Subject: A different central Europe Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:28:12 -0400 From: "George D. Phillies" Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Following the 19th century war between Prussia and Austria-Hungary, Franz Joseph II kept his grudge until he could stuff and mount it, refusing to contemplate any alliance or close relations with the Prussian (emerging German) state, and disposing of ministers who might have inclined in this direction. This leads to a Germany that must in 1900 worry about its Southeastern flank if it engages in another war with France, at least at the level that if it gets into a war with Russia the Russians need not cover the Carpathians heavily, so that the Russians can concentrate more substantially in Poland, and thus to a Germany that no longer has the resources for a significant navy -- without which UK interest in the continent is diminished. Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:27:43 +0100 From: "Stuart Fraser" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 "George D. Phillies" wrote in message news:Pine.OSF.4.33.0107121021460.3099-100000@reno.WPI.EDU... > > Following the 19th century war between Prussia and Austria-Hungary, Franz > Joseph II kept his grudge until he could stuff and mount it, refusing to > contemplate any alliance or close relations with the Prussian (emerging > German) state, and disposing of ministers who might have inclined in this > direction. This leads to a Germany that must in 1900 worry about its > Southeastern flank if it engages in another war with France, at least at > the level that if it gets into a war with Russia the Russians need not > cover the Carpathians heavily, so that the Russians can concentrate more > substantially in Poland, and thus to a Germany that no longer has the > resources for a significant navy -- without which UK interest in the > continent is diminished. Problem is, Austria fights alongside France in 1871. As such, Prussia loses and we don't get a unified Germany. Except that if Bismarck knows which side Austria will fight on, we don't get the Franco-Prussia war. I can remember a TL which was WWI without German unification....search through the Google archive. Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:50:49 -0400 From: "George D. Phillies" Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Stuart Fraser wrote: > Problem is, Austria fights alongside France in 1871. As such, Prussia loses > and we don't get a unified Germany. Except that if Bismarck knows which side > Austria will fight on, we don't get the Franco-Prussia war. I can remember a > TL which was WWI without German unification....search through the Google > archive. I'm not sure this qualifies as a problem, except in the sense that the 20th century is unrecognizable. Perhaps Austria fights with France--they lost really badly a few years earlier. The Franco-Prussian War might then draw, simply because these people had large armies, post-ACW weapons, and a lack of interest in huge casualties. On the other hand, weak German unification might have been followed by a century and a half of relative peace. An Austria without a German alliance was going to be much more reserved in the Balkans,in which case Bosnia might have been partitioned, the Serbs might have received their seaport,... George traces of this outcome -- though it has little to do with the plot -- appear in my novel This Shining Sea (http://3mpub.com), in which the heroine was welcome in the Austro-Hungrarian Empire so long as she did not stay too long, and almost no where else. (but it;s a tale of parallel worlds, and you see our world, not that one, ecept by allusion) Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:32:29 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Stuart Fraser" wrote in message news:9ikqi2$lgc$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "George D. Phillies" wrote in message > news:Pine.OSF.4.33.0107121021460.3099-100000@reno.WPI.EDU... > > > > Following the 19th century war between Prussia and Austria-Hungary, Franz > > Joseph II kept his grudge until he could stuff and mount it, refusing to > > contemplate any alliance or close relations with the Prussian (emerging > > German) state, and disposing of ministers who might have inclined in this > > direction. This leads to a Germany that must in 1900 worry about its > > Southeastern flank if it engages in another war with France, at least at > > the level that if it gets into a war with Russia the Russians need not > > cover the Carpathians heavily, so that the Russians can concentrate more > > substantially in Poland, and thus to a Germany that no longer has the > > resources for a significant navy -- without which UK interest in the > > continent is diminished. > > Problem is, Austria fights alongside France in 1871. Maybe, maybe not. Suppose FJ2 is hot and heavy for war, but the French fare as badly and as quickly as OTL. Even a hopping-mad FJ2 would have serious second thoughts about taking the side of the loser in that fight. > As such, Prussia loses > and we don't get a unified Germany. Except that if Bismarck knows which side > Austria will fight on, we don't get the Franco-Prussia war. I can remember a > TL which was WWI without German unification....search through the Google > archive. An A-H which stays angry about losing in 1866 [FN1] would probably have to confine itself with maintaining its close friendly relations with the UK instead of drifting into German orbit. Friendship with the UK was the traditional 19thC Austrian position. Or, post- F-P war, Austria and France could ally and bide their time while both countries reformed their militaries. In that case, the UK would be close to the Austro-French Entente and the two odd men out, Germany and Russia, would stay close. This would probably be a more stable alliance structure in OTL. Since neither the UK could or (likely) would do anything to protect A-H from Russia if a flare up occurrs in the Balkans, the Austrians would curb their adventurism. -- __________ Doug www.althist.com [FN1] Assuming the above scenario where France still oses the Franco-Prussian War. Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: 13 Jul 2001 14:00:14 GMT From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >From: "Doug Hoff" dhoff576@swbell.net >Since neither the UK could or (likely) would do anything >to protect A-H from Russia if a flare up occurrs in the Balkans, the >Austrians would curb their adventurism. Did they display any particular adventurism between 1867 and 1908? As far as I can see they were pretty cautious - Occupying Bosnia in 1878 may in hindsight have been a mistake, but it wasn't "adventurism" it was just accepting a titbit in return for going along with the various other changes made at the same time. The really adventurous policy would arguably have been to _support_ Russia in 1878. With the wisdom of hindsight, it is clear that the "Big Bulgaria" which the Tsar wanted would not have harmed Austria. Of course, its King would have had to be acceptable to Vienna, but that could probably have been arranged in return for Habsburg support, given Russia's difficulties at the time Also, Istr that in the 1870s Prince Milan of Serbia offered to sell that country to the Habsburgs, but Count Andrassy didn't think it worth buying. A more "adventurous" attitude then might have saved Austria a lot of trouble later. -- Mike Stone - Peterborough England Last words of King Edward II. "I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - - AAARGHH!!!" Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:18:26 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "mike stone" wrote in message news:20010713100014.26828.00003426@ng-mi1.aol.com... > >From: "Doug Hoff" dhoff576@swbell.net > > >Since neither the UK could or (likely) would do anything > >to protect A-H from Russia if a flare up occurrs in the Balkans, the > >Austrians would curb their adventurism. > > Did they display any particular adventurism between 1867 and 1908? Actually, I was thinking about forcing war with Serbia in 1914. If the UK was in OTL Germany's position, I cannot see the British giving the Austrians the blank check that the Germans did. In fact, I would consider it a certainty that they would not do so. -- __________ Doug www.althist.com Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: 14 Jul 2001 06:32:58 GMT From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >From: "Doug Hoff" dhoff576@swbell.net >Actually, I was thinking about forcing war with Serbia in 1914. If the UK >was in OTL Germany's position, I cannot see the British giving the Austrians >the blank check that the Germans did. In fact, I would consider it a >certainty that they would not do so. > True, and of course it might never have come to that. Britain had for a long time been propping up the Ottoman Empire, so if we are Austria's ally too, then do we still get the Balkan War in 1912? Would the Balkan states take on a Turkish-Austrian alliance, underwritten by the British Empire? -- Mike Stone - Peterborough England Last words of King Edward II. "I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - - AAARGHH!!!" Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: 14 Jul 2001 13:01:53 GMT From: cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Emperor) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 > Would the >Balkan states take on a Turkish-Austrian alliance, underwritten by the >British >Empire? My guess is no. But then again, nearly 100 years later, the Serbs did fight NATO, which even in "pound for pound comparsion" would be 100 times more powerful than a Osmanli-Hapsburg alliance...so who knows? Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:35:31 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "mike stone" wrote in message news:20010714023258.18370.00002561@ng-cq1.aol.com... > >From: "Doug Hoff" dhoff576@swbell.net > > > > >Actually, I was thinking about forcing war with Serbia in 1914. If the UK > >was in OTL Germany's position, I cannot see the British giving the Austrians > >the blank check that the Germans did. In fact, I would consider it a > >certainty that they would not do so. > > > > True, and of course it might never have come to that. Yep, the effects of reshuffling the alliance structure means that it certainly wont happen the way it did OTL. > > Britain had for a long time been propping up the Ottoman Empire, so if we are > Austria's ally too, then do we still get the Balkan War in 1912? Would the > Balkan states take on a Turkish-Austrian alliance, underwritten by the British > Empire? I can see the Turks and Austrians both being close to the UK, but not each other. Kind of like Russia and Austria both being allied with Germany in OTL, but not particularly friendly towards each other. -- __________ Doug www.althist.com Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:53:12 +0100 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:35:31 -0500, "Doug Hoff" wrote: >I can see the Turks and Austrians both being close to the UK, but not each >other. Kind of like Russia and Austria both being allied with Germany in >OTL, but not particularly friendly towards each other. If the Ottomans are aligned with Britain, France, and Austria, then one effect will probably be to make Italy neutral. OTL, Italy's territorial ambitions were directed against Austria (Trieste) and the Ottoman Empire (N. Africa), so Italy's obvious allies will be the other side. On the other hand, Italy will not want to fight a war against Britain (long coastline) and 2 of her 3 neighbours, when her allies, Germany and Russia, are incapable of getting effective aid to Italy (unless the Swiss are prepared to let a German/Russian army cross their country, which given Swiss views of their own neutrality, is almost ASB territory). The other thing, of course, is how long can the Ottoman Empire last? OTL, it was finally broken up by and after WWI, with the various Arab provinces being given as Mandates to the victors. If it can avoid defeat (either because WWI doesn't occur, or because there's no victory, or because it's on the winning side), then what happens to Arab nationalism and the various provinces? Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:28:56 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 "Pete Barrett" wrote in message news:amt2ltsst034ps1u1cu3odtu8elq7ulr92@4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:35:31 -0500, "Doug Hoff" > wrote: > > >I can see the Turks and Austrians both being close to the UK, but not each > >other. Kind of like Russia and Austria both being allied with Germany in > >OTL, but not particularly friendly towards each other. > > If the Ottomans are aligned with Britain, France, and Austria, then > one effect will probably be to make Italy neutral. OTL, Italy's > territorial ambitions were directed against Austria (Trieste) and the > Ottoman Empire (N. Africa), so Italy's obvious allies will be the > other side. Possibly. OTL, the Turks _did_ sign on with Germany which was still technically allied with Italy. This was the result of creeping German influence in Turkey (Berlin to Bagdad and all that and Liman Von Sanders helping reform the Turkish military) which happened shortly after the Italians took Libyia away from the Ottoman Empire. Alliances (formal and informal, like UKs alignment with France in OTL without a formal alliance) are odd things. They can be the result of popular affinity between two states, cold-blooded self-interest or a combination of the two. (Italy's membership in the Central Powers and Rumania joining the Allies are examples of pure self-interest.) This produces some odd results. Two NATO allies (Greece & Turkey) can fight each other, forex, without involving any of the other members. > On the other hand, Italy will not want to fight a war > against Britain (long coastline) and 2 of her 3 neighbours, when her > allies, Germany and Russia, are incapable of getting effective aid to > Italy (unless the Swiss are prepared to let a German/Russian army > cross their country, which given Swiss views of their own neutrality, > is almost ASB territory). True. > > The other thing, of course, is how long can the Ottoman Empire last? > OTL, it was finally broken up by and after WWI, with the various Arab > provinces being given as Mandates to the victors. If it can avoid > defeat (either because WWI doesn't occur, or because there's no > victory, or because it's on the winning side), then what happens to > Arab nationalism and the various provinces? The UK was, pre WW1, strongly opposed to any partition of the OE, even if it meant them getting big hunks. I think it might take a general war, as in OTL, to make it happen. -- __________ Doug www.althist.com Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:09:05 +0100 From: "Stuart Fraser" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Doug Hoff" wrote in message news:bur37.208$WH4.153138@nnrp2.sbc.net... > > "Stuart Fraser" wrote in message > news:9ikqi2$lgc$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > "George D. Phillies" wrote in message > > news:Pine.OSF.4.33.0107121021460.3099-100000@reno.WPI.EDU... > > > > > > Following the 19th century war between Prussia and Austria-Hungary, > Franz > > > Joseph II kept his grudge until he could stuff and mount it, refusing to > > > contemplate any alliance or close relations with the Prussian (emerging > > > German) state, and disposing of ministers who might have inclined in > this > > > direction. This leads to a Germany that must in 1900 worry about its > > > Southeastern flank if it engages in another war with France, at least at > > > the level that if it gets into a war with Russia the Russians need not > > > cover the Carpathians heavily, so that the Russians can concentrate more > > > substantially in Poland, and thus to a Germany that no longer has the > > > resources for a significant navy -- without which UK interest in the > > > continent is diminished. > > > > Problem is, Austria fights alongside France in 1871. > > Maybe, maybe not. Suppose FJ2 is hot and heavy for war, but the French fare > as badly and as quickly as OTL. Even a hopping-mad FJ2 would have serious > second thoughts about taking the side of the loser in that fight. Well, there's a problem with this. There is no way that with an Austria that is still hostile to Prussia/Germany, the Prussians can afford to deploy their entire army against France. Austria is almost certain to mobilize, and Prussia will need to keep maye as many as 100,000 troops on that frontier. This will mean that the French will probably have a far better war regardless as to when/whether Austria comes in. > > > As such, Prussia loses > > and we don't get a unified Germany. Except that if Bismarck knows which > side > > Austria will fight on, we don't get the Franco-Prussia war. I can remember > a > > TL which was WWI without German unification....search through the Google > > archive. > > An A-H which stays angry about losing in 1866 [FN1] would probably have to > confine itself with maintaining its close friendly relations with the UK > instead of drifting into German orbit. Friendship with the UK was the > traditional 19thC Austrian position. Eh? 1812-22, whilst Castlereagh and Metternich were the respective ministers for foreign affairs, maybe. But after that Austria's traditional ally was her Holy Alliance partner, Russia, until 1854. Two notes - Canning called Metternich "the greatest rogue and liar in Europe" and the Austrian Prince Ludwig (I think it was Ludwig) held a ball to celebrate the dismissal of Palmerston as Foreign Secretary in 1852. Not warm relations, methinks. Austria then proceeds to be rather stupid (product of Metternich not being around anymore, methinks) and alienate Russia - hence her isolation until after 1866 and losing wars in Italy and Germany. > > Or, post- F-P war, Austria and France could ally and bide their time while > both countries reformed their militaries. In that case, the UK would be > close to the Austro-French Entente and the two odd men out, Germany and > Russia, would stay close. This would probably be a more stable alliance > structure in OTL. Since neither the UK could or (likely) would do anything > to protect A-H from Russia if a flare up occurrs in the Balkans, the > Austrians would curb their adventurism. "We don't want to fight But, by jingo, if we do We've got the ships We've got the men We've got the money too" This was (part of) an exceptionally music-hall song during the 1878 crisis. Britain would back Austria against Russia all the way to going to out-and-out war with her, as had happened with Turkey in 1853. We could well get a WWI earlier - or maybe not, since Bismarck would not have fought a war he knew he would not win. > > > -- > __________ > > Doug > > www.althist.com > > [FN1] Assuming the above scenario where France still oses the > Franco-Prussian War. Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:36:09 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 "Stuart Fraser" wrote in message news:9ino8a$g35$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Suppose FJ2 is hot and heavy for war, but the French > fare > > as badly and as quickly as OTL. Even a hopping-mad FJ2 would have serious > > second thoughts about taking the side of the loser in that fight. > > Well, there's a problem with this. There is no way that with an Austria that > is still hostile to Prussia/Germany, the Prussians can afford to deploy > their entire army against France. Austria is almost certain to mobilize, and > Prussia will need to keep maye as many as 100,000 troops on that frontier. > This will mean that the French will probably have a far better war > regardless as to when/whether Austria comes in. IIRC, the Prussians did not get a firm commitment of Austrian neutrality in OTL until after the initial battles with France and was, in fact, keeping a sizable troop presence on the Austrian border until that commitment came. Nonetheless, the Prussians did fairly well. My copy of Howard is not handy, so I am not sure of the timeframe involved. > > > > An A-H which stays angry about losing in 1866 [FN1] would probably have to > > confine itself with maintaining its close friendly relations with the UK > > instead of drifting into German orbit. Friendship with the UK was the > > traditional 19thC Austrian position. > > Eh? 1812-22, whilst Castlereagh and Metternich were the respective ministers > for foreign affairs, maybe. But after that Austria's traditional ally was > her Holy Alliance partner, Russia, until 1854. Tradition does not have to be unbroken, it is a matter of attitude. Austria did the UK yeoman service during the Crimean War, which distanced it from Russia (to say the least - the Russians considered the Austrians horrible ingrates after Russia intervened for Austria during the Hungarian revolution) and remained friendly with the UK in diplomatic circles. > > Two notes - Canning called Metternich "the greatest rogue and liar in > Europe" and the Austrian Prince Ludwig (I think it was Ludwig) held a ball > to celebrate the dismissal of Palmerston as Foreign Secretary in 1852. Not > warm relations, methinks. > > Austria then proceeds to be rather stupid (product of Metternich not being > around anymore, methinks) and alienate Russia - hence her isolation until > after 1866 and losing wars in Italy and Germany. Again, these things are off and on. I still think it is fair to say that the default position of Austria, until the alliance with Germany, was friendship with the UK. > > > > Or, post- F-P war, Austria and France could ally and bide their time while > > both countries reformed their militaries. In that case, the UK would be > > close to the Austro-French Entente and the two odd men out, Germany and > > Russia, would stay close. This would probably be a more stable alliance > > structure in OTL. Since neither the UK could or (likely) would do > anything > > to protect A-H from Russia if a flare up occurrs in the Balkans, the > > Austrians would curb their adventurism. > > "We don't want to fight > But, by jingo, if we do > We've got the ships > We've got the men > We've got the money too" For _British_ interests, not Austrians. If the UK was not going to fight to prevent the subjugation of France (absent the invasion of Belgium) OTL, it was not going to war on account of some nickel-and-dime Balkan crisis. > > This was (part of) an exceptionally music-hall song during the 1878 crisis. > Britain would back Austria against Russia all the way to going to > out-and-out war with her, as had happened with Turkey in 1853. We could well > get a WWI earlier - or maybe not, since Bismarck would not have fought a war > he knew he would not win. IMHO, in the OTL 1914 crisis, if you put the UK in place of Germany at Austria's side, the Austrians do not get a blank check. Austria does not risk fighting Russia alone, and accepts the Serbian response to the ultimatim. -- __________ Doug www.althist.com Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:14:17 +0100 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:32:29 -0500, "Doug Hoff" wrote: >Or, post- F-P war, Austria and France could ally and bide their time while >both countries reformed their militaries. In that case, the UK would be >close to the Austro-French Entente and the two odd men out, Germany and >Russia, would stay close. This would probably be a more stable alliance >structure in OTL. Since neither the UK could or (likely) would do anything >to protect A-H from Russia if a flare up occurrs in the Balkans, the >Austrians would curb their adventurism. UK policy throughout the 19th century was to prevent Russia from establishing a warm-water port with egress into the Mediterranean. Russian policy was to try to acquire one - preferably Constantinople, but another might do at a pinch. If a flare-up occurs in the Balkans, and Russia intervenes and looks as if it's likely to get its Mediterranean port, Britain will do *something* to prevent it. It's not entirely clear what Britain *can* do, but the fact that when this was threatened Britain sent an army (with France) to the Crimea (1853) and rigged a conference to defuse the situation (1878), suggests that the UK would go to any lengths needed, including supporting Austria in a war. Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:25:51 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 "Pete Barrett" wrote in message news:tajukt8sd7ootpg8kg9dn679oevbu1hekl@4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:32:29 -0500, "Doug Hoff" > wrote: > > >Or, post- F-P war, Austria and France could ally and bide their time while > >both countries reformed their militaries. In that case, the UK would be > >close to the Austro-French Entente and the two odd men out, Germany and > >Russia, would stay close. This would probably be a more stable alliance > >structure in OTL. Since neither the UK could or (likely) would do anything > >to protect A-H from Russia if a flare up occurrs in the Balkans, the > >Austrians would curb their adventurism. > > UK policy throughout the 19th century was to prevent Russia from > establishing a warm-water port with egress into the Mediterranean. > Russian policy was to try to acquire one - preferably Constantinople, > but another might do at a pinch. If a flare-up occurs in the Balkans, > and Russia intervenes and looks as if it's likely to get its > Mediterranean port, Britain will do *something* to prevent it. It's > not entirely clear what Britain *can* do, but the fact that when this > was threatened Britain sent an army (with France) to the Crimea (1853) > and rigged a conference to defuse the situation (1878), suggests that > the UK would go to any lengths needed, including supporting Austria in > a war. It _would_ depend upon the nature of the crisis. In OTL the crisis that triggered the big war was Austria's refusal to be satisfied with Serbia's less-than-total acceptance of Austria's demands after the assassination of Archduke FF. Defusing the crisis was in Austria's hands, and would not necessarily involve enhancing the Russian position in the Balkans. Therefore, if the UK was A-Hs ally, it would likely strongly urge the Austrians to accept the Serbian response instead of forcing war with Serbia which would involve war with Russia. The British government had no 'Kaiser Wilhelm,' given to extravagant guestures, regardless of the consequences. In European affairs, the British tended to be much more cautious players than the Germans. Compare how the UK responded to the French inquiries in late Summer 1914 regarding the UKs attitude if a war came (dodging commitment to support its Entente partner for as long as possible) with the Germans', 'go forth and conquer' response to the Austrians. -- __________ Doug www.althist.com Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:13:49 +0100 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:25:51 -0500, "Doug Hoff" wrote: >It _would_ depend upon the nature of the crisis. In OTL the crisis that >triggered the big war was Austria's refusal to be satisfied with Serbia's >less-than-total acceptance of Austria's demands after the assassination of >Archduke FF. Defusing the crisis was in Austria's hands, and would not >necessarily involve enhancing the Russian position in the Balkans. I wasn't thinking of this specific crisis, mainly because there's no certainty that it would be recognisable as being the same one as in OTL. For instance, even if by some chance it happens as in OTL, and FF is shot, might not Serbia, backed up by Russia and Germany, refuse *all* Austrian demands, rather than accepting most of then as in OTL? And wouldn't Britain then have to back up Austria for fear of Russian gains in the Balkans? >Therefore, if the UK was A-Hs ally, it would likely strongly urge the >Austrians to accept the Serbian response instead of forcing war with Serbia >which would involve war with Russia. The British government had no 'Kaiser >Wilhelm,' given to extravagant guestures, regardless of the consequences. Oh they did, but Churchill was only First Lord of the Admiralty! Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:55:36 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 "Pete Barrett" wrote in message news:glg0lt493du8ntsip6645eus15hm9idqir@4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:25:51 -0500, "Doug Hoff" > wrote: > > >It _would_ depend upon the nature of the crisis. In OTL the crisis that > >triggered the big war was Austria's refusal to be satisfied with Serbia's > >less-than-total acceptance of Austria's demands after the assassination of > >Archduke FF. Defusing the crisis was in Austria's hands, and would not > >necessarily involve enhancing the Russian position in the Balkans. > > I wasn't thinking of this specific crisis, mainly because there's no > certainty that it would be recognisable as being the same one as in > OTL. I think it is almost a certainty that the same crisis would not come around - butterfly flaps and all - but it is an example of how the lineup of powers would likely affect the outcome. > For instance, even if by some chance it happens as in OTL, and FF > is shot, might not Serbia, backed up by Russia and Germany, refuse > *all* Austrian demands, rather than accepting most of then as in OTL? Could be, but in OTL, international sympathy was scant for Serbia until weeks went by and it appeared that A-H was bent not on seeking redress for its greivance, but rather was intent on starting a war and subjugating Serbia. I can see Serbia's allies similiarly looking the other way unless and until the Austrians decide they are going the same route ATL. > And wouldn't Britain then have to back up Austria for fear of Russian > gains in the Balkans? IMHO, the British would not allow themselves to be dragged into a war by the Austrians simply because the latter were worried about the national ambitions of the South Slavs. After all, the British stood idly by during the Russo-Turkish war until it looked like the Russians were going to actually _take_ Constantinople. The mere extension of Russian influence in the Balkans (by Russia championing Bulgaria) was not enough to trigger British military action. > > >Therefore, if the UK was A-Hs ally, it would likely strongly urge the > >Austrians to accept the Serbian response instead of forcing war with Serbia > >which would involve war with Russia. The British government had no 'Kaiser > >Wilhelm,' given to extravagant guestures, regardless of the consequences. > > Oh they did, but Churchill was only First Lord of the Admiralty! > Heh. But even Winnie advocated naval arms limitation at one point. -- __________ Doug www.althist.com > > > Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:53:13 +0100 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:55:36 -0500, "Doug Hoff" wrote: > > >Could be, but in OTL, international