Two Centuries of Chaos- Feedback for TL

[Krasno]

I'm kind of a newbie here, so I'm not sure if this is the right board to post this on (please tell me where if it isn't), but I have some ideas for a timeline that I would like feedback/more in-depth knowledge on, (ill admit my knowledge of history is pretty eurocentric unfortunately, so id appreciate any help with events outside that) That being said, the POD of the TL is at the latest 1825, thank you in advance

-Successful Decembrist Revolt/earlier industrialization and liberalization of the Russian Empire: Does anyone know any potential candidates for the Decembrists to support? I feel they'd have a better shot if their proposed figurehead hadn't already declined the throne. They don't necessarily have to revolt, either; maybe if Konstantin's refusal of the throne is made more well known, the revolt is postponed, another figurehead is chosen later, and they gain power through other means. I am also planning for them to split up, with the northern faction coming out on top as a sort of KDP-esque party, with the southern union becoming a prominent Republican force somewhat analogous to the RSDRP (maybe a Red Decembrist faction appearing and splitting off with the advent of Marxism?).

-Octobrists become the main conservative force in Russia: This one is just for funsies really, I think it'd be interesting if December and October became analogous to Liberalism and Conservatism in the Russian Zeitgeist. (This one is a post-1900 question, but my POD is in the 1800s, should I make a separate post in that forum? Please advise.)

-Gran Colombia, Central America, and Peru-Bolivia Survive: this is to ensure stronger, larger states in Latin America, which gives them more relevance in foreign affairs and independence from the Monroe Doctrine. this is to make an actual "American Front" of a great war plausible. One of Gran Colombia's biggest faults was that it failed to appease the Venezuelan elite, so maybe with a Venezuelan successor to Bolivar, this could be assuaged. Peru-Bolivia largely surviving their war with Chile and rapidly centralizing could save them, but I'm sure there's a more concrete way to save them. As for Central America... I'm pooped, any ideas?

-Confederate victory/stalemate in the ACW: This is largely to take away the sentiment of "fortress America" and the sense of security prevalent in American society; with a precedent for secession and a hostile government to the south acting to destabilize the US, the average American would feel far less secure in their international position. Perhaps this could be attained by a different administration pre-war, or Lincoln resigning upon the secession causing chaos in his cabinet. As for the future of the confederacy, I'd like the Knights of the Golden Circle, and their expansionist ideal, to come into play. I'm not sure if I want them to be super successful though; I could potentially see their military failure (perhaps itself an effort to secure a win for the people with the inevitable economic stagnation) forcing reform. (I like the idea of Texas seceding from the CSA here, feels justly ironic, but I find it hard to see that happening with the threat of the US to the north. any ideas for this?). Alternatively, if they moderately succeed (maybe taking just northern Mexico and potentially the Yucatan), it could strengthen their position and allow for some interesting power dynamics in the Americas, so I'm not sure. Either way, I think eventually, Huey Long coming to power as something of a radical reformer in Dixie would be interesting, potentially trying to mend relations with the North.

-Alaska Stays Russian: maybe avoiding the Crimean War? But I fear that'll crush too many butterflies... This is to give Russia a presence in North America and ensure Russia has an interest in the going-ons of American nations. Either way, the main problem here is the British. Maybe, if nothing else, a longer Crimean War results in a more exhausted Britain, which soothes Russian fears of a takeover.

-San Stefano forced through by Bismarck/Bismarck chooses Russia over A-H: Maybe some sort of fumble by Austria reveals to Bismarck how screwed Austria is becoming in the long run, maybe the Kulturkampf becomes extreme enough to make any sort of alliance with Austria untenable; either way, Bismarck needs to choose Russia over Austria when push comes to shove. Germany's perceived "betrayal" of Russia in the Congress of Berlin acted to push Russia into France's arms IOTL, so I'd like this to act in the reverse ITTL, being that it cements a Russo-German alliance (later including Italy) in opposition to Britain and France. Bulgaria would probably act as a Russian client state ITTL, though I do wonder how this would affect Serbia- If Russian support for Bulgaria tempers their popularity in Serbia, I could see them remaining in Austria's Sphere ITTL, though if Austria oversteps and the May Coup happens as it does in OTL, I find the idea of Russia attempting to sort out Balkan disputes quite amusing. (Potential Bulgaro-Serbian Yugoslavism? Hmmm?)

-Carlist Victory in the Third Carlist War: I'll admit that I know very little about this conflict- But I want a Carlist Spain for two reasons: one, because I'm pretty sure (?) the Carlists were sympathetic to Germany in WW1, and two, because they absorbed Spanish irridentism and expansionism, and I want a larger, stronger (but significantly more unstable) Spain to act as a tug of war and splitting point between Germany and Italy.

-Greater Spanish and Russian claims in the scramble for Africa: For Russia, I want Sagallo to be an official aim of the Russian representatives, and for Ashinov's expedition to be officially enforced, but be beaten back by the French in both the conference and expedition all the same. This is to solidify Russia's opposition to France and further push Russia into friendship with Germany. As for Spain, I want the Carlists to push for greater claims- and receive some- but I can't figure out what exactly they would want. I want them to remain friendly with Germany, so more of Cameroon is likely off the table (but Spanish claims here will still come up in the aforementioned coming tug-of-war) but I can't think of anywhere else outside their OTL concessions (maybe all of them Morocco? but France isn't a pushover, I doubt they'd be okay with that.) they could lay claim to. granted, this isn't a Spain-Wank, they are fresh out of a civil war, and any additional concessions they do get would be small- but it should be enough to embolden Spain to have greater geopolitical ambitions.

-The earlier resurgence of Occitan National identity: I have plans for France to fall into civil war after a defeat in WW1, with Occitan rebels supported by (and partially fomented by) Italy popping up in the south. This does feel a little ASB though, so don't take this as seriously.

-More Autonomous Cossack forces operating under the Russian Empire: Okay, you may be seeing which country's history I hyper-fixated on in high school at this point, but my idea is thus: Maybe some sort of Cossack conference or organization is formed under the Tsar as a way of exerting soft power. The idea is to set up Cossack hosts in various places (ex: China, Ethiopia) in order to unofficially represent Russian interests. This is pretty out there, though, and I fully understand if some of you find it silly.

-Russo-Japanese war avoided: This is to ensure Russia retains Manchuria and has a larger naval presence in the Pacific. I want there to be something of a Russian "Naval Renaissance", leading to a Naval Race between the three powers. If the Russians accept Japan's original proposition and acquiesce to Japan's claims on Korea, this doesn't seem to far-fetched, though that would require some less passive racism and haughtiness on the Russian side. If Japan goes after German claims in the Pacific like OTL, Russia would likely get Korea in its sphere anyway. Mayhaps a Zheltorossiya?

-WW1: A Russo-German-Italian Central Powers take on an Austria-France-Britain Entente. I've seen this done before, but the biggest problem for me has always been that this seems kind of like a suicidal move on the entente part. Austria is immediately going to collapse, so they would likely concede whatever embarrassing thing they must to ensure their survival, and France, even if hyped up on Revanche fuel, can see the writing on the wall if they're facing a Germany that has essentially 1 front to deal with and has its food needs met by Russia. To remedy this, WW1 has to be an offensive war by the CP. This could potentially be Russian provocations against the Ottomans, heightening tensions over German naval buildup, or any other such action that leads to a war out of desperation on the Entente end. To stop the Entente from settling for an early, compromise peace they need some form of boost to have confidence in their win. For this, I'll have the US be in the war early, if not from the start, due to the victory of Teddy Roosevelt in the Republican nomination. I'll save the long and short of the war since this is meant to be an outline of events, but the existence of the CSA keeps the US from diverting too many forces to Europe, and the material support of the US wasn't enough to save Austria and the Ottomans from a rapid collapse, leaving France on a 2 front war against a force they could not compete with. France falls, and Britain and the US are forced to sign a "peace with honor" in mid-1917. (a la kaiserreich).

-Central Powers Split: The dynamics of a Russia-Germany-Italy alliance would be far different to the OTL CP or Entente, all three of the powers having ambitious, expansionist, (and often competing) interests, which would flare up with a Victory in WW1. I imagine this would be something of a continuation of the old Great Power politics of the 1800s, albeit with 3 powers instead of 6-7. Post-war, I feel the points of contention would be obvious- Germany is afraid of an industrializing and developing Russia and wants to wrest control of the Mediterranean from Italy, who, in a much more powerful position, has designs on the Russian-aligned Balkans and Ethiopia(?), and Russia has Panslavist ideals and Mediterranean ambitions which fly in the face of their former allies.

