WI: Localized European Conflict in 1914


Well if he really ask Veneto to permit Italy to stay neutral the obvius response is a italian declaration of war...et voilat unneccessary new front for you in 5 minutes, i don't think that many people in Berlin will be happy with the Vienna leaderships for this 'splendid' diplomatic move.
In OTL negotiations i always thinked that Von Bulow (the german mediator) in the end feel to beat the head of the italian and austrian ambassadors against each other so maybe some brain cell will activate.
 
If the British stay out of the war, Italy will also stay out in 99% + of the cases.
It is also much more likely that the Ottomans will stay out, they have no real reason to get into the war. And if the Ottomans stay out, almost certainly Bulgaria will stay out too.

The CP alliance was a purely defensive pact, and did not apply if a war was initiated by one of the signatories (like Austria declaring war on Serbia). Therefore Austria had no reason to ask any kind of indemnification from Italy (much less Veneto, which is worse than ASB. Not even a dumb reactionary fossil like Franz Joseph would come out with such an idea; and if he did, his prime minister would call the big guys dressed all in white :D). As a matter of fact, Austria never indemnified Italy after the annexation of Bosnia (as called for in the alliance pact), and was very reluctant (to say the least) to provide incentives to convince Italy to enter the war on the CP side.

The idea of Austria annexing Serbia :eek: is even worse than the idea of annexing Veneto. Even a prolonged military occupation of Serbia would be a nightmare for Austria, but an outright annexation would also incense the Hungarians and derail the renewal of the Ausgleich.

If Italy stays out of the war (or the war is substantially shorter) there is no reason for the birth of a fascist movement, nor for having a civil-war situation in Italy. I'd go one step further, and postulate that there would not even be a scission between socialists and communists. The most reasonable outcome is that the moderate socialists and the moderate catholics gain a parliamentary majority and form a government.

Did I forget to shoot off any other wild idea? :p
 
So no to giving up Bukovina and TV, and no to the population exchange.

A-H might go for a population exchange, but it would be pretty limited. A full-scale exchange (or, more appropriately, expulsion) could be done with the Serbs.

The Czechs will be happy with their own crown, but I totally forgot about the Germans in the Sudeten, would it be logical for them to be under Vienna? Or maybe an autonomous zone like Bukovina and TV?

The crux of the matter was the the Czechs wanted full control of the entire historical region of Bohemia. Vienna (and the Sudeten Germans, some three million, IIRC) objected, demanding, depending on the period, massive autonomy or outright addition of the Sudetenland to Austria proper.

The Sudeten Germans certainly thought it logical for them to be under Vienna, being, y'know, Germans. The Czechs, naturally, didn't. The whole thing tended to lock down the parliament in the Austrian half ... to the point where rule by decree was necessary since pushing anything through parliament was a nightmare.

Could the issue be solved? Yes. You could have the Emperor simply force a compromise solution (say, Sudetenland under the crown of Bohemia, but with autonomy) ... neither side would be happy with the solution, to be sure, but it's a solution and they would get over it, eventually.

I know exactly what I intend to do with those rowdy Hungarian nobles; like you suggested before, ramming universal suffrage down their throats via Imperial Decree but only after Croatia and Bohemia are granted their own crowns, so as to have them as concrete allies when the times comes to put the nobles down, and that will come to pass.

Bohemia becoming a crown is easy. Croatia holds an odd position, technically, it's a kingdom under the crown of St. Stephan, in perpetual union with the Hungarians. It held an odd, semi-autonomous position with the Empire (in fact, after the Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich, Croatia made one with Hungary). Cutting it off is possible, but the Croat parliament and executive were pretty much staffed entirely by pro-Hungarian groups (much to the displeasure of the populace).

Cutting off Croatia would essentially be a declaration of war on Budapest. Vienna has control of roughly half the territory and amalgamating it while making promises to opposition parties of national unity would probably do the job, but it would have Budapest screaming bloody murder.

The Croats would likely side with Vienna anyway, the moment the opportunity presents itself, as long as the Emperor promises them independence from Budapest (within the Empire, naturally). They pulled the same trick in 1848 and were, as a result, considered one of the most Kaisertreue people in the Monarchy.

You also mentioned a Habsburg on the Polish throne, I kind of just assumed that Germany would directly annex Congress Prussia, would that be logical? If not, I actually like the idea of a Hapsburg Poland. that would completely lock off Russia from Poland and would form an excellent defensive position against them.

OTL, Germany and Austria agreed on the forming of a Kingdom of Poland (comprised of Congress Poland and Galizia-Lodomeria, but none of Germany's areas) with the crown going to Erzherzog Karl Stephan (to ascend to the throne as Karol Stefan), a Habsburg Archduke and naval officer (holding rank as Grand Admiral and Naval Inspector). He was the chosen candidate because, well, he spoke Polish and his daughters were married into Polish nobility, so he was considered an appropriate candidate. Down the line problems might arise due to Karl Stephan's son, Wilhelm (who was, as a supporter of the Ukranians, a candidate for monarch of the newly-fangled idea of a Ukranian Kingdom following Brest-Litovsk). In fact, he'd argued in parliament about granting additional liberties to the Ukrainians in Galizia (where every important position belonged to Polish nobles). Probably end up as a liberal and a reformer King, that one.
 
