|
|
Post by American hist on Jun 17, 2022 18:07:11 GMT
How could have the central powers have gained more allies during the first world war? May I remind you that Germany had already made existing pre-war treaties with the Italian empire, Romania, and it had a possibility of Greece entering on the central powers? For this scario to work, Germany has to respect Belgium's neutrality and focus on the eastern and Balkan fronts rather while maintaining a defensive war with France.
This scario would make more sense if the archduke France Fernando had survived the assassination as the heir was a capable and respected leader. Moreover, the latter understood the need for reforms across the empire, including the empire's navy. In the book Gray Tide in the East by mature historian Andrew J. Heller, we see some of these possibilities come to life.
IT may be true the animosity between Italy and Austria hungry. Still, it is long if Britain stays out of the war, at least for the time being, Italy has incentives to join the central powers for gaining the lands it lost to France's intervention in the second war for Italy's independence. Italy being a third or second-rate military power, has limited strength. Thus, it would make sense to enter the war. Germany would be at the very merge of success or in the traditional dates of 1914 or 1915 if the allies were pained as the aggressors with Britain's neutrality.
The Italian empire could expand in Africa. If Italy could not declare a separate cease-fire with France or victory by gaining Savoy and Nice from France, then Italy could vainly dream at hoping to get malta from the British empire. However, I would like a scenario where some powers, such as Italy, fight with the central power. Then Britain's intervention allows the powers to turn on Germany if that is possible.
If the war were only between France and Russia, then japan would join on the side of the central powers taking advantage of a weak France.
Now I know Greece hated the turks but its best to focus on gaining possible land when it isn't possible for a tukish invasion on Greece herself though i could imagine the British imperial intervention might persuade the wild card powers to switch sides for a join darnialian campaign similar over the top
disclaimer
I don't so much sympathize with either the allies or the central powers before America's intervention so this should be a civil, friendly discussion of enjoyment
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835 
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jun 18, 2022 12:31:11 GMT
How could have the central powers have gained more allies during the first world war? May I remind you that Germany had already made existing pre-war treaties with the Italian empire, Romania, and it had a possibility of Greece entering on the central powers? For this scario to work, Germany has to respect Belgium's neutrality and focus on the eastern and Balkan fronts rather while maintaining a defensive war with France. This scario would make more sense if the archduke France Fernando had survived the assassination as the heir was a capable and respected leader. Moreover, the latter understood the need for reforms across the empire, including the empire's navy. In the book Gray Tide in the East by mature historian Andrew J. Heller, we see some of these possibilities come to life. IT may be true the animosity between Italy and Austria hungry. Still, it is long if Britain stays out of the war, at least for the time being, Italy has incentives to join the central powers for gaining the lands it lost to France's intervention in the second war for Italy's independence. Italy being a third or second-rate military power, has limited strength. Thus, it would make sense to enter the war. Germany would be at the very merge of success or in the traditional dates of 1914 or 1915 if the allies were pained as the aggressors with Britain's neutrality. The Italian empire could expand in Africa. If Italy could not declare a separate cease-fire with France or victory by gaining Savoy and Nice from France, then Italy could vainly dream at hoping to get malta from the British empire. However, I would like a scenario where some powers, such as Italy, fight with the central power. Then Britain's intervention allows the powers to turn on Germany if that is possible. If the war were only between France and Russia, then japan would join on the side of the central powers taking advantage of a weak France. Now I know Greece hated the turks but its best to focus on gaining possible land when it isn't possible for a tukish invasion on Greece herself though i could imagine the British imperial intervention might persuade the wild card powers to switch sides for a join darnialian campaign similar over the top disclaimer I don't so much sympathize with either the allies or the central powers before America's intervention so this should be a civil, friendly discussion of enjoyment
Interesting idea. If German does a defence in the east, attack in the west approach then France is in a markedly more difficult position, especially if Britain is neutral for a while which is very likely without the attack on Belgium. One other advantage of this would be that Austria isn't left hanging as OTL as it would have German support in the east taking some of the weight off it so its likely to suffer less losses in its regular and trained conscript forces in the 1st 6-12 months of campaigning which could have a big impact early on,
If the dow goes Austria on Serbia, Russia on Austria, Germany on Russia and possibly also then France on Germany its a lot less clear who's responsible for the war so Italy has less excuse to not support the other CPs. Possibly as importantly with Britain neutral their a lot more secure about their coastline and hence have less to fear about their foreign trade while also the entente cause will look worse. True large areas of France aren't going to get invaded but if both France and Russia get badly mauled on their main borders even with Serbia still embarrassing Austria its going to look like the CPs are the way to go. Italy desires land more from Austria than from France but could well decide to join in against France or simply stay neutral longer.
