Yet Another No UK WWI

[wkwillis]

POD is the Italian attack on Turkey.
This time the Italians don't make peace till the Balkans launch their attack, so that Turkey is worse off than in OTL. Considering that Turkey in Europe was reduced to Istanbul and had five armies outside the walls in OTL, that's saying a lot.
Austria-Hungary goes to war to preserve Turkey, Russia comes in, Germany comes in, France comes in, and because it's still during the times of Plan Michael, France and Germany both invade Belgium.
Britain does not come in because the cabinet split is a little different. France has lots of allies like Russia, Belgium, Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Albania. Rumania is still on the wall for now. There is strong support for the Entente in the Uk government, but no troops. Britain does guarantee that the German navy does not go down the channel. And, after all, France did invade Belgium.
Everybody registers their ships as British so there is no sub war against shipping. Germany has no blockade problems. Food prices go even higher because Germany can also purchase food overseas. Contraband is pretty much confined to nitrates, acetone, mercury, copper, zinc, and lead. Russia has access to munitions through a railroad across Thrace.
The concentration of troops in a small area reduces to trench warfare immediately. Antwerp is anchoring one end of the trench line and the other stretches to Switzerland. The Russians are fighting in Poland and failing to brake through to the Baltic and cut off Prussia. Germany spends the rest of the war trying to get to the channel and hold off the Russians. Austria spends the rest of the war trying to defend the Carpathians against Russia and overrun Serbia.

 

[birdy]

didint france survive in 1941 becuase of the BEF at Mons. I'm not knocking the french btw and claming we single handly saved them.

 

[birdy]

i meant 1914 not 1941

 

[Admiral Matt]

I like it.

Did the Austrians go to war against the Italians, or just the Balkan states? I suspect the Italians would stay on the fence a bit longer with the need to occupy Ottoman territory and the neutrality of Britain. Or not. Their policy always was a bit emotional.

It's an interesting balance - France's position is superficially better, but without the British their going to be at a rather serious disadvantage technologically. The sea battles will be fascinating. Germany's few ships scattered around the world were utterly doomed in OTL, but with only the French navy to deal with it'll be a whole different ball game. Expect a few isolated naval battles scattered around the globe. As for the rest of the German fleet, if they can't direct it towards France they'll ship it all into the Baltic and make things very difficult for the Russians. Probably the Russians limit their goals to trying to defend the coast from Riga to Helsinki, and have only partial success.

The colonial front will be very different too. German East and Southwest Africa are pretty much safe, and the garrisons in Togoland and Kamerun may be able to hold off the French. The German holdings in the Pacific are in the same situation. I doubt the French will bother with them.

Which brings us to Japan. With Britain on the sidelines, they have no official reason for getting involved, and will be at least initially neutral. However, they don't have to worry about splitting the German colonies with anyone either. But then I don't think the Brits would let them take German New Guinea or Samoa - too close to Australia and New Zealand. And how much are those islands worth, anyway, except as coaling stations? The alternative, of course, is going after the Russia possessions in China. It's less likely, but if the Russkis look weak enough...

Anyway, my guess is that the British end up pretty much in the American position of OTL; they make so many loans to the French and Russians that they can't afford to have them defeated, and eventually enter the war to protect their investment. No doubt the Germans will give them some excuse. Zimmerman might even telegram an offer to the Americans offering them Canada if Britain enters the war. It might be ridiculous and idiotic, but hell, so was the one he sent in our TL.

 

[DMA]

I'd go along with this AH provided Germany doesn't invades Belgium. Such an action is the clincher that drags the UK into WWI, as the UK had guaranteed Belgium neutrality.

 

[LordKalvan]

This time, though, both sides invade Belgium. It would be funny, if it were not tragic: both of them claim to be there to protect Belgium from the otehr one, and accusations of atrocities on both sides fill the newspapers.