The CP alliance was a purely defensive pact, and did not apply if a war was initiated by one of the signatories (like Austria declaring war on Serbia). Therefore Austria had no reason to ask any kind of indemnification from Italy (much less Veneto, which is worse than ASB. Not even a dumb reactionary fossil like Franz Joseph would come out with such an idea; and if he did, his prime minister would call the big guys dressed all in white :D).
Never understimate the power of stubborness, senility and total idiocy...unless they just want Italy to declare war on them to settle some score and so used this outrageous proposal (and honestly after that stunt i see the kaiser try to impale the austrian leaderships)

As a matter of fact, Austria never indemnified Italy after the annexation of Bosnia (as called for in the alliance pact), and was very reluctant (to say the least) to provide incentives to convince Italy to enter the war on the CP side.
Yes, i used the Veneto joke only to describe the austrian negotiatior state of mind.
One of the first proposal was like: ok we don't give you nothing and please retreat from Albania so we can occupy ourselfs, in exchange we graciously permit you to remain neutral in our favor and commerce with us, o don't forget to renounce ulterior claim of compensation for eternity...sign here please

The idea of Austria annexing Serbia :eek: is even worse than the idea of annexing Veneto. Even a prolonged military occupation of Serbia would be a nightmare for Austria, but an outright annexation would also incense the Hungarians and derail the renewal of the Ausgleich.
Sure it was an idiot idea, but honestly one that the austrian can come up in their last year of goverment their right decision score is not really good

If Italy stays out of the war (or the war is substantially shorter) there is no reason for the birth of a fascist movement, nor for having a civil-war situation in Italy. I'd go one step further, and postulate that there would not even be a scission between socialists and communists. The most reasonable outcome is that the moderate socialists and the moderate catholics gain a parliamentary majority and form a government.
Unfortunely i'm not so optimistic, in the end there will be a struggle between the classic government forces, the socialist and a nationalistic right authoritarian movement as all the seed there were already here. The introduction of the national male suffrage already bringed the almost collpase the old giolittian compromise way of thinking (and the economic hardship of the libyan war sure not helped) as a lot of votes were going to the socialist and nationalist basically slowly swept away the old piedmontese entourage. A final showdawn is inevitable, but with no war the goverment it's more probable to keep things to go overtly out of hand and limit damage, but reform of the state are inevitable and an authoritarian turn cannot be excluded.
For the communist remain with the socialist, it's possible, but seeing how things are go in the seguent years and knowing this people i found difficult to believe that they will remain united
'In Italy two people form a party and three make a scission'
 
If the British stay out of the war, Italy will also stay out in 99% + of the cases.
It is also much more likely that the Ottomans will stay out, they have no real reason to get into the war. And if the Ottomans stay out, almost certainly Bulgaria will stay out too.

The CP alliance was a purely defensive pact, and did not apply if a war was initiated by one of the signatories (like Austria declaring war on Serbia). Therefore Austria had no reason to ask any kind of indemnification from Italy (much less Veneto, which is worse than ASB. Not even a dumb reactionary fossil like Franz Joseph would come out with such an idea; and if he did, his prime minister would call the big guys dressed all in white :D). As a matter of fact, Austria never indemnified Italy after the annexation of Bosnia (as called for in the alliance pact), and was very reluctant (to say the least) to provide incentives to convince Italy to enter the war on the CP side.

The idea of Austria annexing Serbia :eek: is even worse than the idea of annexing Veneto. Even a prolonged military occupation of Serbia would be a nightmare for Austria, but an outright annexation would also incense the Hungarians and derail the renewal of the Ausgleich.

If Italy stays out of the war (or the war is substantially shorter) there is no reason for the birth of a fascist movement, nor for having a civil-war situation in Italy. I'd go one step further, and postulate that there would not even be a scission between socialists and communists. The most reasonable outcome is that the moderate socialists and the moderate catholics gain a parliamentary majority and form a government.

Did I forget to shoot off any other wild idea? :p

Italy staying out is favorable to my plans, even though you claim that this is prevent the civil war, but that's up for debate. The Ottomans staying out due to this is better, because it gives them yet another reason to do so. Bulgaria would be the only problem, they would have been a great help to Austria in its invasion of Serbia, but I'm sure without a western front, and the Germans going hard in the East from the start should take some ease off of the Austrian Eastern Front.

The Veneto thing was a joke, which took me a few posts to finally get. Also, Austria isn't eating Serbia, it's being placed under union with Montenegro, which is ruled by a Pro-Austrian king who's son is in Vienna at the time.

