He did seem to think himself as many modern monarchists think monarchs work today, in that he thought he was some fairy-tale king who used fairy magic to support his peasants and therefore they didn't need silly things like rights and food. Of course, most Russians were actually rather sane, so it's not likely Nicky would have made it to the end of his natural life without being shot or deposed in some way. Not sure if I've said this here, but I'm fairly certain something like February was inevitable under Nicholas II.
AHC: A World without WW1
- Thread starter Cetashwayo
- Start date
- Discussion
- Location
- Volksstaat Hessen, Deutsches Reich
On the question of a different German Emperor, there is always the possibility to remove William II before he can produce offspring. That would require a PoD before 1882, of course, but in that case you would get Prince Henry as Emperor - and he was a completely different personality than William, a calm and open man whose idea of the ideal monarchy was pretty much British constitutionalism. An Emperor Henry would probably have left the government to Reichstag majorities, and while the German parties were perfectly capable of international aggressiveness and grandstanding themselves, there would be less gaffes to draw international ire against Germany. Especially the relationship to the UK would probably not deteriorate quite as badly as it did IOTL.
Still, it wasn't like Germany was the only aggressive power on the European scene at the time. It is difficult to imagine how a war can be avoided for another 40 or 60 years or so - until every great power has the nuke, basically. And even then that might not be enough - OTL saw the nuke in action, twice, which helped to instill the fear of nuclear escalation. If there is never a war in which the nuke is used, would it have the same effect ITTL? So, would the nuke lead to the same deterrence against war as IOTL, or would "Mutually Assured Destruction" be seen as exaggerated scaremongering by some attention seeking eggheads?
And even if we do get nuclear profileration as a means of avoiding wars between great powers, well, that 40-60 years gap is still there. And can a general war really be avoided for that long? Even in the 10s already you have enough situations to blow over. Serbia is still ruled by the same clique that gave rise to the Black Hand, so Serbian terrorism in Austria-Hungary is likely to continue. Albania is in pure anarchy. Spain is unstable, at least. Something like the Venezuela Crisis could happen again and escalate. And so on and so forth. And maybe most serious of all, if Francis Ferdinand does become Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, then an A-H civil war is all but ensured. Either he will try to finally rein in the Hungarian nobility, which would cause Hungarian resistance, or he will try to make his children (from a morganatic marriage, hence not members of the House of Habsburg and not entitled to succession) his heirs, or both. And while indeed the Hungarian nobility was a pain in the ass and any actions against them should be recommended on principle, I doubt an international escalation can then be avoided...
Maybe Francis Joseph lives a few years longer on account of not having to worry about the war, but he died at the quite advanced age of 86 as was. So say he dies in 1920 here, reaching the 90, Francis Ferdinand succeeds him, but 1922 tries to enact his reforms, and by 1924 we have the Austrian Civil War so all we got is a delay of ten years...
Still, it wasn't like Germany was the only aggressive power on the European scene at the time. It is difficult to imagine how a war can be avoided for another 40 or 60 years or so - until every great power has the nuke, basically. And even then that might not be enough - OTL saw the nuke in action, twice, which helped to instill the fear of nuclear escalation. If there is never a war in which the nuke is used, would it have the same effect ITTL? So, would the nuke lead to the same deterrence against war as IOTL, or would "Mutually Assured Destruction" be seen as exaggerated scaremongering by some attention seeking eggheads?
And even if we do get nuclear profileration as a means of avoiding wars between great powers, well, that 40-60 years gap is still there. And can a general war really be avoided for that long? Even in the 10s already you have enough situations to blow over. Serbia is still ruled by the same clique that gave rise to the Black Hand, so Serbian terrorism in Austria-Hungary is likely to continue. Albania is in pure anarchy. Spain is unstable, at least. Something like the Venezuela Crisis could happen again and escalate. And so on and so forth. And maybe most serious of all, if Francis Ferdinand does become Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, then an A-H civil war is all but ensured. Either he will try to finally rein in the Hungarian nobility, which would cause Hungarian resistance, or he will try to make his children (from a morganatic marriage, hence not members of the House of Habsburg and not entitled to succession) his heirs, or both. And while indeed the Hungarian nobility was a pain in the ass and any actions against them should be recommended on principle, I doubt an international escalation can then be avoided...
