Subject: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 26 Sep 2001 14:08:18 -0700 From: bm2617@eve.albany.edu (Bruce Munro) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Ok, here's one.. Can anyone come up with a reasonable set of events, diverging after the formation of the German Empire in 1871, that gives us a WWI with this lineup? Germany+Russia+Italy Vs. Austria-Hungary+England+France It just seems to me that with the Austrian-German alliance Germany was essentially dooming itself to a two-front war and if unable to get an alliance with the UK, Russia seems the lesser of two evils - but of course, Russia and Austria have fundamental disagreements in the Balkans... so do you think it's possible? Bruce Munro (As for other states, feel free to ally them as you see fit - although I think Serbia would never turn down the chance to get a bite out of Austria.) Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 26 Sep 2001 22:10:20 GMT From: abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 I just posted a question in regards to an alternate Sadowa (or Konnigratz, whichever) that results in a draconian peace on Austria which would ahve much the same effect. Prussia takes some of the sudentenland, exacts heavy reparations, and marches triumphantly through Vienna. A-H still stays out of 1870, due to a _very_ large Russian army on her rear and the smashing victories again won by Moltke. This time, Austria is also beaten woefully, so France finds in her a natural ally. Let's see if this works the consequences out: 1866 -- Bismarck is shot in the hand at the Sadowa battlefield b a stray bullet. he survives, but spends the next several weeks in the grips of a delerium (sp?). The Prussian Army marches through Vienna, and enforces the draconian terms of the upcoming treaty. Moltke has his way with the peace treaty, and Prussia takes Silesia and the Sudenten from the Empire. Heavy war reparations are exacted, and Austria is left seething. Same terms for German states that sided with Austria. 1867-- After having recovered, and seeing the impossibiity of concilliation with Austria, Bismarck initiates negotiations with Alexander II on a mutual defense pact against Austria. 1868 -- Negotiations end with a firm guarantee that each side will provide 300,000 men to the other's defense if attacked by Austria. In the event of war with another power, the other is constrained to observe a benevolent neutrality. In the Bismarckian tradition, the treaty is kept secret. 1869 -- Austria approaches France on closer relations, and the two develop a military dialogue, modernizing their militaries more closely on the Prussian model. Due to Louis Napoleon's arrogance, however, the reform program ends up doing france only minimal good, the real beneficiary is Austria. 1870 -- Following the Ems Dispatch, France declares war on Prussia. Austria is more belligerent than OTL, but the speedy deployment of russian troops to the Galician fontier averts anything else. 1871 -- The Treaty of Versailles is signed. More confident of the fruits of a heavy-handed approach, William I insists on the annexation of all of Lorraine, and Bismarck consents, albeit reluctantly. The German Empire is proclaimed on scheduel. 1872 -- Terrified by the two-front hatred that has confronted him, Bismarck seeks to consolidate his ties with Russia more vigorously than OTL, and the result is the Alliance of the Two Emperors, a broad extension of the 1868 treaty with provisions guaranteeing spheres of influence to each nation. Germany is granted, in essence, a back-up of what she already has, in the form of a pledge of Russian support. Russia, for her part, is given a free hand in the Balakans and with Turkey, though Bismarck takes pains to demonstrate that Germany will not support Russia in the event of an aggressive war on Turkey which might result in her collapse. 1873 -- After recovering from its own humiliating defeat, France broaches an offer of Alliance to the Dual Monarchy. Faced with the prospect of becoming a German sattellite, Austria readily accepts, and the two nations sign a formal military alliance. 1873-76 -- Both blocs consolidate their positions, exchanging military advisors and modernizing their armed forces. After this point, things start to get funny. After the fasting's done, I'll get back to it, but in the meantime, deos anyone have any ideas about how the altered Russo-Turkish war and british invasions of Afganistan would go? Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 20:42:56 +0000 (UTC) From: fnovak@gmx.at (Frank Novak) Organization: Me, Organized? Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Abraxus263 thought that the world (or at least soc.history.what-if) should know that: > I just posted a question in regards to an alternate Sadowa (or > Konnigratz, whichever) that results in a draconian peace on Austria > which would ahve much the same effect. I just caught up with that thread. I'll post my comments on your scenario here. > 1866 -- Bismarck is shot in the hand at the Sadowa battlefield b a > stray bullet. he survives, but spends the next several weeks in the > grips of a delerium (sp?). The Prussian Army marches through > Vienna, and enforces the draconian terms of the upcoming treaty. The Prussians will have some more fighting to do before they can march through Vienna and enforce a peace treaty. There is still a Habsburg army on the field commanded by Archduke Albrecht. > Moltke has his way with the peace treaty, and Prussia takes Silesia > and the Sudenten from the Empire. Make that "the northern Sudetenland". Taking the southern part would leave Prussia with a really weird border. > Heavy war reparations are exacted, and Austria is left seething. Collecting those war reparations will be a bit difficult. It's hard to undress a naked man... > Same terms for German states that sided with Austria. Which means that Saxony gets annexed. I don't know about Bavaria and Wurttemburg; they were technically Austrian allies but they didn't bother to send any troops. > 1868 -- Negotiations end with a firm guarantee that each side will > provide 300,000 men to the other's defense if attacked by Austria. Russia wouldn't have trouble with that, but for the Prussians that's a pretty big number. How does Italy fit into this picture? > In the event of war with another power, the other is constrained to > observe a benevolent neutrality. In the Bismarckian tradition, the > treaty is kept secret. I'm not sure about that. The Reinsurance treaty was kept secret because it conflicted with (or at least cast doubt upon) Prussias "official" alliance with Austria. There is no good reason to keep this pact secret. > 1869 -- Austria approaches France on closer relations, and the two > develop a military dialogue, modernizing their militaries more > closely on the Prussian model. Due to Louis Napoleon's arrogance, > however, the reform program ends up doing france only minimal good, > the real beneficiary is Austria. Successful reforms in the Austrian army? Well it's not quite ASB-level, but still... > 1870 -- Following the Ems Dispatch, France declares war on Prussia. > Austria is more belligerent than OTL, but the speedy deployment of > russian troops to the Galician fontier averts anything else. That and I suspect that the Hungarians will still try to torpedo closer relationships between Austria and France. The last thing they need is a victorious Imperial government that might renege on the 1867 Compromise. > Russia, for her part, is given a free hand in > the Balakans and with Turkey, though Bismarck takes pains to > demonstrate that Germany will not support Russia in the event of an > aggressive war on Turkey which might result in her collapse. Which to the Czar probably comes across as "Find a way to make it appear that Turkey is attacking you and we will back you to the hilt." > 1873 -- After recovering from its own humiliating defeat, France > broaches an offer of Alliance to the Dual Monarchy. Faced with the > prospect of becoming a German sattellite, Austria readily accepts, > and the two nations sign a formal military alliance. Yes, by now even the Hungarians will be scared by the German/Russian alliance. > 1873-76 -- Both blocs consolidate their positions, exchanging > military advisors and modernizing their armed forces. One bloc more than the other. Austria was always short on cash and France will have to pay hefty reparations. So modernization will take longer for them. > After this point, things start to get funny. After the fasting's > done, I'll get back to it, but in the meantime, deos anyone have > any ideas about how the altered Russo-Turkish war and british > invasions of Afganistan would go? Turkey might actually ally with Austria and France in this scenario which makes a Russo-Turkish less likely. However if it does happen things could get very interesting. In the proverbial Chinese way. Frank Novak Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:49:40 -0500 From: Carlos Th Organization: - Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Frank Novak wrote: > > Abraxus263 thought that the world (or at least soc.history.what-if) > should know that: [...] > > Moltke has his way with the peace treaty, and Prussia takes Silesia > > and the Sudenten from the Empire. > > Make that "the northern Sudetenland". Taking the southern part would > leave Prussia with a really weird border. Prussia with weird border? No. That is implausable. -- Carlos Th Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:23:59 +0000 (UTC) From: fnovak@gmx.at (Frank Novak) Organization: Me, Organized? Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Carlos Th thought that the world (or at least soc.history.what-if) should know that: > Frank Novak wrote: >> Make that "the northern Sudetenland". Taking the southern part >> would leave Prussia with a really weird border. > > Prussia with weird border? > > No. That is implausable. Ok, good point. But in this case it means a long, narrow strip of land lying exactly between two major power centres of a hostile Great Power. I think even the Prussians would consider that a weird border layout. Frank Novak Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 27 Sep 2001 22:38:36 GMT From: abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >> 1866 -- Bismarck is shot in the hand at the Sadowa battlefield b a >> stray bullet. he survives, but spends the next several weeks in the >> grips of a delerium (sp?). The Prussian Army marches through >> Vienna, and enforces the draconian terms of the upcoming treaty. >The Prussians will have some more fighting to do before they can march >through Vienna and enforce a peace treaty. There is still a Habsburg >army on the field commanded by Archduke Albrecht. ::shrugs:: Then they fight another battle. That was the original posit; the Prussians continue advancing. In any event, i see little that would prevent a march on Vienna. The Austrians simply weren't up to it. >> Moltke has his way with the peace treaty, and Prussia takes Silesia >> and the Sudenten from the Empire. >Make that "the northern Sudetenland". Taking the southern part would >leave Prussia with a really weird border. Not really important. By defeating Austria and her sattellites, Prussia has assured that the states immediately to the west of Sudetenland are now _her_ subjects. Again, I see little that would stop her. >> Heavy war reparations are exacted, and Austria is left seething. > >Collecting those war reparations will be a bit difficult. It's hard to >undress a naked man... I imagine that Austria and Bohemia would be occupied until the Austrians came up with them. That was how they handled France, after all. In any event, that's the point of reparations, to keep the Austrians too broke to afford an army. >> Same terms for German states that sided with Austria. > >Which means that Saxony gets annexed. I don't know about Bavaria and >Wurttemburg; they were technically Austrian allies but they didn't >bother to send any troops. Terms on them were harsh enough OTL. I see nothing to alter them. >> 1868 -- Negotiations end with a firm guarantee that each side will >> provide 300,000 men to the other's defense if attacked by Austria. > >Russia wouldn't have trouble with that, but for the Prussians that's a >pretty big number. How does Italy fit into this picture? Italy wouldn't necessarily come into the alliance yet, not with a strong, anti-Prussian France on her western border. I imagine she'll be added in at around 1880 or so, increased German connections to anti-British Russia counteracting the decreased connections to Austria. As to the troop numbers, that's how many came into Austria before the victory at Sadowa. With her new conquests and rapid population growth, there would be considerably less difficulty in gaining those 300,000 ten years down the line or even five years down the line than there was in 1866. >> In the event of war with another power, the other is constrained to >> observe a benevolent neutrality. In the Bismarckian tradition, the >> treaty is kept secret. >I'm not sure about that. The Reinsurance treaty was kept secret because >it conflicted with (or at least cast doubt upon) Prussias "official" >alliance with Austria. There is no good reason to keep this pact >secret. Sure there is. Russia is highly anti-British, and Bismarck was in no way ready to earn the hostility of Britain if such would interfere with his plans for France. For her part, Russia does not want to alarm Britain into thinking that the balance of power has been fundamentally broken by a prostrate Austria, and an ascendant Prussia in connection with the largest state in Europe, as that would stiffen her resolve to prevent the militarization of the Black Sea. >> 1869 -- Austria approaches France on closer relations, and the two >> develop a military dialogue, modernizing their militaries more >> closely on the Prussian model. Due to Louis Napoleon's arrogance, >> however, the reform program ends up doing france only minimal good, >> the real beneficiary is Austria. > >Successful reforms in the Austrian army? Well it's not quite ASB-level, >but still... Successful? Nah, just somewhat helpful. Not enough to do a truly substantive amount of good. >> 1870 -- Following the Ems Dispatch, France declares war on Prussia. >> Austria is more belligerent than OTL, but the speedy deployment of >> russian troops to the Galician fontier averts anything else. >That and I suspect that the Hungarians will still try to torpedo closer >relationships between Austria and France. The last thing they need is a >victorious Imperial government that might renege on the 1867 >Compromise. ::nods:: >> Russia, for her part, is given a free hand in >> the Balkans and with Turkey, though Bismarck takes pains to >> demonstrate that Germany will not support Russia in the event of an >> aggressive war on Turkey which might result in her collapse. > >Which to the Czar probably comes across as "Find a way to make it >appear that Turkey is attacking you and we will back you to the hilt." Yes, I suspect Alexander would interpret it that way. his ministers certainly would, in any case. Still, Bismarck would, I believe, attempt to exercise the same restraint over Russia in the Balkans that he did over Austria. >> 1873 -- After recovering from its own humiliating defeat, France >> broaches an offer of Alliance to the Dual Monarchy. Faced with the >> prospect of becoming a German sattellite, Austria readily accepts, >> and the two nations sign a formal military alliance. > >Yes, by now even the Hungarians will be scared by the German/Russian >alliance. 600,000 troops have a way of doing that. >> 1873-76 -- Both blocs consolidate their positions, exchanging >> military advisors and modernizing their armed forces. > >One bloc more than the other. Austria was always short on cash and >France will have to pay hefty reparations. So modernization will take >longer for them. IMHO, it would probably kick into high gear by 1875 when the French had already gotten their act together and paid off the reparations. >> After this point, things start to get funny. After the fasting's >> done, I'll get back to it, but in the meantime, deos anyone have >> any ideas about how the altered Russo-Turkish war and british >> invasions of Afganistan would go? >Turkey might actually ally with Austria and France in this scenario >which makes a Russo-Turkish less likely. However if it does happen >things could get very interesting. In the proverbial Chinese way. Its possible that the Ottomans might ally after getting whipped in 1877. Bismarck, for his part, would want a quick war, so I guess German troops and advisors would help wipe out plevna a few months earlier, when British public opinion was still up in arms over the Bulgarian massacres. At a guess, that would produce the "big Bulgaria" Russia was looking for, as well as the overturning of the Crimean peace and the restoration of bessarabia. For bismarck's part, I could see him assigning Serbia, Montenegro, B-H, and Novibazar as an Austrian sphere of influence to keep them from upsetting matters and as one of his futile attempts at reconciliation. Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:34:19 +0000 (UTC) From: fnovak@gmx.at (Frank Novak) Organization: Me, Organized? Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Abraxus263 thought that the world (or at least soc.history.what-if) should know that: >>> 1866 -- Bismarck is shot in the hand at the Sadowa battlefield b >>> a stray bullet. he survives, but spends the next several weeks in >>> the grips of a delerium (sp?). The Prussian Army marches through >>> Vienna, and enforces the draconian terms of the upcoming treaty. > >>The Prussians will have some more fighting to do before they can >>march through Vienna and enforce a peace treaty. There is still a >>Habsburg army on the field commanded by Archduke Albrecht. > >::shrugs:: Then they fight another battle. That was the original >::posit; the > Prussians continue advancing. In any event, i see little that would > prevent a march on Vienna. The Austrians simply weren't up to it. Well if the Prussians start to believe _that_ they'll certainly never be able to get their victory parade in Vienna. In OTL there was a major army under Albrecht guarding Vienna against the Prussians. I see no reason why it should not be there in the ATL. I have no problem with another big battle somewhere on the Marchfeld (Wagram perhaps? But I guess Albrecht knows his family history and would try to avoid _that_ battlefield) with another decisive Prussian victory. The Prussians are certainly good enough to do this. They aren't good enough to sweep everything before them while ignoring such mundane issues as logistics, enemy fortifications and hostile armies. >> Moltke has his way with the peace treaty, and Prussia takes >>> Silesia and the Sudenten from the Empire. > >>Make that "the northern Sudetenland". Taking the southern part >>would leave Prussia with a really weird border. > > Not really important. By defeating Austria and her sattellites, > Prussia has assured that the states immediately to the west of > Sudetenland are now _her_ subjects. Again, I see little that would > stop her. To the west perhaps, but the Sudetenland in the 1938 borders includes a long and narrow strip between Bohemia and Austria proper. >>Russia wouldn't have trouble with that, but for the Prussians >>that's a pretty big number. How does Italy fit into this picture? > > Italy wouldn't necessarily come into the alliance yet, not with a > strong, anti-Prussian France on her western border. I imagine > she'll be added in at around 1880 or so, increased German > connections to anti-British Russia counteracting the decreased > connections to Austria. As to the troop numbers, that's how many > came into Austria before the victory at Sadowa. With her new > conquests and rapid population growth, there would be considerably > less difficulty in gaining those 300,000 ten years down the line or > even five years down the line than there was in 1866. Well, the Prussian Army that come into Austria in 1866 was pretty much everybody who could be mobilized in short order. The Prussians only left token garrisons in the Rhineland and to guard their flanks. They'll take losses in the 1866 campaign and they will need to garrison more less than friendly territory. Recruting and training troops from the newly acquired territory will take some time as well. >>I'm not sure about that. The Reinsurance treaty was kept secret >>because it conflicted with (or at least cast doubt upon) Prussias >>"official" alliance with Austria. There is no good reason to keep >>this pact secret. > > Sure there is. Russia is highly anti-British, and Bismarck was in > no way ready to earn the hostility of Britain if such would > interfere with his plans for France. Hm, Britain wasn't all that interested in intervening on the continent in the timeframe. And taken at face value this is just a defensive pact against an Austrian attack, so the Brits can tell themselves that it doesn't have anything to do with them. But yes, it is a risk that Bismarck might not want to take. > For her part, Russia does not > want to alarm Britain into thinking that the balance of power has > been fundamentally broken by a prostrate Austria, and an ascendant > Prussia in connection with the largest state in Europe, as that > would stiffen her resolve to prevent the militarization of the > Black Sea. That is a good point, but soon people will suspect that this alliance exists anyway. Publishing the exact nature of the treaty might calm more fears than hiding it. >>Which to the Czar probably comes across as "Find a way to make it >>appear that Turkey is attacking you and we will back you to the >>hilt." > > Yes, I suspect Alexander would interpret it that way. his ministers > certainly would, in any case. Still, Bismarck would, I believe, > attempt to exercise the same restraint over Russia in the Balkans > that he did over Austria. Yes, but it did not work all that well with Austria (just look at Bosnia) and Russia is already more expansionistic-minded. >>Turkey might actually ally with Austria and France in this scenario >>which makes a Russo-Turkish less likely. However if it does happen >>things could get very interesting. In the proverbial Chinese way. > > Its possible that the Ottomans might ally after getting whipped in > 1877. I would expect them to do it earlier. By now people will have started to treat Germany and Russia as de facto allies even if the exact nature of the pact is not known. The Russians never made much of a secret of their intentions towards Constantinople and a defensive alliance with Austria and France is the obvious counter-move against their ambition. But the negotiations will take some time and maybe the Russians decide to strike early... > Bismarck, for his part, would want a quick war, so I guess > German troops and advisors would help wipe out plevna a few months > earlier, when British public opinion was still up in arms over the > Bulgarian massacres. What happened to "Germany will not back Russia in an aggressive war on Turkey"? Or am I missing something? There are also enough butterflies unleashed to make comparisons with OTL tricky. There might be no Bulgarian massacres to distract the British. At any rate control of the Straits is one of the issues that is guarenteed to provoke a strong British response. > At a guess, that would produce the "big > Bulgaria" Russia was looking for, as well as the overturning of the > Crimean peace and the restoration of bessarabia. For bismarck's > part, I could see him assigning Serbia, Montenegro, B-H, and > Novibazar as an Austrian sphere of influence to keep them from > upsetting matters and as one of his futile attempts at > reconciliation. Highly futile. Austria would of course take those places if offered, but exchanging Silesia for Montenegro would not be considered a good deal in Vienna. Frank Novak Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 28 Sep 2001 11:53:16 -0700 From: marathag@yahoo.com (mike) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 fnovak@gmx.at (Frank Novak) wrote in message news:... > I have no problem with another big battle somewhere on the Marchfeld > (Wagram perhaps? But I guess Albrecht knows his family history and > would try to avoid _that_ battlefield) with another decisive Prussian > victory. The Prussians are certainly good enough to do this. One of Nappys lines "Obviously you were not at Wagram" might point otherwise. IIRC Bernadotte was thumped pretty hard, and even Moltke the Elder was no equal to Napoleon at his zenith. Albrecht probably was as skilled as Charles. Maybe to a lesser degree of Texans not losing the Alamo again-- a rallying point. 'They shall not pass' sort of thing for a continental example in a following war. ** mike ** Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 19:55:23 +0000 (UTC) From: fnovak@gmx.at (Frank Novak) Organization: Me, Organized? Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 mike thought that the world (or at least soc.history.what-if) should know that: > One of Nappys lines "Obviously you were not at Wagram" might > point otherwise. IIRC Bernadotte was thumped pretty hard, and > even Moltke the Elder was no equal to Napoleon at his zenith. > Albrecht probably was as skilled as Charles. True enough, but the point is that Charles still lost. The fact the he gave Nappy a better fight than any general before him wasn't deemed relevant. Albrecht would certainly remember that Charles was disgraced after losing a vital battle there. On Albrecht vs. Moltke: With equal armies I'd put my money on Albrecht without doubt. The problem is that the Prussians are better trained, better organised and better armed. (At least the infantry. The artillery is a different story) > Maybe to a lesser degree of Texans not losing the Alamo again-- > a rallying point. 