WW1 without France.

Deleted member 94680

they already did that OTL.

Exactly (that's where the quote is from, the Constantinople Agreement), but the point I was making was in response to the post that there's no reason Russia would enter "this war". Offer them Constantinople and they'll pitch in with whoever.
 
Exactly (that's where the quote is from, the Constantinople Agreement), but the point I was making was in response to the post that there's no reason Russia would enter "this war". Offer them Constantinople and they'll pitch in with whoever.

They weren't that stupid - they knew a war vs Germany and A-H would be pretty bad for them, hence why they needed the French.
 

jahenders

Banned
They wouldn't necessarily need to go that way, as troops landed in Italy could cross the Alps into A-H. Fighting Germany would probably be left to Russia with British supplies and money propping the Tsar's armies up.

Going via Italy is not only much farther, but also arguably worse. The Italians and A-H fought many EXTREMELY bloody battles, with horrendous losses, in the Alps. The Brits would be unlikely to want to join THAT meat grinder.
 

Deleted member 94680

They weren't that stupid - they knew a war vs Germany and A-H would be pretty bad for them, hence why they needed the French.

They were fairly stupid though, as going to war in 1914 was a bad decision in hindsight. But in this one they've got Britain for the money and supplies (plus some troops as advisors/cores to build around) and the Italians to open a second front on A-H. A Russia offered Constantinople from the start and a chance to 'solve' the Ottoman and Austrian problems by might of arms (distracting the populace from this nonsense of democracy and food) might well fool themselves that they can win.


I'm still not 100% that France would be able to avoid getting themselves invlolved, Franco-Russian Alliance or no Franco-Russian Alliance.
 

Deleted member 94680

Going via Italy is not only much farther, but also arguably worse. The Italians and A-H fought many EXTREMELY bloody battles, with horrendous losses, in the Alps. The Brits would be unlikely to want to join THAT meat grinder.

Gallipoli. The British were more than capable of making stupid decisions in the name of 'strategy'.
 

jahenders

Banned
With France neutral, I see no reason why Russia should want to join this war, so Germany has to go out of their way to start it. However, I don't see how you can keep France neutral, as Germany knocking out Russia is an existential threat to France itself.

Long story short - either both France AND Russia are in this war, or neither of them are - in which case its just a matter of Britain occupying German colonies until the Germans cry "Uncle!"

Well, Russia might still WANT to join the war for one of the main reasons they did IOTL -- brotherhood with their fellow slavs (the Serbs). However, you're right that Russia is probably going to limit their support for Serbia to strong diplomatic memos and illicit funds if they know they'll be facing both a focused Germany and A-H. Similarly, Italy isn't going to join a much weaker alliance as their chance of gains is much lower.
 

jahenders

Banned
Gallipoli. The British were more than capable of making stupid decisions in the name of 'strategy'.

I thought of that. Given that evidence, it's certainly possible they could stumble in. However, what was so attractive about the Dardanelles Campaign was that it appeared to offer a chance of a "quick kill", taking Turkey out of the war. The Brits just kept it up long after that was plausible (assuming it was).

Slogging through the Alps offers no such temptation -- it'd take a lot of fighting to get through the alps and then on to key A-H objectives.
 
IIRC there were several instances during 1871-1900s where a conflict between Germany and France could have erupted. Assume germany (again) steamrolls France. France maybe develops an unrational "fear" about germany instead of revanchism.

As effect GErmany is left with no real enemy in Europe

Assume Germany goes full colonial - maybe in Asia too - Make a German Japanese alliance - then you might end up with a German-British standoff in Africa (Especially if Germany grabs more land that is OTL a French colony) and German /Russian /British one in Asia.

THE OE would probably be in the German camp - British backed Greece and Russian backed Bulgaria(Serbia?) wanting pieces of the OE...

Germany might probably need a large army in the west to prevent a French attack (which might come - it is even logical, but in this scenario not necessarily at the beginning). IF Britain sends an epeditionary force to Russia it might be the backbone around which russian units can build a good defense.

(assumuing roughly the same capacities of the various countries)

Italy might not be in the war from the beginning, but I don't see an obstacle that it aligns with Britain from the beginning.

A good reason GErmany and Britain are at worse relations is a German Somalia where Britain fears the Suez route is cut off...