With Greece I don't think its likely to join the CPs in the near future. Serbia is its primary ally in the region and Bulgaria and Turkey are the prime threats, albeit both are neutral at the moment. Plus I have read it had plans for a preventive war against Turkey prior to them getting the two dreadnoughts under construction in Britain. Making use of its current naval superiority to enable landings at Smyrna and the Cilicia region. Remembering that at the time Bulgaria had W Thrace so there was no common land border between the two. Whether this would be carried out with a major war brewing - possibly especially if the Turks still get Goeben handed to them on a plate and how it would actually go for them I don't know. There is the possibility that Bulgaria could join in on either side, possibly most likely the Turks as Bulgaria desired Thessaloniki. However that's another possible complication.
If Italy does go CP there is the issue that Turkey might be less inclined to join the CPs due to continued tension over the recent defeat by Italy and loss of Libya and the Dodecanese. However if it has Goeben then Greece might be deterred from an attack and Turkey also wants to weaken Russia. It would be interesting if Italy which tried to bargain for lands from Austria in return for joining the CPs in the war was then presented with a demand for the return of the Dodecanese in return for Turkey joining the CPs.
Romania was initially pro-German because of its monarchy but the prime desire of a lot of the population, or at least those in power, was for Transylvania which makes them more likely to join the EPs but with the latter doing less well then they could stay neutral longer. Or ultimately decide that getting Bessarabia from Russia was better than nothing.
There has been some suggestion that Sweden might have ended up on the CP side, especially since there were some near clashes in the Baltic between the two nations so that's another possibility.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Jun 18, 2022 19:12:41 GMT
Fact had Germany not follow the advice von Schliefen and respected Neutrality of Belgium the British Empire would remain Neutral.
But the French would execute Plan XVII and mobilised 2850000 men to attack Alsace-Lorraine (plan XVII imply violations of Belgium Territory to get in Luxemburg)
mean Germany Army has to install large portion of there Army at Alsace-Lorraine to hold the French army off
To get Franz Joseph out way in 1900s and let Franz Ferdinand become Emperor of Austria-Hungary would let to Modernisation of A-H Army and Navy urgent needed.
Italy was a "turncoat renegade" a allies of Central power, then Neutral then on side of Entente, it was dispute with Austria-Hungary that let Italy to take the side of Entente (with false promises by France and Britain)
another was Romania lured by French Diplomats stop being neutral and join the Entente, it was painful short Lesson in "you not declare war to powerful neighbour if your army can't write or read..."
Greece wanted to join Central powers since king and wife (Sister of Wilhelm II of Germany) were pro German, only several issue:
there Prime minister was fanatic fan of British and called them and rest of Entente, what let occupation of Greece, who army was not match for BEF and French forces, who replace that King with his son.
next issue with Bulgaria and Ottomans empire on Central power side...