'They shall not pass' sort of thing for a > continental example in a following war. Maybe. The problem I see is that Albrechts army will already be pretty brittle to begin with. It will be a scratch outfit consisting of what could be salvaged from Benedeks army stiffened by whatever troops can be spared from the Italian front plus maybe some hastily raised reinforcements. Giving them a symbol to rally behind is probably a good idea, but I doubt that Wagram is the right symbol. Frank Novak Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 28 Sep 2001 19:42:52 GMT From: abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >>::shrugs:: Then they fight another battle. That was the original >>::posit; the >> Prussians continue advancing. In any event, i see little that would >> prevent a march on Vienna. The Austrians simply weren't up to it. > >Well if the Prussians start to believe _that_ they'll certainly never >be able to get their victory parade in Vienna. In OTL there was a major >army under Albrecht guarding Vienna against the Prussians. I see no >reason why it should not be there in the ATL. And another fight there cou;ld very well be, but Austria's chances of winning it, or of driving the Prussians back are slim enough to state the fair inevitability of a march on Vienna. Remember, one of the main reasons Moltke wanted to move on Vienna was to scoop up and destroy the remaining Austrian forces. >I have no problem with another big battle somewhere on the Marchfeld >(Wagram perhaps? But I guess Albrecht knows his family history and >would try to avoid _that_ battlefield) with another decisive Prussian >victory. The Prussians are certainly good enough to do this. Glad you agree. >They aren't good enough to sweep everything before them while ignoring >such mundane issues as logistics, enemy fortifications and hostile >armies. Not really the point; they're not trying to annex and conquer austria, just a few border regions. it is well within their capacities. >>> Moltke has his way with the peace treaty, and Prussia takes >>>> Silesia and the Sudenten from the Empire. >> >>>Make that "the northern Sudetenland". Taking the southern part >>>would leave Prussia with a really weird border. >> >> Not really important. By defeating Austria and her sattellites, >> Prussia has assured that the states immediately to the west of >> Sudetenland are now _her_ subjects. Again, I see little that would >> stop her. > >To the west perhaps, but the Sudetenland in the 1938 borders includes a >long and narrow strip between Bohemia and Austria proper. Nothing that couldn't be handled. More importantly, the terrain of the region makes its possession critical in the event of another war, so as to ensure the quick overrunning of bohemia and the Austrian heartland. >> Italy wouldn't necessarily come into the alliance yet, not with a >> strong, anti-Prussian France on her western border. I imagine >> she'll be added in at around 1880 or so, increased German >> connections to anti-British Russia counteracting the decreased >> connections to Austria. As to the troop numbers, that's how many >> came into Austria before the victory at Sadowa. With her new >> conquests and rapid population growth, there would be considerably >> less difficulty in gaining those 300,000 ten years down the line or >> even five years down the line than there was in 1866. > >Well, the Prussian Army that come into Austria in 1866 was pretty much >everybody who could be mobilized in short order. The Prussians only >left token garrisons in the Rhineland and to guard their flanks. >They'll take losses in the 1866 campaign and they will need to garrison >more less than friendly territory And, by the time of any subsequent wars, their population will have grown substnatially. So substantially, in fact, that 300,000 wouldn't really be a problem. >Recruting and training troops from >the newly acquired territory will take some time as well. Remember that the Prussians had a system of universal military service, and that their rail network was quite sufficient. However, its not as if the troops have to be assembled immediately, Austria can't hope to blitz bopth Russia and Germany in a month or so. >>>I'm not sure about that. The Reinsurance treaty was kept secret >>>because it conflicted with (or at least cast doubt upon) Prussias >>>"official" alliance with Austria. There is no good reason to keep >>>this pact secret. >> >> Sure there is. Russia is highly anti-British, and Bismarck was in >> no way ready to earn the hostility of Britain if such would >> interfere with his plans for France. > >Hm, Britain wasn't all that interested in intervening on the continent >in the timeframe. And taken at face value this is just a defensive pact >against an Austrian attack, so the Brits can tell themselves that it >doesn't have anything to do with them. > >But yes, it is a risk that Bismarck might not want to take. Glad you agree. >> For her part, Russia does not >> want to alarm Britain into thinking that the balance of power has >> been fundamentally broken by a prostrate Austria, and an ascendant >> Prussia in connection with the largest state in Europe, as that >> would stiffen her resolve to prevent the militarization of the >> Black Sea. > >That is a good point, but soon people will suspect that this alliance >exists anyway. Publishing the exact nature of the treaty might calm >more fears than hiding it. So would the terms of the triple alliance; their secrecy was one of the main drives for Russia's entrance into the Dual Alliance. Those terms were kept secret, so I imagine that these would as well. >>>Which to the Czar probably comes across as "Find a way to make it >>>appear that Turkey is attacking you and we will back you to the >>>hilt." >> >> Yes, I suspect Alexander would interpret it that way. his ministers >> certainly would, in any case. Still, Bismarck would, I believe, >> attempt to exercise the same restraint over Russia in the Balkans >> that he did over Austria. > >Yes, but it did not work all that well with Austria (just look at >Bosnia) and Russia is already more expansionistic-minded. The annexation came well after Bismarck's dismissal, and before thatdismissal he did a remarkable job keeping Russia and Austria together for so long by restraining the latter. Alexander wasn't yet ready for expansion, but it wouldn't be more than a few years before the alliance went to his head. >>>Turkey might actually ally with Austria and France in this scenario >>>which makes a Russo-Turkish less likely. However if it does happen >>>things could get very interesting. In the proverbial Chinese way. >> >> Its possible that the Ottomans might ally after getting whipped in >> 1877. > >I would expect them to do it earlier. By now people will have started >to treat Germany and Russia as de facto allies even if the exact nature >of the pact is not known. Possible, but I doubt it. If by concilliation and certain concessions, the Sultan wins the support of Germany, he can use the Germans to keep the Russians from growing too expansionistic. If he aligns himself with France and Austria, who have both demonstrated that they are not even the equal of Prussia, let alone a united Germany acting in concert with Russia, they have signed their own death warrant. >The Russians never made much of a secret of >their intentions towards Constantinople and a defensive alliance with >Austria and France is the obvious counter-move against their ambition. See above. >But the negotiations will take some time and maybe the Russians decide >to strike early... >> Bismarck, for his part, would want a quick war, so I guess >> German troops and advisors would help wipe out plevna a few months >> earlier, when British public opinion was still up in arms over the >> Bulgarian massacres. > >What happened to "Germany will not back Russia in an aggressive war on >Turkey"? Or am I missing something? Prior to war, no he would do everything to abort it. Once it begins however, best to end it as quickly as possible. How to do that? By taking plevna. >There are also enough butterflies unleashed to make comparisons with >OTL tricky. There might be no Bulgarian massacres to distract the >British. I don't really see anything to affect those. >At any rate control of the Straits is one of the issues that >is guarenteed to provoke a strong British response. Indeed, which is what will mandate a mollifying of athe treaty, and will probably drive the Germans away from the English after a while. >> At a guess, that would produce the "big >> Bulgaria" Russia was looking for, as well as the overturning of the >> Crimean peace and the restoration of bessarabia. For bismarck's >> part, I could see him assigning Serbia, Montenegro, B-H, and >> Novibazar as an Austrian sphere of influence to keep them from >> upsetting matters and as one of his futile attempts at >> reconciliation. > >Highly futile. Austria would of course take those places if offered, >but exchanging Silesia for Montenegro would not be considered a good >deal in Vienna. Nor was Algeria for Alsace-Lorraine. Still, he did it. Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:28:03 +0000 (UTC) From: fnovak@gmx.at (Frank Novak) Organization: Me, Organized? Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Abraxus263 thought that the world (or at least soc.history.what-if) should know that: >>They aren't good enough to sweep everything before them while >>ignoring such mundane issues as logistics, enemy fortifications and >>hostile armies. > > Not really the point; they're not trying to annex and conquer > austria, just a few border regions. it is well within their > capacities. You had them marching on Vienna, which is a considerable distance from Sadova. On the way they'll have to keep supplied (the Austrian rail net is not up to the task), take or bypass some serious fortifications (ever been to Olmuetz?) and once they get there they'll have to beat an army commanded by one of the best generals in Europe at this point. Again, the Prussians have enough of an edge to pull this off, but it is not a foregone conclusion. >>To the west perhaps, but the Sudetenland in the 1938 borders >>includes a long and narrow strip between Bohemia and Austria >>proper. > > Nothing that couldn't be handled. More importantly, the terrain of > the region makes its possession critical in the event of another > war, so as to ensure the quick overrunning of bohemia and the > Austrian heartland. The term "Sudetenland" doesn't have significance before 1919 OTL. In 1866 there was certainly no notion that the "dominantly German-speaking districts of Bohemia" were any form of coherent entity. This is why it doesn't make sense for Prussia to claim all of it. They can grab territory close to their borders, but why should they take some districts in the middle of nowhere? >>Yes, but it did not work all that well with Austria (just look at >>Bosnia) and Russia is already more expansionistic-minded. > > The annexation came well after Bismarck's dismissal, and before > thatdismissal he did a remarkable job keeping Russia and Austria > together for so long by restraining the latter. I was thinking of the occupation of Bosnia, which happened in 1878. It is worth noting that this move was very unpopular in Austria. By and large the Habsburgs weren't very expansonistic in this time frame, it was felt that adding more nationalities into the already volatile mixture would be a bad move. Russia is a rather different matter. >>I would expect them to do it earlier. By now people will have >>started to treat Germany and Russia as de facto allies even if the >>exact nature of the pact is not known. > > Possible, but I doubt it. If by concilliation and certain > concessions, the Sultan wins the support of Germany, he can use the > Germans to keep the Russians from growing too expansionistic. If he > aligns himself with France and Austria, who have both demonstrated > that they are not even the equal of Prussia, let alone a united > Germany acting in concert with Russia, they have signed their own > death warrant. Ok, I guess you'd have to include Britain in the alliance as well to make it attractive enough to the Turks. Which is possible, but not all that likely _yet_. Of course if it does happen we can achieve the originally requested alternate WWI alliance much earlier and stage WWI some time in the 1880s... On a different note I must say that allying with (or at least courting) both Russia and Turkey at the same time sounds very Bismarckian ;-) >>What happened to "Germany will not back Russia in an aggressive war >>on Turkey"? Or am I missing something? > > Prior to war, no he would do everything to abort it. Once it begins > however, best to end it as quickly as possible. How to do that? By > taking plevna. Yes, but this still means that he will have to do what he emphatically stated he would not do. Bismarck is certainly the master of realpolitik, but even he has limits. And he isn't (quite) the absolute ruler of Germany, there is still the Emperor to consider. >>There are also enough butterflies unleashed to make comparisons >>with OTL tricky. There might be no Bulgarian massacres to distract >>the British. > > I don't really see anything to affect those. Over 10 years since the POD and a completely different geopolitical situation. A lot can happen. Frank Novak Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 28 Sep 2001 23:15:58 GMT From: abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >> Not really the point; they're not trying to annex and conquer >> austria, just a few border regions. it is well within their >> capacities. > >You had them marching on Vienna, which is a considerable distance from >Sadova. On the way they'll have to keep supplied (the Austrian rail net >is not up to the task), take or bypass some serious fortifications >(ever been to Olmuetz?) and once they get there they'll have to beat an >army commanded by one of the best generals in Europe at this point. And Moltke had already laid the plans to do exactly that. He was the one that had pushed for the move on Vienna and it was for a reason. >Again, the Prussians have enough of an edge to pull this off, but it is >not a foregone conclusion. ::shrugs:: IMO, close enough to make no difference. >> Nothing that couldn't be handled. More importantly, the terrain of >> the region makes its possession critical in the event of another >> war, so as to ensure the quick overrunning of bohemia and the >> Austrian heartland. > >The term "Sudetenland" doesn't have significance before 1919 OTL. In >1866 there was certainly no notion that the "dominantly German-speaking >districts of Bohemia" were any form of coherent entity. This is why it >doesn't make sense for Prussia to claim all of it. They can grab >territory close to their borders, but why should they take some >districts in the middle of nowhere? ::shrugs:: They might, they might not. They _will_ take the large majority of it, so I don't see the issue. >>>Yes, but it did not work all that well with Austria (just look at >>>Bosnia) and Russia is already more expansionistic-minded. >> >> The annexation came well after Bismarck's dismissal, and before >> thatdismissal he did a remarkable job keeping Russia and Austria >> together for so long by restraining the latter. >I was thinking of the occupation of Bosnia, which happened in 1878. And did so at a conference chaired by Bismarck, during a war that was for Russia, comparatively as successful as the Winter War. Bismarck's only fault was in viewing things more from a rational perspective and not from the Russian perspective of the time. When it came to later matters, such as the monarchies in Bulgaria, the status of Rumania, the Serbs and so on, he did a rather good job of keeping the Hapsburgs in check. >It is worth noting that this move was very unpopular in Austria. By and >large the Habsburgs weren't very expansonistic in this time frame, it >was felt that adding more nationalities into the already volatile >mixture would be a bad move. And rightfully so. >Russia is a rather different matter. *Russia* is not the issue, *Alexander* is. Annexing Constantinople was not something he had any plans for, nor had his father or, by and large, his successor. Holding Constantinople would ahve been impossible without both surrounding territories and British endorsements, both ASB-territory. It was more a matter of gaining influence by setting up puppet states in the Balkans. This, within limits, was possible provided German support. >On a different note I must say that allying with (or at least courting) >both Russia and Turkey at the same time sounds very Bismarckian ;-) Quite. >>>What happened to "Germany will not back Russia in an aggressive war >>>on Turkey"? Or am I missing something? >> >> Prior to war, no he would do everything to abort it. Once it begins >> however, best to end it as quickly as possible. How to do that? By >> taking plevna. >Yes, but this still means that he will have to do what he emphatically >stated he would not do. Bismarck is certainly the master of >realpolitik, but even he has limits. And he isn't (quite) the absolute >ruler of Germany, there is still the Emperor to consider. Still not seeing the problem. Alex finds a way to make Turkey look like the bad guy, goads them into war, Bismarck tries to localize and settle the conflict, fails in the latter but succeeds in former, then sends a few German engineer ands artillery units turned over to nominal Russian command, and takes the fortress, ending the issue while Britain remains hostile to Turkey. >>>There are also enough butterflies unleashed to make comparisons >>>with OTL tricky. There might be no Bulgarian massacres to distract >>>the British. >> >> I don't really see anything to affect those. > >Over 10 years since the POD and a completely different geopolitical >situation. A lot can happen. Broad changes, to be sure, but nothing specific has come along that would interfere with those massacres. I'm pretty sure they'd go right on course. Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 23:38:15 -0400 From: "Randy Appleton" Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 "Bruce Munro" wrote in message news:f7e2a102.0109261308.149849bf@posting.google.com... > Ok, here's one.. > > Can anyone come up with a reasonable set of events, diverging after > the formation of the German Empire in 1871, that gives us a WWI with > this lineup? > > Germany+Russia+Italy > > Vs. > > Austria-Hungary+England+France I don't think any Austrian government that can spell "w-a-r" is going to get in a war with Germany, Italy, and Russia all at once. Regardless of who allies with Austria, and almost regardless of what's at stake. Regardless of what happens in step #2, step #1 is destroy Austria, and the Austrians must know that. -Randy Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 27 Sep 2001 09:29:03 -0700 From: bm2617@eve.albany.edu (Bruce Munro) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Randy Appleton" wrote in message > > > > Germany+Russia+Italy > > > > Vs. > > > > Austria-Hungary+England+France > > I don't think any Austrian government that can spell > "w-a-r" is going to get in a war with Germany, Italy, and > Russia all at once. Regardless of who allies with Austria, > and almost regardless of what's at stake. Regardless of > what happens in step #2, step #1 is destroy Austria, and the > Austrians must know that. > That's the general idea. This is NOT going to be a war started by Austria. Bruce Munro Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:01:00 -0400 From: "Randy Appleton" Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Bruce Munro" wrote in message news:f7e2a102.0109270829.48a4f7fb@posting.google.com... > "Randy Appleton" wrote in message > > > > > > Germany+Russia+Italy > > > > > > Vs. > > > > > > Austria-Hungary+England+France > > > > I don't think any Austrian government that can spell > > "w-a-r" is going to get in a war with Germany, Italy, and > > Russia all at once. Regardless of who allies with Austria, > > and almost regardless of what's at stake. Regardless of > > what happens in step #2, step #1 is destroy Austria, and the > > Austrians must know that. > > > That's the general idea. > This is NOT going to be a war started by Austria. I understand that Austria won't start the war. I'm saying something stronger. I'm, saying that Austria just won't participate. They will do almost anything to *not* be in this war. What does Germany want? It wants a suspected terrorist turned over. OK, here. What does Russia want. It wants non-interference from Austrian in the Russo-Turkish war. OK, the Austrian army stays at home. What does Italy want. It wants Trieste, and the surrounding land. Austria gives that land. Austria's not in this war because it's in Austria's best interest to give whatever these nations ask. The alternative is to have it taken from the Austrians by force, and lose other things in the process. -Randy Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 28 Sep 2001 01:00:51 GMT From: abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Never underestimate the degree to which fifty years of revanchism can corrode thought processes. Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 27 Sep 2001 09:12:17 GMT From: sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Bruce Munro) >Date: 26/09/01 22:08 GMT Daylight Time >Message-id: > >Ok, here's one.. > >Can anyone come up with a reasonable set of events, diverging after >the formation of the German Empire in 1871, that gives us a WWI with >this lineup? > >Germany+Russia+Italy > >Vs. > >Austria-Hungary+England+France ^^^^^^^^^^ Here we go again. I take it the POD is before 1707? With the surname Munro you should know better :-) Ian MacAninch Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 27 Sep 2001 09:37:39 -0700 From: bm2617@eve.albany.edu (Bruce Munro) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) wrote in message news:<20010927051217.07845.00000771@mb-co.aol.com>... > >Bruce Munro) > >Date: 26/09/01 22:08 GMT Daylight Time > >Message-id: > > > >Ok, here's one.. > > > >Can anyone come up with a reasonable set of events, diverging after > >the formation of the German Empire in 1871, that gives us a WWI with > >this lineup? > > > >Germany+Russia+Italy > > > >Vs. > > > >Austria-Hungary+England+France > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > Here we go again. > > I take it the POD is before 1707? > > With the surname Munro you should know better :-) > > Ian MacAninch Are you perhaps referring to the Act of Union? I am not quite sure how this applies, unless you are trying to get some sort of dynastic Jacobian-Hapsburg alliance here. And what do you mean "here we go again?" How have I offended? Bruce Munro And it's been a couple centuries since any of my family were wearing kilts... Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:31:53 +0100 From: Alison Brooks Organization: Dis Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 In article , Bruce Munro writes >sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) wrote in message news:<20010927051217.07845 >.00000771@mb-co.aol.com>... >> >Bruce Munro) >> >Date: 26/09/01 22:08 GMT Daylight Time >> >Message-id: >> > >> >Ok, here's one.. >> > >> >Can anyone come up with a reasonable set of events, diverging after >> >the formation of the German Empire in 1871, that gives us a WWI with >> >this lineup? >> > >> >Germany+Russia+Italy >> > >> >Vs. >> > >> >Austria-Hungary+England+France >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Here we go again. >> >> I take it the POD is before 1707? >> >> With the surname Munro you should know better :-) >> >> Ian MacAninch > >Are you perhaps referring to the Act of Union? I am not quite sure how >this applies, unless you are trying to get some sort of dynastic >Jacobian-Hapsburg alliance here. And what do you mean "here we go >again?" How have I offended? > >Bruce Munro > >And it's been a couple centuries since any of my family were wearing >kilts... I think you might find that you said England when you meant Britain. We Scots can get a little sensitive over this. -- Alison Brooks http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/ Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 27 Sep 2001 18:41:38 GMT From: sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Bruce Munro) >Date: 27/09/2001 17:37 GMT Daylight Time >Message-id: > >sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) wrote in message >news:<20010927051217.07845.00000771@mb-co.aol.com>... >> >Bruce Munro) >> >Date: 26/09/01 22:08 GMT Daylight Time >> >Message-id: >> > >> >Ok, here's one.. >> > >> >Can anyone come up with a reasonable set of events, diverging after >> >the formation of the German Empire in 1871, that gives us a WWI with >> >this lineup? >> > >> >Germany+Russia+Italy >> > >> >Vs. >> > >> >Austria-Hungary+England+France >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Here we go again. >> >> I take it the POD is before 1707? >> >> With the surname Munro you should know better :-) >> >> Ian MacAninch > >Are you perhaps referring to the Act of Union? I am not quite sure how >this applies, unless you are trying to get some sort of dynastic >Jacobian-Hapsburg alliance here. And what do you mean "here we go >again?" How have I offended? > >Bruce Munro > >And it's been a couple centuries since any of my family were wearing >kilts... Don't worry Bruce I'm not offended - I'm past that stage now. You get a rhino skin then see the funny side of it. The part I was referring to was (note underlined) - >> >Austria-Hungary+England+France ^^^^^^^^^^ "Here we go again" is referring to previous times the constitutional arrangements of the British Isles have had to be clarified and how this confusion has inspired other WI threads. Mr Davies from Wales will probably be entering also and rebuking me for my ommision concerning the 1500's :-) Ian MacAninch Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 27 Sep 2001 15:52:09 -0700 From: bm2617@eve.albany.edu (Bruce Munro) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) wrote in message > The part I was referring to was (note underlined) - > > >> >Austria-Hungary+England+France > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > "Here we go again" is referring to previous times the constitutional > arrangements of the British Isles have had to be clarified and how this > confusion has inspired other WI threads. > > Mr Davies from Wales will probably be entering also and rebuking me for my > ommision concerning the 1500's :-) > > > Ian MacAninch Well, I'll be. Quite entirely missed that- guess I didn't get enough sleep last night. Is my face red. AH challenge: make it so SHWIers write in in indignation at the use of the term "Scotland" to refer to the islands... Bruce Munro Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 06:18:30 +0100 From: Alison Brooks Organization: Dis Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 In article , Bruce Munro writes >sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) wrote in message >> The part I was referring to was (note underlined) - >> >> >> >Austria-Hungary+England+France >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> "Here we go again" is referring to previous times the constitutional >> arrangements of the British Isles have had to be clarified and how this >> confusion has inspired other WI threads. >> >> Mr Davies from Wales will probably be entering also and rebuking me for my >> ommision concerning the 1500's :-) >> >> >> Ian MacAninch > >Well, I'll be. Quite entirely missed that- guess I didn't get enough >sleep last night. Is my face red. > >AH challenge: make it so SHWIers write in in indignation at the use of >the term "Scotland" to refer to the islands... > When King James becomes I of England and VI of Scotland, protocol insists that he be called by his titles in chronological order of acquisition rather than order of status. Thus he is King James VI of Scotland and James I of England. Because Scotland gets first billing.... Or ... In 1745, Bonnie Prince Charlie marches to Derby. His army, getting cheesed off at being so far from home with little