I'm not so sure that's true about the Civil War being totally determined by Italy in relation to WW1. There won't be a WW1 TTL, so regardless if they fight in this conflict or not, the reason for the Civil War are still there. Fascism was going well before WW1 OTL.

A-H might go for a population exchange, but it would be pretty limited. A full-scale exchange (or, more appropriately, expulsion) could be done with the Serbs.

I forgot there were lots of Serbs in Bosnia. I could see them being expelled for the benefit of the Croats and Bosniaks there to have an easier go at it.

The crux of the matter was the the Czechs wanted full control of the entire historical region of Bohemia. Vienna (and the Sudeten Germans, some three million, IIRC) objected, demanding, depending on the period, massive autonomy or outright addition of the Sudetenland to Austria proper.

The Sudeten Germans certainly thought it logical for them to be under Vienna, being, y'know, Germans. The Czechs, naturally, didn't. The whole thing tended to lock down the parliament in the Austrian half ... to the point where rule by decree was necessary since pushing anything through parliament was a nightmare.

Could the issue be solved? Yes. You could have the Emperor simply force a compromise solution (say, Sudetenland under the crown of Bohemia, but with autonomy) ... neither side would be happy with the solution, to be sure, but it's a solution and they would get over it, eventually.

I'm thinking it would just stay with the Bohemian Crown to keep them complacent, but demand that they are granted autonomy.

Bohemia becoming a crown is easy. Croatia holds an odd position, technically, it's a kingdom under the crown of St. Stephan, in perpetual union with the Hungarians. It held an odd, semi-autonomous position with the Empire (in fact, after the Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich, Croatia made one with Hungary). Cutting it off is possible, but the Croat parliament and executive were pretty much staffed entirely by pro-Hungarian groups (much to the displeasure of the populace).

Cutting off Croatia would essentially be a declaration of war on Budapest. Vienna has control of roughly half the territory and amalgamating it while making promises to opposition parties of national unity would probably do the job, but it would have Budapest screaming bloody murder.

The Croats would likely side with Vienna anyway, the moment the opportunity presents itself, as long as the Emperor promises them independence from Budapest (within the Empire, naturally). They pulled the same trick in 1848 and were, as a result, considered one of the most Kaisertreue people in the Monarchy.

So, would I have to give the Croats Universal Suffrage as well before I give them their own crown so as to upset the current ruling power for one more in favor of Austria and quasi-independence in the confederation?

OTL, Germany and Austria agreed on the forming of a Kingdom of Poland (comprised of Congress Poland and Galizia-Lodomeria, but none of Germany's areas) with the crown going to Erzherzog Karl Stephan (to ascend to the throne as Karol Stefan), a Habsburg Archduke and naval officer (holding rank as Grand Admiral and Naval Inspector). He was the chosen candidate because, well, he spoke Polish and his daughters were married into Polish nobility, so he was considered an appropriate candidate. Down the line problems might arise due to Karl Stephan's son, Wilhelm (who was, as a supporter of the Ukranians, a candidate for monarch of the newly-fangled idea of a Ukranian Kingdom following Brest-Litovsk). In fact, he'd argued in parliament about granting additional liberties to the Ukrainians in Galizia (where every important position belonged to Polish nobles). Probably end up as a liberal and a reformer King, that one.

Archduke Charles Stephen sounds like a wonderful choice for the new King of Poland, but Wilhelm is his youngest son, and probably outside the like of succession. Would taking the Ukraine from Russia in a war that ends in two years be too much? If not, I see tossing the kid on the throne immediately since he was such a favorite of the Ukrainians.
 
I forgot there were lots of Serbs in Bosnia. I could see them being expelled for the benefit of the Croats and Bosniaks there to have an easier go at it.

Nasty, but doable. Just to note, Serbs actually comprised the plurality of several regions. Though if the agreement is part of the peace treaty, it'd pass. After all, that's how things worked at the time.

I'm thinking it would just stay with the Bohemian Crown to keep them complacent, but demand that they are granted autonomy.

Both sides would cry foul in the initial phase, but they'd likely settle down after a bit. After all, at least the other side didn't get what they wanted.

So, would I have to give the Croats Universal Suffrage as well before I give them their own crown so as to upset the current ruling power for one more in favor of Austria and quasi-independence in the confederation?

Pretty much. The opposition parties (who'd been in opposition for something close to fifty years at the point) would likely jump on any deal that gave them power. You'd probably have radicals demanding independence and such, but largely the parties would toe Vienna's line. Given developments post-war, I'd say the Agrarian party (in essence, social-democrats) would win big, much like in Hungary.

Put simply, Hungary and Croatia were the same problem, though with Croatia, it was easier to solve. Independence from Hungary, union of their national territories and Vienna would gain a great deal of support.

