone knows a plausible way to get the US in on either side (please tell me if you do), we have a three continent spanning world war on our hands. with these sides:

Your best chances are the Spanish-American War joining with the Fashoda War (Spain and France making a "Latin League" against the Anglo powers) or America deciding ot make a grab for Canada (say there was a skirmish about the Venezuelan crisis a few years before, this caused lingering Anglo-American antagonism, and America decides to try a comeback while Britain in busy in Europe and Central Asia).

France & Russia and possibly China (maybe the US over the old 'answering the call to Lafayette', the Open-Door policy in China or over good Russo-American ties or any combination of these although I think the British/Germans would have to do something incredibly stupid first to get them out of isolationism).

Those motivations are near-ASB for isolationist US to pick a fight with Britain and Germany, esp. the call to Lafayette, who bloody cares about that, apart from a tiny romantic fringe ? You need a casus belli that may be relevant to American interests in the New World. What about this: sub-PoD: Britain and Germany have a period of detente and stick together during the Venezuelan crisis, America is humiliated and does not forgive easily. During the Fashoda War there are some naval incidents between American ships and the Anglo-Germans, with loss of American lives.

I know France will lose, but I'm more interested in the aftermath. What will Britain, Germany and Italy gain?

Germany: Lorraine, Luxemburg, Morocco, Middle Congo and Gabon. Maybe some territorial adjustments between Germany and Belgium (eastern Wallonia to Germany, French Flanders to Belgium).

Italy: Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Riviera, eastern Algeria, Tunisia, Dijbouti.

Will the Anglo-German alliance of convenience hold or will it break up?

Both may happen, but it is more likely that it can hold. This war shall most likely make British strategic pendulum towards deeming the Triple Alliance reliable continental partners. To break the alliance it would require something truly stupid.

I don't think Britain will find good allies in Russia or France against Germany so maybe Splendid Isolation?

Unlikely, esp. because France is very likely going to slip into proto-fascist revanchism and Russia shall be most likely hostile or fall into revolution. And if Britain lost Canada to America while it was busy in Europe and Central Asia, it shall need strong allies.

France will be pissed off and prostrate at the feet of the Anglo-German combine and if this goes anything like WW1 or the RJW for Russia, they'll be facing serious internal upheavals at best, if not revolution.

Think of a crossbreed between Boulanger and Mussolini. That's what is going to happen in France.

Nicholas II will be forced to step down in that case in favour of his brother Michael if the empire even survives. I doubt either of them could be allies if they wanted to.

Indeed.

Where does the US stand in this if they remain neutral (or if they join and lose and get their Monroe doctrine stuffed up their butt)?

If they join, America is the only "Entente" power that is coming home with a decent result. Britain shall be forced to divert most of its potential fighting France and Russia, they shall not have a lot to spare to defend Canada. America has the time to prepare its forces (give them six months and they can raise an army that can swamp everything the distracted British Empire can deploy in Canada) and backstab northward. They have to fear Anglo-German-Italian naval reprisal after France and Russia have been vanquished, but its not going to happen for a while, they can entrench in Canada and offer a compromise peace to the war-weary Euroes (e.g. they give back Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and keep Western Canada, which is still very scarcely populated, and Ontario as well, if they go any good).

The Ottomans in the meanwhile will see their arch nemesis Russia crippled. Might they do better in the Balkans now that their Russian patron is preoccupied? They could perhaps hold onto Macedonia and Thrace IMO.

A reasonable assumption.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
The Central Powers concentrate on Russia first, and defeat it. Minor allies could be added to speed up Russia`s fall.

Possible but less likely. Germany is going to be mindful of 1870 and, even more so with Britain and Italy on its side, have a reasonable assumption that they can crush France in a few months. Russia, in all plausible expectations, is going to take about a year at least to crush, even if the bulk of the Quadruple Alliance + minors is thrown against it. To stop a France first strategy in its tracks, it would take something momentous (e.g. Austria is backstabbed by a Russia-Serbia-Romania coalition and is teetering, Germany & Italy are forced to redeploy a significant chunk of their forces to prevent its collapse, and this allows the Western front to stabilize).