chance of getting back, and missing out on all this nice loot and plunder it had been promised, threatens to go back home. For probably the first time in his life, BPC makes a good decision, and tells them tales of all the loot that awaits them in London. Stir in a bit of Shakespearean Oratory, and the Tartan Horde continues with fervour for glory towards London, intent on looting it six ways from Sunday. Assorted Hannoverians depart in haste, the British Army decide that, not having been paid for nigh on a year means that it is probably a wiser course of action to get paid informally and that the easiest way of doing that is to loot London, switch to supporting BPC to a man. London gets looted, BPC has the support of the Army. Parliament panics, decides to support BPC, conditional upon a number of things (no Catholicism for the Stuarts, more power for Parliament - it is happy to support the Stuarts if it gets more power). BPC, who was after the crown of both Scotland and England, agrees (I know, so many sane decisions from BPC. Implausible.), but also points out that parliament has two United Kingdoms to rule. He suggests the House of Lords meets in London, and the House of Commons in Edinburgh. Tensions between the two Houses means that both are happy with this. Years pass, and the tradition of split Houses becomes part of the weft of the British way of doing things. The Lords declines in power; the Commons increases. Scotland gets first billing.... AH Challenge. Now do it plausibly. -- Alison Brooks http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/ Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 28 Sep 2001 20:37:31 GMT From: sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Alison Brooks Alison@flin.demon.co.uk >Date: 28/09/2001 06:18 GMT Daylight Time >Message-id: > >In article , Bruce >Munro writes >>sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) wrote in message >>> The part I was referring to was (note underlined) - >>> >>> >> >Austria-Hungary+England+France >>> ^^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>> "Here we go again" is referring to previous times the constitutional >>> arrangements of the British Isles have had to be clarified and how this >>> confusion has inspired other WI threads. >>> >>> Mr Davies from Wales will probably be entering also and rebuking me for my >>> ommision concerning the 1500's :-) >>> >>> >>> Ian MacAninch >> >>Well, I'll be. Quite entirely missed that- guess I didn't get enough >>sleep last night. Is my face red. >> >>AH challenge: make it so SHWIers write in in indignation at the use of >>the term "Scotland" to refer to the islands... >> > >When King James becomes I of England and VI of Scotland, protocol >insists that he be called by his titles in chronological order of >acquisition rather than order of status. > >Thus he is King James VI of Scotland and James I of England. Because >Scotland gets first billing.... > > > >Or ... > >In 1745, Bonnie Prince Charlie marches to Derby. His army, getting >cheesed off at being so far from home with little chance of getting >back, and missing out on all this nice loot and plunder it had been >promised, threatens to go back home. For probably the first time in his >life, BPC makes a good decision, and tells them tales of all the loot >that awaits them in London. Stir in a bit of Shakespearean Oratory, and >the Tartan Horde continues with fervour for glory towards London, intent >on looting it six ways from Sunday. Assorted Hannoverians depart in >haste, the British Army decide that, not having been paid for nigh on a >year means that it is probably a wiser course of action to get paid >informally and that the easiest way of doing that is to loot London, >switch to supporting BPC to a man. > >London gets looted, BPC has the support of the Army. Parliament panics, >decides to support BPC, conditional upon a number of things (no >Catholicism for the Stuarts, more power for Parliament - it is happy to >support the Stuarts if it gets more power). BPC, who was after the crown >of both Scotland and England, agrees (I know, so many sane decisions >from BPC. Implausible.), but also points out that parliament has two >United Kingdoms to rule. He suggests the House of Lords meets in London, >and the House of Commons in Edinburgh. Tensions between the two Houses >means that both are happy with this. > >Years pass, and the tradition of split Houses becomes part of the weft >of the British way of doing things. The Lords declines in power; the >Commons increases. Scotland gets first billing.... > >AH Challenge. Now do it plausibly. Excuse hand waving. BPC and Sullivan catch horrors of colds two to three days before Derby and retire to their (separate) wheeled bunks. Lord George Murray is left with one order echoing in his ears - "Take London". Grumblingly he does so and the above happens. France sends lots of loot etc to pay the army. Sullivan dies of pneumonia. BPC is crippled by his pneumonia but lives. Murray becomes his chief advisor and effective executive. He sees off the rock solid enemies and deftly handles other sources of possible opposition by placating them. Now you still have the problem of the Highlanders who have been promised "No Union". Perhaps the federal structure proposed before 1707 and the move of the Imperial Parliament to Edinburgh. However my knowledge of Murray is pretty basic but many say he was the real brains behind much of the Jacobite successes. However he advised against the march on London when in Edinburgh. But if you want plausible decision making from the Jacobite leadership you have to kill Sullivan, incapacitate BPC and put in place Murray. Ian MacAninch Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 28 Sep 2001 10:47:20 GMT From: sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Bruce Munro) >Date: 27/09/01 23:52 GMT Daylight Time >Message-id: > >sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) wrote in message >> The part I was referring to was (note underlined) - >> >> >> >Austria-Hungary+England+France >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> "Here we go again" is referring to previous times the constitutional >> arrangements of the British Isles have had to be clarified and how this >> confusion has inspired other WI threads. >> >> Mr Davies from Wales will probably be entering also and rebuking me for my >> ommision concerning the 1500's :-) >> >> >> Ian MacAninch > >Well, I'll be. Quite entirely missed that- guess I didn't get enough >sleep last night. Is my face red. > >AH challenge: make it so SHWIers write in in indignation at the use of >the term "Scotland" to refer to the islands... That might be fun but I think Alison beat me to it :-) BTW it goes in my "We know what you mean but..." file. Take care ;-) Ian MacAninch Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 27 Sep 2001 18:02:32 -0700 From: sarcastic_jew@yahoo.com (Ivan Hodes) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 > The part I was referring to was (note underlined) - > > >> >Austria-Hungary+England+France > ^^^^^^^^^^ > The confusion here comes from the fact that the line is under half of France, not under England. The point here is that the name of the country is Great Britain, not England, you ignorant sods. Ivan Hodes Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:05:50 +0100 From: "Karl Stringer" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Ivan Hodes" wrote in message news:20844aed.0109271702.3c265de7@posting.google.com... > > The part I was referring to was (note underlined) - > > > > >> >Austria-Hungary+England+France > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > The confusion here comes from the fact that the line is under half of > France, not under England. > The point here is that the name of the country is Great Britain, not > England, you ignorant sods. But that doesn't take into consideration the contributions of the Irish. In 1914 the name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 4 Oct 2001 09:39:46 -0700 From: sarcastic_jew@yahoo.com (Ivan Hodes) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 "Karl Stringer" wrote in message news:<9pfvk2$t4e$2@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>... > But that doesn't take into consideration the contributions of the Irish. So it doesn't. Color me an ignorant sod. Ivan Hodes Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:30:29 +0100 From: Alison Brooks Organization: Dis Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <20010927051217.07845.00000771@mb-co.aol.com>, Ian MacAninch writes >>Bruce Munro) >>Date: 26/09/01 22:08 GMT Daylight Time >>Message-id: >> >>Ok, here's one.. >> >>Can anyone come up with a reasonable set of events, diverging after >>the formation of the German Empire in 1871, that gives us a WWI with >>this lineup? >> >>Germany+Russia+Italy >> >>Vs. >> >>Austria-Hungary+England+France > ^^^^^^^^^^ > >Here we go again. > >I take it the POD is before 1707? > >With the surname Munro you should know better :-) > It's worse than