WW1 Delayed (Among other ideas, more of them silly)

So I was looking on the list of AH cliches, and was looking near the "muh WW1 must habben" and felt like possibly developing/looking into an AH TL of it would be interesting. Obviously my grasp on WW1 is very limited considering how little I've read about it, but hopefully y'all can steer me into relatively the right direction. Also apologies for posting in the Italo Balbo AH, but I like to believe that somewhere out there Geekis Khan is going to return and talk about the... I'm already getting off track.

So, I think starting out with what I already know (or think I know, anyways) is a good place to start, so we hopefully don't waste time retreading old items.

  • Nation-states have no permanent enemies, no permanent allies, only permanent interests.

  • It is in the rational interest of the highest regional (or international) power to keep all the weaker powers fighting amongst themselves so no rising threat to this supreme power can be made.

  • The Influence of Sea Power upon History

With those short opening remarks out of the way, I think it time for me to talk moreso about how I see regional politics in europe OTL after 1900.

Germany, under the command of Kaiser Wilhelm II (much to the malaise of the Duke of Lauenburg), wishes to expand its role on the world stage, and is in the process of increasing its Naval Production, which is soon to threaten British Supremacy of the Ocean.

Britain, the world's superpower and thorn in the side of european conquests, wishes to retain this lofty place. Britain wishes to have no single power come to control the entire continent of Europe, and will always support the slightly weaker side to maintain balance, a lesson the Khans used to bolster the small hill in the depths of Russia to prominence over the Incorruptible Lord Novgorod the Great, among other regional powers.

Russia, a rising monolith in terms of industrializing, was humiliated repeatedly, falling in tragic style with its glorious defeat of Napoleon using the ingenious plan of never engaging with the enemy so you can never be accused of treason by the Tsar, to the Crimean War, and resting awash in international laughter as they are defeated by an asian power, with not one but two fleets being blasted to the bottom of oceans far from the other end of an entire landmass, St. Petersburg.

France. They want Alsace-Lorraine.

Italy, under Risorgimento in the 1860's, is united. The North is rich, the South is poor.

Austria-Hungary, soon-to-be the new sick man of Europe, hopes to wave off the ghosts of the Ottoman turks approaching Vienna by asserting her power, and refusing to fall under the shadow of the ever-growing younger german brother.

-----

As for a POD, I think that if Germany and Britain came to a "Grand Bargain" which allowed for Britain and Germany to seek avoidance of a war in europe, via coming to terms which suited both interests and reflected both nations view and perception of each-other, may result in the delay of the First World War by simply breaking some of the regional conflicts into smaller wars, and then coagulating newfound conflicts into a World War sometime in the late 1920's. My initial thoughts for such a "Grand Bargain" look like so:

Seeing German naval production skyrocket, the British Government made an agreement with the German government, in effect agreeing to a split of affairs in the world. The agreement follows:

  • German Naval Production will stop, and it will be agreed that Germany will only have half the number of tonnage the British have. (Or some other number/amount that secures British interests on the ocean, aka the British lifeline to the Dominions.)

  • Britain will refuse to interfere in limited European affairs, and will refuse (offensive? secret? immediate?) alliances with France, Russia, or Austria-Hungary. The regions past the Pyrenees, the Alps, and the Balkans will remain in the British Sphere of Influence. (This is to allow for Germany to act without serious concern for its immediate neighbors forming a large alliance to dismantle German states.)

  • Germany will refuse to interfere in British Imperial affairs, and will refuse alliances with Spain, Russia, or Japan. The regions within the Pyrenees, the Alps, and the Balkans (see: 1914 Austria-Hungary) will become part of the German Sphere of Influence. (Britain will not cede ALL of Europe, such a ceding is purely wank territory. Plus, Germany can never (see: for a while) gain the alliance of France, considering a little territorial dispute, and the impossibility of a British Alliance with Austria-Hungary means that a good route for expansion is southwards, but Germany is allowed to ally with Austria-Hungary freely with no dispute from Britain. This puts Germany at odds with the Southern Brother, while also in the arms of him.)