-Greece and Alternate Sykes-Picot: this is one of my biggest befuddlements; the Ottomans, while preferring Neutrality, would likely be on the receiving end of (mostly Russia's) fuckery. While I imagine Russia's claims would be somewhat the same, what of Italy and Germany? I know Italy had some designs on the Levant, and would
get their sphere of turkey proper but I imagine Germany would want some of that sweet Middle Eastern pie, too. I was initially thinking of an international mandate for the Levant (with very crusade-y undertones, given how each of the big three represents the different denominations of Christianity) but now that I think about it, it pretty ASB (if you have some plausible ideas for its creation though, id be happy to hear it!). Greece is the biggest problem for me; they very clearly have designs on Bulgarian land, which would put them in the Franco-British-Austrian camp, but I feel that they are far too isolated from the rest of their allies to reasonably attempt to join the war effort. That being said, I don't want them to do nothing, so I'm not sure. If they do join, I imagine they'd be in the Italian Sphere of influence, maybe even earning a protectorate status like Albania.

-Russian Sphere Gains: the typical Galicia, Constantinople, Greater Armenia. I do feel like now would be the point at which Armenia and Poland are made semi-autonomous client-states, in addition to achieving their African claims on Sagallo. Serbia gained Bosnia and what's left of Croatia after Italy ate the coast, and Bulgaria gained the chunks of Turkey they didn't receive at San Stefano. (I imagine this would be a widely unpopular war in Bulgaria, given they only joined out of loyalty to Russia and not for concrete gains.)

-German Spere Gains: Germany gained Austria, Bohemia, and Slovenia. A large Hungarian state in Germany's sphere of influence is retained, including Slovakia and Vovojodina. The rest is essentially the OTL Septemberprogramm sans the puppets in Eastern Europe.

-Italian Sphere Gains: Italy swallows all of Dalmatia, Corsica, Nice, and Savoy. Gains protectorate over Albania and (potentially) Greece. Eritrea and Somalia (Including Somaliland) are given to Italy. Spain, intervening in the conflict once it was apparent France-Britain was losing, swallows Andorra and some token borderlands with France, in addition to the rest of Morocco (if they didn't receive it in the Berlin conference). Portugal’s fate is uncertain.

-To the losers: I am still reasoning out how to deal with Britain, France, and the US, but the broad strokes are that the embarrassment of the Great War led to a snowball in the US socialist movement, and an eventual election (and subsequent civil war) with a socialist government establishing power in Washington. France suffers a socialist civil war which is put down with German-Italian support, and Britain trudges along slowly losing more and more of the empire.

That's all I can think of for now, I may add more later if i think of a new event to add to the timeline. Feedback, criticism, and additional ideas are always appreciated, and again, thanks in advance!

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

-Successful Decembrist Revolt/earlier industrialization and liberalization of the Russian Empire: Does anyone know any potential candidates for the Decembrists to support? I feel they'd have a better shot if their proposed figurehead hadn't already declined the throne. They don't necessarily have to revolt, either; maybe if Konstantin's refusal of the throne is made more well known, the revolt is postponed, another figurehead is chosen later, and they gain power through other means. I am also planning for them to split up, with the northern faction coming out on top as a sort of KDP-esque party, with the southern union becoming a prominent Republican force somewhat analogous to the RSDRP (maybe a Red Decembrist faction appearing and splitting off with the advent of Marxism?).

Decembrist Revolution is unlikely to succeed, if they are extremely lucky they can achieve a constitutional monarchy, the coup succeeds and they manage to put a liberal emperor which allows reforms sort of like Alexander II.

-Confederate victory/stalemate in the ACW: This is largely to take away the sentiment of "fortress America" and the sense of security prevalent in American society; with a precedent for secession and a hostile government to the south acting to destabilize the US, the average American would feel far less secure in their international position. Perhaps this could be attained by a different administration pre-war, or Lincoln resigning upon the secession causing chaos in his cabinet. As for the future of the confederacy, I'd like the Knights of the Golden Circle, and their expansionist ideal, to come into play. I'm not sure if I want them to be super successful though; I could potentially see their military failure (perhaps itself an effort to secure a win for the people with the inevitable economic stagnation) forcing reform. (I like the idea of Texas seceding from the CSA here, feels justly ironic, but I find it hard to see that happening with the threat of the US to the north. any ideas for this?). Alternatively, if they moderately succeed (maybe taking just northern Mexico and potentially the Yucatan), it could strengthen their position and allow for some interesting power dynamics in the Americas, so I'm not sure. Either way, I think eventually, Huey Long coming to power as something of a radical reformer in Dixie would be interesting, potentially trying to mend relations with the North.

The CSA certainly would manage to form the Golden Circle, at the time some random privateer could gain control of a nation trough filibustering also if the CSA wins the Second Mexican Empire survives as a CS and French puppet.

-Russo-Japanese war avoided: This is to ensure Russia retains Manchuria and has a larger naval presence in the Pacific. I want there to be something of a Russian "Naval Renaissance", leading to a Naval Race between the three powers. If the Russians accept Japan's original proposition and acquiesce to Japan's claims on Korea, this doesn't seem to far-fetched, though that would require some less passive racism and haughtiness on the Russian side. If Japan goes after German claims in the Pacific like OTL, Russia would likely get Korea in its sphere anyway. Mayhaps a Zheltorossiya?

Russia could certainly have a better navy but due to geography it cannot arrive to the level of the other great powers as the Baltic and Black sea are blocked by straits and Porth Arthur is on the other side of the world.

-WW1: A Russo-German-Italian Central Powers take on an Austria-France-Britain Entente. I've seen this done before, but the biggest problem for me has always been that this seems kind of like a suicidal move on the entente part. Austria is immediately going to collapse, so they would likely concede whatever embarrassing thing they must to ensure their survival, and France, even if hyped up on Revanche fuel, can see the writing on the wall if they're facing a Germany that has essentially 1 front to deal with and has its food needs met by Russia. To remedy this, WW1 has to be an offensive war by the CP. This could potentially be Russian provocations against the Ottomans, heightening tensions over German naval buildup, or any other such action that leads to a war out of desperation on the Entente end. To stop the Entente from settling for an early, compromise peace they need some form of boost to have confidence in their win. For this, I'll have the US be in the war early, if not from the start, due to the victory of Teddy Roosevelt in the Republican nomination. I'll save the long and short of the war since this is meant to be an outline of events, but the existence of the CSA keeps the US from diverting too many forces to Europe, and the material support of the US wasn't enough to save Austria and the Ottomans from a rapid collapse, leaving France on a 2 front war against a force they could not compete with. France falls, and Britain and the US are forced to sign a "peace with honor" in mid-1917. (a la kaiserreich).

Though this would certainly mean a CP victory, the Germans didn't want to do this because in the long run Russia is just too scary due to its population though this Russia might be weaker without the post-Russo-Japanese war industrialization and French investments. The war wouldn't be as easy as your post suggests as the Italians are very incompetent and the Ottomans could very well hold the line in the Caucasus if they aren't distracted by other fronts, this also depends on geopolitics in the Balkans which would completely be butterflied due to the Russo-German alliance.

-Central Powers Split: The dynamics of a Russia-Germany-Italy alliance would be far different to the OTL CP or Entente, all three of the powers having ambitious, expansionist, (and often competing) interests, which would flare up with a Victory in WW1. I imagine this would be something of a continuation of the old Great Power politics of the 1800s, albeit with 3 powers instead of 6-7. Post-war, I feel the points of contention would be obvious- Germany is afraid of an industrializing and developing Russia and wants to wrest control of the Mediterranean from Italy, who, in a much more powerful position, has designs on the Russian-aligned Balkans and Ethiopia(?), and Russia has Panslavist ideals and Mediterranean ambitions which fly in the face of their former allies.

The certainly could sort this out ITTL, Germany gains a lot of colonies and territories in Europe so they would have to accept Russian gains, bigger problems would be caused by Italy trying to dominate the Balkans at Serbian (and therefore Russian) expense

Greece and Alternate Sykes-Picot: this is one of my biggest befuddlements; the Ottomans, while preferring Neutrality, would likely be on the receiving end of (mostly Russia's) fuckery. While I imagine Russia's claims would be somewhat the same, what of Italy and Germany? I know Italy had some designs on the Levant, and would
get their sphere of turkey proper but I imagine Germany would want some of that sweet Middle Eastern pie, too. I was initially thinking of an international mandate for the Levant (with very crusade-y undertones, given how each of the big three represents the different denominations of Christianity) but now that I think about it, it pretty ASB (if you have some plausible ideas for its creation though, id be happy to hear it!). Greece is the biggest problem for me; they very clearly have designs on Bulgarian land, which would put them in the Franco-British-Austrian camp, but I feel that they are far too isolated from the rest of their allies to reasonably attempt to join the war effort. That being said, I don't want them to do nothing, so I'm not sure. If they do join, I imagine they'd be in the Italian Sphere of influence, maybe even earning a protectorate status like Albania.