Maybe Francis Joseph lives a few years longer on account of not having to worry about the war, but he died at the quite advanced age of 86 as was. So say he dies in 1920 here, reaching the 90, Francis Ferdinand succeeds him, but 1922 tries to enact his reforms, and by 1924 we have the Austrian Civil War so all we got is a delay of ten years...
Shaithan
Re-class is happiest class
- Location
- The worst part of Germany
Well, the avoidance of WWI and its sequel would have all sorts of interesting knock-on effects.
Without those two major rounds of bloodletting, we can safely assume that the retarding effects of war and brain drain are strongly diminished.
Artistically, Futurism and similar ideas that see technological progress as always good would probably not get hammered like they did OTL. Conversely, art movements that were profoundly shaped by WWI would basically be absent. Hell, Lord of the Rings might well not exist for one.
As far as politics are concerned. Britain and Germany had slowly reached a thaw in their relations. Britain had been brought around to accepting the Bagdadbahn, an understanding over fleet sizes had been reached as well, so there's decent odds the thaw continues. There were also talks for the splitting of the Portuguese colonial empire between Germany and Britain which had been going on for a while.
Franco-German relations were also normalizing and France was starting to accept the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. From what I read, the mood in France at the time was favoring pacifism and not getting into a war with Germany and the hawkish faction was losing ground steadily. WWI may well have been their (perceived) last chance for another Franco-German war.
Now, neither Franco-German nor Anglo-German relations would be cordial anytime soon, but it's unlikely that these powers end up in a war against each other. And, well, that's kind of a given seeing that a general European war is to be avoided. Once Germany is in, Europe burns.
As far as the Entente goes, it really depends. Britain would sooner or later have new flash points with Russia. France also pumped a lot of money into Russia. Don't remember if that level of investment was sustainable or if France would have had to scale back sooner rather than later. Russia had impressive growth rates, but it also started from a position where a good portion of Russia hadn't left the middle ages.
For the United States, the level of their war profiteering can't be overstated. Without Europe's Great Powers spending basically all their treasure and then some in a futile war, the US doesn't get to loot Europe's coffers and won't become a net creditor nation for quite some time to come. The US will also face a lot of resistance when trying to move in on turf various empires have already claimed. Then there's their naval ambitions. The bigger those are, the more likely it is going to be viewed as a direct threat against them by Britain.
The Balkans will be interesting. War there is basically guaranteed, too much irredentism, too much arrogance.
What I could see is Italian ambitions leading to a war there that ultimately pits Austria-Hungary against Italy. It'd probably be Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and maybe Bulgaria against Italy, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro. Germany would mostly glare at anyone trying to interfere and depending on how the war goes, intervene to prop up A-H. Though I can't really see Austria-Hungary losing this. The losses of the Russian Front wouldn't be present here, so an Austrian victory may well be on the table. The peace settlement would be interesting. France and Russia would throw a lot of weight behind the defeated powers to ensure that the peace settlement doesn't neuter those nations. Britain would probably throw its weight behind Greece, but that's going to cost Greece a lot of things. Germany would probably want at least a part of Serbia cut off so a corridor from Austria-Hungary to Bulgaria exists that allows for oil trains from the Ottoman Empire to be moved to Vienna and Germany without Serbia being able to interfere.
The main thing for a Balkan war is to ensure that Russia does not enter it. Because that is basically guaranteed to drag Germany in as a collapsed Austria-Hungary means that Russia now has a wide angle of approach into Germany and from their perspective, it'd basically be the prelude to the conquering and subjugation of Germany by France and Russia. If Russia does enter a Balkan war, the last hope basically relies on France and Britain going "Nah, fam." and leaving Russia hanging out to dry. I consider Germany going "Good luck!" to Austria-Hungary extremely unlikely. That would give us a pretty devastating war in Eastern Europe, but also one that'd probably be over in 2 years because Russia starts coming apart at the seams with more setbacks.
Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire all had their problems. Ultimately, I'd say that Russia was the least well-suited for dealing with them. The Ottomans were trying to reform their realm and with the extraction of oil picking up, that reform may well have the money needed to break free. The Austro-Hungarian Empire may have been dysfunctional at times but it's telling that it took a war that took a horrendous toll on the Empire, a war it ultimately lost, for Austria-Hungary to come apart. Without that massive bloodletting, I give Austria-Hungary decent odds of stabilizing the Empire. Their greatest strength and weakness is their big neighbor to the north-west. There were quite a few Germans who desired to eat the German parts of Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, the German Empire would probably consider a whole and strong Austria-Hungary to be in their best interest. Also, it keeps Germany from becoming more catholic.
Russia's problems were manifold. For one, their industrial development was strongest in areas that were the most likely to break away from St. Petersburg's grip. Russia was also pursuing a massive Russification effort in these areas, an effort that ultimately strengthened resentment of Russia. Russia also needed those territories. The Donbass region produced the overwhelming majority of coal for example. Take that away and Russia loses something like 3/4ths of its coal production. Then there's Nicky II. Who was arguably the worst leader of any great power in that time period. Russia would need a strong and flexible Tsar who's willing to bend for the sake of keeping the peace in the realm. It wouldn't hurt if said Tsar also had a strong grip on power and the ability to enforce his will against entrenched interests like the church and the aristocracy. Nicky II had none of those and was none of those. A full-on collapse into a revolution like the October Revolution is probably not in the cards if Russia doesn't get invaded and beaten to a bloody pulp. A collapse of the Russian monarchy however is well in the cards. A break-away of various subjugated nations and territories would probably need external actors working to help them break away and make it stick. If it does stick and Russian influence is curtailed in those regions, Russia is probably stuck in a pretty weak position. Russia's ascension was fuelled by looting conquered territories, take that loot away and Russia would probably remain a mostly agrarian, resource-extracting nation.
The colonial empires are probably going to continue in the the short and medium term like they did before the war. Anti-colonial resistance was already a thing before WWI and there's no reason to assume this would stop. We will probably see more brutal crackdowns on resistance and with the metropoles not being bled white, there is more money for more oppression. One thing I can see happening is that the large Empires (Britain, France, Germany) start nomming the smaller empires that aren't protected by being tied to another empire denying the nomming and/or the threat of war and the United States, Britain, France and Germany beginning to pull other great powers and lesser powers into their orbits.
Anti-colonial resistance and its repression will have interesting paths to take. For example, while it might give their own subjugated people ideas, I can see great powers helping anti-colonial resistance movements from the colonial empires of other great powers, using the destabilization of the colonies as a way to fight by proxy. Alternatively, the various empires start working together to keep the colonies down and then we might be in for a real bad time for everyone because the deeper entrenched colonial rule becomes, the more the empires will destroy to ensure their rule does not get disrupted. And when it finally gets broken, I expect "France pulling out of Ghana(IIRC)" levels of pettiness, aka uprooting all the infrastructure they can physically remove, down to the light bulbs.
Without those two major rounds of bloodletting, we can safely assume that the retarding effects of war and brain drain are strongly diminished.
Artistically, Futurism and similar ideas that see technological progress as always good would probably not get hammered like they did OTL. Conversely, art movements that were profoundly shaped by WWI would basically be absent. Hell, Lord of the Rings might well not exist for one.
As far as politics are concerned. Britain and Germany had slowly reached a thaw in their relations. Britain had been brought around to accepting the Bagdadbahn, an understanding over fleet sizes had been reached as well, so there's decent odds the thaw continues. There were also talks for the splitting of the Portuguese colonial empire between Germany and Britain which had been going on for a while.