  • Italy would be the Nation which both nations would come to the Aid of if attacked, understanding the British Policy of not allowing a single power come to rule Europe. (Germany doesn't want Italy to fall to France, since France is natural rival considering the border zone, and Germany doesn't want Austria-Hungary to attack Italy, since that strengthens the Austria-Hungarian position, which, as previously noted, Germany is at odds and aims with. Britain doesn't want someone picking on a weaker power in Europe, since D&C strategy require it not to be picked on.)

  • Germany will not enter into any agreements with Italy of an offensive manner. (This is so any attack on Austria-Hungary by a German-Italian Alliance will not happen.)

The agreement puts Germany at odds, mostly, with Austria-Hungary, a power whichs' presence on the world stage is de facto waning, much like some other Southern power of once great note.

Such a "Grand Bargain", I feel, would alleviate tensions in Europe to such a degree that even if Austria-Hungary declared on Serbia in 1914 (with no German backing, obviously, since it is in direct German interests to attack/control Austria considering their "Blank Check" from Britain to attack them without British intervention), that Austria-Hungary would back down from a potentially devastating war against Russia alone.

---

Now for some of my more "poorly" thought-out ideas:


Germans conduct intelligently and creatively named operation "Rouge", wherein underground german socialists are secretly captured and subsequently impersonated, brought out from the steelwork by manufactured musings in government halls of "Reform" and "socialist dialogue" that've been spread through the streets and cities, as a honeypot to conduct an intelligence operation. These impersonated socialists will then organize and invite French socialists to these Faux-german socialists houses, where the faux-socialists will arm and train these french socialists in the more immediate aspects of reform. Germany will organize an assassination of Jean Jaures, wherein a French socialist revolutionary will be there to witness, albeit unwittingly, the planned execution of Jean Jaures, a pacifist. A faux-socialist plant from Germany will be informed of the murder ahead of time, and be there during the assassination, and spring up to "hear" the last words of Jean Jaures as he dies, which will be oh-so-conviently mentioning Revanchist leanings and murmurings of his favorite french socialist, that unwitting one so conveniently attending the Cafe where Jaures is shot. This will, in conjunction with manufactured weakness by the German army to help induce greater revanchist feelings, will lead to the radicalist and violent socialists, perhaps led half-heartedly by Semard, (my knowledge on French militant socialists pre-ww1 is blatantly poor), will play upon these "weaknesses" of the Germans, to possibly help stage a very well funded socialist revolution in France. At the same, German firebrand nationalists will hope to stir the right-wing Occitan into revolting from the leftist enemy to the North, before it is too late and they have control of the entire nation. This, hopefully for millions who may have been in trenches, will lead to a situation similar to that of Spain in 1936, but involving a more important and powerful power (no offense to Spain).

With (assuming any plausibility at all for the above) the French Civil War raging, much of the Great Powers in Europe, including a weakly-posing Germany, will take advantage of the situation by attempting to learn from the War. A quote I really like is "We all expect the wars of Today to be our Fathers Wars" or something like that. I am interested in the (hopeful) realization of trench warfare, and the development of early tank vehicles by much of the great powers to get ahead of the curve in warfare. Then again, who learned lessons from Spain?

Other attempts at taking advantage will certainly occur. French colonies will be dismembered, and Morocco will no longer be a firepit for Wilhelm, he will have to find another splotch of land to fight about. The Great Game is afoot again, this time with free infrastructure and pre-placed europeans.


Thank you for reading, hopefully I haven't wanked too hard about avoiding the First World War, and if the ideas presented seem of adequate plausibility, I'll certainly think of developing an actual ATL. Again, much thanks for reading.
 
Please stop with this nonsense, Austria-Hungary was not and wouldn't have become the sick man of Europe! Their economy was quickly developing, especially the Hungarian half and in 1913 even the military budget was significantly raised.

