World War I Against the League of Three Emperors

You have completely ignored the point I made about the geographical constraints that applied to how much force could be brought to bear. Further it should be noted that the Ottomans held off the British, French and Russians to nearly the close of the war. Again due to geography the amount of force that AH can send in that direction is limited. The Ottomans however can now look forwards to receiving aid and war material that they had to fight without in OTL.

Further Russia is likely weaker than in OTL as neither Britain nor France have been as interested in developing its economy via cheap loans. The Ottomans may well be stronger.

The only power that significantly gains is the Dual-Monarchy and that gain only lasts until the loss of its overseas trade begins to bite. It is by far the weakest and least effectual of the Great Powers that were involved in the conflict.

A lot would be changed, so it is impossible to gauge all factors but as Russia worked out in OTL there are enormous advantages to the Anglo-French position.

Russia wouldn't necessarily be weaker than OTL, as Germany, too, had a lot of capital and investment opportunities. I see your point, but the thing is, it's impossible to say how things might have been, exactly, at the beginning of the war. I assumed they would be similar to OTL, but even with a weaker Russia taken into account, the Three Emperors is still a stronger alliance.

While Geography played a HUGE part in WW1, and there's no denying that, you can't dismiss manpower even in the short term. Nor can you dismiss the superior artillery and military doctrine of the Germans as compared to the French. With no Eastern front to worry about, Germany can focus all of its considerable attention on breaking through in the West in 1914 and 1915. They will have more flexibility, more opportunities to go on the offensive, more of everything. France and Britain will be able to leverage their considerable economic potential to stay afloat, but by 1916 Germany will have found a breakthrough, especially as like OTL they will occupy much of France's industry (even more than OTL, really).

Austria Hungary, meanwhile, is certainly the weakest power on the Emperor's side, but it can and will contain Italy and eventually win. The same logic applies here as applied in France: A narrow front, with a lot of manpower on both sides. Once Austro-Hungarian units enter the Po Valley, though, Italian resistance will fall apart.

The Russians will be fighting the Ottomans and Japanese simultaneously, not too tall an order for them, especially with plentiful German assistance (as the Western front can only have so many soldiers in relevant places, as you said.). This is where Balkan opportunitism screws the Ottomans, IMO, because both Bulgaria and Greece are going to have a bone to pick with the Ottomans.
 
Russia wouldn't necessarily be weaker than OTL, as Germany, too, had a lot of capital and investment opportunities. I see your point, but the thing is, it's impossible to say how things might have been, exactly, at the beginning of the war. I assumed they would be similar to OTL, but even with a weaker Russia taken into account, the Three Emperors is still a stronger alliance.

While Geography played a HUGE part in WW1, and there's no denying that, you can't dismiss manpower even in the short term. Nor can you dismiss the superior artillery and military doctrine of the Germans as compared to the French. With no Eastern front to worry about, Germany can focus all of its considerable attention on breaking through in the West in 1914 and 1915. They will have more flexibility, more opportunities to go on the offensive, more of everything. France and Britain will be able to leverage their considerable economic potential to stay afloat, but by 1916 Germany will have found a breakthrough, especially as like OTL they will occupy much of France's industry (even more than OTL, really).

Austria Hungary, meanwhile, is certainly the weakest power on the Emperor's side, but it can and will contain Italy and eventually win. The same logic applies here as applied in France: A narrow front, with a lot of manpower on both sides. Once Austro-Hungarian units enter the Po Valley, though, Italian resistance will fall apart.

The Russians will be fighting the Ottomans and Japanese simultaneously, not too tall an order for them, especially with plentiful German assistance (as the Western front can only have so many soldiers in relevant places, as you said.). This is where Balkan opportunitism screws the Ottomans, IMO, because both Bulgaria and Greece are going to have a bone to pick with the Ottomans.

Well to be ruthless yes I can ignore manpower in the short term. Because I know the Germans cannot send more troops and more guns without sending them less ammunition and food and most importantly fodder for the horses which tow the guns and ammunition.