Franco-German relations were also normalizing and France was starting to accept the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. From what I read, the mood in France at the time was favoring pacifism and not getting into a war with Germany and the hawkish faction was losing ground steadily. WWI may well have been their (perceived) last chance for another Franco-German war.
Now, neither Franco-German nor Anglo-German relations would be cordial anytime soon, but it's unlikely that these powers end up in a war against each other. And, well, that's kind of a given seeing that a general European war is to be avoided. Once Germany is in, Europe burns.
As far as the Entente goes, it really depends. Britain would sooner or later have new flash points with Russia. France also pumped a lot of money into Russia. Don't remember if that level of investment was sustainable or if France would have had to scale back sooner rather than later. Russia had impressive growth rates, but it also started from a position where a good portion of Russia hadn't left the middle ages.
For the United States, the level of their war profiteering can't be overstated. Without Europe's Great Powers spending basically all their treasure and then some in a futile war, the US doesn't get to loot Europe's coffers and won't become a net creditor nation for quite some time to come. The US will also face a lot of resistance when trying to move in on turf various empires have already claimed. Then there's their naval ambitions. The bigger those are, the more likely it is going to be viewed as a direct threat against them by Britain.
The Balkans will be interesting. War there is basically guaranteed, too much irredentism, too much arrogance.
What I could see is Italian ambitions leading to a war there that ultimately pits Austria-Hungary against Italy. It'd probably be Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and maybe Bulgaria against Italy, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro. Germany would mostly glare at anyone trying to interfere and depending on how the war goes, intervene to prop up A-H. Though I can't really see Austria-Hungary losing this. The losses of the Russian Front wouldn't be present here, so an Austrian victory may well be on the table. The peace settlement would be interesting. France and Russia would throw a lot of weight behind the defeated powers to ensure that the peace settlement doesn't neuter those nations. Britain would probably throw its weight behind Greece, but that's going to cost Greece a lot of things. Germany would probably want at least a part of Serbia cut off so a corridor from Austria-Hungary to Bulgaria exists that allows for oil trains from the Ottoman Empire to be moved to Vienna and Germany without Serbia being able to interfere.
The main thing for a Balkan war is to ensure that Russia does not enter it. Because that is basically guaranteed to drag Germany in as a collapsed Austria-Hungary means that Russia now has a wide angle of approach into Germany and from their perspective, it'd basically be the prelude to the conquering and subjugation of Germany by France and Russia. If Russia does enter a Balkan war, the last hope basically relies on France and Britain going "Nah, fam." and leaving Russia hanging out to dry. I consider Germany going "Good luck!" to Austria-Hungary extremely unlikely. That would give us a pretty devastating war in Eastern Europe, but also one that'd probably be over in 2 years because Russia starts coming apart at the seams with more setbacks.
Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire all had their problems. Ultimately, I'd say that Russia was the least well-suited for dealing with them. The Ottomans were trying to reform their realm and with the extraction of oil picking up, that reform may well have the money needed to break free. The Austro-Hungarian Empire may have been dysfunctional at times but it's telling that it took a war that took a horrendous toll on the Empire, a war it ultimately lost, for Austria-Hungary to come apart. Without that massive bloodletting, I give Austria-Hungary decent odds of stabilizing the Empire. Their greatest strength and weakness is their big neighbor to the north-west. There were quite a few Germans who desired to eat the German parts of Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, the German Empire would probably consider a whole and strong Austria-Hungary to be in their best interest. Also, it keeps Germany from becoming more catholic.