Italy would be in a situation very similar to 1914: the protocols of the Triplice Alliance called for "adjustments" whenever the balance of power in the Balkans changes in favor of one of the signatories; A-H has declared war against the Balkan alliance, and so the treaty cannot be invoked.
In TTL, with the British neutral, Italy's navy might combine with the A-H's one and interdict the passage between Algeria and France, not to mention the possibility of threatening a landing in Provence. This means that Italy will be wooed by the Germans, but - as per OTL - the Austrians will be very reluctant to make concessions. With a longer Italo-Turkish war merging with the first Balkan war and finally conflagrating in WW1, I expect Italy will take advantage of the hostilities to secure a protectorate over the whole of Albania, and to occupy Saseno island (OTL, A-H had a protectorate over the Northern part, and Italy over the Southern one. Saseno was occupied early in WW1). If this action does not result in anything more than protests and diplomatic notes, Italy will take her cue from Uk, and stay out of the war.

IMHO, it is quite difficult to envisage Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia on the same side after Bulgarian expansion in Macedonia (unless the partition of macedonia is a different one in TTL).

 

[DMA]

I think, though, it would make Britain staying out of the war much easier if only the French invade Belgium. Where with both of them invading Belgium more or less forces Britain's hand to join the French side akin to the OTL.

Whereas, if it's only France invading Belgium, this causes political problems for Britain. So whatever friendship the UK had with France is severly tested. In fact Britain may well view such an action by France as detrimental to Britain's Continental interests ensuring Britain's neutrality to actually favour Germany. Thus Germany's navy could cause the French all sorts of trouble, whilst the RN looked on knowing that her old enemy is getting beaten up.

 

[Admiral Matt]

The importance of Belgium in British calculations has been overstated pretty consistently since 1914. It's good PR to attribute wars to the defense of the helpless. Britain was technically bound to maintain Belgium's neutrality, yes. But then so was Germany. The agreement to protect Belgium was ancient history by 1914. A large portion of the British public would not even have known of it if the government hadn't made an issue of it. And the government made an issue of it because the decision to push to war if necessary had already been made.

Take a cabinet that is not ready for war and I believe you would find mention of the UK's "obligations" vastly reduced.

 

[DMA]

The importance of Belgium in British calculations has been overstated pretty consistently since 1914. It's good PR to attribute wars to the defense of the helpless. Britain was technically bound to maintain Belgium's neutrality, yes. But then so was Germany. The agreement to protect Belgium was ancient history by 1914. A large portion of the British public would not even have known of it if the government hadn't made an issue of it. And the government made an issue of it because the decision to push to war if necessary had already been made.

Take a cabinet that is not ready for war and I believe you would find mention of the UK's "obligations" vastly reduced.

I don't overly disagree with what you've said here, but if only France invaded Belgium, instead of Germany, well it makes it a lot easier for Britain to wash their hands of the whole thing & declare that it's someone else's mess. In doing so they can worm out of their "obligations" as you call them.

It would also give credence to Britain remaining neutral &/or even favouring Germany. The British PM at the time (I presume it's still Asquith) could rightly point out:

Hey, you French aren't supposed to do that! In the name of protecting Belgium, don't expect any help from us in fighting our cousins the Germans.

 

[David S Poepoe]

The British Government would have just pressured the Belgian Government to permit the French forces to enter the country. By 1914 the British are bound to the Entente by the state of affairs of geopolitics. The British aren't going to sit any war out since remaining neutral would be detrimental to their interests in either a Triple Alliance or Dual Entente victory.

 

[DMA]

The British Government would have just pressured the Belgian Government to permit the French forces to enter the country. By 1914 the British are bound to the Entente by the state of affairs of geopolitics. The British aren't going to sit any war out since remaining neutral would be detrimental to their interests in either a Triple Alliance or Dual Entente victory.

Then, by all rights, considering the weight of history, Britain would have entered the war on the side of Germany. Afterall, the old enemy had been France until recently. And it wasn't as if Britain did anything to help France much in 1870/1

And this is despite the fact that the Royal Houses of Britain & Germany were cousins whilst the French were republicans! (note I say that with an r & not an R)

 

[David S Poepoe]

Then, by all rights, considering the weight of history, Britain would have entered the war on the side of Germany. Afterall, the old enemy had been France until recently. And it wasn't as if Britain did anything to help France much in 1870/1

And this is despite the fact that the Royal Houses of Britain & Germany were cousins whilst the French were republicans! (note I say that with an r & not an R)

It seems that Britain was well aware of the problems in the continental balance of power that the creation of the German Empire created. With the death of Queen Victoria the last vestiges of a pro-German stance in the British Government also disappeared. There was no love lost between King Edward VII and his nephew Wilhelm II, so the relationship between the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas and the Hohenzollerns don't mean anything. Its Parliament and the Cabinet that set and direct foreign policy in Britain.