Austria-Hungary was not in the German sphere of influence at this point, and neither was the Balkan under British, maybe the Greeks only. Most of the Balkans was under Russian influence, while the Romanians were actually allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary.

If the July Crisis still happens, but it's resolved peacefully, then you could see Austria-Hungary being in an even better condition by 1916.

Otherwise, the tension between Germany and Britain already started to lessen by 1914 OTL. The Germans basically gave up the naval race. The rise of Russian power concerned both powers and if the war breaks out in 1916 or later, then Britain is very likely to stay neutral or even join the German side. However the shift of British preference could easily mean no war at all.

Heck even the Italians wouldn't dare to change sides.

Meanwhile France continues to become even smaller and smaller player.
 
Please stop with this nonsense, Austria-Hungary was not and wouldn't have become the sick man of Europe! Their economy was quickly developing, especially the Hungarian half and in 1913 even the military budget was significantly raised.

Austria-Hungary was not in the German sphere of influence at this point, and neither was the Balkan under British, maybe the Greeks only. Most of the Balkans was under Russian influence, while the Romanians were actually allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary.

If the July Crisis still happens, but it's resolved peacefully, then you could see Austria-Hungary being in an even better condition by 1916.

Otherwise, the tension between Germany and Britain already started to lessen by 1914 OTL. The Germans basically gave up the naval race. The rise of Russian power concerned both powers and if the war breaks out in 1916 or later, then Britain is very likely to stay neutral or even join the German side. However the shift of British preference could easily mean no war at all.

Heck even the Italians wouldn't dare to change sides.

Meanwhile France continues to become even smaller and smaller player.
Austria-Hungary wasn't called the Sick Man because of the economy, it was called that because it was always on the brink of collapse thanks to the Empire controlling a bunch of ethnicities that would rather have their own nation. Heck, WW1 started because of one of these nationalists.
 
Please stop with this nonsense, Austria-Hungary was not and wouldn't have become the sick man of Europe! Their economy was quickly developing, especially the Hungarian half and in 1913 even the military budget was significantly raised.

Austria-Hungary was not in the German sphere of influence at this point, and neither was the Balkan under British, maybe the Greeks only. Most of the Balkans was under Russian influence, while the Romanians were actually allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary.

If the July Crisis still happens, but it's resolved peacefully, then you could see Austria-Hungary being in an even better condition by 1916.

Otherwise, the tension between Germany and Britain already started to lessen by 1914 OTL. The Germans basically gave up the naval race. The rise of Russian power concerned both powers and if the war breaks out in 1916 or later, then Britain is very likely to stay neutral or even join the German side. However the shift of British preference could easily mean no war at all.

Heck even the Italians wouldn't dare to change sides.

Meanwhile France continues to become even smaller and smaller player.

While I do understand your qaulms with Austria-Hungary being called the SMoE, at least economically, I believe that the growing nationalism of most of the minorities doomed the nation, and warrant the name. I should say that she is sick, but her illness can be treated, insofar as she will come out the other side of any major conflict weakened.

When you speak of Anglo-German detente and neutrality, I must disagree. Britains power, or at least internally perceived power, makes it unlikely for them to align with the strongest power on continental europe. A completely dominant continental power is only to the detriment of Britain, as they only retain power over europe by playing off the divides.

Any such conflict between Germany and Russia would become completely inevitable, as opposed to only primarily inevitable. Britain would, in the case of a Dual Alliance war against the Central Powers, if not directly involved, would follow the lead of USA in OTL and remain neutral until they could effectively squeeze the most politically from the victor when they intervene in the war.
 
Austria-Hungary wasn't called the Sick Man because of the economy, it was called that because it was always on the brink of collapse thanks to the Empire controlling a bunch of ethnicities that would rather have their own nation. Heck, WW1 started because of one of these nationalists.
While I do understand your qaulms with Austria-Hungary being called the SMoE, at least economically, I believe that the growing nationalism of most of the minorities doomed the nation, and warrant the name. I should say that she is sick, but her illness can be treated, insofar as she will come out the other side of any major conflict weakened.