All of this depends on what exactly happens in the Balkans as the Russo-German alliance would completely butterfly the politics there as Germany would still be suspicious about Russian influence and the other GP would oppose any gain at the Ottomans' expense butterflying away things such as the Italo-Turkish and Balkan wars.
The Middle-East probably isn't divided because the CP don't have a way to invade that part of the Empire, probably a rump Ottoman Empire remains there.

-Russian Sphere Gains: the typical Galicia, Constantinople, Greater Armenia. I do feel like now would be the point at which Armenia and Poland are made semi-autonomous client-states, in addition to achieving their African claims on Sagallo. Serbia gained Bosnia and what's left of Croatia after Italy ate the coast, and Bulgaria gained the chunks of Turkey they didn't receive at San Stefano. (I imagine this would be a widely unpopular war in Bulgaria, given they only joined out of loyalty to Russia and not for concrete gains.)

Russia would accept this only if they had loyal Balkan client states because otherwise this gains aren't enough, Bulgaria would have no problems to join a war for Macedonia.

-German Spere Gains: Germany gained Austria, Bohemia, and Slovenia. A large Hungarian state in Germany's sphere of influence is retained, including Slovakia and Vovojodina. The rest is essentially the OTL Septemberprogramm sans the puppets in Eastern Europe.

Hungary would probably be divided into a Transylvania and Hungary the first going to Russia or to Russian puppet Romania if it joins the war and what remains of Hungary is a German puppet

-Italian Sphere Gains: Italy swallows all of Dalmatia, Corsica, Nice, and Savoy. Gains protectorate over Albania and (potentially) Greece. Eritrea and Somalia (Including Somaliland) are given to Italy. Spain, intervening in the conflict once it was apparent France-Britain was losing, swallows Andorra and some token borderlands with France, in addition to the rest of Morocco (if they didn't receive it in the Berlin conference). Portugal’s fate is uncertain.

Italy would also receive Tunisia, Albania depends on if it joined the war and how high are the tensions with Russia, I would expect that the coast goes to Italy and the rest of Albania goes to Serbia and Greece if it joins the war on their side.

-To the losers: I am still reasoning out how to deal with Britain, France, and the US, but the broad strokes are that the embarrassment of the Great War led to a snowball in the US socialist movement, and an eventual election (and subsequent civil war) with a socialist government establishing power in Washington. France suffers a socialist civil war which is put down with German-Italian support, and Britain trudges along slowly losing more and more of the empire.

Britain would be mostly untouched by the war as most of its empire is still in their hands, there would be some economic problems but they would be dealt with by not returning to the gold standard,
France goes left, though I don't think there would be a civil war, I think there would be many strikes that would force the current government to resign and a leftist government would take charge.
I don't know about the US as it isn't clear from the post if the CS join the war and how that front goes.

 

[Krasno]

Decembrist Revolution is unlikely to succeed, if they are extremely lucky they can achieve a constitutional monarchy, the coup succeeds and they manage to put a liberal emperor which allows reforms sort of like Alexander II.

I agree lol, but I feel their chances could be better if the situation were changed. The revolt as it was in OTL is indeed doomed, but I feel if they managed to get popular support/have a candidate more willing to back them they could win through court intrigue if nothing else.

The CSA certainly would manage to form the Golden Circle, at the time some random privateer could gain control of a nation trough filibustering also if the CSA wins the Second Mexican Empire survives as a CS and French puppet.

I wouldn’t be so sure- the CSA would be struggling economically due to their lack of industry, and fully achieving the golden circle would anger too many of the colonial powers they likely are receiving their support from

Russia could certainly have a better navy but due to geography it cannot arrive to the level of the other great powers as the Baltic and Black sea are blocked by straits and Porth Arthur is on the other side of the world.

That is indeed a problem- but I’m hoping with greater industrialization Russia will have more reliable routes of transfer to the far east (like the trans-siberian OTL). If nothing else, maybe the eventual conquest of Constantinople could be enough to help Russian Naval ambitions.

Though this would certainly mean a CP victory, the Germans didn't want to do this because in the long run Russia is just too scary due to its population though this Russia might be weaker without the post-Russo-Japanese war industrialization and French investments. The war wouldn't be as easy as your post suggests as the Italians are very incompetent and the Ottomans could very well hold the line in the Caucasus if they aren't distracted by other fronts, this also depends on geopolitics in the Balkans which would completely be butterflied due to the Russo-German alliance.

That is certainly a factor, and I’ll have to think of something convincing to have Germany align with Russia despite its fears. San Stefano was set to essentially make Bulgaria a Russian client state- so if nothing drastic happens between then (a big ask in the balkans, I know) a 2-front war threatening Constantinople is looming over the Ottomans. As for Italy- I agree, and without the coal supply from Britain they had OTL it would be even worse. Since Italy’s allies are pretty clear earlier on in this scenario, maybe they switch from British coal earlier? Will have to research.

The certainly could sort this out ITTL, Germany gains a lot of colonies and territories in Europe so they would have to accept Russian gains, bigger problems would be caused by Italy trying to dominate the Balkans at Serbian (and therefore Russian) expense

I feel that Germany would stay at the very least wary of Russia, if nothing else, no matter what their gains are. As you said before, Germany was fearful of Russian advancement, and they would likely plan ahead for that in the peace treaty.

All of this depends on what exactly happens in the Balkans as the Russo-German alliance would completely butterfly the politics there as Germany would still be suspicious about Russian influence and the other GP would oppose any gain at the Ottomans' expense butterflying away things such as the Italo-Turkish and Balkan wars.
The Middle-East probably isn't divided because the CP don't have a way to invade that part of the Empire, probably a rump Ottoman Empire remains there.

While I do agree Germany would want to check Russian power, I don’t think they had any actual territorial designs there, and Russia and its allies have a strong-ish claim to the region. While I can see Italy being stopped, I can’t imagine the GP doing anything meaningful about the Balkan wars- the Ottomans are set to be cut off from their western holdings ITTL due to San Stefano, and there’s not much they can do about Serbia and friends (I imagine sans Bulgaria ITTL) swallowing up their lands.

Russia would accept this only if they had loyal Balkan client states because otherwise this gains aren't enough, Bulgaria would have no problems to join a war for Macedonia.

Even if their loyalty was in question- Serbia had long claimed that land and had its own interests in the region, and I presume they’d get what was left after Germany and Italy eat Slovenia and Dalmatia. Bulgaria already has Macedonia, thanks to San Stefano.

Hungary would probably be divided into a Transylvania and Hungary the first going to Russia or to Russian puppet Romania if it joins the war and what remains of Hungary is a German puppet

Good point- I largely forgot about Romania. Their goals and gains are largely the same as OTL.

Italy would also receive Tunisia, Albania depends on if it joined the war and how high are the tensions with Russia, I would expect that the coast goes to Italy and the rest of Albania goes to Serbia and Greece if it joins the war on their side.

I agree with that.

Britain would be mostly untouched by the war as most of its empire is still in their hands, there would be some economic problems but they would be dealt with by not returning to the gold standard,
France goes left, though I don't think there would be a civil war, I think there would be many strikes that would force the current government to resign and a leftist government would take charge.
I don't know about the US as it isn't clear from the post if the CS join the war and how that front goes.

I feel the CS would stay neutral, but act as a tempering force on the US. They can’t commit all of their resources because if they seem weak at home, perfidious Dixie could strike. The US would be on a long downward spiral from the civil war ITTL.

I agree with Britain, but is there any potential for significant political change? If nothing else, maybe this sinks Britain into isolationism, which makes me fear for their international obligations…

For France, maybe a failed leftist revolution followed by the formation of a strong nationalist movement a la nazism? That feels a bit cheap, though. Mostly I’m just trying to avoid them becoming the CoF from Kaiserreich.

Thanks for all the feedback!

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I agree lol, but I feel their chances could be better if the situation were changed. The revolt as it was in OTL is indeed doomed, but I feel if they managed to get popular support/have a candidate more willing to back them they could win through court intrigue if nothing else.

Maybe they can find a member of the royal family which agrees with their ideals, but for this to happen they should continue to believe in a constitutional monarchy. This Tsar would be the Nicholas II of OTL which would mean Russia is much more developed than OTL

I wouldn’t be so sure- the CSA would be struggling economically due to their lack of industry, and fully achieving the golden circle would anger too many of the colonial powers they likely are receiving their support from

They weren't struggling until they got blockaded by the US in the war, conquering the small Central American nations isn't very difficult the slightly more difficult part is conquering Cuba but that also shouldn't be a too big of a problem. IMO the CS would start to industrialize after the war because they have to arrive to the level of the North and because plantation based economy is nearing the end.