sympathy was scant for Serbia until >weeks went by and it appeared that A-H was bent not on seeking redress for >its greivance, but rather was intent on starting a war and subjugating >Serbia. I can see Serbia's allies similiarly looking the other way unless >and until the Austrians decide they are going the same route ATL. > Bur Russia will back Serbia, wherever other countries' sympathies lie. >> And wouldn't Britain then have to back up Austria for fear of Russian >> gains in the Balkans? > >IMHO, the British would not allow themselves to be dragged into a war by the >Austrians simply because the latter were worried about the national >ambitions of the South Slavs. After all, the British stood idly by during >the Russo-Turkish war until it looked like the Russians were going to >actually _take_ Constantinople. The mere extension of Russian influence in >the Balkans (by Russia championing Bulgaria) was not enough to trigger >British military action. > You could say the same about being dragged into a war in order to protect Serbia from Austrian demands in OTL. What I would see would be something like this: Austria presents a set of demands to Serbia which France will back militarily. (Austria may be willing to negotiate on some of what is said *publicly*, but there will be some irreducible set which Austria has previously checked that France will back.) Serbia, backed by Russia, refuses at least one. Austria declares war on Serbia. Russia declares war on Austria. Germany mobilises in support of Russia, and demands that France declare neutrality. France refuses to do so, and mobilises in support of Austria. Germany implements the Schlieffen Plan. Britain demands Germany withdraw from Belgium. Britain declares war on Germany on Germany's failure to do so. That's a set of steps down to war, very similar to OTL's. The powers are quite capable of staggering down them. Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:16:07 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 "Pete Barrett" wrote in message news:rhv2lts1a2vm479iivjp0mkvqpqcsiinc4@4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:55:36 -0500, "Doug Hoff" > wrote: > > > > > > >Could be, but in OTL, international sympathy was scant for Serbia until > >weeks went by and it appeared that A-H was bent not on seeking redress for > >its greivance, but rather was intent on starting a war and subjugating > >Serbia. I can see Serbia's allies similiarly looking the other way unless > >and until the Austrians decide they are going the same route ATL. > > > Bur Russia will back Serbia, wherever other countries' sympathies lie. Maybe, maybe not. A convincing case has been made on occasion that, if the Austrians moved while the world was still outraged by the assassination, Serbia would have fought alone. > > >> And wouldn't Britain then have to back up Austria for fear of Russian > >> gains in the Balkans? > > > >IMHO, the British would not allow themselves to be dragged into a war by the > >Austrians simply because the latter were worried about the national > >ambitions of the South Slavs. After all, the British stood idly by during > >the Russo-Turkish war until it looked like the Russians were going to > >actually _take_ Constantinople. The mere extension of Russian influence in > >the Balkans (by Russia championing Bulgaria) was not enough to trigger > >British military action. > > > You could say the same about being dragged into a war in order to > protect Serbia from Austrian demands in OTL. Ah, the thing is that Russia went willingly, then the Germans forced the war upon France by demanding that France hand over its border fortifications & effectively surrender in order to prevent being attacked. > What I would see would be > something like this: > > Austria presents a set of demands to Serbia which France will back > militarily. (Austria may be willing to negotiate on some of what is > said *publicly*, but there will be some irreducible set which Austria > has previously checked that France will back.) I think that it is much less likely that France will willingly go to war with Germany to back Austrian demands in the Balkans. IIRC it was something of a close thing as to whether France would back Russia in supporting Serbia. > Serbia, backed by Russia, refuses at least one. > Austria declares war on Serbia. > Russia declares war on Austria. > Germany mobilises in support of Russia, and demands that France > declare neutrality. Here is where I think it breaks down. Germany and Austria were much tighter allies than I think Germany and Russia would be. (The Austrians were Germans, after all.) Indeed, I can see a lot of pressure within Germany to renounce the alliance with Russia and join up with the Austrians. Italy did the same thing OTL for similar reasons. Two other things: (1) Germany would not be eager to see A-H collapse, even if they were technically in seperate alliances. The German govt was opposed to the idea, since it woudl create a lot of pressure for Germany to annex Germanic Austria. The Prussians who ran Germany were not keen on this as it would create a second center of gravity within Germany - Vienna. (2) the perception was that A-H would inevitably be beaten by Russia if it fought alone -which is why the A-H govt was certain to have a German guarantee vs. Russia in OTL. If Russia was certain to win, anyway, why should Germany fight to enhance her position within the Balkans. > France refuses to do so, and mobilises in support of Austria. > Germany implements the Schlieffen Plan. > Britain demands Germany withdraw from Belgium. > Britain declares war on Germany on Germany's failure to do so. > > That's a set of steps down to war, very similar to OTL's. The powers > are quite capable of staggering down them. > I would not rule it out, certainly, but I think it would happen very differently -- __________ Doug www.althist.com Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:48:45 +0100 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:16:07 -0500, "Doug Hoff" wrote: > >> Austria presents a set of demands to Serbia which France will back >> militarily. (Austria may be willing to negotiate on some of what is >> said *publicly*, but