Archduke Charles Stephen sounds like a wonderful choice for the new King of Poland, but Wilhelm is his youngest son, and probably outside the like of succession. Would taking the Ukraine from Russia in a war that ends in two years be too much? If not, I see tossing the kid on the throne immediately since he was such a favorite of the Ukrainians.

Wilhelm is the youngest, indeed (sorry about that, completely forgot about the other two sons, they're just not as interesting). The heir would likely be Karl Albrecht (who was a landowner in Galizia and, in essence, a carbon copy of his father ... IIRC, he also served in the Polish army following WWI OTL).

The Ukraine was mostly a target of opportunity. Essentially, the initial CP proposal for peace (in 1917) was: Congress Poland + Baltic states (to be formed into the United Baltic Duchy + Lithuania) + independence for Finland. It was only after the Soviet delegation walked out and the CP advance continued unabated that forced the Soviets to come to the table, at which point Belorussia (Weissruthenien according to the Germans) and Ukraine were added to the list. Having no choice, the Soviets accepted the offered peace (also known as Brest-Litovsk).

It's likely that following a two-year war, the Central Powers (and Russia) would settle for the initial demands (with Finland possibly excluded, maybe autonomy within the Russian Empire). The Ukraine and Belorussia were pretty harsh demands since, at the time, both were considered inextricable parts of Russia and the population of both nations considered themselves Russian (even if they spoke the wrong language, there was very little support for an independent Ukrainian or Belorussian state, more for Ukrainian, but not a lot by any measure). Essentially, splitting the Ukraine (and Belorussia) would be a recipe for a repeat of the Elsass-Lothringen problem, ensuring Russian hostility to the Central Powers. The Baltic States and Poland, Russia could do without ... probably even be happy to be rid of, the Poles had been nothing but trouble since Russia claimed the region.

Would the Germans do it? Maybe. Germany was terrified of Russia at the time and a chance to cripple it would be jumped on, but they'd be hesitant of pushing too far because, well, Britain. They'd likely go with their minimal proposal (Baltic states + Poland), something Britain could stomach. If the Russians refuse and fight on (a possibility), then I see the equivalent of Brest-Litovsk happening (in which case, yes, Archduke Wilhelm would wind up as the monarch). It's going to leave Russia very angry, of course ... and you'd likely see a rematch of WWI occur eventually. Then again, Brest-Litovsk would accomplish Germany's strategic goal (crippling Russia), though they'd inherit a never-ending headache in the East. Without the losses of the Western Front (and less in the East due to their overwhelming focus there), they'd likely be able to remain involved there for some time after the war's end.
 
Sounds like we've got the Eastern Front all wrapped up. Thanks for sharing your insight on the topic, I really had no idea what I was walking into. Two other thing's I'd really like to get final answers on before I start to put all of this together:

1. With Russia bowing out in Late 1915 with OTL Brest-Litovsk, would France concede to Germany some colonies? (French Indonesia or French Congo?)

2. Italy was never really discussed to an end point, and I'm still flip floppy on it. I was speaking with King Nazar via chat last night and we came up with the idea that Italy would join the Entente, leading to a trench/border war between Italy and A-H, but when the Russians bow out, the Germans in the east would swing South and plow through N. Italy. Is this plausible? If so, would A-H be able to get back Veneto? Would Italy then switch sides with the promise of French Tunisia and French Savoy and Nice?
 
Last edited:
1. With Russia bowing out in Late 1915 with OTL Brest-Litovsk, would France concede to Germany some colonies? (French Indonesia or French Congo?)

Well, German colonial planners were really taken with the idea of Mittelafrika, that is, German Africa encompassing Cameroon, all of Congo and German East Africa. So, if they do ask, they'll probably push for Congo (as a foundation from which to work toward the Mittelafrika idea), rather than a region Germany has no reasonable way to project power to.

Exchange of colonies was a pretty normal thing in the period, so it's likely they'd change hands in the peace treaty.

2. Italy was never really discussed to an end point, and I'm still flip floppy on it. I was speaking with King Nazar via chat last night and we came up with the idea that Italy would join the Entente, leading to a trench/border war between Italy and A-H, but when the Russians bow out, the Germans in the east would swing South and plow through N. Italy. Is this plausible? If so, would A-H be able to get back Veneto? Would Italy then switch sides with the promise of French Tunisia and French Savoy and Nice?

Well, Italy joining the Entente is a possibility. As long as Britain remains neutral (Italy couldn't join any side other than the one with Britain in it), they could do it. They were cautious OTL, however. The Galizian disaster for Austria-Hungary, the failure of the Serbian offensives and the stalling of the German invasion of France all gave Italy the impression that the Central Powers were beatable in general and that Austria-Hungary would collapse with a good kick in particular.

Could political maneuvering force Italy into the war on the Entente side? Certainly. Their enmity with Austria was rather fierce and they had significant irredentist claims on the Austrian littoral (namely, all of it).

It pretty much would devolve into trench warfare, though. Maybe a repeat of the Isonzo offensives which didn't really do anything other than add to the lists of Italian dead.