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jun 24, 2022 20:39:55 GMT
I appreciate everyone commenting! Germany needs all the help it can get so I don’t think this would stop turkey from joining the central powers. Reese as I’ve said before hated the Turks and we’re sympathetic to Serbia. However, the pro-central power governments' influence did allow neutrality until 1917. Having the theater gone in much favor of the central powers it would only make sense for Greece and Italy to side with the winners at least for the time being. www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/greece-joins-central-powers-after-allied-landing-in-salonika.2046/Kaiser William would say to Austria to offer Italy her lands back and while a promise would never be given the germans would say to Italy that Austria might have her ancestral land be given back if they fight well as an Allie. Indians had believed if they fight well during the great war they would be given independence this was for naught ,but vague empty hopes are given during war www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-entente-bulgaria-and-greece-in-the-central-powers.469003/www.quora.com/What-if-Italy-and-Greece-had-joined-the-central-powers/answer/Roman-Janowitz?ch=17&oid=74991512&share=18e40941&srid=h8ifW&target_type=answerwww.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/place-in-the-sun-what-if-italy-joined-the-central-powers-1-0.494457/page-3It would probably make sense for Italy to join in the war in 1914 if not 1915. I think Bulgaria Romania Greece given the circumstances changing could have entered the war earlier than in actual history. The central powers would try to form a system where each power hast to sacrifice for a common goal. Germany would be the most of our in the system of self-sacrifice but they would be the most likely to gain from it. Greece of course had they joined the central powers I could imagine its troops would be sent to defend the Germans against the French invasion. I think when it came down for Greece to support the invasion of her ally Serbia it would try to opt out if it couldn’t its forces would be reluctant to send any troops to the front. Its forces would dislike the idea of being sent to the eastern front where it’s freezing and they are fighting fellow orthodox church members of Russia. Thus Greece entered the side of the central powers but do to unpopular demands made upon the central powers Greece switches over to the allies once Great Britain enters the side of the allies at the latest I could imagine in 1916. However, I could imagine the central powers' uniity falling apart somewhat early on but none of the last required for that time would’ve been very beneficial. one thing is conformed Serbia Montego and Albania looked screwd unless Britain intervenes. However, if the germans focus on the eastern front along with the Balkans it may be a while till Germany threatened great britians through the military occupation of northern France. The German navy will blockade and destroy much of the french navy without great Britains assistance the colonial forces elsewhere will be sent to guard France sending the other powers warning signs that France's empire lies in great peril from her destruction |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jun 24, 2022 20:54:24 GMT
How could have the central powers have gained more allies during the first world war? May I remind you that Germany had already made existing pre-war treaties with the Italian empire, Romania, and it had a possibility of Greece entering on the central powers? For this scario to work, Germany has to respect Belgium's neutrality and focus on the eastern and Balkan fronts rather while maintaining a defensive war with France. This scario would make more sense if the archduke France Fernando had survived the assassination as the heir was a capable and respected leader. Moreover, the latter understood the need for reforms across the empire, including the empire's navy. In the book Gray Tide in the East by mature historian Andrew J. Heller, we see some of these possibilities come to life. IT may be true the animosity between Italy and Austria hungry. Still, it is long if Britain stays out of the war, at least for the time being, Italy has incentives to join the central powers for gaining the lands it lost to France's intervention in the second war for Italy's independence. Italy being a third or second-rate military power, has limited strength. Thus, it would make sense to enter the war. Germany would be at the very merge of success or in the traditional dates of 1914 or 1915 if the allies were pained as the aggressors with Britain's neutrality. The Italian empire could expand in Africa. If Italy could not declare a separate cease-fire with France or victory by gaining Savoy and Nice from France, then Italy could vainly dream at hoping to get malta from the British empire. However, I would like a scenario where some powers, such as Italy, fight with the central power. Then Britain's intervention allows the powers to turn on Germany if that is possible. If the war were only between France and Russia, then japan would join on the side of the central powers taking advantage of a weak France. Now I know Greece hated the turks but its best to focus on gaining possible land when it isn't possible for a tukish invasion on Greece herself though i could imagine the British imperial intervention might persuade the wild card powers to switch sides for a join darnialian campaign similar over the top disclaimer I don't so much sympathize