Russia's problems were manifold. For one, their industrial development was strongest in areas that were the most likely to break away from St. Petersburg's grip. Russia was also pursuing a massive Russification effort in these areas, an effort that ultimately strengthened resentment of Russia. Russia also needed those territories. The Donbass region produced the overwhelming majority of coal for example. Take that away and Russia loses something like 3/4ths of its coal production. Then there's Nicky II. Who was arguably the worst leader of any great power in that time period. Russia would need a strong and flexible Tsar who's willing to bend for the sake of keeping the peace in the realm. It wouldn't hurt if said Tsar also had a strong grip on power and the ability to enforce his will against entrenched interests like the church and the aristocracy. Nicky II had none of those and was none of those. A full-on collapse into a revolution like the October Revolution is probably not in the cards if Russia doesn't get invaded and beaten to a bloody pulp. A collapse of the Russian monarchy however is well in the cards. A break-away of various subjugated nations and territories would probably need external actors working to help them break away and make it stick. If it does stick and Russian influence is curtailed in those regions, Russia is probably stuck in a pretty weak position. Russia's ascension was fuelled by looting conquered territories, take that loot away and Russia would probably remain a mostly agrarian, resource-extracting nation.
The colonial empires are probably going to continue in the the short and medium term like they did before the war. Anti-colonial resistance was already a thing before WWI and there's no reason to assume this would stop. We will probably see more brutal crackdowns on resistance and with the metropoles not being bled white, there is more money for more oppression. One thing I can see happening is that the large Empires (Britain, France, Germany) start nomming the smaller empires that aren't protected by being tied to another empire denying the nomming and/or the threat of war and the United States, Britain, France and Germany beginning to pull other great powers and lesser powers into their orbits.
Anti-colonial resistance and its repression will have interesting paths to take. For example, while it might give their own subjugated people ideas, I can see great powers helping anti-colonial resistance movements from the colonial empires of other great powers, using the destabilization of the colonies as a way to fight by proxy. Alternatively, the various empires start working together to keep the colonies down and then we might be in for a real bad time for everyone because the deeper entrenched colonial rule becomes, the more the empires will destroy to ensure their rule does not get disrupted. And when it finally gets broken, I expect "France pulling out of Ghana(IIRC)" levels of pettiness, aka uprooting all the infrastructure they can physically remove, down to the light bulbs.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
An Italo Austrian war is as unlikely as a Franco-German war and for the same reason- Italy isn't suicidal. Moreover I wouldn't knock the Italians out- the Izonzo is severely underestimated, but bear in mind that it lasted longer than Verdun and was fought on a mountaintop, under the command of a general who literally decimated his soldiers for failing. If anything I would think an Austrian "intervention" in the Italo-Turkish war more likely than a reverse, and that would make a Russian and/or French intervention nearly inevitable. Conrad was openly advocating this, and were it not for Russian mobilization Austria probably would have intervened in the OTL Balkan Wars.
Ironically an Italo-Austrian rapproachment could be in the cards, if FF comes to power and Austria starts centralizing- a naval race could, in the long run, serve to strengthen the Triple Alliance by making France appear more vulnerable. Much as with France and Alsace Lorraine, the Italians could grudgingly come to terms with Austrian presence in the Adriatic- and with German mediation could resolve their issues in the Balkans. Some concessions (Trento, Gorizia, Italian rights in Trieste, Albania, etc) would be necessary but Italy has the benefit of grudges against both sides and irredentist claims could be as readily turned against France as Austria. I would rather suggest that averting the Italo-Turkish War altogether would be more beneficial albeit I cannot see it easily done.
One possibility could be Franz Josef dying in 1904 or so. The chaos of Franz Ferdinand's accession would distract Germany from the Moroccan affair, and without Russia able to intervene neither France nor Italy would risk war with Germany and/or Austria- this gives a window of opportunity to strengthen the dual monarchy. FF favored peace and domestic reform, was hostile to Italy, and a champion of the navy- after political reform his next agenda would be a dreadnought race with Italy. The combined Triple Alliance Fleets posed a serious threat to both Britain and France, partially prompting the Entente Cordiale, and by the same token it would probably lead to a partial rapproachment between Austria and Italy. Peace strikes me as probably fleeting, barring a pre-emptive Russian collapse in 1905, but the Balkans are the key to any such conflagration.