I don't think Italy will necessarily go down...in fact the biggest danger from the Emperors3 side is that the addition of Russia might scare the Italians into an attack of common sense or to put it another way, deciding against continually attacking up the side of the Alps.

That will certainly prolong how long the Italians can stay in the war as it was on the attack they suffered the majority of their losses.

The Russians won't need as many troops in the field at once which should help them, however they will be fighting the Japanese and that did not work out so well for them last time, worse since that time they have lost Manchuria, on the plus side they have done some work on the Trans-Siberian railway on the down side (again) not enough.

On the other down side they will be missing even more of inputs from overseas than they did OTL on the plus side Germany may be able to supply some of their needs.

The bad news is that while neither side can expect to win a military breakthrough sufficient to end the war the side that can last out longest in time is still likely to be the Entente...however the Entente is somewhat reliant on the US being forbearing (in fact everyone is...to make an unstoppable alliance in the C20th add the USA).

Hence the economic argument to my mind (small and reodentish though it is) becomes key. Once we understand the fundamentals we can approach the possible range of answers in order of the least number of Space Bat's wing flaps.
 
While Geography played a HUGE part in WW1, and there's no denying that, you can't dismiss manpower even in the short term. Nor can you dismiss the superior artillery and military doctrine of the Germans as compared to the French. With no Eastern front to worry about, Germany can focus all of its considerable attention on breaking through in the West in 1914 and 1915. They will have more flexibility, more opportunities to go on the offensive, more of everything. France and Britain will be able to leverage their considerable economic potential to stay afloat, but by 1916 Germany will have found a breakthrough, especially as like OTL they will occupy much of France's industry (even more than OTL, really).
Point of contention, actually. French mobilization under Plan XVII pushed for an offensive through Alsace-Lorraine, and which both lead to exorbitant casualties among its pre-war infantry force during the Battle of the Frontiers and giving up much of Northern France. Without a Russian alliance, French mobilization and strategic plans necessarily change, and a more defensive plan aiming to counter an expected German punch through Belgium (modified Plan XVI) would remain in place and be refined; without Russia, a French offensive war would be extremely ill-advised, and will reflect in French military thinking (perhaps it may spark a more defensive-minded military doctrine, perhaps not). Even without possible doctrinal and equipment changes, a French army deployment that concentrated in anticipation of a German thrust through Belgium necessarily leads to significantly less gains for the Germans, and probably preserves a great deal, or all, of French industry.

Beyond which, Germany already committed the brunt of its forces into the swing through Belgium OTL; the addition of ~250,000 men of the VIIIth army which was deployed in East Prussia will have a comparatively negligible effect, given German logistics.

Similarly, German mobilization changes. Without a two-front war, Germany has less incentive to violate Belgian neutrality, and the gamble it entails. A long war, either hot or cold, against a primarily Franco-British Entente can be won in the long term without Russia and the prospect of a two-front war, from the German perspective. The Schlieffen Plan could be scrapped altogether, in favor of maintaining Belgium as a neutral trading nation, as German geo-strategic priority will be placed breaking a probable British blockade, as opposed to knocking out one of their main continental enemies in one swift blow.

These necessarily change the outcomes of the Western Front, from being a straightforward "Germans do better in everything". The loss of French investment capital, for instance, would almost certainly impact Russian mobilization and army readiness.

Both France and Italy, in such a scenario, would be primarily on the defensive, as they hope to leverage the resources of the British and French imperial possessions and unfettered access to the world market to match initial manpower disadvantages, while relying on non-European allies (the Ottomans or Japan) in persecuting the war in far-flung areas of the "Three Emperor's Allliance" to weaken core members of the Alliance.
 
Last edited:
Logistics is going to make a big difference.

If Japan enters, they will defeat Russia, because the Russians simply cannot respond fast enough. If Russia invades the Ottoman Empire and Persia, they will have to do slowly at the risk of overextending themselves. (Also keep in mind that the Ottomans are not fighting the British, which means they have way more troops available to send north) Germany cannot send its entire army into France at once.

It really comes down to which side Italy and the balkan nations choose.

