futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 20, 2018 21:19:00 GMT
If World War I would have broken out in the late 1910s--with Britain remaining neutral in World War I--instead of in 1914, would there have been a greater chance of World War I ending in a compromise peace in comparison to our TL?
Basically, I'm thinking of this scenario: Franz Ferdinand survives the assassination attempt on his life in 1914 (and so does his wife). Thus, war is averted in 1914. After Franz Joseph dies and Franz Ferdinand comes to power in Austria-Hungary, he makes plans to implement universal suffrage in Hungary. This causes Hungary's elites to decide to secede from Austria-Hungary--thus sparking an Austro-Hungarian civil war. In response to this war, Serbia will invade Bosnia and Herzegovina, Vojvodina, and northern Croatia--ostensibly to aid Franz Ferdinand in his fight against Hungary but actually to make a land grab for itself. I suppose that Romania could also invade Transylvania on these same grounds at the same time in this scenario. Anyway, when Serbia and perhaps Romania as well refuse to withdraw from their territorial conquests, Austria (which has now reconquered Hungary) declares war on them, thus causing Russia to declare war on Austria, Germany to declare war on Russia, and France to declare war on Germany. Since 1917 is too late to use the Schlieffen Plan (due to Russia's growing military might), Germany declines to invade Belgium in this scenario and instead focuses on an East-first strategy (something which is also necessitated by Austria's troubles). Thus, Britain remains neutral in this TL's World War I.
Anyway, would there be a greater chance of World War I ending in a compromise peace in this TL in comparison to our TL?
After all, with Britain--and thus the U.S.--remaining neutral, the Entente are denied a large source of manpower (and hope). Meanwhile, since the Schlieffen Plan would not be used by Germany in this TL (since it would have become outdated by 1917), Germany would have no hope of a quick victory--thus forcing Germany to choose between a compromise peace and a long, drawn-out war which it has no guarantee of winning. Would Germany have been willing to fight for years in a war of attrition with France and Russia, or would it have tried looking for a graceful way to exit this war with dignity?
Any thoughts on all of this?
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 20, 2018 21:19:29 GMT
Also, for what it's worth, I thought about having Russia outright support Hungary in 1917 during an Austro-Hungarian civil war in this TL, but I thought that it would be unlikely for the simple reason that such an alliance would be difficult to sell to Russia's ally France. While Hungary's poor treatment of its own Slavic population could be overlooked (after all, autocratic Russia allied with republican France due to shared interests), it would probably be a very difficult sell to France to fight and die on behalf of a country (Hungary) that grants suffrage to only 6% of its total population.
This is why I think that, if war does break out, it will be the result of Russia giving a blank check to Serbia and/or Romania to expand at Hungary's expense during an Austro-Hungarian civil war in 1917.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Jul 22, 2018 18:04:13 GMT
Also, for what it's worth, I thought about having Russia outright support Hungary in 1917 during an Austro-Hungarian civil war in this TL, but I thought that it would be unlikely for the simple reason that such an alliance would be difficult to sell to Russia's ally France. While Hungary's poor treatment of its own Slavic population could be overlooked (after all, autocratic Russia allied with republican France due to shared interests), it would probably be a very difficult sell to France to fight and die on behalf of a country (Hungary) that grants suffrage to only 6% of its total population. This is why I think that, if war does break out, it will be the result of Russia giving a blank check to Serbia and/or Romania to expand at Hungary's expense during an Austro-Hungarian civil war in 1917. Hi, the big problem with your scenario - there is no possibility that one country support OPENLY a party in a civil war without fearing huge negative consequences for the own country (at last if the country is russia - who is FULL of suppressed nationalities who would be happy to get rid of russian influence (finns, poles, baltic people, even ukraine is full of them). Even if succsessfull, they would kill themself the moment they get into internal problems. So either they are commited in a war - conventional war like OTL 1914 or they stay out. Secret weapon delivery, if they have a common border? yes. But open declaring war against the normal authority of the state? Nah, that is - for europe not possible in the 10s. Serbia was the dagger of russia in 1914, if such event happens in 1917, everybody knows that serbia do not "help" AH, but want to conquer. You also face a lot people in the hungarian part of the empire who are not really interested in hungary "winning" that conflict. The hungarian rebellion would propably be ended much earlier as the