With no blocade in place, the German situation is far more favourable.

Squared against Britain/Germany/Italy, it is France that is blockaded. it is questionable whether they last enough to feel its effects, however.

Italy could go either way here (or stay neutral).

Italy is totally going to side with the Anglo-Germans. France has a lot of stuff they covet, they want to win a major war to affirm themselves as real great powers, the Entente looks like the weaker party, at least in Europe, and they are NOT going to fight Britain and Germany together.

And after Russia is beaten, the Germans could come up with a better Schlieffen, and then invade Belgium, causing the UK (and its allies) to enter the war.

Err, the PoD is that Fashoda escalates to an Anglo-French war before the Triple Alliance decides to join Britain and Russia to join France. Belgium is likely going to receive a "polite" Anglo-German-Italian-Austrian request for military access, reminding Bruxelles that the whole point of Belgium's existence is to be an anti-French buffer.
 
@Eurofed, while I dont really mind France becoming the watered down version of the Third Reich, some people have argued that a France defeated in WWI would have been much worse off then OTL Weimar Germany. I for one would like to see the USSR start WWII (Red Alert :D).
 

Eurofed

Banned
@Eurofed, while I dont really mind France becoming the watered down version of the Third Reich, some people have argued that a France defeated in WWI would have been much worse off then OTL Weimar Germany. I for one would like to see the USSR start WWII (Red Alert :D).

A good point about France, but you see, a revanchist totalitarian France doesn't exclude a revanchist totalitarian Russia, quite the contary. It is largely due to the personal foibles of Hitler and Stalin if the Russo-German-Italian-Japanese Axis didn't happen in our WWII.

In this kind of TL, you can easily expect different, wiser dictators in Paris and Moscow making a functional fascist-communist alliance of convenience, or both powers going fascist. Both going communist is possible too but it is quite likely that the Anglo-Italo-Germans would crush a French Communist revolution in the bud. Let's say that in this WWII, an industrialized Russia would play the role of Nazi Germany, and France the one of a (rather more capable) Fascist Italy. Antagonism with Britain over China and/or usual expansionism towards South East Asia may easily make Japan pick the side of the Russo-French Axis.

An industrialized Russia + France + Japan Axis can easily give a worthy fight to the British-German-Italian-Austrian Allies. Italy is definitely going to be rather stronger than IOTL, but Austria-Hungary may easily have failed to reform to a "Danubian Federation" and be the "sick man" of the Alliance. However, if it does so, it is far more likely that within a decade or two from *WWI, it collapses and is partitioned between Germany, Italy, and Hungary, which would redistribute the resources of the Alliance in the East in a more stable arrangement.

An Anglo-American War during WWI may cause America's stance to shift. If, as I expect, it succeeded to grab Canada and make a favourable compromise peace, it shall likely bear no great ill will towards the Allies, it would likely stay neutral for a while, then join them when Russia and Jpaan make their move in Asia. If (less likely) got a bloody nose, it may stay neutral all the while, or try a move on Canada again.
 
If they join, America is the only "Entente" power that is coming home with a decent result. Britain shall be forced to divert most of its potential fighting France and Russia, they shall not have a lot to spare to defend Canada. America has the time to prepare its forces (give them six months and they can raise an army that can swamp everything the distracted British Empire can deploy in Canada) and backstab northward. They have to fear Anglo-German-Italian naval reprisal after France and Russia have been vanquished, but its not going to happen for a while, they can entrench in Canada and offer a compromise peace to the war-weary Euroes (e.g. they give back Atlantic and Central Canada and keep Western Canada, which is still very scarcely populated).

