World War I Against the League of Three Emperors

Another thread from me.

So I know that this has been discussed to death, but:
1) can't really bump threads as old as the previous threads about this
2) this one also interests me quite a lot

Don't worry, I'll be discussing my other thread too, but for those who maybe want a more realistic perspective of an alternate World War 1.

So, a war against both Germany and Russia. In this timeline, Germany has been 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, 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.
 
Last edited:
No eastern front? That's the Entente completely screwed then...

The German army's chief problems become logistic, they have the numbers of men and guns to meet the French head on, shatter them and keep up the momentum of the attack with the second echelon- Paris by D+30, wrap up and victory by D+60.

Without having to cover their backs- if they can actually trust the Russians not to backstab them- they do have enough of an advantage to crush the French. It becomes actually interesting when you assume there is some diplomatic lead time; how do the Entente react? What do they do instead?

How does attaque a l'outrance change- do they have any truly defensive strategy, does the overwhelmingly offensive prewar doctrine adapt to circumstance? How much re- equipping and rearming would they need, and is there time? Can Crimean War Part II draw enough off the central powers' main effort to matter? (expectation; no.)

What does Germany do with a defeated France? Austria is left in what state- will Russia still be ripe for revolution, and if not then, when? Or at all?
 
So, a war against both Germany and Russia. In this timeline, Germany has been 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.

Question: what drugs are the Three Pashas on to pursue this suicidal diplomatic 180? The rest of the Anglo-French alliance makes sense, but the Ottomans have zero reason to align with GB, France, and Italy and every reason to back the Germans and stay in an otherwise not-distracted-on-land Russia's good graces lest the full weight of the bear flop down on her
 
Very quickly and painfully for France and Italy. Germany reinforced with the manpower of Russia, ain't nothing the Entente can deploy on the Continent to turn that around.
 
The problem as I see it: this simply is a Germany and Austria-Hungary vs the entente+Italy. The Balkans is an Austro-Russian play ground if they reached an agreement and actually kept to it. Russia has no real reason to take a too active part in this coalition. What would they get? The most I can see them doing is focusing on Japan and the Ottomans. However the latter would be quite idiotic to involve itself in a war like this. It can win basically nothing but loose everything.
 
The problem as I see it: this simply is a Germany and Austria-Hungary vs the entente+Italy. The Balkans is an Austro-Russian play ground if they reached an agreement and actually kept to it. Russia has no real reason to take a too active part in this coalition. What would they get? The most I can see them doing is focusing on Japan and the Ottomans. However the latter would be quite idiotic to involve itself in a war like this. It can win basically nothing but loose everything.

Might happen if the Great Game with Britain gets worse, and Britain is actively hampering Russian expansion in Ottoman Empire, Persia, China and Korea.
 
The problem as I see it: this simply is a Germany and Austria-Hungary vs the entente+Italy. The Balkans is an Austro-Russian play ground if they reached an agreement and actually kept to it. Russia has no real reason to take a too active part in this coalition.
Simply eliminating the manpower drain of the eastern front and ensuring Russian food exports to the Germans and Habsburgs would remarkably aid them.
 
Question: what drugs are the Three Pashas on to pursue this suicidal diplomatic 180? The rest of the Anglo-French alliance makes sense, but the Ottomans have zero reason to align with GB, France, and Italy and every reason to back the Germans and stay in an otherwise not-distracted-on-land Russia's good graces lest the full weight of the bear flop down on her

Yes of course they are eager to give up most of their foreign trade and await the arrival of Russian Christmas when they will be served up for lunch.

Was tired the time I posted this and was making multiple posts (didn't finish all of them). Removed.

Well then you may well think more clearly when tired. While Germany offered goodies and inveigled for influence over the Ottomans you need to ask yourself who is their main threat and where does most of their trade go? The Ottomans might be slow to be drawn in, neutrality is quite smart for them but they have a goodly self-interest in leaning Entente. That said the Young Turks modernisation policy was all over the place so all bets are off.

As for the war...it is again likely to become a massive stalemate. The Germans cannot send more troops against France without magically building more roads in France. Once the logistic realities bite the war becomes the familiar brutal slog. The Russians cannot do much given their terrain constrictions except try and occupy the Turks...or not if the League aim is to keep a the fourth emperor (aka the Sultan) neutral.