But that's just simply not true. The overwhelming majority of the minorities turned against the Dual Monarchy only when it already was completely exhausted by the war both economically and militarily. And that was 4 years of brutal industrial war, which Austria-Hungary was completely unprepared for. As long as there's more benefit from staying with Austria-Hungary, the minorities won't secede.

Bosnia-Hercegovina was a relatively new gain, which still wasn't completely pacified at this point, because it still wasn't normally incorporated into Austria-Hungary neither economically, nor administratively. Furthermore the Serbs in Bosnia could count on the support of Serbia, a nation state of their ethnicity. The two other such nation state were Italy and Romania, both of which were allied to Austria-Hungary, so with abovementioned shift of power, they won't betray the Monarchy.

When you speak of Anglo-German detente and neutrality, I must disagree. Britains power, or at least internally perceived power, makes it unlikely for them to align with the strongest power on continental europe. A completely dominant continental power is only to the detriment of Britain, as they only retain power over europe by playing off the divides.

But in this sceniario it's Russia, which slowly becomes the dominant power and unlike the Germans, The Russians are capable of delivering a lethal blow to the British by an invasion of India.

Any such conflict between Germany and Russia would become completely inevitable, as opposed to only primarily inevitable. Britain would, in the case of a Dual Alliance war against the Central Powers, if not directly involved, would follow the lead of USA in OTL and remain neutral until they could effectively squeeze the most politically from the victor when they intervene in the war.

It looks like for me that Britain would be in a rather hard situation. Their best case sceniario is probalby if there's no war at all, which is actually quite plausible. Maybe another era of congresses.

Honestly I don't know, literally anything could happen.
 
But that's just simply not true. The overwhelming majority of the minorities turned against the Dual Monarchy only when it already was completely exhausted by the war both economically and militarily. And that was 4 years of brutal industrial war, which Austria-Hungary was completely unprepared for. As long as there's more benefit from staying with Austria-Hungary, the minorities won't secede.

Bosnia-Hercegovina was a relatively new gain, which still wasn't completely pacified at this point, because it still wasn't normally incorporated into Austria-Hungary neither economically, nor administratively. Furthermore the Serbs in Bosnia could count on the support of Serbia, a nation state of their ethnicity. The two other such nation state were Italy and Romania, both of which were allied to Austria-Hungary, so with abovementioned shift of power, they won't betray the Monarchy.



But in this sceniario it's Russia, which slowly becomes the dominant power and unlike the Germans, The Russians are capable of delivering a lethal blow to the British by an invasion of India.



It looks like for me that Britain would be in a rather hard situation. Their best case sceniario is probalby if there's no war at all, which is actually quite plausible. Maybe another era of congresses.

Honestly I don't know, literally anything could happen.

I'll agree, certainly, that anything really could happen. But a Russian invasion of India? Through the "Graveyard of Empires"? The poor failure strategically and logistically of 1905 might very well be repeated during an invasion of Afghanistan.
 
Russian invasion of India was nonsensical bogeyman.
Russians could, at very most, take over Persia, or Bosphorus, but not India, and they knew it. I am pretty sure that British knew it too.
Its simple reality of those times was that British were far more terrified of Germans in Antwerp than Russians in Tehran or Kabul. And Russians weren't in rush to go there. Borders of Russians and British spheres of influence in Central Asia were clearly drawn, and both sides were content enough with them.
Russians at their worst were colonial rival. Germans at their worst were an existential enemy. Naval race only cemented this view in London.
 
I'll agree, certainly, that anything really could happen. But a Russian invasion of India? Through the "Graveyard of Empires"? The poor failure strategically and logistically of 1905 might very well be repeated during an invasion of Afghanistan.
Russian invasion of India was nonsensical bogeyman.
Russians could, at very most, take over Persia, or Bosphorus, but not India, and they knew it. I am pretty sure that British knew it too.
Its simple reality of those times was that British were far more terrified of Germans in Antwerp than Russians in Tehran or Kabul. And Russians weren't in rush to go there. Borders of Russians and British spheres of influence in Central Asia were clearly drawn, and both sides were content enough with them.
Russians at their worst were colonial rival. Germans at their worst were an existential enemy. Naval race only cemented this view in London.
Ah, I see.
 