politicans in the other european countries would start to ready themself (and their population) for war. With so many time since 1914, the strategic situation has changed fundamentally... germany would not give up its only major allied nation, so any rebellion will be crushed with FULL german support. If france would try something because of austria taking out the rebellious fire of hungarian rebells (who have a goal that would supress a lot non-hungarians in the "new" area) they would run into internal problems big as mountains, the same is true for the british. The USA would not, repeat not lift a finger for them. Serbia would also face bulgaria, maybe greece as an enemy. THey have some bills to clear with serbia as i tried to explain in my version of your idea, the strategic situation has changed. germany will see russian mobilisation as much better, the russian army much stronger. So they will not try to take out quickly france through belgium. They will be much stronger (The Heer propably 1,5 Armies larger as OTL 1914), the Haber-Bosch-Capacity is allready large, could be enlarged to complete independence for war and food production. So any british blocade would fail in their "starve the germans to death"-try. France will have a better army, but propably will be instable (if they stay with 3-year-conscription and the spending for war as they did otl) or has reduced its arming... so the difference is larger. Still, there is hope to break through german defence systems in alsac if they get enough time and not enough german defenders. RUssia will have more forces, more artillery, but their fundamental problem, inefficent infrastructure is still existing. But this time they will face the most german forces, combined with the austrians. Removal of Conrad is also worth 2-3 austrian armies, the same austria that has rearmed much better and has even with a civil war a much larger and better equipped army. Russia was nr1 in growing economy, austria was nr.2, mostly in the austrian part of the empire. So some event could cause the 1.Worldwar, but i think your premise is not quite possible ... but that is just my impression. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jul 22, 2018 22:00:41 GMT
If World War I would have broken out in the late 1910s--with Britain remaining neutral in World War I--instead of in 1914, would there have been a greater chance of World War I ending in a compromise peace in comparison to our TL? Basically, I'm thinking of this scenario: Franz Ferdinand survives the assassination attempt on his life in 1914 (and so does his wife). Thus, war is averted in 1914. After Franz Joseph dies and Franz Ferdinand comes to power in Austria-Hungary, he makes plans to implement universal suffrage in Hungary. This causes Hungary's elites to decide to secede from Austria-Hungary--thus sparking an Austro-Hungarian civil war. In response to this war, Serbia will invade Bosnia and Herzegovina, Vojvodina, and northern Croatia--ostensibly to aid Franz Ferdinand in his fight against Hungary but actually to make a land grab for itself. I suppose that Romania could also invade Transylvania on these same grounds at the same time in this scenario. Anyway, when Serbia and perhaps Romania as well refuse to withdraw from their territorial conquests, Austria (which has now reconquered Hungary) declares war on them, thus causing Russia to declare war on Austria, Germany to declare war on Russia, and France to declare war on Germany. Since 1917 is too late to use the Schlieffen Plan (due to Russia's growing military might), Germany declines to invade Belgium in this scenario and instead focuses on an East-first strategy (something which is also necessitated by Austria's troubles). Thus, Britain remains neutral in this TL's World War I. Anyway, would there be a greater chance of World War I ending in a compromise peace in this TL in comparison to our TL? After all, with Britain--and thus the U.S.--remaining neutral, the Entente are denied a large source of manpower (and hope). Meanwhile, since the Schlieffen Plan would not be used by Germany in this TL (since it would have become outdated by 1917), Germany would have no hope of a quick victory--thus forcing Germany to choose between a compromise peace and a long, drawn-out war which it has no guarantee of winning. Would Germany have been willing to fight for years in a war of attrition with France and Russia, or would it have tried looking for a graceful way to exit this war with dignity? Any thoughts on all of this?
I think it would depend on how the fighting goes. If things get stalemated with no significant territorial gains and heavy losses have occurred and look to be likely to continue, plus both sides see serious instability at home and growing pressure for reform. If somebody makes significant gains its more likely that the war would be long as one side will want to keep its advantage and the other to prevent that.
Are you considering Italy and the Ottomans staying neutral or getting involved? Both would be significant factors even if they looked like they might be belligerents. If the Ottomans came in on the German side you might see Bulgaria join their camp as well.
|
|