That is certainly a factor, and I’ll have to think of something convincing to have Germany align with Russia despite its fears.

Well it's not too difficult, you simply have to make the German Emperor of the time not be too worried about Russia and prefer Russia over Austria-Hungary, the Austro-Hungarians would then side with the French and Britain, Germany is diplomatically isolated and is forced to ally itself with Russia or be surrounded on all sides

San Stefano was set to essentially make Bulgaria a Russian client state- so if nothing drastic happens between then (a big ask in the balkans, I know) a 2-front war threatening Constantinople is looming over the Ottomans. As for Italy- I agree, and without the coal supply from Britain they had OTL it would be even worse. Since Italy’s allies are pretty clear earlier on in this scenario, maybe they switch from British coal earlier? Will have to research.

San Stefano would still be destroyed by the GP, nobody on the continent wanted this huge, Russian-friendly Bulgaria; literally every single state will oppose the treaty leading to the same path as OTL.
Italy didn't switch from British oil and coal pre-WW2 so I don't think they will do it ITTL, Italians were never ready to go to war with France and Britain.

While I do agree Germany would want to check Russian power, I don’t think they had any actual territorial designs there, and Russia and its allies have a strong-ish claim to the region. While I can see Italy being stopped, I can’t imagine the GP doing anything meaningful about the Balkan wars- the Ottomans are set to be cut off from their western holdings ITTL due to San Stefano, and there’s not much they can do about Serbia and friends (I imagine without Bulgaria ITTL) swallowing up their lands.

San Stefano doesn't remain as I've said.
Italy wouldn't be allowed to wage war with the Ottomans because this would weaken them, this would convince the Italians that France and Britain aren't reliable and that their future is in Germany and Russia. Without the Italo-Turkish War the Balkans wars don't happen because Ottoman weakness isn't shown and because their army isn't trapped in Libya.
That is why I was saying that you are underestimating the Entente's (which isn't their name here) chances: Italy is terrible at war and would really be destroyed by the French at some point, Austria-Hungary would be weak but they wouldn't fall immediately more like in a year, the Balkans would be in a though spot, the Ottomans have forces to halt the Russians in the Caucasus and at least hold the line in the Balkans.
Btw Albania doesn't exist here so it's probably partitioned

Even if their loyalty was in question- Serbia had long claimed that land and had its own interests in the region, and I presume they’d get what was left after Germany and Italy eat Slovenia and Dalmatia. Bulgaria already has Macedonia, thanks to San Stefano.

In the sense that Germany gets Mittle-Afrika, Austria, Czechia, the Ardennes and North-Eastern France, Russia gets almost nothing in comparison.

I agree with Britain, but is there any potential for significant political change? If nothing else, maybe this sinks Britain into isolationism, which makes me fear for their international obligations…

Certainly politics are changed but rise in ultra-nationalism isn't my first guess

For France, maybe a failed leftist revolution followed by the formation of a strong nationalist movement a la nazism? That feels a bit cheap, though. Mostly I’m just trying to avoid them becoming the CoF from Kaiserreich.

I think a socialist government will come to power, Nazism is unique there is no movement which is even similar to it in the world

 

[Krasno]

Maybe they can find a member of the royal family which agrees with their ideals, but for this to happen they should continue to believe in a constitutional monarchy. This Tsar would be the Nicholas II of OTL which would mean Russia is much more developed than OTL

the Northern union of Decembrists was constitutional monarchy oriented OTL, and I planned to have them be th lead faction anyway, so yeah. The Southern Union was the republican one, so there’s some fun to be had there politically.

They weren't struggling until they got blockaded by the US in the war, conquering the small Central American nations isn't very difficult the slightly more difficult part is conquering Cuba but that also shouldn't be a too big of a problem. IMO the CS would start to industrialize after the war because they have to arrive to the level of the North and because plantation based economy is nearing the end.

I do agree they’d industrialize eventually, but I imagine that it’d take at least a generation- correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the rural, agrarian, chattel slavery based society seen as the “southern way of life”? Replacing a slave based economy with an industrial society was one of the main causes of the civil war, after all.
I doubt they’d be in great shape after the civil war, too, and keeping a good face to the imperial powers would likely be vital given their increasingly unpopular position as an international pariah.

Well it's not too difficult, you simply have to make the German Emperor of the time not be too worried about Russia and prefer Russia over Austria-Hungary, the Austro-Hungarians would then side with the French and Britain, Germany is diplomatically isolated and is forced to ally itself with Russia or be surrounded on all sides

True enough.

San Stefano would still be destroyed by the GP, nobody on the continent wanted this huge, Russian-friendly Bulgaria; literally every single state will oppose the treaty leading to the same path as OTL.
Italy didn't switch from British oil and coal pre-WW2 so I don't think they will do it ITTL, Italians were never ready to go to war with France and Britain.

Wouldn’t German support settle the issue, though? I doubt Britain or France would be willing to engage in a massive land war for Bulgaria, especially after the wildly unpopular Crimean war, so I can see diplomatic concessions to the other GP winning the day. (Bosnia going to Austria, for example.)

San Stefano doesn't remain as I've said.
Italy wouldn't be allowed to wage war with the Ottomans because this would weaken them, this would convince the Italians that France and Britain aren't reliable and that their future is in Germany and Russia.

maybe they could receive it as a concession? As I said, I do want San Stefano to go through- but this also likely means that the idea of the ottomans being a bulwark against Russia will lay dead in the water. I can see them being carved up by the various powers as a result of this, with Libya ending up in Italian hands.

That is why I was saying that you are underestimating the Entente's (which isn't their name here) chances: Italy is terrible at war and would really be destroyed by the French at some point, Austria-Hungary would be weak but they wouldn't fall immediately more like in a year, the Balkans would be in a though spot, the Ottomans have forces to halt the Russians in the Caucasus and at least hold the line in the Balkans.
Btw Albania doesn't exist here so it's probably partitioned

I suppose so; though, I imagine it would be a mixed bag for Italy; while the Austrian front probably won’t immediately collapsed, Austria proper is in an awful position to defend against both Italy and Germany simultaneously. A land bridge with Russia and Germany would make France Italy’s only real priority, which, while not ideal, seeing that France is a few steps above Austria in terms of power, would be some reheat tempered by the fact that most French forces would likely be tied up fighting Germany. As for the Ottomans- they had trouble handling Russia when it was also simultaneously caught up in Germany and Austria OTL. Since Russia has a loyal Bulgaria ITTL, I imagine the Ottomans would collapse rather quickly.

In the sense that Germany gets Mittle-Afrika, Austria, Czechia, the Ardennes and North-Eastern France, Russia gets almost nothing in comparison.

They could definitely get more, but I was trying to be moderate in what Russia gains due to German fears, and the fact they didn’t have a major frontline opponent- maybe they could get a client Anatolia, given that the ottomans would be their greatest foe in this conflict.

Certainly politics are changed but rise in ultra-nationalism isn't my first guess

I think a socialist government will come to power, Nazism is unique there is no movement which is even similar to it in the world

I wasn’t proposing something exactly like the Nazis- but given their situations are somewhat similar ITTL, I could imagine some similar form of ultra nationalism gaining power. Even so, I do admit that a leftist revolution would likely be more realistic; decades of revanchist ideology leading to multiple losses would likely choke French nationalism for a while.

 

[Krasno]

Additional Questions:

-How would France act in a Europe where it has enemies on every side? Germany, Italy, and Spain all ate chunks of it post war, so I imagine they’d be forced to compromise somewhat. Even if they had a socialist revolution, they don’t have the security of being further away from their greatest threats; a hegemonic Germany stands right at their doorstep.

-How would the Chinese civil war play out without a significant nearby communist force (the USSR) existing to influence them play out?

-what would happen to Japan if it were to lose WW1? Additionally, with Russia posing a nearby threat to Japan, would they be forced into making greater concessions in the face of a loss? (I’m thinking German Taiwan and Russian Hokkaido here)

-what would the Middle East look like in the face of a British defeat? I imagine Russia gains significant influence over Iran and Afghanistan.

-What happens to French North Africa in the case of a revolution? I don’t really find the KR sand France realistic, but I don’t see Italy or Spain sitting idly by while prime colonies go unclaimed.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

the Northern union of Decembrists was constitutional monarchy oriented OTL, and I planned to have them be th lead faction anyway, so yeah. The Southern Union was the republican one, so there’s some fun to be had there politically.

At the beginning yes, but IIRC they had one dude who convinced them that "the only right type of government is that of the US" i.e. democracy so removing him is necessary for the plot to succeed to some extent.

I do agree they’d industrialize eventually, but I imagine that it’d take at least a generation- correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the rural, agrarian, chattel slavery based society seen as the “southern way of life”? Replacing a slave based economy with an industrial society was one of the main causes of the civil war, after all.
I doubt they’d be in great shape after the civil war, too, and keeping a good face to the imperial powers would likely be vital given their increasingly unpopular position as an international pariah

What really is the future of the CSA?