that. Wales, as a few regulars here will confirm, is not actually included in the word "England". Still, perhaps the UK starts to get involved, but Scotland, Ireland and Wales form a Celtic Union, declare independence and ally with G, R and I. Obviously, that enables the Borderers to start up their auld activities of playing both sides against the middle. Since the originator specifically says a PoD post 1871, then it can't be pre-1707. So, the answer to the question is no, it is not plausible to come up with the described alliance because of the English issue. -- Alison Brooks http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/ Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:42:59 -0500 From: Rich Rostrom Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article , bm2617@eve.albany.edu (Bruce Munro) wrote: >Ok, here's one.. > >Can anyone come up with a reasonable set of events, diverging after >the formation of the German Empire in 1871, that gives us a WWI with >this lineup? > >Germany+Russia+Italy > >Vs. > >Austria-Hungary+England+France > ObNitPick - Britain, not England. PoD - mid-1870s - Assassination of Kronprinz Friedrich by a radical bombthrower (a Jewish Communist). Bismarck injured in the same attack. Brutal crackdown on all Socialists and other radicals. Endemic anti-semitism boils over into violence. Protests by Social Democrat party and other liberals. Bismarck and Wilhelm purge the Reichstag. Bismarck turns up German hyper-nationalism to sustain the regime. Many German Jews migrate to Austria and to Hungary. (Hungary was in fact a sort of Mecca for Jews in this era - the Magyars didn't care about Jews in commerce or the professions, so long as they had all the government patronage jobs.) Other liberals too. German nationalists in Austria, inflamed by events in Germany, demand expulsion of Jews - some for union with Germany. Crackdown on them, many go to Germany. Germany becomes a harsh, reactionary state, with a rubber-stamp parliament. Its natural ally is Russia. German naval and colonial rivalry with Britain ties in with the British/Russian 'Great Game' in Central Asia and India. Germany and Italy support the Russian invasion of Turkey in the 1880s (instead of 1878 as OTL). Italy seizes Libya. This leads to an ugly confrontation. Britain and France have to go very near to war to bail out Turkey. German rule in Alsace-Lorraine is even more repressive than OTL. France and Britain ally by the 1890s; there is no Fashoda dispute. Russia and Germany make plans for the partition of Austria-Hungary. The Magyars are going to be the odd man out, so they support the Dual Monarchy. Poles don't buy pan-Slavism from the Russians. Czechs hear mostly about Bohemia being 're-united' with Germany and Germanified. Italy, with German backing, presses claims in the Adriatic, frightening Croats and Slovenes. Most Germans left in Austria are liberals. Galician Jews are frightened by German and Russian anti semitism. All these elements come together to keep the nation together. Italy, following the German model, becomes more rabidly nationalist, and becomes seriously interested in 'redeeming' Corsica and Savoy, as well as Istria and Dalmatia. Gabriele D'Annunzio forms a 'private army' which attempts bits of sabotage and provocation. The war starts when some of D'Annunzio's saboteurs are caught plotting mischief near a French naval arsenal. A few days later, a French battleship is destroyed by a mysterious explosion. The French at this time actually had serious problems with spontaneous combustion of their naval powder supplies. But in the excitement, it's assumed that Italian agents did it; France issues an ultimatum to Italy. Germany comes to Italy's rescue. Austria, maddened by earlier German threats and insult, honors its alliance with France. (They know it's a risk, but they also know that if France is crushed, they're next anyhow. Might as well fight while you still have allies.) So does Britain (German agents recently caught running arms to Irish rebels). Russia was thought to be 'out of it' following defeat by Japan, and the accession of sickly child Tsar Alexei - but there was a secret treaty... -- Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of | Timur the Terrible. | rrostrom@dummy --- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: 29 Sep 2001 15:47:23 -0700 From: bm2617@eve.albany.edu (Bruce Munro) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Rich Rostrom wrote in message news: > Italy, following the German model, becomes > more rabidly nationalist, and becomes seriously > interested in 'redeeming' Corsica and Savoy, as > well as Istria and Dalmatia. > > Gabriele D'Annunzio forms a 'private army' which > attempts bits of sabotage and provocation. > > The war starts when some of D'Annunzio's > saboteurs are caught plotting mischief near a > French naval arsenal. A few days later, a French > battleship is destroyed by a mysterious explosion. > > The French at this time actually had serious > problems with spontaneous combustion of their > naval powder supplies. But in the excitement, > it's assumed that Italian agents did it; France > issues an ultimatum to Italy. > > Germany comes to Italy's rescue. Austria, maddened > by earlier German threats and insult, honors its > alliance with France. (They know it's a risk, but > they also know that if France is crushed, they're > next anyhow. Might as well fight while you still > have allies.) So does Britain (German agents > recently caught running arms to Irish rebels). > > Russia was thought to be 'out of it' following defeat > by Japan, and the accession of sickly child Tsar > Alexei - but there was a secret treaty... It occurs to me that Italy really can't want this war - a fundamental flaw in my original lineup has occured to me. Italy is in deep, deep doggie doughnuts if Austria isn't knocked out of the war FAST. Italy has no common borders with any of it's allies, so it can't be reinforced or recieve supplies by land, while the French and British navies block anything seaborne. Italy's situation is even worse than Russias, being more dependent on the outside world for raw materials and without even Russia's tenuous supply links in Vladivostok and Archangel. It has also a long and not very defensible coastline: for it to go to war with France and Austria both, it has to be at least convinced that it's going to be a short war or that England at least won't join in. Either that or be forced into it somehow. Dammn - and it was all going so well - curse you, Austria-Hungary! Bruce Munro Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:05:24 -0400 From: "Randy Appleton" Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Rich Rostrom" wrote in message news:rrostrom-E37CD0.14425927092001@virt-reader.news.rcn.net... > In article , > bm2617@eve.albany.edu (Bruce Munro) wrote: > > Russia and Germany make plans for the partition > of Austria-Hungary. Neat idea. In a different post I argue that Austria would avoid a war with Russia+Italy+Germany. I must conceed that if these powers plan the permenant partition of Autria, they would be forced to fight. The idea being it's better to fight and lose than to just lose. However, did European nations divide great powers at this time. When Prussia had France or Denmark[1] on the ropes, they didn't partition either nation. Why does Austria get screwed this way? -Randy [1] Some argue that Denmark was not a great power. But they forget the VIKINGS, one of the better football teams around last year. Subject: Re: AH challenge: Different WWI Alliances Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:53:26 -0500 From: Rich Rostrom Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Randy Appleton" wrote: >"Rich Rostrom" wrote: > >However, did European nations divide great powers >at this time. When Prussia had France or Denmark[1] >on the ropes, they didn't partition either nation. Well, in fact they did 'partition' both countries, in that they carved off a big chunk for themselves. They didn't split with some one else because no one else was involved. (Ooops, Austria was allied with Prussia and got part of Denmark - i.e. half of Schlesvig-Holstein.) The nations were not abolished because they were truly unitary states with very distinct nationality. Austria-Hungary is a collection of subnations, much of which could easily be assigned to other countries. Hypernationalist Germany thinks it should have all of Germanophone Austria, plus Bohemia. Russia wants the rest of Poland, plus Moravia, Slovakia and Ruthenia, plus Bosnia, Slavonia, and Banat to go to Serbia as a Russian satellite. Italy wants Dalmatia, Istria, and Trentino. Romania wants Transylvania. Italy and Germany would partition Slovenia. About all that's left is the cores of Hungary and Croatia. >Why does Austria get screwed this way? The same reason Poland got screwed in 1772-1795. -- Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of | Timur the Terrible. | rrostrom@dummy --- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net