with either the allies or the central powers before America's intervention so this should be a civil, friendly discussion of enjoyment Interesting idea. If German does a defence in the east, attack in the west approach then France is in a markedly more difficult position, especially if Britain is neutral for a while which is very likely without the attack on Belgium. One other advantage of this would be that Austria isn't left hanging as OTL as it would have German support in the east taking some of the weight off it so its likely to suffer less losses in its regular and trained conscript forces in the 1st 6-12 months of campaigning which could have a big impact early on, If the dow goes Austria on Serbia, Russia on Austria, Germany on Russia and possibly also then France on Germany its a lot less clear who's responsible for the war so Italy has less excuse to not support the other CPs. Possibly as importantly with Britain neutral their a lot more secure about their coastline and hence have less to fear about their foreign trade while also the entente cause will look worse. True large areas of France aren't going to get invaded but if both France and Russia get badly mauled on their main borders even with Serbia still embarrassing Austria its going to look like the CPs are the way to go. Italy desires land more from Austria than from France but could well decide to join in against France or simply stay neutral longer. With Greece I don't think its likely to join the CPs in the near future. Serbia is its primary ally in the region and Bulgaria and Turkey are the prime threats, albeit both are neutral at the moment. Plus I have read it had plans for a preventive war against Turkey prior to them getting the two dreadnoughts under construction in Britain. Making use of its current naval superiority to enable landings at Smyrna and the Cilicia region. Remembering that at the time Bulgaria had W Thrace so there was no common land border between the two. Whether this would be carried out with a major war brewing - possibly especially if the Turks still get Goeben handed to them on a plate and how it would actually go for them I don't know. There is the possibility that Bulgaria could join in on either side, possibly most likely the Turks as Bulgaria desired Thessaloniki. However that's another possible complication. If Italy does go CP there is the issue that Turkey might be less inclined to join the CPs due to continued tension over the recent defeat by Italy and loss of Libya and the Dodecanese. However if it has Goeben then Greece might be deterred from an attack and Turkey also wants to weaken Russia. It would be interesting if Italy which tried to bargain for lands from Austria in return for joining the CPs in the war was then presented with a demand for the return of the Dodecanese in return for Turkey joining the CPs.
Romania was initially pro-German because of its monarchy but the prime desire of a lot of the population, or at least those in power, was for Transylvania which makes them more likely to join the EPs but with the latter doing less well then they could stay neutral longer. Or ultimately decide that getting Bessarabia from Russia was better than nothing. There has been some suggestion that Sweden might have ended up on the CP side, especially since there were some near clashes in the Baltic between the two nations so that's another possibility.
all tensions could be dealt with after the war is over or before as this scenario allows for powers to defect when the other felt being used with a lack of foreseeing rewards. what you said is all true, but defeats and different propaganda perspectives could change people's hearts and minds. Plus Romania had already joined the central powers secretly before 1916. Romania had volunteered for the Austrian Hungarian empire. Plus Austria hungry could tell the Turks that Greece and Italy are likely to switch sides eventually so focus on defeating the common enemy at hand then you may take revenge on the turncoats who humiliated you. The combined economy of these powers would allow for more future and increased current investment within the ottoman empire to prevent the Muslim empire from falling apart so they hope. if great Britain had allowed the central powers to keep their spoils this would be beneficial in turning the other powers against Austria, the Turks, and Germany. Austria could allow Transylvania to happen promise or not it's something that is still a possibility if Romania fought for the central powers. However territorial disputes over spool is what would bring down the central power nations Though for the central powers to increase and to come together as one such resource and army victors could allow a supper torpedo to be used by the German navy to destroy the french and Russian naval forces while making preparations against the British empire's invincible fleet. since the naplanic wars, great Britain had stayed out of European business the island nation didn't have to enter ww1. In fact historians have said it didn't have to as they could have avoided participating in ww1 .despite Germany appearing to be the aggressor in this instance there had politics been played differently the UK would have decided not to enter ww1 despite the Huns invading Belgium. that is just to point out Britain might not enter in the ww1 as netruality attracts war profiting despite britian being more sympathetic to the french |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jun 25, 2022 10:40:09 GMT