When there is a scenario about the Confederacy winning the American Civil War there often is the thread that the CS and US inevitably hate each other,(sometimes the CS does the Golden Circle thing,) the US inevitably joins the CP, the CS always joins the Entente, the CS is always weaker than its...

www.alternatehistory.com

This explores things more in depth, however for your TL a successful CS us necessary because they need to become a serious threat to the US in WW1.

True enough.

Also you could make the Germans take some territories from the Austrians (I'm thinking about something in the Northern Sudetenland) as the not-yet-Kaiser forces Bismarck to do so and combined with the Germans not helping Austria in its conflict with Russia this convinces the Austrians to search for better allies.

Wouldn’t German support settle the issue, though? I doubt Britain or France would be willing to engage in a massive land war for Bulgaria, especially after the wildly unpopular Crimean war, so I can see diplomatic concessions to the other GP winning the day. (Bosnia going to Austria, for example.)

They didn't need to engage in a land war IOTL, pretty much everyone will refuse to accept San Stefano, both ITTL and IOTL; though you could make Bulgaria survive with more territories than OTL, but keeping the Ottomans alive is absolutely necessary ITTL, so no Italo-Turkish War and no Balkan Wars.

maybe they could receive it as a concession? As I said, I do want San Stefano to go through- but this also likely means that the idea of the ottomans being a bulwark against Russia will lay dead in the water. I can see them being carved up by the various powers as a result of this, with Libya ending up in Italian hands.

I doubt, maybe they get economic concessions and reduced tariffs for Italian ships, but this won't really be enough to satisfy the Italians.

I suppose so; though, I imagine it would be a mixed bag for Italy; while the Austrian front probably won’t immediately collapsed, Austria proper is in an awful position to defend against both Italy and Germany simultaneously. A land bridge with Russia and Germany would make France Italy’s only real priority, which, while not ideal, seeing that France is a few steps above Austria in terms of power, would be some reheat tempered by the fact that most French forces would likely be tied up fighting Germany. As for the Ottomans- they had trouble handling Russia when it was also simultaneously caught up in Germany and Austria OTL. Since Russia has a loyal Bulgaria ITTL, I imagine the Ottomans would collapse rather quickly

Italians will be in a tough spot, you can see how well went their front OTL with the Austrians and that was their only front in the entire war; Italy here has to worry about their industries being severely under-supplied in terms of raw materials, their navy getting crushed and an extra front. Knowing the Italians (especially their leadership) they'll have senseless charges against the enemy lines which will just be a waste of resources.
As for the Ottomans, you're kind of underestimating them, they had to fight the British at Gallipoli, in Southern Mesopotamia and Levant on top of fighting the Russians, yes they don't have the greatest of armies but they should be able to hold the line, and without their armies trapped in Libya they should be able to make some modest gains against the Balkan countries with AH's help.
The Germans also need more troops elsewhere as the front with AH is much longer than that with Russia.

Couldn't remove the icon

They could definitely get more, but I was trying to be moderate in what Russia gains due to German fears, and the fact they didn’t have a major frontline opponent- maybe they could get a client Anatolia, given that the ottomans would be their greatest foe in this conflict.

They could conquer the Middle East, the Germans would use it as an excuse to give less territory to Russia in Europe though.

I wasn’t proposing something exactly like the Nazis- but given their situations are somewhat similar ITTL, I could imagine some similar form of ultra nationalism gaining power. Even so, I do admit that a leftist revolution would likely be more realistic; decades of revanchist ideology leading to multiple losses would likely choke French nationalism for a while

Domestic and economic situation in France that lost WWI

CP win WWI and France surrenders in 1917/18 (USA stays neutral). How would the situation in Ftance have developed? A Revolution obviously had to happen. Maybe a civil war? Who would have won? WOuld it have been an unstable republic like the Weimar Republic? Would socialists have came to power or...

www.alternatehistory.com

How would France act in a Europe where it has enemies on every side? Germany, Italy, and Spain all ate chunks of it post war, so I imagine they’d be forced to compromise somewhat. Even if they had a socialist revolution, they don’t have the security of being further away from their greatest threats; a hegemonic Germany stands right at their doorstep

After getting destroyed twice and being diplomatically isolated, France has to accept reality and try to continue their life in that situation. They would certainly hate the Germans but they can't do much about that.

How would the Chinese civil war play out without a significant nearby communist force (the USSR) existing to influence them play out?

1. The Republic of China might never form since the Russians would try to prevent it if they have a sphere of influence in Manchuria and the other GP would intervene immediately due to fear of Russian expansionism.
2. If China still collapses ITTL without the Russo-Japanese war, then Imperial Russia wouldn't support the Kuomintang in China as a unified China would have much more chances of opposing them, they would just support a certain Clique
3. Japan wouldn't get as involved in China since they have no way of getting past the Russians

what would happen to Japan if it were to lose WW1? Additionally, with Russia posing a nearby threat to Japan, would they be forced into making greater concessions in the face of a loss? (I’m thinking German Taiwan and Russian Hokkaido here)

They would probably surrender before total defeat as the civilian government still controls the military.

what would the Middle East look like in the face of a British defeat? I imagine Russia gains significant influence over Iran and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan would probably fall in the Russian sphere of influence, Northern Iran is occupied by the Russians but Britain would NEVER give up on Iran's oil so it is divided between Russian and British sphere of influence.
Though the occupation of Iran might not be accepted if the Russians are on Germany's side but then again what could the British really do? Maybe that's why WW1 starts here.

What happens to French North Africa in the case of a revolution? I don’t really find the KR sand France realistic, but I don’t see Italy or Spain sitting idly by while prime colonies go unclaimed.

Spain (if it joins the war) would get Morocco and some other colonies like on the Gulf of Guinea maybe?
Italy since it was terrible in the war should be happy with only Tunisia and Libya (at the Ottoman's expense).
Germany would only take the Congo and maybe the Central African Republic?
I doubt a revolution would happen as said before.

 

[Krasno]

At the beginning yes, but IIRC they had one dude who convinced them that "the only right type of government is that of the US" i.e. democracy so removing him is necessary for the plot to succeed to some extent.

Not exactly; the northern society wrote a CONSTITUTION based off of the US; he and the majority of the northern society believed in constitutional monarchy (at least for a time)- those radicals that wanted a republic in the north created a “southern society branch” in the north.

What really is the future of the CSA?

When there is a scenario about the Confederacy winning the American Civil War there often is the thread that the CS and US inevitably hate each other,(sometimes the CS does the Golden Circle thing,) the US inevitably joins the CP, the CS always joins the Entente, the CS is always weaker than its...

www.alternatehistory.com

This explores things more in depth, however for your TL a successful CS us necessary because they need to become a serious threat to the US in WW1.

They’d struggle to industrialize no matter what- and the US fears ITTL will be that a British-boosted CSA and Canada sandwich the US- which is why they refrain from joining the war right away. The fear goes away as the Brit’s begin to be more exhausted in the war, and is why Britain eventually sues for peace.

Also you could make the Germans take some territories from the Austrians (I'm thinking about something in the Northern Sudetenland) as the not-yet-Kaiser forces Bismarck to do so and combined with the Germans not helping Austria in its conflict with Russia this convinces the Austrians to search for better allies.

There’s still the problem of Austria being hopelessly outmatched- but this is the line of thinking I was going for. Another problem is the potential of Bismarck being sidelined or resigning because of it being forced through, which is not what I want.

They didn't need to engage in a land war IOTL, pretty much everyone will refuse to accept San Stefano, both ITTL and IOTL; though you could make Bulgaria survive with more territories than OTL, but keeping the Ottomans alive is absolutely necessary ITTL, so no Italo-Turkish War and no Balkan Wars.

With German support the ensuing counter-treaty will likely favour Russia-Bulgaria a lot more, though; maybe Bulgaria gets east Rumelia from the get-go.

I doubt, maybe they get economic concessions and reduced tariffs for Italian ships, but this won't really be enough to satisfy the Italians.

More motivation for the Italians, though.

Couldn't remove the icon

I still don’t think the Ottomans would be as good as you say; they’d very quickly be kicked out of the Balkans and would be losing ground in the Caucasus- they’d only really be kept up by British support. Britain and France would be kind of like Germany in this timeline lol, they’re keeping their weaker allies afloat and suffering as a result.

They could conquer the Middle East, the Germans would use it as an excuse to give less territory to Russia in Europe though.

Russia controlling the entirety of the oil rich Middle East would be unacceptable for Germany; Russia may get the lions share, but they’d have to split the goods somehow.