Ironically an Italo-Austrian rapproachment could be in the cards, if FF comes to power and Austria starts centralizing- a naval race could, in the long run, serve to strengthen the Triple Alliance by making France appear more vulnerable. Much as with France and Alsace Lorraine, the Italians could grudgingly come to terms with Austrian presence in the Adriatic- and with German mediation could resolve their issues in the Balkans. Some concessions (Trento, Gorizia, Italian rights in Trieste, Albania, etc) would be necessary but Italy has the benefit of grudges against both sides and irredentist claims could be as readily turned against France as Austria. I would rather suggest that averting the Italo-Turkish War altogether would be more beneficial albeit I cannot see it easily done.
One possibility could be Franz Josef dying in 1904 or so. The chaos of Franz Ferdinand's accession would distract Germany from the Moroccan affair, and without Russia able to intervene neither France nor Italy would risk war with Germany and/or Austria- this gives a window of opportunity to strengthen the dual monarchy. FF favored peace and domestic reform, was hostile to Italy, and a champion of the navy- after political reform his next agenda would be a dreadnought race with Italy. The combined Triple Alliance Fleets posed a serious threat to both Britain and France, partially prompting the Entente Cordiale, and by the same token it would probably lead to a partial rapproachment between Austria and Italy. Peace strikes me as probably fleeting, barring a pre-emptive Russian collapse in 1905, but the Balkans are the key to any such conflagration.
What would be quite interesting would be an alt-WWI with Britain, Germany, and Austria on one side while France, Russia, Hungary, Serbia, and Montenegro are going to be on the other side. In such a scenario, Italy, Romania, the Ottoman Empire, Japan, and the US are going to initially remain neutral but will also wait and see which way the wind blows.
I wonder if Alsace-Lorraine, Posen Province, et cetera could see Home Rule for them implemented under a Kaiser Heinrich and a liberal German Reichstag? This does seem like a great way to try winning over support for the German government in these territories, after all.
Cloak&Dagger
Definitely Insane
Basically any scenario with Britain and Germany fighting together in Europe in WW1 era has them obliterating their opposition. Their forces were way better lead, their tech ahead of everyone else, their industries higher, and they'd dominate the sea.
Plus, you know, France's early war strategy was to ram themselves into German forts with no heavy artillery to even hope to break them.
What about if this war will take place in 1917--as in, after the completion of Russia's Great Military Program and after France's "three year law" fully goes into effect?
- Location
- The Old Dominion
Any scenario that involve France fighting Britain much less Britain and Germany is going end up with France being completely cut off from all its colonial holdings meaning France would be cut off a lot of needed resources and manpower(historally France brought in a lot of manpower from the colonies to replace the millions of Frenchmen that were drafted into the French military) that would critical for their war efforts and make the Homefront situation worse than it was historally for the French.
Edit:The other part of the coin is France and Russia aren't likely going to be able to embargo Germany which means it would still be able to import goods it needs.
Edit:The other part of the coin is France and Russia aren't likely going to be able to embargo Germany which means it would still be able to import goods it needs.
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The only way an Anglo-German alliance could be matched is if the counter alliance has the US and Russia. Which isn't impossible- especially given the Anglo-Japanese alliance.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It would, but Germany is still strong enough to hold them off and make a fight of it, perhaps even go on the offensive. Imperial Russia just doesn't have the power projection or the leadership to really take the fight to Germany, as happened in World War Two it's likely that Germany is able to strike into the imperial periphery (aided, in part, by being greeted amicably by the locals, especially the Jews, who were terribly persecuted by the Tsarist regime) and conquer the Polish Salient and probably parts of the Baltic littoral.
Austria is also likely to have untapped potential, especially in the face of waxing Russian strength. The Austrians were spending the least of any major power proportionately due to the archaic and dysfunctional central government. An Austrian army with more typical spending is a non negligible contributor, especially if they get better leadership than the likes of von Hotzendorf.