Well, Britain has Italian and German naval power to assist them in Europe. France only has eight battleships. Britain has many more. They have at least eighteen pre-dreadnoughts as far as I can tell from wikipedia (not the most reliable source I know). Germany adds six to that and Italy a further six modern battleships (only counting BBs built post 1888). The US had four battleships at this time if we're generous (three Indiana-class and USS Texas). This leaves the Anglo-Germans-Italians with 30 BBs and I didn't even add in the few pre-dreadnoughts the Austro-Hungarian navy had. The Franco-Americans have twelve. I didn't factor in the Russian fleet, but I doubt they'll be a big factor. The Black Sea Fleet is stuck and thye Baltic fleet can be kept at bay by the HSF and RN.

Heck, I think with these figures the RN can blockade French and American ports which will do the US little good IMO. OTOH, if we take the 1896 Venezuelan PoD, America could militarize a great deal, but how many battleships could the US realistically churn out in two years time? The army will do better so maybe they will get something from Canada.

I think I can come up with a rough draft. Here it is:

1896 (PoD): Conflict over Venezuela between Britain and US goes hot. Britain deploys troops in Canada and blockades American harbors on the eastern seaboard. America is defeated and humiliated and Britain gets the strip of Venezuelan territory it wanted.
1898: Fashoda Incident goes hot (around September). Britain and France declare war on each other. Germany waits a bit, but decides to join. Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy declare war. Russia then declares war on the so-called Quadruple Alliance. Japan declares war. Spanish-American War coincides with this war. Britain blockades France while the US declares the right of 'Free Trade'. They are still pissed about their recent humiliation. Naval incidents between American merchant and the RN lead to war. Belgium is politely asked to give up neutrality and they concede reluctantly. German forces move through Belgium into France. The lacking infrastructure for such an enormous troop movement stops them before Paris, but France is already being blockaded into submission and Italy's attacking in the Alps although French forced there keep them at bay. Russia, in the meantime, is fighting a war in both Central Asia and in Manchuria and once France collapses, they'll be in deep trouble.
1899: At the start of the year, a BEF arrives through Belgian ports as blockading is too slow. In France, food and fuel are becoming scarce and prices soar. This leads to widespread discontent which will explode sooner rather than later. In the meantime, Serbia and Bulgaria form an alliance of convenience and attack the Ottomans. Russia sees itself forced to declare war on the Porte lest they expose their southern flank. With little Russian support for the Balkan powers and British assistance for the Ottomans, they do reasonable. In France, a military breakthrough for the Germans and British coincides with a general strike that paralyzes the already economically troubled French. The US advances in Canada in spite of an RN blockade. Russian forces fail to make any progress in Central Asia in the Persian/Afghanistan mountains and suffer heavy casualties, the same in Manchuria against the Japanese. Summer of 1899: France surrenders. Russia is boxed in and food riots and looting breaks out around that same time in St. Petersburg and soon it turns into open revolt. The army puts the revolt down harshly, but unrest spreads all over Russia. Facing revolution, Nicholas II abdicates later that year. His brother, now Tsar Michael II, requests an armistice in early 1900 with Russia on the brink of revolution and with an untenable military situation.

How is this?
 

Scrape off the Yanks. And you could use this incident to bring the Germans and the UK together. I doubt they would just become allies all of a sudden.

Perhaps Sth like this: Fashoda Incident, the UK and France part ways rather violently. The Germans jump in eagerly to form an alliance with the UK. The UK joins the CP a little later.

Perhaps you could make the Occupation of Bosnia spark a war?

Billigrents:

France + Serbia + Russia + Bulgaria + (Belgium, USA)?

vs.

Germany + UK + A-H + Ottomans + Italy + Japan + (Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Greece)?

The war will be short and bloody. In addition, you could make the Ottomans join the Entante (very unlikely), to make the war last longer.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Well, Britain has Italian and German naval power to assist them in Europe. France only has eight battleships. Britain has many more. They have at least eighteen pre-dreadnoughts as far as I can tell from wikipedia (not the most reliable source I know). Germany adds six to that and Italy a further six modern battleships (only counting BBs built post 1888). The US had four battleships at this time if we're generous (three Indiana-class and USS Texas). This leaves the Anglo-Germans-Italians with 30 BBs and I didn't even add in the few pre-dreadnoughts the Austro-Hungarian navy had. The Franco-Americans have twelve. I didn't factor in the Russian fleet, but I doubt they'll be a big factor. The Black Sea Fleet is stuck and thye Baltic fleet can be kept at bay by the HSF and RN.