In the long run the Entente have the resources of the World but the problem of the besieger in that they must attack a fortified position. No one can for certain predict the outcome but contrary to what a lot of posters above seem to believe it will be a long drawn out fight.
 
Well then you may well think more clearly when tired.
Alright, point taken. With that being said, my knowledge on this sort of subject is also relatively limited compared to many others here and I'm still in a bit of the learning process. It's an interest that has only come to me very recently.
(not saying people shouldn't disagree with me, just providing a reason for why I'm so stupid on this forum)

Anyway, will be commenting more on this thread later but am a bit busy right now.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
Russia has no real reason to take a too active part in this coalition. What would they get?

In this scenario the Russians' best play is to take a supporting role. Sell food and arms to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Continue industrialising to support this. Embed observers in the German officer corps and implement reforms based on this. Maybe some minor offensives in Central Asia to keep the British from moving all of their forces to European theater.

An improved economy that dodged famine and a reformed military that isn't wasted on failed offensives leaves Nicky in a mush better situation. Then again, that may require to much foresight on his part.
 
Realistically, Britain remains and is waiting for the USA to get involved after all of its continental allies have been over-run, and the fighting is now limited to N Africa and the Levant. Which really has weird WW2 vibes!
 

Germaniac

Donor
The Ottomans likely don'tget involved in this especially since closing the straights will have little impact on Russia in this war and the Entente will be happy with just that.

The Ottomans will be happy to sit out the war simply soaking up trade concessions from the warring powers. And the Entente wont have the extra men to move on them, and the League wont have the need to strike at them.
 
The Ottomans likely don'tget involved in this especially since closing the straights will have little impact on Russia in this war and the Entente will be happy with just that.

The Ottomans will be happy to sit out the war simply soaking up trade concessions from the warring powers. And the Entente wont have the extra men to move on them, and the League wont have the need to strike at them.
What if the nuetral Ottoman’s are invaded by the Russians, or in this timeline the war starts over the Ottoman Empire?
 
Yes of course they are eager to give up most of their foreign trade and await the arrival of Russian Christmas when they will be served up for lunch.



Well then you may well think more clearly when tired. While Germany offered goodies and inveigled for influence over the Ottomans you need to ask yourself who is their main threat and where does most of their trade go? The Ottomans might be slow to be drawn in, neutrality is quite smart for them but they have a goodly self-interest in leaning Entente. That said the Young Turks modernisation policy was all over the place so all bets are off.

As for the war...it is again likely to become a massive stalemate. The Germans cannot send more troops against France without magically building more roads in France. Once the logistic realities bite the war becomes the familiar brutal slog. The Russians cannot do much given their terrain constrictions except try and occupy the Turks...or not if the League aim is to keep a the fourth emperor (aka the Sultan) neutral.

In the long run the Entente have the resources of the World but the problem of the besieger in that they must attack a fortified position. No one can for certain predict the outcome but contrary to what a lot of posters above seem to believe it will be a long drawn out fight.

Actively siding with the Enente is the idiot box move, while neutrality is just as you said waiting for Russian dessert time. Trade can be rerouted (For example, to/from Russia or more likely the Balkan States), the short term costs more than made up for by the abolition of the Capitulations, and they also have to consider how they're going to survive in a post-war world. Neutrality just stays execution, assuming it can even realistically be maintained with neither side forcing the Straits issue, and siding with the Entente means getting whacked by the Russians full weight with minimal prospects of direct support. Even if the Entente do win a negotiated peace (Which, I agree, has a good chance of being the case), Constantinople is coming to the table having bled near to death with minimal prospect of compensation thats worth the cost due to their weak ground position and diplomatic impotence relative to France and GB. Siding with the TEL, on the other hand, allows the abolition of the Capitulation, allows logistics to help serve as defense, offers the prospect of making actual ground gains (Restoration of Rhodes, Egypt) and when the war is over and German Russian relations break down they can align with one side or the other to keep themselves useful long enough to start seeing the effects of self-strengthening reforms, particularly since the Balkans are likely the main arena of the influence wars
 

Germaniac

Donor
What if the nuetral Ottoman’s are invaded by the Russians, or in this timeline the war starts over the Ottoman Empire?