Interesting idea. If German does a defence in the east, attack in the west approach then France is in a markedly more difficult position, especially if Britain is neutral for a while which is very likely without the attack on Belgium. One other advantage of this would be that Austria isn't left hanging as OTL as it would have German support in the east taking some of the weight off it so its likely to suffer less losses in its regular and trained conscript forces in the 1st 6-12 months of campaigning which could have a big impact early on, If the dow goes Austria on Serbia, Russia on Austria, Germany on Russia and possibly also then France on Germany its a lot less clear who's responsible for the war so Italy has less excuse to not support the other CPs. Possibly as importantly with Britain neutral their a lot more secure about their coastline and hence have less to fear about their foreign trade while also the entente cause will look worse. True large areas of France aren't going to get invaded but if both France and Russia get badly mauled on their main borders even with Serbia still embarrassing Austria its going to look like the CPs are the way to go. Italy desires land more from Austria than from France but could well decide to join in against France or simply stay neutral longer. With Greece I don't think its likely to join the CPs in the near future. Serbia is its primary ally in the region and Bulgaria and Turkey are the prime threats, albeit both are neutral at the moment. Plus I have read it had plans for a preventive war against Turkey prior to them getting the two dreadnoughts under construction in Britain. Making use of its current naval superiority to enable landings at Smyrna and the Cilicia region. Remembering that at the time Bulgaria had W Thrace so there was no common land border between the two. Whether this would be carried out with a major war brewing - possibly especially if the Turks still get Goeben handed to them on a plate and how it would actually go for them I don't know. There is the possibility that Bulgaria could join in on either side, possibly most likely the Turks as Bulgaria desired Thessaloniki. However that's another possible complication. If Italy does go CP there is the issue that Turkey might be less inclined to join the CPs due to continued tension over the recent defeat by Italy and loss of Libya and the Dodecanese. However if it has Goeben then Greece might be deterred from an attack and Turkey also wants to weaken Russia. It would be interesting if Italy which tried to bargain for lands from Austria in return for joining the CPs in the war was then presented with a demand for the return of the Dodecanese in return for Turkey joining the CPs.
Romania was initially pro-German because of its monarchy but the prime desire of a lot of the population, or at least those in power, was for Transylvania which makes them more likely to join the EPs but with the latter doing less well then they could stay neutral longer. Or ultimately decide that getting Bessarabia from Russia was better than nothing. There has been some suggestion that Sweden might have ended up on the CP side, especially since there were some near clashes in the Baltic between the two nations so that's another possibility.
all tensions could be dealt with after the war is over or before as this scenario allows for powers to defect when the other felt being used with a lack of foreseeing rewards. what you said is all true, but defeats and different propaganda perspectives could change people's hearts and minds. Plus Romania had already joined the central powers secretly before 1916. Romania had volunteered for the Austrian Hungarian empire. Plus Austria hungry could tell the Turks that Greece and Italy are likely to switch sides eventually so focus on defeating the common enemy at hand then you may take revenge on the turncoats who humiliated you. The combined economy of these powers would allow for more future and increased current investment within the ottoman empire to prevent the Muslim empire from falling apart so they hope. if great Britain had allowed the central powers to keep their spoils this would be beneficial in turning the other powers against Austria, the Turks, and Germany. Austria could allow Transylvania to happen promise or not it's something that is still a possibility if Romania fought for the central powers. However territorial disputes over spool is what would bring down the central power nations Though for the central powers to increase and to come together as one such resource and army victors could allow a supper torpedo to be used by the German navy to destroy the french and Russian naval forces while making preparations against the British empire's invincible fleet. since the naplanic wars, great Britain had stayed out of European business the island nation didn't have to enter ww1. In fact historians have said it didn't have to as they could have avoided participating in ww1 .despite Germany appearing to be the aggressor in this instance there had politics been played differently the UK would have decided not to enter ww1 despite the Huns invading Belgium. that is just to point out Britain might not enter in the ww1 as netruality attracts war profiting despite britian being more sympathetic to the french
Have to disagree on this. Germany because of its aggressive attitude and naval build up was seen as a serious threat to Britain. We might well have stayed neutral if Germany had been on the defensive and not attacked Belgium but the latter especially made it too great a threat, even for the Liberal party in power which wanted to avoid war.