Heck, I think with these figures the RN can blockade French and American ports which will do the US little good IMO. OTOH, if we take the 1896 Venezuelan PoD, America could militarize a great deal, but how many battleships could the US realistically churn out in two years time? The army will do better so maybe they will get something from Canada.

Your expertise is, as always, excellent. However, the main issue here is whether the 4A can spare the warships to make a severe *coastal* blockade of America despite the USN, which is the only thing that can truly harm their economy to a real degree (but they still have a lot of railroads in 1896). They are not going to suffer from high seas blockade overmuch, their economy is in 1896 largely self-sufficient. Successful Alliance landings in American mainland are wholly ASB IMO. My rough assumption is that they would not able to do so before they vanquish France and Russia. It is true that America cannot physically build too many battleships in a measely two years. However, this is plenty of time for PO America to expand and modernize its Army to a level that Britain simply cannot match, esp. if it has to distribute its forces among Europe and Central Asia, too (even more so when Turkey joins the war and Britain has to provide it some assistance). And America can spend the time it takes to crush France and Russia (say another two years) to expand its Navy further, to cushion the shock when it has to face the combined Anglo-German-Italian fleets. You are most likely a better expert than me about this, but it is going to matter at some degree.

My estimate about the land war is that America is totally going to overrun mainland Western and Central Canada, even if Britain entrenches in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Claims to the contrary are the tall tales of Canadian nationalists and Britwankers. When America faces the Alliance naval comeback, it feels the brunt to some serious but not crippling degree, but Alliance landings are going to fail and Alliance concentrations in the British-held peripheral bridgeheads are not going to make a strategic breakthrough. A compromise peace favorable to America is likely between the war-weary Alliance and the blockade-harried USA, and the USA are going to keep Western Canada at the very least, unless they bungle everything, quite likely Ontario too, if they do any good, and even Quebec and New Brunswick, if they do really good.

1896 (PoD): Conflict over Venezuela between Britain and US goes hot. Britain deploys troops in Canada and blockades American harbors on the eastern seaboard. America is defeated and humiliated and Britain gets the strip of Venezuelan territory it wanted.

Reasonable. America spends next two years into a massive military build-up. Britain buffers up Canada to a serious degree, which however cannot ever match American potential, but it is forced to leave it critically undermanned when war in Europe erupts.

1898: Fashoda Incident goes hot (around September). Britain and France declare war on each other. Germany waits a bit, but decides to join. Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy declare war. Russia then declares war on the so-called Quadruple Alliance. Japan declares war. Spanish-American War coincides with this war. Britain blockades France while the US declares the right of 'Free Trade'. They are still pissed about their recent humiliation. Naval incidents between American merchant and the RN lead to war. Belgium is politely asked to give up neutrality and they concede reluctantly. German forces move through Belgium into France. The lacking infrastructure for such an enormous troop movement stops them before Paris, but France is already being blockaded into submission and Italy's attacking in the Alps although French forced there keep them at bay.

France succeeding to keep combined Anglo-Italo-German forces at bay if Belgium gives free passage skirts the edge of plausibility, esp. because alongside the Germans there are going to be a sizable BEF (America is not going to enter the war immediately, so it is unplausible that UK keeps the vast majority of its forces in Central Asia and Canada, esp. because France started the war picking a fight with them) and all the extra troops that Italy cannot put to good use in the Alps bottlenecks (there are standing Triple Alliance protocols to transfer them to Alsace-Lorraine ina case of war with France). Logistical difficulties can help justify a "miracle" but I would suggest that to give the French a plausible chance, Belgium has a foolhardy bout of national pride, denies the 4A free passage, and the B-G-I are forced to fight their way through. Say the Walloon populace has a pro-French upsurge, and forces the hand of the king and government into defiance. And/or Austria-Hungary getting into trouble on the Eastern front and needing a bailout.