Austria-Hungary wasn't called the Sick Man because of the economy, it was called that because it was always on the brink of collapse thanks to the Empire controlling a bunch of ethnicities that would rather have their own nation. Heck, WW1 started because of one of these nationalists.

Point of order, Austria-Hungary wasn't the original target of that epithet, the Ottomans were. And it's since been applied to literally everyone, including Britain.
 
Point of order, Austria-Hungary wasn't the original target of that epithet, the Ottomans were. And it's since been applied to literally everyone, including Britain.
Yes, but the British weren't unstable until around WW2. And even then, the British Isles never plunged into chaos like Austria-Hungary.
 
Yes, but the British weren't unstable until around WW2. And even then, the British Isles never plunged into chaos like Austria-Hungary.

The point is that it's not only a meaningless statement, it isn't even being used in the original context anymore. Although I feel like we're the only people who prefer using it to describe Austria-Hungary rather than the Ottomans as it originally ones.
 
A British-German agreement such as the one
you put forth, insanegorey, WOULD have been quite logical, & though I'm uncertain as
to whether it would have headed off WWI, the worst that can be said is that it @ least deserved a chance. In fact IOTL
Britain & Germany twice, I believe, held
talks re stopping the naval race between
them. But the talks foundered on Wilhelm
II's insistence that Germany MUST have a
navy second to none(especially Britain). The
same result would happen in any ATL unless
Wilhelm II was somehow butterflied away.[/USER]
 
Last edited:
The point is that it's not only a meaningless statement, it isn't even being used in the original context anymore. Although I feel like we're the only people who prefer using it to describe Austria-Hungary rather than the Ottomans as it originally ones.

I mean, SMoE as a general statement is, as far as I see it, a point to show something is, internally, wrong with a nation-state in a serious way. The OE declined because of a lack of trade control geopolitically, since the British controlled the Suez and thus a route to the Orient to avoid Ottoman trade domination. The internal issues with nationalists were not brought up by many of the monarchs of europe since most of their controlled territories were multi-ethnic, and the issue would backfire on european states if inflamed further.

Now, let's look at Austria. Much of the influence and by extension trade power with many of the German states evaporated with the unification of the German Empire under the Prussians. Being an empire of ethnic diversity, to say the least, meant that it was weaker than some of the more ethnically homogenous empires of its day, namely Germany. Trade and ethnic homogeneity, especially in an era where nationalistic tension permeated the air to a higher degree than it had previously, was very important to the internal stability of a nation.

A British-German agreement such as the one
you put forth, insanegorey, WOULD have been quite logical, & though I'm uncertain as
to whether it would have headed off WWI, the worst that can be said is that it @The least it deserved a chance! In fact IOTL
Britain & Germany twice, I believe, held
talks re stopping the naval race between
them. But the talks foundered on Wilhelm
II's insistence that Germany MUST have a
navy second to none(especially Britain). The
same result would happen in any ATL unless
Wilhelm II was somehow butterflied away.

Yes, Wilhelm was certainly an issue against peace. But that mustache, oh that mustache.
 
Yes, Wilhelm was certainly an issue against peace. But that mustache, oh that mustache.[/QUOTE]

Have you seen pictures of him together with
Nicholas II of Russia? The two of them looked like brothers....
 
I mean, SMoE as a general statement is, as far as I see it, a point to show something is, internally, wrong with a nation-state in a serious way. The OE declined because of a lack of trade control geopolitically, since the British controlled the Suez and thus a route to the Orient to avoid Ottoman trade domination. The internal issues with nationalists were not brought up by many of the monarchs of europe since most of their controlled territories were multi-ethnic, and the issue would backfire on european states if inflamed further.