Edit: In the long run, the central powers have a big manpower advantage so they'd likely win on their own.
 
Last edited:
Chinese Civil War

If the Russians stuck their noses into the Chinese Civil War, who would they support: Beiyang or the Kuomintang? Without the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist Party would likely not be as powerful and done away with. I would guess that the Tsarist Russians would support the Kuomintang because Beiyang had tensions with the USSR. Would the Anglo-Franco-Japanese Alliance fight a proxy war and support the opposing side?
 
Last edited:
A popular subject of discussion for an alternate World War I is: a war against both Germany and Russia. So, in this timeline, Germany is able to patch up tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia and keep the League of Three Emperors in tact. The opposing alliance would consist of: Great Britain, Portugal, France, Belgium (once Germany invades it), Italy, the Ottoman Empire, and Japan. Because of Austria-Hungary and Russia's patched tensions, the Balkan states: Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, and Greece would probably fight Balkan wars separate from the Great War and be considered neutral.

Actually, if you have patched relations between Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, wouldn't the Slavic Balkan states (Montenegro, Serbia, and Bulgaria) likely ally with the League of Three Emperors against the Ottomans, possibly with Greece as an ally as well? I think these would be an integral part of the Great War, and quite possibly the major theater for Russia (even with Japan in the far east).

I think its a walkover for the Emperors. France falls quickly, The Ottoman Empire collapses, Italy is defeated. Only the two naval powers fighting largely in marginal theatres (Britain and Japan) do well and a peace is negotiated.
 
I think its a walkover for the Emperors. France falls quickly, The Ottoman Empire collapses, Italy is defeated. Only the two naval powers fighting largely in marginal theatres (Britain and Japan) do well and a peace is negotiated
.

Not really, a Three Emperor League mean a total change of the Entente strategy.
They will discart Plan XVII and go for a more defensive stance and Italy will do the same...and this mean that the league army will bleed badly
 
I think Russia might be worst off in this stand off. While Germany certainly has capital to invest in Russia I doubt it will match that of both France and Britain. Not only that but they have to split what capital they have on two underdeveloped economies, Russia and Austria-Hungry.

It's a still a stalemate because the technology and knowledge of the time negates population advantages. Plus Russia is a huge country with crazy amounts of borders to watch. The tech isn't there for them to respond rapidly to multiple invasions across the world. I don't know how much troops they would have to spare when they are fighting the British in Central Asia, Japan in the Far East, and the Ottomans in the Caucasus.
 
I don't know how much troops they would have to spare when they are fighting the British in Central Asia, Japan in the Far East, and the Ottomans in the Caucasus.
None of those are fronts that would demand (or even be able to support) large numbers of men. And none of the threats there are really all that dangerous to Russia, Persia would probably be the most significant place of conflict among them. Why would the Ottoman attempts to attack the Russian Caucasus be any less disastrous in a timeline where Russia has no Western front? Britain and its Indian troops would be an issue in Persia, but they are hardly likely to invade Russian Central Asia through Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
A popular subject of discussion for an alternate World War I is: a war against both Germany and Russia. So, in this timeline, Germany is able to patch up tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia and keep the League of Three Emperors in tact. The opposing alliance would consist of: Great Britain, Portugal, France, Belgium (once Germany invades it), Italy, the Ottoman Empire, and Japan. Because of Austria-Hungary and Russia's patched tensions, the Balkan states: Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, and Greece would probably fight Balkan wars separate from the Great War and be considered neutral.

Couldn´t Russia decide to support Bulgaria instead of Serbia?



What if the US joins the Entente in due time? I didn't mention them right away because I wanted to mention only the parties before 1917 and mention the US now as a later possibility.

I think it would be less likely that the US would join than in OTL, as it would probably be easier for Germany to avoid unrestricted submarine warfare, since it could trade with Russia.

Saying all that, what possible POD could there be to make Britain and Russia enemies?

Britain and Russia were very unlikely allies. It would have made far more sense for Russia to ally with Germany.
 