By the time of WW1 the Russians and the Ottomans had pretty decent relations. The straights issue was an ongoing problem, but they had endeavored to solve it diplomatically by this point.

Russia was more worried about Bulgaria seizing the straights than the Ottomans holding onto them. In fact the Russians were far more interested in promoting a Balkan league led by the Ottomans against Austria than they were one aimed at the Ottomans.

If the Russians decide to go after the straights the British and French are simply going to attempt a naval campaign in the sea of Marmara like OTL but WITH the support of the turks... the russians would be forced to move on Anatolia which would be a disaster logistically.

Neither Austria nor Russia will be able to agree on a settlement in the Balkans so i highly doubt either will br happy to open a southern front in Serbia/Macedonia. Then there is the whole issue of Bulgaria/Serbia. If a war is going to break out in the Balkans you can be damn sure Russia and Austria Hungary WILL NOT be on the same side.
 
It would be a completely different diplomatic world if the Three Emperors League survived as an alliance, so the idea that OTL 1914 diplomatic relations are relevant is, er, irrelevant.

It could easily be a world where there has been none of the diplomatic crises of the OTL 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, but instead completely different ones. Acting together, the 3EL could have pressurised another war with the Ottomans in between, for example, so by 1914 this would be taken into account.

Are we looking at the 1890s for example? The war between Greece and the Ottomans if Greece had the backing of Germany, Austria and Russia?
 

DougM

Donor
France is not going to be able to hold (with or without England) Against Germany backed by A-H and with Russia sending supplies. And perhaps support /transport troops.

As for how Germany is going to be able to use the larger number of troops on the same roads as OTL in France, that is not hard. They don’t send more troops anywhere. The send more troops EVERYWHERE. Germany was able in OTL to concentrate large forces at a given location for an assault. The problem for them was the France (and or England) was able to reinforce that same area. Usually this was done buy pulling reinforcements or front line troops from other locations, Now in this timeline Germany can put that higher level of troops and materials into more then one location while France still has the same numbers as OTL. So France is in BIG trouble as the can only reinforce one area or stretch of the front and Germany just did 3 times as much (or whatever the number allow for,). If given enough men Germany could theoretically advance along the entire front at the same time and there is damn all that England and France could do about it.

In essence WW1 has the same problem that the Civil war had. The North would Attack in one area at a time allowing the south to use the railroads to reinforce that area. The latter the north would attack another area and the south would pull the troops to reinforce that area. As the war progressed and the North started putting pressure on more of the front at the same time it did not allow for spot Defence.
In WW1 much of the western front was the same way, one side would pull troops from everywhere to concentrate for an attack in one place and the other side would do the same to reinforce that areas defense. That works great until one side can concentrate for an assault in two places.

It is actually somewhat amazing just how close the two sides actually where as far as being able to put “power” onto the front lines. If the balance had been off by just a little bit more.... But the problem was once one side made a breakthrough then the other side would reinforce to stop it. That used troops from the reserve or in desperate time from the rest of the front. And this is not going to work if the other side is attacking everywhere
 

Germaniac

Donor
It would be a completely different diplomatic world if the Three Emperors League survived as an alliance, so the idea that OTL 1914 diplomatic relations are relevant is, er, irrelevant.

It could easily be a world where there has been none of the diplomatic crises of the OTL 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, but instead completely different ones. Acting together, the 3EL could have pressurised another war with the Ottomans in between, for example, so by 1914 this would be taken into account.

Are we looking at the 1890s for example? The war between Greece and the Ottomans if Greece had the backing of Germany, Austria and Russia?

Fair enough, but and understanding between Russia and Austria regarding the Ottomans and the Balkans is going to greatly impact the state of the Ottomans by this alternate Great War.

So do the Ottomans still hold Rumelia? Has Russian policy toward Bulgaria/Serbia changed? Did Austria annex Bosnia and subsequently did Italy seize Libya? These all could have their own threads, but theres no way to tell what the Ottomans do in this situation since arguably during this timeframe they were the nation to change most dramatically.
 
Top