There was a fair amount of rivalry between the Second Empire and Britain, so thats one reason the British didn't aid them. France had been old rival until Germany overtook them. By the early 1900s the British are worried that they are losing overseas markets to the Germans. Things all change in the 1880s and 1890s with the collapse of Bismarck's efforts to isolate France.

Its far more bizarre that Autocratic Russia alligned itself with Republican France. However, politics change over a space of 30 years so that it doesn't resemble anything from the beginning.

 

[DMA]

It seems that Britain was well aware of the problems in the continental balance of power that the creation of the German Empire created. With the death of Queen Victoria the last vestiges of a pro-German stance in the British Government also disappeared. There was no love lost between King Edward VII and his nephew Wilhelm II, so the relationship between the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas and the Hohenzollerns don't mean anything. Its Parliament and the Cabinet that set and direct foreign policy in Britain.

There was a fair amount of rivalry between the Second Empire and Britain, so thats one reason the British didn't aid them. France had been old rival until Germany overtook them. By the early 1900s the British are worried that they are losing overseas markets to the Germans. Things all change in the 1880s and 1890s with the collapse of Bismarck's efforts to isolate France.

Its far more bizarre that Autocratic Russia alligned itself with Republican France. However, politics change over a space of 30 years so that it doesn't resemble anything from the beginning.

Well that maybe so in the OTL, but I'm assuming for this AH that Britian is continuing to place itself in a somewhat isolationist position come the affairs of Europe. If so, then she won't be too overly forgiving to France, for its indiscretions as well as its imperial competitiveness, whilst keeping some sort of vauge alliance with Germany - Prussia in particular.

Furthermore, such a positioning of Britain isn't without historical precedent. More often than not Britain had allied itself against France rather than for it.

Needless to say, I agree with your observation re: Tsarist Russia & France. But then again, in the OTL, we have two ancient enemies - Britian & France - in alliance against Germany which has traditionally been in alliance with Britain against France!

 

[wkwillis]

I'm going to assume that Italy wants the Tyrol and Trieste with their substantial Italian minorities more than it wants Albania, etc. Remember, with Austria-Hungary knocked out, the Yugoslavian navy or Serbian or Albanian navy isn't going to be a threat to Italy. No worry about invasions landing outside Ravenna in that situation.
And since in this ATL Italy is fielding one of the armies outside Istanbul, their participation in the war is already in place when the Austrians attack.
Rumanian has not attacked Bulgaria, Bulgaria has not attacked Serbia and Greece, and the occupied Turkish territory has not been divied up yet. When Austria-Hungary intervened in favor of Turkey Italy had already signed a separate peace and left the war. If things go differently, they are still involved when combat begins. And the army is already mobilized and ready.
Actually there were only four armies outside Istanbul in OTL. Albania was not a country at the time.
So Albania (including most of Kosovo and the Sanjack), Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy vs Turkey, then Austria, then Russia, then Germany, then France, then Belgium, are at war. Rumania is still neutral till they see who is winning and what bribes they are offered. Britain doesn't need to back up France and does not follow up on it's unofficial (and illegal) alliance. Well, at sea they prevent a German blockade of France.

 

[Alratan]

If the Italians are still in the war and outside Constantinople when Austro-Hungary enters the war, can the Turks hold the city, even if the Italians start beng redeployed home immediately, given the damage that they will have already suffered above OTL.

If the city falls, and the Bosphurus is then open for shipping to Russia, then the Eastern front may be made enough more difficult that it partiallycompensates for the lack of the British in the West.

 

[Wozza]

It seems that Britain was well aware of the problems in the continental balance of power that the creation of the German Empire created. With the death of Queen Victoria the last vestiges of a pro-German stance in the British Government also disappeared. There was no love lost between King Edward VII and his nephew Wilhelm II, so the relationship between the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas and the Hohenzollerns don't mean anything. Its Parliament and the Cabinet that set and direct foreign policy in Britain.

There was a fair amount of rivalry between the Second Empire and Britain, so thats one reason the British didn't aid them. France had been old rival until Germany overtook them. By the early 1900s the British are worried that they are losing overseas markets to the Germans. Things all change in the 1880s and 1890s with the collapse of Bismarck's efforts to isolate France.