there will be some irreducible set which Austria >> has previously checked that France will back.) > >I think that it is much less likely that France will willingly go to war >with Germany to back Austrian demands in the Balkans. IIRC it was something >of a close thing as to whether France would back Russia in supporting >Serbia. > At this point Germany is not involved. What Austria is asking, is what will France support them with against *Serbia*? France will not deliberately go down a road which they think will lead to a European-wide war. But if their perception is that Germany will not fight, and that Serbia will back down or be thumped before Russia can mobilise, France may support Austria in the expectation of a diplomatic victory. >> Serbia, backed by Russia, refuses at least one. >> Austria declares war on Serbia. >> Russia declares war on Austria. >> Germany mobilises in support of Russia, and demands that France >> declare neutrality. > >Here is where I think it breaks down. Germany and Austria were much tighter >allies than I think Germany and Russia would be. (The Austrians were >Germans, after all.) Indeed, I can see a lot of pressure within Germany to >renounce the alliance with Russia and join up with the Austrians. Italy did >the same thing OTL for similar reasons. > All of which would be quite perceptible to the French (see above). OTL, there were a whole series of mistakes and misperceptions which led to WWI (in that sense, WWI is an unlikely occurrence), and there's no reason to think that the ATL leaders will be any different. Any particular series of steps is highly unlikely, but that there will be some slip is much more probable. As you've pointed out, this ATL set of alliances looks somewhat more stable than thos of OTL, but I'd still be doubtful that they'd reach 1925 without a major war. >Two other things: > >(1) Germany would not be eager to see A-H collapse, even if they were >technically in seperate alliances. The German govt was opposed to the idea, >since it woudl create a lot of pressure for Germany to annex Germanic >Austria. The Prussians who ran Germany were not keen on this as it would >create a second center of gravity within Germany - Vienna. > >(2) the perception was that A-H would inevitably be beaten by Russia if it >fought alone -which is why the A-H govt was certain to have a German >guarantee vs. Russia in OTL. If Russia was certain to win, anyway, why >should Germany fight to enhance her position within the Balkans. > >> France refuses to do so, and mobilises in support of Austria. >> Germany implements the Schlieffen Plan. >> Britain demands Germany withdraw from Belgium. >> Britain declares war on Germany on Germany's failure to do so. >> >> That's a set of steps down to war, very similar to OTL's. The powers >> are quite capable of staggering down them. >> > >I would not rule it out, certainly, but I think it would happen very >differently So do I. If I could predict how things would turn out exactly, I wouldn't bother with this discussion group! Pete Barrett Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:33:35 -0500 From: "Doug Hoff" Organization: SBC Internet Services Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 "Pete Barrett" wrote in message news:g5g6ltcatpm7aaabc5lpkm9nfh6q2oqoan@4ax.com... > At this point Germany is not involved. What Austria is asking, is what > will France support them with against *Serbia*? France will not > deliberately go down a road which they think will lead to a > European-wide war. But if their perception is that Germany will not > fight, and that Serbia will back down or be thumped before Russia can > mobilise, France may support Austria in the expectation of a > diplomatic victory. I can see France lending diplomatic support to Austria out of a sense of loyalty to its ally, i.e. saying that Austria's demands were justified, etc. The only way France could really be of use to A-H in a war with Serbia would be vs. Germany. > As you've pointed out, this ATL set > of alliances looks somewhat more stable than thos of OTL, but I'd > still be doubtful that they'd reach 1925 without a major war. Yeah, if something in the Balkans didnt do it, some colonial blow-up could serve as a causus belli. > >I would not rule it out, certainly, but I think it would happen very > >differently > > So do I. If I could predict how things would turn out exactly, I > wouldn't bother with this discussion group! Very true, there would be little point of discussion. Not that it keeps the occasional poster from claiming to be the final arbiter of plausibility. ;) -- __________ Doug www.althist.com Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:02:36 -0400 From: "George D. Phillies" Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Doug Hoff wrote: > > >Could be, but in OTL, international sympathy was scant for Serbia > until > >weeks went by and it appeared that A-H was bent not on > seeking redress for > >its greivance, but rather was intent on > starting a war and subjugating > >Serbia. I can see Serbia's allies > similiarly looking the other way unless > >and until the Austrians > decide they are going the same route ATL. > > > Bur Russia will back > Serbia, wherever other countries' sympathies lie. Given the required coincidences before Franz Ferdinand was successfully assassinated, down to his driver getting lost, it seems unlikely that we would get near this situation. I suggest a plausible outcome is a larger, stronger Serbia --say a partition of Bosnia-Herzogovina -- because Austria-Hungary would have been less well placed to resist Serbian positions on matters. THis might have led toa calmer 20th century. George http://www.3mpub.com/phillies Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: 16 Jul 2001 07:36:45 GMT From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >From: "George D. Phillies" phillies@wpi.edu > I suggest a plausible outcome is a larger, >stronger Serbia --say a partition of Bosnia-Herzogovina -- because >Austria-Hungary would have been less well placed to resist Serbian >positions on matters. Alternatively, what WI the Austrians retaliate against the _Bosnian_ Serbs - who were the real problem after all - rather than against Serbia itself So in July 1914 we get a flood of refugees - perhaps up to a million - pouring across the Serbian border with little more than the clothes they are wearing. In this situation, A/H has not declared war on anyone, so the onus is on others to declare war on her - are they likely to do so? Also, what becomes of the refugees? Serbia will have quite a task absorbing them - though Greece managed one on a similar scale after 1923, so it can be done. One wild thought. Perhaps Russia agrees to take some of them - and makes room by expelling a similar number of _Jews_ If Austria takes _them_ , do we get Eretz-Bosnia? -- Mike Stone - Peterborough England Last words of King Edward II. "I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - - AAARGHH!!!" Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:47:51 +0200 From: Thilo Simper Organization: Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 George D. Phillies wrote: > > Following the 19th century war between Prussia and Austria-Hungary, Franz > Joseph II kept his grudge until he could stuff and mount it, refusing to > contemplate any alliance or close relations with the Prussian (emerging > German) state, and disposing of ministers who might have inclined in this > direction. This leads to a Germany that must in 1900 worry about its > Southeastern flank if it engages in another war with France, at least at > the level that if it gets into a war with Russia the Russians need not > cover the Carpathians heavily, so that the Russians can concentrate more > substantially in Poland, and thus to a Germany that no longer has the > resources for a significant navy -- without which UK interest in the > continent is diminished. > No alliance with Vienna would make good relations to Russia much, much easier to imperial Germany. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that Russia which of all major powers showed the most sympathy to German unification in 1871 was speculating that both countries might soon gang up against Austria-Hungary. 1876 showed a bit impatience on their side when the Russians demanded from Bismarck an outright declaration wether or not his governemnt would stay neutral in case of a Russo-Austrian war. I guess a situation where *both* Russia and Austria turn against Germany is not very likely. If Austria-Hungary as an ally isn't available around 1880/90 I think German public and diplomacy would recognize the importance of keeping good terms with Russia much more clearly. One has also to take the special character of the pre-1914 German-Austrian alliance into accounts which I would describe with the term "Ersatz in several ways": - Ersatz for the greater German solution. This is a more important issue for Austria than for Germany. If the Franz Joseph chooses to make a policy directed against Germany he would encounter internal opposition of pan-German liberals. I think it's highly questionable wether he got more support of his slavic subjets in exchange. - Ersatz for a real alliance. Of course German diplomacy paniced about the feeling of isolation from time to time before 1914. Having the honorable Habsburgs on your side makes it easier then to keep up the illusion you're part of a strong alliance. With Austria absorbed in a desperate internal struggel for herself the situation is even more pleasant for Germany. Getting ever more the #1 in the two countries' relations suits perfectly the German taste of that time. In an alliance with stronger Russia on the other side she would constantly have to wonder "am I hammer or anvil here?". Stripped off the Austrian illusion even imperial Germany would probably swallow this and make a more realistic policy. - Ersatz for colonial markets. O.k., that comparison is quite unfair to Austria-Hungary and even Turkey - "economic Hinterland" would be more appropriate. And a more peaceful realisation of the economic "Mitteleuropa" projects of WW1 times might well be helpful to all. Still German think-tanks more than welcomed the prospects of their country's economic predominance in the area. Cheers Thilo. Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:04:42 -0700 From: Mike Ralls Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 If AH was still pissed at Prussia, would Bismark agree to the annexation of A-L? He did it reluctantly in OTL, knowing tha it would make France Germany's eternal enemy, and with a dangerous southern flank, may have been willing to overthule his military advisors. -- Mike Ralls Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: 14 Jul 2001 06:29:55 GMT From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >From: Mike Ralls mralls@willamette.edu >If AH was still pissed at Prussia, would Bismark agree to the annexation of >A-L? He did it reluctantly in OTL, knowing tha it would make France >Germany's >eternal enemy, According to AJP Taylor ("Bismarck The Man and The Statesman") this is not true. Bismarck was in fact pushing for annexation from day one, and his later expressions of regret were pure eyewash. At most he might have left the French-speacking district of Metz, but even this is doubtful, and in any case would not have mollified France As for knowing that it made France an "eternal enemy" this was precisely why he did it. He needed a foreign danger to scare the voters into line when election time came round, and France was by far the most convenient one -- Mike Stone - Peterborough England Last words of King Edward II. "I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - - AAARGHH!!!" Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: 14 Jul 2001 14:39:50 -0700 From: mralls@willamette.edu (Mike Ralls) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) wrote in message > As for knowing that it made France an "eternal enemy" this was precisely why > he did it. But in this TL he has that in the form of A-H. Don't you think he'd be rather worried about having TWO hostile big powers on Germanies border? -- Mike Ralls Subject: Re: A different central Europe Date: 14 Jul 2001 18:29:57 -0700 From: pipe1234@aol.com (Jonathan Klingler) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Hey, this sounds very similar to the Arnaud TL. Pipe