OTL, the Caporetto offensive by the CPs (after Russia collapsed) was an overwhelming success, coming within a hair's breadth collapsing the Italian Army entirely and leaving the Po valley open. Now, OTL's forces were pretty much the limit as far as logistics were concerned, so more troops aren't the answer, but keeping the Italian Army from rallying as they did for, say, another day or so could turn the whole thing into a rout rather than a retreat.

Post-war, it's possible France tosses Italy to the wolves in exchange for leniency in the negotiations. In that case ... Italy is going to be in trouble. Depending on the Ottoman stance, they might lose Libya (to the Ottomans, though it's a near-certainly they'd lose the Dodecanese islands to Istanbul). Italian colonies aren't all that attractive, so they'd probably be left alone. Maybe reparations?

Now, regarding Veneto. Vienna has enough troubles at home and they know it, so I don't see Veneto being annexed. There would probably be minor border alterations (for a more defensive border) and Italy renouncing all claims on Austrian territory.

What follows is purely speculation, but hear me out: Veneto might be useful as a buffer for Austria and, thus, established as a separate nation (a Republic, to keep continuity with the Venetian Republic, maybe?). It could also double as a sort-of waiting area until Austria has brought it's own house into order, so that it can integrated into the Habsburg Empire with a minimum of fuss later on. It's fate would depend on the situation in Italy and Austria, however. Public support would be a problem, but if Italy winds up a mess (they did OTL and that's when they won the war), the populace might rally to the government/idea of a Venetian Republic. Answering to Vienna might be a problem, but it's possible for the Republic to take on a life of it's own and wind up as a client/ally.
 
Well, German colonial planners were really taken with the idea of Mittelafrika, that is, German Africa encompassing Cameroon, all of Congo and German East Africa. So, if they do ask, they'll probably push for Congo (as a foundation from which to work toward the Mittelafrika idea), rather than a region Germany has no reasonable way to project power to.

Exchange of colonies was a pretty normal thing in the period, so it's likely they'd change hands in the peace treaty.



Well, Italy joining the Entente is a possibility. As long as Britain remains neutral (Italy couldn't join any side other than the one with Britain in it), they could do it. They were cautious OTL, however. The Galizian disaster for Austria-Hungary, the failure of the Serbian offensives and the stalling of the German invasion of France all gave Italy the impression that the Central Powers were beatable in general and that Austria-Hungary would collapse with a good kick in particular.

Could political maneuvering force Italy into the war on the Entente side? Certainly. Their enmity with Austria was rather fierce and they had significant irredentist claims on the Austrian littoral (namely, all of it).

It pretty much would devolve into trench warfare, though. Maybe a repeat of the Isonzo offensives which didn't really do anything other than add to the lists of Italian dead.

OTL, the Caporetto offensive by the CPs (after Russia collapsed) was an overwhelming success, coming within a hair's breadth collapsing the Italian Army entirely and leaving the Po valley open. Now, OTL's forces were pretty much the limit as far as logistics were concerned, so more troops aren't the answer, but keeping the Italian Army from rallying as they did for, say, another day or so could turn the whole thing into a rout rather than a retreat.

Post-war, it's possible France tosses Italy to the wolves in exchange for leniency in the negotiations. In that case ... Italy is going to be in trouble. Depending on the Ottoman stance, they might lose Libya (to the Ottomans, though it's a near-certainly they'd lose the Dodecanese islands to Istanbul). Italian colonies aren't all that attractive, so they'd probably be left alone. Maybe reparations?

Now, regarding Veneto. Vienna has enough troubles at home and they know it, so I don't see Veneto being annexed. There would probably be minor border alterations (for a more defensive border) and Italy renouncing all claims on Austrian territory.

What follows is purely speculation, but hear me out: Veneto might be useful as a buffer for Austria and, thus, established as a separate nation (a Republic, to keep continuity with the Venetian Republic, maybe?). It could also double as a sort-of waiting area until Austria has brought it's own house into order, so that it can integrated into the Habsburg Empire with a minimum of fuss later on. It's fate would depend on the situation in Italy and Austria, however. Public support would be a problem, but if Italy winds up a mess (they did OTL and that's when they won the war), the populace might rally to the government/idea of a Venetian Republic. Answering to Vienna might be a problem, but it's possible for the Republic to take on a life of it's own and wind up as a client/ally.

Wow...resurgent Venetian Republic in Viennese orbit? That sounds awesome.

Would reparations from Italy to the CP come in the form of the transferal of their East African colonies to their enemies? Revocation of claims is a given, and Italian N. Africa would probably stay Italian, but would Eritrea and Somaliland be taken from them, or are they just as useless as N. Africa?

I can see France coaxing Italy to join with the CP focused on the East and A-H busy bumbling around in Serbia, which according to OTL, was long, hard, and in the end, a useless waste. TTL it'll still be long and hard, but union with Pro-Austrian Montenegro sounds pretty useful to me.