Now, let's look at Austria. Much of the influence and by extension trade power with many of the German states evaporated with the unification of the German Empire under the Prussians. Being an empire of ethnic diversity, to say the least, meant that it was weaker than some of the more ethnically homogenous empires of its day, namely Germany. Trade and ethnic homogeneity, especially in an era where nationalistic tension permeated the air to a higher degree than it had previously, was very important to the internal stability of a nation.

Yes, but the way we use it now has a heavy dose of fatalism attached. It's less of a description of the problems plaguing a given state and more an assertion that the state is too weak/incompetent to possibly cope with said problems, which is, if nothing else, antithetical to what we're supposed to be doing around here.

Have you seen pictures of him together with
Nicholas II of Russia? The two of them looked like brothers....

Well, they were third cousins, which theoretically doesn't count for much, but...
 
Yes, but the way we use it now has a heavy dose of fatalism attached. It's less of a description of the problems plaguing a given state and more an assertion that the state is too weak/incompetent to possibly cope with said problems, which is, if nothing else, antithetical to what we're supposed to be doing around here.



Well, they were third cousins, which theoretically doesn't count for much, but...

I'll certainly agree that a high degree of fatalism is attached to the statement.

Ah yes, Nicky and Willy. Anyways, I'll see if I can't grab some maps and color in alliance preference, assuming the "Grand Bargain" I alluded to prior (as well as the intent of both parties) were to be true.

I think, given the topic of power dynamics, it is always interesting to look at Iberia, with the clear geographic advantage belonging to Spain, yet Britain endorses Portugal as their ally so as to restrict one nation from garnering total control.

My thoughts on least likely to be allies:

Germany and France

Most likely:

France and Russia

hopefully someone can dispel my thoughts on the matter, as being wrong is one of my more practiced and familiar habits.
 
Alright, after having done a cursory glance at economic expenditures (militarily, that is), and understanding that wars generally break out when both sides believe they have a fighting chance, I've come to some rather basic conclusions about military alliances that may have formed alternative to OTL. I should make note that when I previously stated "spheres of influence" in europe, I was simply talking about an agreement between two nations about they would refuse to interfere in. In the "Grand Bargain" mentioned earlier, Germany would have dominion over much of the european plain and aspects of territory under the carpathian mountains, but this does not mean that I imply they had international control of the territories, only the agreement from the British that they would not intervene in matters in these regions. An example would be if an Occitan nation developed, Britain would have no power diplomatically to interfere with the nation, leaving that up to Germany. This does NOT mean that other regional powers are barred from control, it simply means that plans have been set in place over who has a right to interfere in regions and who doesn't.

With all that hub-bub out of the way, I think it time I make an ass out of myself in speculatory fashion:

in OTL, the Entente, in 1913, (Britain, France, Russia) had 1181 Million US dollars combined spending (contemporary US dollars, 2013), whereas the Central Powers (Germany, A-H, Ottomans, excluding Italy) had 852 Million US dollars combined spending. Now, geographical factors certainly play a big part in military matters, and it is certainly true that while the Central Powers were surrounded on two fronts, one of those fronts was Russia, a yet-industrializing, soon-to-be, giant.

Now, considering the difference in military spending, as well as the geographical disadvantage the Central powers had, it is not hard to to imagine similar scenarios could have very well turned out with similar odds and geographical terms.

Now, it should be noted that, as far as I can see, Britain will always attempt to join the war last, since they wish to be in the most favorable position in terms of bargaining. Without Britain in the Entente, the Military expenditure in 1913 in millions (I am using 1913 expenditures since it seems a good gauge of the initial state of the war in 1914, since money takes a while to change hands from budget to bullet) would be 813-852, with the Central Powers favored. Now, for an alternative alliance:

(Note: since Britain will, imo, likely join last before conflict erupts, and join on the side of the defenders in the war, since it takes significant strength to rally the nation in offensive war, thus offensive powers will be seen as the "strongest" of the continental powers, and thus Britain's enemy.)