The "full colonial" push by Germany really just makes it more vulnerable to the UK in particular. There was a reason Bismark wasn't keen on establishing colonies, Germany was late to the game (being formed so late in the 19th century) and being a land power with strong states (eg. France) on their borders mean Germany also cant just dump the bulk of their defense spending into their navy (unlike the UK, which is largely why Germany lost the Anglo-German dreadnought race despite having more heavy industry than the UK). This means that the security of any of these German colonies will be dependent on the goodwill of other powers, chiefly the UK and the RN. If an ATL Germany gets in a war with the UK without a major land ally for the UK in Western Europe being threatened (eg. France) the UK wont try to land troops and attack the Germans directly (they cant hold a major land front in Europe against Germany alone (at least not without years of building up their army on land by training colonial troops and redirecting them from across the empire, as in OTL where the BEF in 1914 was initially very small compared to the French and German forces in play), at most they can complement a strong land ally (France in WW1). Especially if this ATL Germany is heavily investing in its colonies, the UK is just going to focus on seizing them in a naval war and then using them (and the inevitable RN blockade of Germany) as bargaining chips to force a peace of pro-British terms. Germany then has the choice to lose its colonies permanently and suffer under a British blockade long term or seek peace, but the UK would never be stupid enough to try and fight the German army alone on land. As to the UK backing Russia with an actual army (ala France): it is unlikely, because the logistics of projecting and supplying a force large enough to make a significant difference on that front would be much more challenging than they were in northern France OTL in WW1. Furthermore, Germany beating Russia in a war doesn't challenge British security the way Germany conquering France would (Russia is way to big to be fully conquered and the Germans seizing Russian ports doesn't threaten British naval security the way Germans taking Dutch/French ports would- the Germans cant pose a credible invasion threat to the UK by taking Archangel). Again what you would see here would likely be the UK financially backing the Russians or possibly simply steering clear of the whole issue. If somehow they actually were drawn into the war it would likely be a naval conflict like what I stated above.

Really, France is the linchpin of WW1 for the allies, not the UK or Russia. To get a full World War in Europe, which draws in most or all of the Great Powers you need to get France and Germany to fight each other, a war between Russia and Germany in the Balkins will just remain a regional conflict. Those are simply the geopolitics of the day.

PS: At this time the Anglo-Japanese alliance is in effect, so unless you plan to butterfly this out as well there really is no way to get the Japanese to support Germany against the UK (indeed as in OTL they would probably use war between Germany and the UK as an excuse to grab German colonies in the Pacific). Like Japan, Italy was pretty much just an opportunistic participant in WW1; they jumped in and did a little fighting when they thought they could get some territory for little effort.
 

Deleted member 94680

I thought of that. Given that evidence, it's certainly possible they could stumble in. However, what was so attractive about the Dardanelles Campaign was that it appeared to offer a chance of a "quick kill", taking Turkey out of the war. The Brits just kept it up long after that was plausible (assuming it was).

Slogging through the Alps offers no such temptation -- it'd take a lot of fighting to get through the alps and then on to key A-H objectives.

Maybe the need to support "Brave Little Italy" (or somesuch music hall turn of phrase) would provide the need? Just deploy to stabilise the Alpine Front, stop the Goths ravaging Rome all over again, then it expands in the Edwardian version of Mission Creep...

Aside from Gallipoli, you've got Kut, the Dunsterforce nonsense, all the chasing all over East Africa - all of them were 'useful operations' that spiralled out of control, sucking more and more troops in. Also, without the trenches of the Western Front there's plenty more of the Lost Generation that would want to get involved until the going got really tough later down the line.
 
There are two problems I see with an Anglo Russian alliance without France. 1st Britain and Russia are far more likely to end up at war with each other and even with France playing peacemaker came very close. There's the rivalry in Central Asia, the Anglo Japanese alliance and the Dogger Bank incident that spring to mind. Plus Britain and Russia have very different ideas on how a society should work. 2nd Britain and Russia have very little to offer each other. Britain is the worlds leading Maritime Power with a small though very well trained army. Russia is a land power with a massive poorly trained army that they can't even provide enough weapons for. Russia is no help against the German Navy not that Britain really needs it, where as by the time Britain could raise and train an army large enough to support the Russians the Germans would have already forced Russia to surrender
 

Deleted member 94680

There are two problems I see with an Anglo Russian alliance without France. ...

Except, with everything you've listed, it happened in OTL?

The Anglo-Russian entente (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Russian_Entente) was an agreement between those same two powers that didn't require French involvement to be signed. Mainly as a response to German aggression, although it could be seen as ending the Great Game to prevent a drain on resources dragging on any longer.

If this TL has a more aggressive Germany then the likelihood of something similar being signed is increased.
 

jahenders

Banned
Maybe the need to support "Brave Little Italy" (or somesuch music hall turn of phrase) would provide the need? Just deploy to stabilise the Alpine Front, stop the Goths ravaging Rome all over again, then it expands in the Edwardian version of Mission Creep...

Aside from Gallipoli, you've got Kut, the Dunsterforce nonsense, all the chasing all over East Africa - all of them were 'useful operations' that spiralled out of control, sucking more and more troops in. Also, without the trenches of the Western Front there's plenty more of the Lost Generation that would want to get involved until the going got really tough later down the line.

Granted. I just think that if they're going to deploy mass troops, the British tendency would be to first land them on a shore as close to Britain as they can (i.e. Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, or Germany). Recall that they only went to Gallipoli AFTER things had bogged down in France.
 
This might be breaking the OP but what if the Germans do not annex Alsace and Loraine as well as none of the proclaiming the German Empire in Versailles? Could this lead to better Franco-German relations and such less motive for France to get into a war with Germany?
 
Top