I definitely want Italy to take a loss, so the Fascists under D'Annunzio take power, and most have said that Italy needs the loss because, although a three-way civil war sounds cool and interesting, some have mentioned that the Socialists would just buddy up with the already democratic government and crush the Fascists.
 
Would reparations from Italy to the CP come in the form of the transferal of their East African colonies to their enemies? Revocation of claims is a given, and Italian N. Africa would probably stay Italian, but would Eritrea and Somaliland be taken from them, or are they just as useless as N. Africa?

I'm a bit out of my depth here, my knowledge of Italian politics of the period is cursory at best. Same thing for colonies, really.

Let's try anyway ... Libya was the third coast, Italy's pet project. Unless the Ottomans enter the war (and even if they do since it's a fair distance away), it would likely remain in Italian hands. They'd be busy enough with native uprisings as OTL.

The Horn of Africa was mostly ignored, which is why the Italians got a chance to nab them. It was poor in resources, little in the way of population ... it was only really useful as a base in the Indian Ocean (and Germany already had that in the form of Dar-es-Salaam). Austria was never interested in colonies (beyond a brief attempt in the late 18th century) and following the compromise it would've been too politically messy to administer anything.

Karl did, IIRC, express an opinion that running a colony had to be easier than running Austria-Hungary (he was somewhat naive and did honestly believe that claptrap about the African savage and the white man's burden). Still, I don't really see Austria bothering with Somalia or Eritrea and Germany would likely be more interested in finding some way to get their greedy little fingers on Belgian Congo without pissing Britain off. With Wilhelm at the helm of Germany, well, they might take the colonies just because (Germany, after all, needs it's place in the sun). Britain probably wouldn't be too happy though, Italian East Africa could be used to threaten Kenya and Sudan (and those are exposed enough as it is). A stern warning would be enough to keep Germans away and Italy is as good an option as any other to have the colonies.

Ultimately, Italian East Africa is pretty useless to both Central Powers and would just end up as (yet another) money drain in Africa.

So, oddly, I can see Italy walking away with all of her colonies (minus the Dodecanese islands, which probably would go to the Ottomans ... or Greece, depending on whether Germany or Britain got final say in the negotiations). Reparations would probably take the form of money. Maybe warships of the Regia Marina turned over to the Austrians (and counted towards the reparations), Vienna had always been worried about the Italian Navy. This, in addition to territorial loss of Italian heartlands, would more than count as the loss you require. Italy would probably be as angry as Germany was following OTL's WWI ... angrier even.
 
I'm a bit out of my depth here, my knowledge of Italian politics of the period is cursory at best. Same thing for colonies, really.

Let's try anyway ... Libya was the third coast, Italy's pet project. Unless the Ottomans enter the war (and even if they do since it's a fair distance away), it would likely remain in Italian hands. They'd be busy enough with native uprisings as OTL.

The Horn of Africa was mostly ignored, which is why the Italians got a chance to nab them. It was poor in resources, little in the way of population ... it was only really useful as a base in the Indian Ocean (and Germany already had that in the form of Dar-es-Salaam). Austria was never interested in colonies (beyond a brief attempt in the late 18th century) and following the compromise it would've been too politically messy to administer anything.

Karl did, IIRC, express an opinion that running a colony had to be easier than running Austria-Hungary (he was somewhat naive and did honestly believe that claptrap about the African savage and the white man's burden). Still, I don't really see Austria bothering with Somalia or Eritrea and Germany would likely be more interested in finding some way to get their greedy little fingers on Belgian Congo without pissing Britain off. With Wilhelm at the helm of Germany, well, they might take the colonies just because (Germany, after all, needs it's place in the sun). Britain probably wouldn't be too happy though, Italian East Africa could be used to threaten Kenya and Sudan (and those are exposed enough as it is). A stern warning would be enough to keep Germans away and Italy is as good an option as any other to have the colonies.

Ultimately, Italian East Africa is pretty useless to both Central Powers and would just end up as (yet another) money drain in Africa.

So, oddly, I can see Italy walking away with all of her colonies (minus the Dodecanese islands, which probably would go to the Ottomans ... or Greece, depending on whether Germany or Britain got final say in the negotiations). Reparations would probably take the form of money. Maybe warships of the Regia Marina turned over to the Austrians (and counted towards the reparations), Vienna had always been worried about the Italian Navy. This, in addition to territorial loss of Italian heartlands, would more than count as the loss you require. Italy would probably be as angry as Germany was following OTL's WWI ... angrier even.

Or Greece? Care to go into detail with that?

You've convinced me that Italy will keep its shitty colonies, and everything following that sounds excellent, reparations in the form of money and ships from the Regia Marina to A-H. That all sounds acceptable as precursors to Fascist Italy.

It sounds like everything I wanted to know has been answered, I might just get started on this TL this weekend.
 
Or Greece? Care to go into detail with that?