Its far more bizarre that Autocratic Russia alligned itself with Republican France. However, politics change over a space of 30 years so that it doesn't resemble anything from the beginning.

Joseph Chamberlein was the last real pro-German, he did not have his stroke until 1905.
In fact the Second Empire and Britain were allied, Napoleon III's son dies in British service, his tomb is in Canterbury Cathedral.

Plenty of British statesman remained in favour of supporting Germany against Russia right up until the outbreak of war.

The Anglo-German economic rivalry is real but easily exaggerated - the Reichsbank actively supported the Bank of England during the sterling crisis of 1906.

Arguably by 1914 the Germans had lost the naval race and the probability of war was receding, certainly British statesman remained keen to come to an acomodation with Germany.

The issue in 1914 is less Belgium than the fact that the British do not want to be left out. One historian has argued that this is just as the Portuguese, Ottomans and Italians do not, ultimately want to be left out.
This explanation puts the cause of British involvement back into internal British politics - how can Asquith survive as PM - instead of rational calculations about economics and balance of power.

 

[wkwillis]

If the Italians are still in the war and outside Constantinople when Austro-Hungary enters the war, can the Turks hold the city, even if the Italians start beng redeployed home immediately, given the damage that they will have already suffered above OTL.

If the city falls, and the Bosphurus is then open for shipping to Russia, then the Eastern front may be made enough more difficult that it partiallycompensates for the lack of the British in the West.

The Italians don't need their army in Thrace to attack the Tyrol. They will still be defeated if they follow their OTL policy in attacking up the mountains. Instead, they will move forces north to attack Austria from the southern front. Turkey is across the straits and not an immediate threat.
Russia needs the straits to export food for currency to buy munitions. The railroad across the Balkans can move what small amounts of munitions the French can spare from the war.

 

[Andrei]

Some quick OTL facts:
- Serbia was supposed to take Albania , Bulgaria was supposed to take Macedonia and Thrace
-during the war , the Serbians occupied the modern-day territory of FYR Macedonia
-Albania was made independent by Austria-Hungary and Italy
-Serbia refused to evacuate Macedonia
-Bulgaria attacked Serbia and Greece ( they wanted Salonic from the Greeks )
-Everyone attacked Bulgaria

So , with Italy still in the war against the Ottomans and with A-H joining the war on the Ottoman's side , there wouldn't be an independent Albania , so no Bulgarian attack against Serbia , so the Balkan Alliance stays togather.
Romania would probably join the war against A-H in this case , in order to gain Transilvania and Bukovina.

 

[wkwillis]

Especially if the Russians promised them Moldova. I keep harping on that because it's true. Even with a German king they would have gone to war for both Transylvania and Moldova. Dobruja would have been a problem because that was Bulgarian.

 

[Alratan]

The Italians don't need their army in Thrace to attack the Tyrol. They will still be defeated if they follow their OTL policy in attacking up the mountains. Instead, they will move forces north to attack Austria from the southern front. Turkey is across the straits and not an immediate threat.
Russia needs the straits to export food for currency to buy munitions. The railroad across the Balkans can move what small amounts of munitions the French can spare from the war.

If the Italians have a substantial proportion of their forces in Thrace, they may not feel able to follow their OTL strategy, and rather than attack from Italy, may just move forces north to attack Austria through their Balkan possessions. (This may not be what you said)

In any case, the Italian armies will be moving away from the siege, which does leave the question of whether the siege of Constantinople will be successful, although I imagine it probably will.

On Russian supply. If the UK remains neutral, they are the ones likely to be selling munitions to the Russians through the straits. Ironically, the British will probably procede to sell the food they bought in return to the Germans, taking a healthy cut.

Without the British in the war, but with them (and the Americans) possibly selling to both sides, will it be possible for either side to decisively win. The CP will do better in the West, but will they do enough better to compensate for the amount worse that Austro-Hungary will do, and the fact that the Turks will be in a much weaker position so that the Russians can devote more of their attention west rather than south.

In this case, we could see this produce the Free City of Constantinople thread as a butterfly, or perhaps the British and Americans intervening in the war in the closing stages to prevent a new revolution in France after the war has ground to a bloddy stalemate.