If Italy and Germany combine their expenditure, they come to a total in 1913 of 766 million, 573 from Germany and 193 from Italy.

If France and Russia combine their expenditure (in the Dual Alliance), they come to a total of 813 million, 492 from Russia and 321 from France.

Now, if the A-H-ians declare for the Dual Alliance, the Triple Alliance (Dual + 1) spending results in 1019 million, 206 from A-H.

Finally, if the Ottomans fall with the Austrians, then the Dual-Dual Alliance spending hits the 1092 million mark, 73 from the Ottomans.

This puts the Dual-Dual Alliance against the Italo-German Alliance with a expenditure difference of 1092-766, which would result in a 1.42 favoring of the Dual-Dual, versus the OTL favoring the Entente with 1.38. Now, considering the situation in WW1 prior to the USA joining was favoring ever so slightly the Central Powers, with the French military mutinies of 1917, and the nearly successful Michael Offensive, I think the odds in TATL of Dual-Dual and Italo-German would likely result in a stalemate, considering the equivalent expenditure. Now, while it is true that Russia had some initial successes, the condition of the military was weak. But, the addition of A-H on the side of the Dual-Dual would be a blessing to Russia, considering it places pressure on Germany near Bavaria, as well as Bohemia. Considering the "crush the weak front" first approach OTL, I think, so long as Britain doesn't join on the side of the Dual-Dual, (for then a settlement would be reached as the odds against the Italo-German would be too much to bear) that France would be the choice for the First to destroy. Now, this may mean a successful strong right wing execution of the Schlieffen considering efforts would be more focused there, it is hard to say. But fighting against A-H would be difficult, combined with the Russian presence in the East.

Now, as for a war breaking out, if the Dual-Dual Alliance begins the wars as the aggressors, or positions themselves politically for an offensive war, then it is likely for Britain to avoid joining the Dual-Dual Alliance, and more likely aligns them with the Italo-German alliance. If Britain were to join, they would level the odds to 1092-1134, Central Powers favored.

So, a British alignment, at least prior to war breaking out, seems probable to join an Italo-German alliance in the event of a United Dual-Dual Alliance operating confidently and offensively against the Italo-German Alliance. This would, AFAIK, place an aversion to war starting in the first place, assuming Britain manages to clearly state their military intentions to all parties involved in the event of offensive measures against their allies on the continent, well prior to mobilisation and de facto war starting with the domino effect of mobilisations.

If such a war were to be averted, wherein the Dual-Dual Alliance is deterred via British intervention on the side of the Italo-German alliance, then certain internal political struggles within these nations would likely arise and clash with the "cowards" in government, most likely the Russian Empire and its memory of humiliation against the Japanese, the French humiliation in failure to quell revanchist tensions over Alsace-Lorraine, the plausible expansionist tendencies within A-H, (they started the war against the serbians, after all), and the diminishing power of the Ottoman Empire. One of these may be plausible to be exploited and manipulated, much in the same way the Russian situation OTL was exploited by the Germans to cause disharmony and an early end on the Eastern Front.

It seems the likely way to get much of the First World War delayed, considering our good friend Willy would be on the receiving end of an alliance wrought on expansionism, rather than the other way round, hopefully satisfying his war tendencies ever so slightly, since initially such a war would be difficult and bleak, prior to British intervention.

Of course, I certainly would enjoy to just butterfly Wilhelm away with some rotten fruit flies carrying malaria or some such other disease, but if I were to do an alternative timeline, I would be distraught over one less glorious mustache. Plus, I'd like to think that if such an Anglo-German-Italian Alliance were to form, (thoughts on the naming convention for such an alliance, as well as the Dual-Dual Alliance?) that the issue of tonnage in the ocean would be comedically circumvented yet adhered to, using a perhaps exaggerated expression that "All of the British Isles is a fleet, her tonnage well beyond German capacity. Build to half her displacement, Willy, if you can."
 
Top