I'm going under the assumption that Britain would, inevitably, be involved in any peace negotiations to, if nothing else, prevent Germany from utterly dominating the continent.

Now, the Ottomans were friendly with all three powers (France, Britain and Germany), but were closer to Germany and France than Britain (and with France out of the way, it's a practical inevitability that they'd end up in German orbit). On the other hand, Britain was pretty close to Greece (pro-German monarch aside). It should be noted that without Britain entering the war and taking the two dreadnoughts the Ottomans had already paid for, their relations wouldn't take the nosedive of OTL and would thus remain cordial and even friendly, but they're still not up to level of German-Ottoman relations.

The Dodecanese islands were taken from the Ottomans by Italy during the war over Libya, ostensibly in support of local (Greek) rebels. While the Ottomans would very much like them back (and the position is pretty much untenable for a crippled Italy, unlike Libya), the Greeks would probably want them as well (given that the local population pretty much was Greek). Thus, while Germany would probably agitate for their return to the Ottomans to firm up their relationship with them (and to punish Italy, with maybe a naval base for the German Navy on Rhodes thrown in), it's entirely possible for Britain to get it's way and the islands to go to their client, Greece (and, potentially, drive a wedge between Germany and the Ottomans, also, prevent Germany from having a permanent naval base in the Med outside of the easily blocked-off Austrian Adriatic ports).
 
The thing that caused much protest from the Croats was the fact they were joined into the second union with Hungary against their own free will.

The thing was that in the late 11th, early 12th centruy, between years 1091 and 1102 Kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia were joined into a Personal Union with Croatia maintaing a great deal of internal autonomy. It had a separate diet and a viceroy (Ban). In addition it was customary that the heir to the joint throne or a younger sibling of the ruling king rules Croatia as a separate fief. In a way until the arrival of the Anjou to the throne of Hungary-Croatia the two were separate kingdoms united merely through the fact people ruling them belonged to the same familiy or were the same person. During and following the Anjou period Croatia lost some of its authonomy due to civil wars and resistance to central authority of the King of Hungary-Croatia. During this period Croatia was almost universaly the area where memebers of the ruling family that tried to usurp the throne found their support (a similar thing existed during the Arpad period).

Between the creation of the kingdom of Hungary-Croatia and the arrival of the Hapsburgs the 'no mans land' between Croatia and Hungary proper that would later be known as Slavonia was institutionalised. Before the union the land was at times ruled by Croatia and at time by Hungary. Following the creation of Hungary-Croatia it was most likely part of Hungary though joined with Croatia and ruled by Croatian diet and Ban as well as the junior member of the ruling family (confusing no?). Later it was upgraded into the Kingdom of Slavonia and recieved a separate diet and Ban but the exat rule remaind murky because at times Ban of Croatia had influence over both Croatia and Slavonia and was superior to the Ban of Slavonia but at times it was the other way around and yet there were times were the two were completely separate but such political and institutional swings resulted in stronger connections between two regions until the point when most of Croatia and most of Slavonia were conquered by the Otomans all that was left was renamed Croatia.

When the Jagelo dinasty died out Croatian diet sundered the union with Hungary and on their free accord decided to ellect Ferdinand Hapsburg as king of Croatia. As far Croatian diet and Ban were concerned Croatia was now in personal union with whatever Ferdinant was king/archduke/emperor at that time. The problem occured that the Crown of St.Stephan still included Croatia as far as Hungarians were concerned though the Union was sundered so when the Hapsburgs got that crown they in a way inherited Croatia that was allready in Personal with them for the second time. Because one crown of Croatia was lost during the time of Ladislaus of Naples and the other one was lost during Ottoman conquest it was natural for the Hapsburgs to use the crown of St.Stephan to crown themselves as both kings of Hungary and kings of Croatia since that crown still included Croatia as was used by kings of Croatia and were also kings of Hungary during the personal union of Hungary-Croatia.

So time goes on and Croatia is more and more just considered part of Hungary rather than an independant actor withing the Hapsburg possessions. Following the 'betrayl' of 1849 by the Viena court and the Agreement between Austria and Hungary in 1867, Croats went into a separate agreement with the Hungarians to try and save as much authonomy for themselves rather than just being treated as a piece of Hungary.

Should at any time Vien offer Croatia (and constituent parts of the triune kingdom Slavonia and Dalmatia) to be treated on the same basis on wich Croatia endered the union with the Hapsburgs, in other words and independent kingdom joined with them in personal union, the Court would get a remarkebly loyal supporter to pretty much anything that wouldn't decrees Croatian authnomy withing the Empire.
 
I'm going under the assumption that Britain would, inevitably, be involved in any peace negotiations to, if nothing else, prevent Germany from utterly dominating the continent.