Domestic and economic situation in France that lost WWI

CP win WWI and France surrenders in 1917/18 (USA stays neutral). How would the situation in Ftance have developed? A Revolution obviously had to happen. Maybe a civil war? Who would have won? WOuld it have been an unstable republic like the Weimar Republic? Would socialists have came to power or...

www.alternatehistory.com

After getting destroyed twice and being diplomatically isolated, France has to accept reality and try to continue their life in that situation. They would certainly hate the Germans but they can't do much about that.

The focus would certainly be on rebuilding- Germany would be the endgame goal.

1. The Republic of China might never form since the Russians would try to prevent it if they have a sphere of influence in Manchuria and the other GP would intervene immediately due to fear of Russian expansionism.

Great game over China! Yay…

1. If China still collapses ITTL without the Russo-Japanese war, then Imperial Russia wouldn't support the Kuomintang in China as a unified China would have much more chances of opposing them, they would just support a certain Clique

Divide and conquer!

1. Japan wouldn't get as involved in China since they have no way of getting past the Russians

This does mean a closer relationship with Germany, though. Wait, a Germany-Italy-Japan alliance? Where have I heard this before!

They would probably surrender before total defeat as the civilian government still controls the military.

This does mean political turmoil for Japan, though. A stab in the back myth is likely.

Afghanistan would probably fall in the Russian sphere of influence, Northern Iran is occupied by the Russians but Britain would NEVER give up on Iran's oil so it is divided between Russian and British sphere of influence.

I agree.

Though the occupation of Iran might not be accepted if the Russians are on Germany's side but then again what could the British really do? Maybe that's why WW1 starts here.

This is a possibility, but I feel the Brits starting a Great War isn’t the most plausible- their diplomacy is more “wait and see” focused, after all. They’d need to be confident Germany wouldn’t intervene.

Spain (if it joins the war) would get Morocco and some other colonies like on the Gulf of Guinea maybe?
Italy since it was terrible in the war should be happy with only Tunisia and Libya (at the Ottoman's expense).

I feel Italy would benefit a lot more just by being the “third option”- even if both Russia and Germany have some conflicts with Italy, it’s a lot less than the ones they have with each other. Diplomacy wins the day, and compromises must be made- Italian expansion is one such compromise.

Germany would only take the Congo and maybe the Central African Republic?
I doubt a revolution would happen as said before.

Germany’s African gains would pretty much just be the Spetemberprogramm.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Not exactly; the northern society wrote a CONSTITUTION based off of the US; he and the majority of the northern society believed in constitutional monarchy (at least for a time)- those radicals that wanted a republic in the north created a “southern society branch” in the north.

The revolutionaries didn't have united vision after the coup some believed in a constitutional monarchy and others in a republic, they were a clique of "we don’t like the Tsar" not a unified group.
And the Southern and Northern Unions were also separated by geography since the first was composed of military officers in Ukraine while the latter's components lived in St.Petersburg.

They’d struggle to industrialize no matter what- and the US fears ITTL will be that a British-boosted CSA and Canada sandwich the US- which is why they refrain from joining the war right away. The fear goes away as the Brit’s begin to be more exhausted in the war, and is why Britain eventually sues for peace.

They would struggle but if they are a failed state then the scenario doesn't work, they need to at least be OK in terms of industry and military.

There’s still the problem of Austria being hopelessly outmatched- but this is the line of thinking I was going for. Another problem is the potential of Bismarck being sidelined or resigning because of it being forced through, which is not what I want.

Whilhelm I doesn't want to kick Bismarck out, just hardliners convince/force them to annex that

I still don’t think the Ottomans would be as good as you say; they’d very quickly be kicked out of the Balkans and would be losing ground in the Caucasus- they’d only really be kept up by British support. Britain and France would be kind of like Germany in this timeline lol, they’re keeping their weaker allies afloat and suffering as a result

OE and AH (especially the first) would receive Entente support to industrialize ITTL and they would also be supported in pretty much everything by UK and France.
Also how do the Low-Lands factor in the scenario without the Schlieffen plan going trough at the beginning of the war, they all held pro Entente sentiments and they would be approached by France since the front with Germany hasn't moved.

Russia controlling the entirety of the oil rich Middle East would be unacceptable for Germany; Russia may get the lions share, but they’d have to split the goods somehow

At the time they didn't know there was oil and the Russians aren’t pushovers, they won't give up on what they have fought for.

The focus would certainly be on rebuilding- Germany would be the endgame goal.

Probably.

Great game over China! Yay…

Russia has the initial advantage since they already control much of China and since GB wouldn’t be that concerned about China in their situation.

This does mean a closer relationship with Germany, though. Wait, a Germany-Italy-Japan alliance? Where have I heard this before!

This does mean political turmoil for Japan, though. A stab in the back myth is likely.

Not that much, they've lost the war but there is no Wall Street and the economy is doing fine since they aren't exhausted like the European GP.

This is a possibility, but I feel the Brits starting a Great War isn’t the most plausible- their diplomacy is more “wait and see” focused, after all. They’d need to be confident Germany wouldn’t intervene.

They are much more confident about their objectives if they have to fight Germany and Russia since they have always been a threat to their interests.

I feel Italy would benefit a lot more just by being the “third option”- even if both Russia and Germany have some conflicts with Italy, it’s a lot less than the ones they have with each other. Diplomacy wins the day, and compromises must be made- Italian expansion is one such compromise

Italy is clearly in the German camp since they have conflicts and ambitions in the Balkans, the Germans would try to push for Italian expansion to prevent Russian one.

 

[Krasno]

People aren't going to revolt so early because they haven't started to starve yet. And yes they would be losing land but they would try to fight until the end because the Habsburgs know that their empire won't survive if they lose. It still takes time to transport troops when enemy soldiers are annoying you even if they can't make defeat you.

This is the same issue for what you were saying about the ottomans earlier- starvation certainly was a large factor in the Russian revolution, but that caused the average Russian to want regime change. If there are strong national identities/national resistance movements, they would revolt a lot earlier- essentially as soon as the empires start to lose control.

German and Italian troops are busy elsewhere and the Russians would see their objective and refuse their "help".

After Austria falls, they wouldn’t NEED to send it all to France- France is already overwhelmed, and Russia wouldn’t refuse help because A. It means less dead Russians and B. They wouldn’t WANT the entire Middle East, that’s not something Russia can control all by themselves, something which would be apparent even from the perspective of expansionist empires. It’s the same reason Britain gave territories to France in the Levant after WW1- it wasn’t out of goodwill, it’s because it’s easier to control a group of people if they’re divided between empires. Taking in millions of Arab people keeps them united against you and only strengthens the Arab nationalism that the Ottomans began to collapse from- They’d have to compromise no matter what. Plus, while Russia and Germany are distrustful of each other, they’re not outright hostile to each other- and the small conflicting claims aren’t big enough between any of the big 3 (2.5?) to immediately cause animosity post war. And again, Russia wouldn’t directly conquer the entire Middle East, they’d only need to go so far as to subjugate Anatolia and the rest is easy pickings for the other powers.

Russia isn't weak and they know the Italians and Germans are their enemies, they won't give up on the Middle East, it’s either theirs or none's.

Again, the animosity isn’t so clear yet- they don’t trust each other, but they’re not outright hostile. There’s still a chance for coexistence, and the diplomats would be seeking compromises.

Was Kosovo a bad deal before the Yugoslav collapse?

It certainly caused a lot of ethnic tension- more Albanians means they either have a stronger resistance to them or resort to even more brutal colonization methods than OTL- and that would catch the attention of foreign press.

Have you ever heard revolts in Epirus?

? In Greek or Albanian Epirus? Why would they?

Did the Albanians manage to kick the Italians out in WW2?

They had a relatively successful partisan movement which forced the axis out- though by that point it was German soldiers, not Italian.

They can't have a protectorate because then most of the participants will be unhappy.

Why? It’s a compromise position- Albania retains independence, and Italy gains more influence over the Med.

Carving up Albania is going to happen in 99.9999999999999% cases.
It's worth it, the Albanians cannot seriously threaten your hold on their lands.

Just “having land” isn’t the only factor in taking stuff- the lands Albania holds are largely useless. It’s not particularly worth anything, and the only thing that could come of it is guerilla forces destroying anything useful you may have built there. The way you’re suggesting they deal with Albania is only something the great powers did to non Europeans. Muslim though they may be, they benefit from being European.

There will be places where it will remain profitable and those who aren't will be sold to the US, willingly or not

Yes, British companies will still be operating, what I mean is Britain can’t protect the assets of those companies until it rebuilds in like, a decade or two.

A better example is the Dutch and Indonesia - they’ll give up on it only when they don't have the choice anymore.

For Spain, especially a Carlist Spain, that moment isn’t far off.