Russia, in the meantime, is fighting a war in both Central Asia and in Manchuria and once France collapses, they'll be in deep trouble.
1899: At the start of the year, a BEF arrives through Belgian ports as blockading is too slow. In France, food and fuel are becoming scarce and prices soar. This leads to widespread discontent which will explode sooner rather than later.

See above as it concerns the BEF deployment. I honestly dunno how much 1898 France was self-sufficient about foodstuffs or not, so I dunno how much the blockade would affect food availability, although France is definitely going to feel a severe pinch for its industry. Let's say that the blockade helps build up the discontent for the severe post-war revolutonary unrest, that's guaranteed.

In the meantime, Serbia and Bulgaria form an alliance of convenience and attack the Ottomans. Russia sees itself forced to declare war on the Porte lest they expose their southern flank. With little Russian support for the Balkan powers and British assistance for the Ottomans, they do reasonable.

Or alternatively, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania might make an earlier alliance of convenience and backstab both Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, which happens in a unplanned combination with a major Russian offensive. The Russians were aiming against Austria first, as Germany, Britain, and Italy were focused on France, and then they have to enlarge it to the Ottomans too when the war expands. This helps explain why France survives (the B-G-I have to redeploy forces in a hurry to bail out Austria).

In France, a military breakthrough for the Germans and British coincides with a general strike that paralyzes the already economically troubled French. The US advances in Canada in spite of an RN blockade. Russian forces fail to make any progress in Central Asia in the Persian/Afghanistan mountains and suffer heavy casualties, the same in Manchuria against the Japanese.

Don't ignore Italian contribution in the Alps (eventually there is a breakthrough there, too) and A-L, their manpower and army quality was far from trivial. In the long run, France simply hasn't enough manpower to cover such an exceedingly long front, even if Belgians help a bit, so casualties build up and the war looks unwinnable as the blockade makes its effects felt, too. As I said, the US eventually overruns mainland Canada, even if the British keep Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

Summer of 1899: France surrenders. Russia is boxed in and food riots and looting breaks out around that same time in St. Petersburg and soon it turns into open revolt. The army puts the revolt down harshly, but unrest spreads all over Russia. Facing revolution, Nicholas II abdicates later that year. His brother, now Tsar Michael II, requests an armistice in early 1900 with Russia on the brink of revolution and with an untenable military situation.

Quite plausible. See above for my judgement of the outcome in the New World.
 
Last edited:
Great analysis Onkle, Euro. You two have the skeleton of a really good TL there. Hell, that'd make a great epic novel series.

And 47, thanks for the link. Good stuff there too!
 
While I agree the US could certainly take large portions of Canada in an alternate WW I...

I think i missed y exactly the US is at war w/Britain? I mean they were hard pressed to join the war w/unrestricted submarine warfare originally...y would they attack Canada and break their isolationist tendencies w/o it?

Fashoda occurs in 1898...which is after the venezuela dispute (1896) so you would need an earlier POD...which would have its butterflies (I seriously doubt Britain would escalate Fashoda if venezuela erupted into a colonial war)
 

Eurofed

Banned
I think i missed y exactly the US is at war w/Britain? I mean they were hard pressed to join the war w/unrestricted submarine warfare originally...y would they attack Canada and break their isolationist tendencies w/o it?

Isolationism is not an issue as far as the New Wolrd is concerned. Canada was a US expansionist aspiration up to WWI, and a war over Venezuela would fan the embers. If America was humiliated into a colonial war because of a poor military, they would desire revenge on Britain, spend a couple years expanding and modernizing their army, and exploit any pretext for a rematch while Britain is busy in Europe. British blockade of France and Russia is a good one.

(I seriously doubt Britain would escalate Fashoda if venezuela erupted into a colonial war)

If Britain has just won a colonial war with America, they may easily get overconfident (think they have successfuly cowed the US, that they can manage a two-front war, that they can win the war with France quickly before America can act, etc.). Besides, it only takes one side to start a war. If France plays the main role in escalation, Britain may have no other choice.
 
Top