A popular subject of discussion for an alternate World War I is: a war against both Germany and Russia. So, in this timeline, Germany is able to patch up tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia and keep the League of Three Emperors in tact. The opposing alliance would consist of: Great Britain, Portugal, France, Belgium (once Germany invades it), Italy, the Ottoman Empire, and Japan. Because of Austria-Hungary and Russia's patched tensions, the Balkan states: Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, and Greece would probably fight Balkan wars separate from the Great War and be considered neutral.

You can't just ignore the Balkan question like that. Ask yourself this - what incentives do the 3 emperors have in order to begin a war of aggression?

For Russia it's easy - control of Constantinople and the straits. This was a long-term (although stupid in hindsight) goal of Russia and something they really coveted. However, why should Russia begin a war in 1914 over this? They were clearly on the upswing OTL, especially compared to the Ottomans. Maybe less so ITTL if we swap German and French investment wrt to Russia and the OE, but stil, the underlying trend is there. Therefor, from a military and economical POV, Russia ain't in no hurry. The only reason they might go for this would be public opinion - a short glorious war to strengthen the Tsar's hold.

Now let's move on to Germany. They know they can't match the RN yet, so control of the world's oceans (or various colonial interests) is out as a reason for them to play ball. One plausible reason would be to put down France, ensuring it isn't a threat in the future. However, with Germany being such good budies with Russia, France isn't really a threat.

Lastly, we have A-H. This is where things get really sticky. They have ZERO reasons to support a Russian takeover of Constantinople just for the lulz. They MIGHT go for it if Russia accepts giving up all of the Balkans to Austrian domination. However, Russia couldn't possibly justify handing fellow Slavs and Orthodox Christians over to the Catholic German Emperor in Vienna, not when the basis of the Tsar's legitimacy is him being "protector of the Slavs".

But let's say Nicky does just that. Why should the Balkan states just roll over? Much more plausibly is that they fight for their independence
 
There are many possibilities for PODs leading to Anglo-Russian enmity. Some ideas I had were: The Great Game escalating or, in my previous thread "No Franco-Russian Alliance" (https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=343036), user English Nationalist posted a POD where the Crimean War left Russia worse off.
I can not believe that no one else has made this comment, with 297*, only briefly mentioning it.
I would like to simply point this fact out, with Germany and Russia, staying allies, France would not ally with Russia meaning France would not join the war to support Russia.
With Russia and A-H on good terms, Russia would not declare war on A-H for invading Serbia.

So really there would be NO WW1. On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, are assassinated. Austria-Hungary's declares war against Serbia and within the six remanding months of 1914, Serbia becomes a part of the A-H empire.
 
I can not believe that no one else has made this comment, with 297*, only briefly mentioning it.
I would like to simply point this fact out, with Germany and Russia, staying allies, France would not ally with Russia meaning France would not join the war to support Russia.
With Russia and A-H on good terms, Russia would not declare war on A-H for invading Serbia.

So really there would be NO WW1. On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, are assassinated. Austria-Hungary's declares war against Serbia and within the six remanding months of 1914, Serbia becomes a part of the A-H empire.

In theory, something else could cause it. However, I'm skeptical (as written in the previous post) A-H and Russia can come to an agreement regarding dividing up the Balkans that is acceptable to both in such a way that Russia gets a green light to take over Constantinople.
 

RavenMM

Banned
I can not believe that no one else has made this comment, with 297*, only briefly mentioning it.
I would like to simply point this fact out, with Germany and Russia, staying allies, France would not ally with Russia meaning France would not join the war to support Russia.
With Russia and A-H on good terms, Russia would not declare war on A-H for invading Serbia.

So really there would be NO WW1. On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, are assassinated. Austria-Hungary's declares war against Serbia and within the six remanding months of 1914, Serbia becomes a part of the A-H empire.

Because obviously, the continuation of the Three Emperors League causes no butterflies :rolleyes:
Maybe it's a german prince that's assassinated in Elsaß-Lothringen by french terrorists. Maybe it's a colonial clas somewhere. Maybe something else. There could be many causes for war, in another timeline.
 
Top