 

[Krasno]

The revolutionaries didn't have united vision after the coup some believed in a constitutional monarchy and others in a republic, they were a clique of "we don’t like the Tsar" not a unified group.
And the Southern and Northern Unions were also separated by geography since the first was composed of military officers in Ukraine while the latter's components lived in St.Petersburg.

The Northern societies were typically those who had accepted the decision of a constitutional monarchy- those who didn’t were situated in the south and were known as the southern society. There were also republicans in the north, yes, but they split off and had a “southern branch” in the north- the constitutional monarchy decision was pretty solidified in the north ATP

They would struggle but if they are a failed state then the scenario doesn't work, they need to at least be OK in terms of industry and military.

I was thinking of having them be essentially propped up by Franco-British business interests originally, and only gradually inching to reform. It’s ASB for them to match the US 1-1, but they can definitely get strong enough to pose a threat to the US.

Wilhelm I doesn't want to kick Bismarck out, just hardliners convince/force them to annex that

Bismarck may resign, though. IIRC there was an incident the Kaiser tried to force through and Bismarck threatened to resign. Also, he wasn’t the most popular among the parliament, so he may be sidelined due to this.

OE and AH (especially the first) would receive Entente support to industrialize ITTL and they would also be supported in pretty much everything by UK and France.

Industrialization isn’t their biggest problem, though- Austria was pretty well industrialized OTL, and the Ottomans were on their way- for Austria it’s the fragile balance they have to uphold between the ethnicities, and the fact that Germans are a minority group. Ottomans have much the same problem (but less so- I don’t know what % Turks made up in the OE, but I think it’s more than the % of Austrians in the AE. They also don’t have the problem of power sharing with their own respective Hungary.)

Also how do the Low-Lands factor in the scenario without the Schlieffen plan going trough at the beginning of the war, they all held pro Entente sentiments and they would be approached by France since the front with Germany hasn't moved.

They may try to stay neutral, especially since they would certainly become the battlegrounds of any Franco-German war. With more time, I could see the French being sneaky and having the Dutch/Belgians mutually guarantee each other, though- that would cause more trouble for Germany.

At the time they didn't know there was oil and the Russians aren’t pushovers, they won't give up on what they have fought for.

Iraqi oil had been discovered in the OE, and the Levant served as an important naval stop on their way through the Suez. And again, Russia would be willing to compromise- they’re not greedy or overly ambitious enough to control the entire med. I can see them getting the Lions share- (Kurdistan, Jerusalem, maybe some sort of port in the gulf) but it’s more beneficial for them to share, too- it means the Arabs are easier to control and they can potentially find ways to pit Germany and Italy against each other.

Russia has the initial advantage since they already control much of China and since GB wouldn’t be that concerned about China in their situation.

Russia would mostly control the frontier, though (Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang). They definitely have the most influence but it def isn’t unchallenged.

Not that much, they've lost the war but there is no Wall Street and the economy is doing fine since they aren't exhausted like the European GP.

The Wall Street crash could well still happen- and I imagine they’d be significantly more exhausted than OTL, given they saw large frontline action against Russia. I don’t think it would be the same as OTL, but I do think they’d have some sort of radical shift.

They are much more confident about their objectives if they have to fight Germany and Russia since they have always been a threat to their interests.

But they’re just that- a threat. Germany and Russia alone were terrifying for Britain, together they’d be very dangerous. Britain would be cautious, if anything, and would likely want them exhausted fighting a war in Europe before they intervene.

Italy is clearly in the German camp since they have conflicts and ambitions in the Balkans, the Germans would try to push for Italian expansion to prevent Russian one.

Italy also had ambitions on German Slovenia, and the Italians ITTL aren’t directly controlled by fascists- they can come to a compromise with Russia just as much. Also, that wouldn’t be crystal clear in the peace conference- Italy is the largest power not directly affiliated to Germany or Russia, so Russia could also butter it up with some concessions.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The Northern societies were typically those who had accepted the decision of a constitutional monarchy- those who didn’t were situated in the south and were known as the southern society. There were also republicans in the north, yes, but they split off and had a “southern branch” in the north- the constitutional monarchy decision was pretty solidified in the north ATP

Not as far as I know.

I was thinking of having them be essentially propped up by Franco-British business interests originally, and only gradually inching to reform. It’s ASB for them to match the US 1-1, but they can definitely get strong enough to pose a threat to the US

If their economy remains based on selling primary resources like most of Latin America then they can't seriously threaten the US, they have to modernize to do so.

 

[Krasno]

If their economy remains based on selling primary resources like most of Latin America then they can't seriously threaten the US, they have to modernize to do so.

Even modernizing they wouldn’t match the US 1-1, and I wasn’t saying they wouldn’t- just that it’d be slow.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Bismarck may resign, though. IIRC there was an incident the Kaiser tried to force through and Bismarck threatened to resign. Also, he wasn’t the most popular among the parliament, so he may be sidelined due to this.

Bismarck always managed to fight his way trough troubles up until the moment Whilhelm II took power, what I'm talking about is most of the government supporting annexation and Bismarck not really having a choice, if he threatens to resing he'll have to go back on his word.

Industrialization isn’t their biggest problem, though- Austria was pretty well industrialized OTL, and the Ottomans were on their way- for Austria it’s the fragile balance they have to uphold between the ethnicities, and the fact that Germans are a minority group. Ottomans have much the same problem (but less so- I don’t know what % Turks made up in the OE, but I think it’s more than the % of Austrians in the AE. They also don’t have the problem of power sharing with their own respective Hungary)

AH had an OK industry but they still were pretty agrarian and most of their industries are in Austria and Bohemia.
Germans aren't that much of a problem, they won't be more loyal to Germany than Austria, more problems would be caused by minorities who have always tried to reach independence, however they should be fine for a moment since they aren't starving yet.
Most of OE is Arab more than Turk and ITTL they hold their pre-1912 borders sine the GP won't allow the Italo-Turkish War and that prevents the Balkan wars.

They may try to stay neutral, especially since they would certainly become the battlegrounds of any Franco-German war. With more time, I could see the French being sneaky and having the Dutch/Belgians mutually guarantee each other, though- that would cause more trouble for Germany.

They held many Entente sympathies and they wouldn't have that much of a choice - you either join us or we send our troops trough you.

Iraqi oil had been discovered in the OE, and the Levant served as an important naval stop on their way through the Suez. And again, Russia would be willing to compromise- they’re not greedy or overly ambitious enough to control the entire med. I can see them getting the Lions share- (Kurdistan, Jerusalem, maybe some sort of port in the gulf) but it’s more beneficial for them to share, too- it means the Arabs are easier to control and they can potentially find ways to pit Germany and Italy against each other.

Russians wouldn't allow the Germans to take what they have fought for and the Germans have made it clear that they will give as little as possible, there is no point in sharing if the Germans won't share elsewhere.
Sharing will only mean that Germany has an easier time with Russia as they have to divert in the Middle East.
And controlling the Levant doesn't mean controlling the Mediterranean, just makes it easier.

Russia would mostly control the frontier, though (Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang). They definitely have the most influence but it def isn’t unchallenged

But the other powers won't be united, meaning they can exploit their initial advantage.

The Wall Street crash could well still happen- and I imagine they’d be significantly more exhausted than OTL, given they saw large frontline action against Russia. I don’t think it would be the same as OTL, but I do think they’d have some sort of radical shift.

Wall street crash happened because all of the world's economies were connected to the US after WW1, here this doesn't happen since the US never starts to give loans to everyone.
Even if it did happen, it won't have the same consequences as OTL.

But they’re just that- a threat. Germany and Russia alone were terrifying for Britain, together they’d be very dangerous. Britain would be cautious, if anything, and would likely want them exhausted fighting a war in Europe before they intervene.

OTL they had no problem in joining the war, here they are fighting their enemies of forever. Also without their help Europe would probably lose meaning they have to intervene.

Italy also had ambitions on German Slovenia, and the Italians ITTL aren’t directly controlled by fascists- they can come to a compromise with Russia just as much. Also, that wouldn’t be crystal clear in the peace conference- Italy is the largest power not directly affiliated to Germany or Russia, so Russia could also butter it up with some concessions.

Italy would be used by Germany to limit Russian gains and they have conflicts with Russian allies (Serbia) meaning that they clearly are against Russia's interests.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Even modernizing they wouldn’t match the US 1-1, and I wasn’t saying they wouldn’t- just that it’d be slow.

I know but they have to be enough of a threat to dissuade the US from intervening against GB, so they have to have an army capable of fighting the US with GB's help.

 

[Krasno]

Bismarck always managed to fight his way trough troubles up until the moment Whilhelm II took power, what I'm talking about is most of the government supporting annexation and Bismarck not really having a choice, if he threatens to resing he'll have to go back on his word.