Its also not accurate that Britain stayed out of European business since the Napoleonic wars. We couldn't afford to and can't now as too strong a power dominating the continent is a major threat to our independence. The main case of involvement was in the Crimean war of course but there were a number of other cases of involvement, including earlier in support of Greek independence.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 488
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Jun 25, 2022 21:42:52 GMT
Have to disagree on this. Germany because of its aggressive attitude and naval build up was seen as a serious threat to Britain. We might well have stayed neutral if Germany had been on the defensive and not attacked Belgium but the latter especially made it too great a threat, even for the Liberal party in power which wanted to avoid war. The Issue with Naval Build up was settle between Britain and Germany before WW1, both side realised it became expensive pastime... As WW1 unleash Britain try to remain neutral, but as Germany invaded Belgium, Britain was oblige to help Belgium do treaty of London of 1839. in case Germany had not invade Belgium, and French conduct plan XVII and move into Belgium Territory to get in Luxemburg, Britain had to declare War on France !
A very bizarr situation were another enemy of me, is the enemy of my enemy is my allies.
Were France has to fight two frontier war, one against Belgium/Britain, the other against Germany" |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jun 26, 2022 10:23:05 GMT
Have to disagree on this. Germany because of its aggressive attitude and naval build up was seen as a serious threat to Britain. We might well have stayed neutral if Germany had been on the defensive and not attacked Belgium but the latter especially made it too great a threat, even for the Liberal party in power which wanted to avoid war. The Issue with Naval Build up was settle between Britain and Germany before WW1, both side realised it became expensive pastime... As WW1 unleash Britain try to remain neutral, but as Germany invaded Belgium, Britain was oblige to help Belgium do treaty of London of 1839. in case Germany had not invade Belgium, and French conduct plan XVII and move into Belgium Territory to get in Luxemburg, Britain had to declare War on France !
A very bizarr situation were another enemy of me, is the enemy of my enemy is my allies.
Were France has to fight two frontier war, one against Belgium/Britain, the other against Germany"
There had been a decline in the German build up, although that didn't include the ships already under construction and at the start of the war the HSF wasn't noticeably smaller than the active GF, which was a matter of considerable concern in Britain. However probably even more importantly the naval race Germany had started had caused lasting mistrust between the two nations. Its noted also that Germany resumed building during the war although only a couple of the Baden class were completed and none of the related BCs.
I don't think plan XVII included an attack into Belgium, just into A-L. The French did have their 5th Army was it ready to intervene in Belgium if the Germans invaded but didn't realise the sheer size of the German right hook. As such they and the BEF had to stage their fighting withdraw. However its often been suggested that after a failure in the battle of the frontiers and with Germany making its main effort against Russia then France might considered their own loop through Belgium. In that case yes Britain is in a nasty diplomatic position and a lot of the good feeling built up between the two countries would be lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 28, 2022 1:35:08 GMT
In Egon Friedell cultural history tomb I read that the pre-WW1 Central diplomats were unbelievably incompetent, having missed the fact that Italy had moved closer to the Entente, to the point the alliance was existing "just on paper", and had ticked off Romania during the Balkan wars unnecessarily by criticizing them taking territory from Bulgaria. (Maybe Bulgaria was the stronger partner, but still.)
There really was a lot of incompetence pre-WW1, not only among the Centrals, and not only among diplomats.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Aug 18, 2022 19:17:16 GMT
In Egon Friedell's cultural history tomb I read that the pre-WW1 Central diplomats were unbelievably incompetent, having missed the fact that Italy had moved closer to the Entente, to the point the alliance was exsiting "just on the paper", and had ticked off Romania during the Balkan wars unnecessarily by ticking them off. (Maybe Bulgaria was the more vital partner, but still.) There was a lot of incompetence pre-WW1, not only among the Centrals and not only among diplomats. yes, and this pod also allows for points of divergences to happen that change those factors, but yes thank you for bringing it up. Also, incompetent leaders can remain on the winning side. A country can face innumerable side steps and achieve its goals. The german king would have made a better diplomat than perhaps most of the german diplomats preceding to ww1. The incompetent diplomats and separate national interests are the main reason why I think this alliance coalition of the central powers would break up not long after they began. However, this coalition of many power could have achieved devastating damage amount the allied forces of the great war before Britain had even entered the fight |
|