Good points! That said, though, what if Austria-Hungary will experience a civil war during this time due to the Hungarians refusing to renew the Ausgleich?
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Probably, but that's why I suggested having it during the Russo-Japanese war, since Russia is too busy getting clobbered by Japan and/or Bolshevik uprisings to intervene, and if done early enough it averts the Moroccan Crisis, easing tensions between Germany and Britain/France and delaying if not averting the Entente Cordiale. A reformed Austria is too powerful for either Italy or Serbia to take on alone, strong enough to potentially avert or significantly alter the Balkan crisis in 1908 and especially the Italo Turkish War and Balkan Leagues if the Empire takes a more proactive and assertive stance (which nevertheless has to be judged against the risk of provoking a war; not that this would necessarily be to the Central Powers' disadvantage, but the prompt is averting WWI entirely, not starting it early/wanking the Central Powers).
As mentioned Franz Ferdinand is likely to funnel most of his efforts into expanding the navy, and any potential expansion in the Balkans would be in that light- I could possibly see him making a play for Albania, but not unilaterally given the risk of provoking the Italians and the Serbs- perhaps trading it in return for Libya and Trent/Gorizia? This in turn probably triggers a naval race with Italy, which in turn makes them more dependent on the Triple Alliance (less money for the army=friendly Germany is necessary for defense against either France or Austria) but also accelerate attempts at allying France and Britain (but also increasing tensions as a strong Italian navy, nominally allied to a strong Austrian navy, destroys French hegemony); at the very least I suspect it would lessen the urge to attack Turkey outright, possibly accepting a Tunisia style protectorate over Libya under German/Austrian pressure.
All things considered I think collapsing at least one of Russia, Austria, or Turkey early on is necessary to avoid a war, but needs to be done without triggering a conflict- the Russo Japanese War is, again, the obvious root cause.
- Location
- The Old Dominion
Though that would likely require a improvement in relations given that US-Russian relations had soured badly over the pogroms to the point it eventually revoked its 1832 trade treaty with Russia and it was one of the factors for the US not entering the historical first world war sooner as many in the US did not want to be fighting as the same side as the czarist government.
Interestingly enough, though, the US had no problem allying with the much worse Joseph Stalin during World War II.
Was Albania worth more to A-H than Trentino and Gorizia were?
Also, Yes, it did seem prudent for Franz Joseph to try imposing universal suffrage on the Hungarians back in 1907 even if it would have risked civil war in A-H. After all, back then, Russia was probably still too weak to militarily intervene on Hungary's behalf.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Absolutely- it gives access to the broader mediterranean, essential if Quarria wants to have any significance as a naval power. If Italy takes control it would be equivalent to holding Gibraltar and Tangiers.
What's Quarria? A typo for Austria?
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Indeed.
Gotcha. Anyway, though, getting Albania would probably be problematic for Austria-Hungary due to Serbia and Montenegro largely being in the way.
Which other European monarchies do you eventually see getting overthrown/deposed in this scenario? I mean, France, Portugal, and San Marino are already republics--and you're predicting that Russia will also become a republic. However, which other European countries do you think will eventually become republics in this scenario?
Likely a decent chunk of what was once Austria-Hungary, althought I can see the Germans keeping the Austrians alive with the Hapsburgs still. Plus, the Ottomans- they were already on their last legs at this point, they were going to fall apart sometime that century. I honestly don't see the Germans becoming a Republic unless the Kaiser pulls some stupid shit, as they were in a fairly good position to continue (compared to the other states I've listed) without collapse.
- Location
- Denmark
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I'm not sure if the Ottoman state is likely to fall apart without the extreme pressure of the World War. Tanzimât was well on its way and modernization efforts were progressing fairly successfully; it's largest problems will likely be the Public Debt Administration and European colonial pressure, but I'm not sure if it is likely to fall to revolution.
Did such a new Greco-Turkish war had the potential to descend into an alt-WWI? If so, what would be the sides?