Now, the Ottomans were friendly with all three powers (France, Britain and Germany), but were closer to Germany and France than Britain (and with France out of the way, it's a practical inevitability that they'd end up in German orbit). On the other hand, Britain was pretty close to Greece (pro-German monarch aside). It should be noted that without Britain entering the war and taking the two dreadnoughts the Ottomans had already paid for, their relations wouldn't take the nosedive of OTL and would thus remain cordial and even friendly, but they're still not up to level of German-Ottoman relations.

The Dodecanese islands were taken from the Ottomans by Italy during the war over Libya, ostensibly in support of local (Greek) rebels. While the Ottomans would very much like them back (and the position is pretty much untenable for a crippled Italy, unlike Libya), the Greeks would probably want them as well (given that the local population pretty much was Greek). Thus, while Germany would probably agitate for their return to the Ottomans to firm up their relationship with them (and to punish Italy, with maybe a naval base for the German Navy on Rhodes thrown in), it's entirely possible for Britain to get it's way and the islands to go to their client, Greece (and, potentially, drive a wedge between Germany and the Ottomans, also, prevent Germany from having a permanent naval base in the Med outside of the easily blocked-off Austrian Adriatic ports).

I know Britain will become a watchdog for the Treaty, but Wilhelm won't have a problem appeasing his British cousin; France won't lose any land, and if the Dodecanese have to go to the Greeks, so be it, the Ottomans merely surviving is good enough for them (it should be, no time to be greedy).

I definitely don't think Britain would be upset with Russia getting butchered by Brest-Litovsk, and most of their heads would be Habsburgs anyways. All in all, even with Britain watching carefully, I don't see anything wrong with what we've discussed so far.

The thing that caused much protest from the Croats was the fact they were joined into the second union with Hungary against their own free will.

The thing was that in the late 11th, early 12th centruy, between years 1091 and 1102 Kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia were joined into a Personal Union with Croatia maintaing a great deal of internal autonomy. It had a separate diet and a viceroy (Ban). In addition it was customary that the heir to the joint throne or a younger sibling of the ruling king rules Croatia as a separate fief. In a way until the arrival of the Anjou to the throne of Hungary-Croatia the two were separate kingdoms united merely through the fact people ruling them belonged to the same familiy or were the same person. During and following the Anjou period Croatia lost some of its authonomy due to civil wars and resistance to central authority of the King of Hungary-Croatia. During this period Croatia was almost universaly the area where memebers of the ruling family that tried to usurp the throne found their support (a similar thing existed during the Arpad period).

Between the creation of the kingdom of Hungary-Croatia and the arrival of the Hapsburgs the 'no mans land' between Croatia and Hungary proper that would later be known as Slavonia was institutionalised. Before the union the land was at times ruled by Croatia and at time by Hungary. Following the creation of Hungary-Croatia it was most likely part of Hungary though joined with Croatia and ruled by Croatian diet and Ban as well as the junior member of the ruling family (confusing no?). Later it was upgraded into the Kingdom of Slavonia and recieved a separate diet and Ban but the exat rule remaind murky because at times Ban of Croatia had influence over both Croatia and Slavonia and was superior to the Ban of Slavonia but at times it was the other way around and yet there were times were the two were completely separate but such political and institutional swings resulted in stronger connections between two regions until the point when most of Croatia and most of Slavonia were conquered by the Otomans all that was left was renamed Croatia.

When the Jagelo dinasty died out Croatian diet sundered the union with Hungary and on their free accord decided to ellect Ferdinand Hapsburg as king of Croatia. As far Croatian diet and Ban were concerned Croatia was now in personal union with whatever Ferdinant was king/archduke/emperor at that time. The problem occured that the Crown of St.Stephan still included Croatia as far as Hungarians were concerned though the Union was sundered so when the Hapsburgs got that crown they in a way inherited Croatia that was allready in Personal with them for the second time. Because one crown of Croatia was lost during the time of Ladislaus of Naples and the other one was lost during Ottoman conquest it was natural for the Hapsburgs to use the crown of St.Stephan to crown themselves as both kings of Hungary and kings of Croatia since that crown still included Croatia as was used by kings of Croatia and were also kings of Hungary during the personal union of Hungary-Croatia.

So time goes on and Croatia is more and more just considered part of Hungary rather than an independant actor withing the Hapsburg possessions. Following the 'betrayl' of 1849 by the Viena court and the Agreement between Austria and Hungary in 1867, Croats went into a separate agreement with the Hungarians to try and save as much authonomy for themselves rather than just being treated as a piece of Hungary.

Should at any time Vien offer Croatia (and constituent parts of the triune kingdom Slavonia and Dalmatia) to be treated on the same basis on wich Croatia endered the union with the Hapsburgs, in other words and independent kingdom joined with them in personal union, the Court would get a remarkebly loyal supporter to pretty much anything that wouldn't decrees Croatian authnomy withing the Empire.

Holy shit, you really know you stuff about Croatia. Thanks for the very interesting input. This only solidifies Croatia joining Vienna against Budapest after they are granted their own crown.
 
Top