Bismarck was also very stubborn, though- if they forced this through against his wishes, he may well be petty enough to resign.

AH had an OK industry but they still were pretty agrarian and most of their industries are in Austria and Bohemia.

Those are also the most loyal parts of the empire, though- having a lot of industry in Hungary and Illyria could give them too much power.

Germans aren't that much of a problem, they won't be more loyal to Germany than Austria,

That’s not what I meant- I meant that, being a minority in a country you control doesn’t usually end well.

more problems would be caused by minorities who have always tried to reach independence, however they should be fine for a moment since they aren't starving yet.

Starvation isn’t the only thing to consider when it comes to revolts, nor is it the only thing that causes them- Russia would’ve been fomenting Russophilia in Galicia (which there already was OTL) and potentially convincing Hungarian leaders to rebel.

Most of OE is Arab more than Turk and ITTL they hold their pre-1912 borders sine the GP won't allow the Italo-Turkish War and that prevents the Balkan wars.

Yeah- so they’ll have the same problem of being a minority in their empire.

They held many Entente sympathies and they wouldn't have that much of a choice - you either join us or we send our troops trough you.

That would be a stupid move by the entente- it would only push the Benelux to the CP and paint them as aggressors. It’s more beneficial to them to have Belgium and the Netherlands agree to mutual defence and help them prepare for an eventual German onslaught. Alternatively, they could convince maybe just Belgium to allow them to pass their armies through peacefully- but that would force Belgium into being a belligerent, and, again, they don’t want to be a battlefield (even if it may be inevitable).

Russians wouldn't allow the Germans to take what they have fought for

They wouldn’t have fought for all of it- there would be huge swathes left unoccupied that the CP can divy up. Plus, retreating a small bit isn’t exactly embarrassing, just diplomacy.

and the Germans have made it clear that they will give as little as possible, there is no point in sharing if the Germans won't share elsewhere.

This very well could be used to have the Germans share elsewhere. It’s the law of compromise- Germany doesn’t want Russia to have this, but in exchange for some ripe ME lands, Germany could be swayed. I see the Russians using it as a bargaining chip more than anything- again, they wouldn’t WANT millions of Arab resistance movements which could potentially spread to the other Muslim parts of their empire.

Sharing will only mean that Germany has an easier time with Russia as they have to divert in the Middle East.

Russia’s position is solid in the Middle East- they have land routes, Germany has to supply from the sea. If anything, Germany will have to divert resources to protect their colonies.

And controlling the Levant doesn't mean controlling the Mediterranean, just makes it easier.

Typo- I meant the ME.

But the other powers won't be united, meaning they can exploit their initial advantage.

That’s true enough. Russia will have great sway over the northern Cliques.

Wall street crash happened because all of the world's economies were connected to the US after WW1, here this doesn't happen since the US never starts to give loans to everyone.

The US is still a major world economy- it may not be as bad as the Great Depression, but there would be a recession. I also can see Japan trying to economically recover through US or German loans.

Even if it did happen, it won't have the same consequences as OTL.

True.

OTL they had no problem in joining the war, here they are fighting their enemies of forever. Also without their help Europe would probably lose meaning they have to intervene.

OTL they joined because they had commitments to Belgium. Not to say they wouldn’t have joined either way- but the British prefer to sit back and supply their preferred side until things get too dire.

Italy would be used by Germany to limit Russian gains and they have conflicts with Russian allies (Serbia) meaning that they clearly are against Russia's interests.

Russia could well see the cession of Dalmatia as a compromise- Russian relations in the Balkans rely on them having sway over the various states there- Serbia wouldn’t like it, but Russia only wants Serbian interests to be pursued so long as they are beneficial for Russia. Usually that’s true, but if it means they could try to pry Italy away from Germany, that’s useful for them, too. I still see Italy being more inclined to Germany, but I don’t think that they’re unequivocally loyal- they’re more of the “#3” in Europe and can be swayed to at least neutrality.

I know but they have to be enough of a threat to dissuade the US from intervening against GB, so they have to have an army capable of fighting the US with GB's help.

Yes of course, that’s not a question. The CSA would be very militaristic no matter what, the threat from the north is too great.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Those are also the most loyal parts of the empire, though- having a lot of industry in Hungary and Illyria could give them too much power.

AH will receive minor help, anyways industries don't need to be massively built they just need to sustain a decent war effort.

Starvation isn’t the only thing to consider when it comes to revolts, nor is it the only thing that causes them- Russia would’ve been fomenting Russophilia in Galicia (which there already was OTL) and potentially convincing Hungarian leaders to rebel.

What I meant is that the 1918 total collapse doesn't happen here, some places will revolt but if you can't put them down it means you already are overstretched which brings other problems.

They wouldn’t have fought for all of it- there would be huge swathes left unoccupied that the CP can divy up. Plus, retreating a small bit isn’t exactly embarrassing, just diplomacy.

But the Germans and Italians haven't fought for it at any moment.
The Germans also don't desire the ME, any territory they have there will be lost and of they havw to give something in Europe in exchange it’s a terrible deal for them.
The Russians don't want this too much because it will make it easier for Germany to supply Arab rebels and any gains in ME will be 3 times smaller in Europe.
Italy has already received more than it deserves.

The US is still a major world economy- it may not be as bad as the Great Depression, but there would be a recession. I also can see Japan trying to economically recover through US or German loans.

The US had an incredible growth in the 20's thanks to WW1, here this doesn't happen and they continue to have steady growth as before. Even if there was a Wall Street crash, it would affect only the US.
Japan would be approached by Germany though I don't know if the Japanese want to try round two after what happened in WW1.

OTL they joined because they had commitments to Belgium. Not to say they wouldn’t have joined either way- but the British prefer to sit back and supply their preferred side until things get too dire.

AFAIK Parlament had already decided to join the war, without the Schlieffen plan they would've joined a week later.

Russia could well see the cession of Dalmatia as a compromise- Russian relations in the Balkans rely on them having sway over the various states there- Serbia wouldn’t like it, but Russia only wants Serbian interests to be pursued so long as they are beneficial for Russia. Usually that’s true, but if it means they could try to pry Italy away from Germany, that’s useful for them, too.

I still see Italy being more inclined to Germany, but I don’t think that they’re unequivocally loyal- they’re more of the “#3” in Europe and can be swayed to at least neutrality.

No, the Italians were terrible the entire war and barely conquered anything and now they get absolutely everything they could desire since those territories don't end in Russian hands.
And you are really underestimating Italian goals, they want to dominate the entire Balkans they won't remain on the Adriatic coast if they have the choice, they have more conflicts with Russia than they'll ever have with Germany, everybody knows on whose side they are.

 

[lukedalton]

No, the Italians were terrible the entire war and barely conquered anything and now they get absolutely everything they could desire since those territories don't end in Russian hands.
And you are really underestimating Italian goals, they want to dominate the entire Balkans they won't remain on the Adriatic coast if they have the choice, they have more conflicts with Russia than they'll ever have with Germany, everybody knows on whose side they are.

Yep i forgot the incredible Anglo-French offensive that conquered Alsace-Loreine in few days or the mighty invasion of Turkey that broke the Ottoman Empire, not considering the stellar performance of Russia during the entire war, my bad

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Yep i forgot the incredible Anglo-French offensive that conquered Alsace-Loreine in few days or the mighty invasion of Turkey that broke the Ottoman Empire, not considering the stellar performance of Russia during the entire war, my bad

I know that a good part of them were terrible but Italy failed to conquer anything against AH, even Russia managed to conquer Galicia and Serbia survived until Bulgaria joined the war so Italy against France is going to be difficult for them and the offensives on the Isonzo aren't going to be much better until AH completely collapses, Italian leadership is catastrophic.

 

[lukedalton]

I know that a good part of them were terrible but Italy failed to conquer anything against AH, even Russia managed to conquer Galicia and Serbia survived until Bulgaria joined the war so Italy against France is going to be difficult for them and the offensives on the Isonzo aren't going to be much better until AH completely collapses.

Serbia barely survived till Bulgaria and frankly Sofia entering the war merely speed the process as the endgame was never in doubt when AH launched his second invasion; Russia conquered Galicia sure but was also knocked up the war, had a revolution and later a nasty civil war, Romania was conquered or better overwhelmed and reentered the war at the last moment.
It's WWI so by your standard Germany was the winner as it conquered north France and great swat of Russian territory, instead she was the loser as conquer territory doesn't mean that much while stability of the nation system is the most important thing.
Sure Italy vs France will be difficult but also France vs Italy as the alps, unlike the AH border are an extremely good defensive line on both side and the offensive on the Isonzo occupied a great number of AH resources (and in OTL the 11th was almost a Caporetto on reverse, basically the reason of the 12th battle was that AH know that another italian offensive will have broken their line badly)