|
Post by futurist on Oct 11, 2018 20:19:12 GMT
What would World War I have looked like if it would have broken out in 1917 over a Hungarian secession attempt with Franco-Russian backing?
How would this alt-World War I have progressed and what would the post-World War I peace treaty have looked like in this TL?
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 27, 2018 0:22:37 GMT
Also, another question--was Hungary within its rights not to renew its union with Austria in 1917?
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 27, 2018 22:05:03 GMT
What would World War I have looked like if it would have broken out in 1917 over a Hungarian secession attempt with Franco-Russian backing? How would this alt-World War I have progressed and what would the post-World War I peace treaty have looked like in this TL?
Well by this time the Russians have completed their railway network in the east so can moblise more rapidly. Germany might have recruited more men to counter this but has probably had to at least reconsider if not drop its western strike plan. Not sure what state Austria would be in and would Franz Joseph have died yet or without the stress of the war have lasted a bit longer?
Also what are the status of Britain and Italy in this scenario?
Italy may support the CPs since they are the victims of the original attack in this scenario. Or stay neutral or decide to support the EPs on the basis that they expect the CPs to go down quickly and want a share of the loot.
Britain is more complex. Apart from the issue that its the EPs who started the war which might affect matters in London even if Germany then still attacks through Belgium, there might well be a fear that a quick EP victory could destablish Europe too much. Also are the Liberals still in power as they only had a small minority dependent on Irish Nationalists to stay in power so there might have been another election and a Tory government. Ditto the volatile status of Ireland which could be in a state of serious civil unrest at least and at worse full scale civil war, which would distract Britain to put it mildly. As such Britain could easily seat out at least the early part of this conflict.
In terms of the definite combatants I think the EPs have the edge with Hungary in turmoil although the majority of the population of the kingdom of Hungary aren't Hungarians so there could be a hell of a lot of support for Austria in the kingdom. It could go either way or end up in a fairly pointless bloodbath with relatively minimal territorial changes in the end.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 28, 2018 7:06:58 GMT
What would World War I have looked like if it would have broken out in 1917 over a Hungarian secession attempt with Franco-Russian backing? How would this alt-World War I have progressed and what would the post-World War I peace treaty have looked like in this TL?
Well by this time the Russians have completed their railway network in the east so can moblise more rapidly. Germany might have recruited more men to counter this but has probably had to at least reconsider if not drop its western strike plan. Not sure what state Austria would be in and would Franz Joseph have died yet or without the stress of the war have lasted a bit longer?
Also what are the status of Britain and Italy in this scenario?
Italy may support the CPs since they are the victims of the original attack in this scenario. Or stay neutral or decide to support the EPs on the basis that they expect the CPs to go down quickly and want a share of the loot.
Britain is more complex. Apart from the issue that its the EPs who started the war which might affect matters in London even if Germany then still attacks through Belgium, there might well be a fear that a quick EP victory could destablish Europe too much. Also are the Liberals still in power as they only had a small minority dependent on Irish Nationalists to stay in power so there might have been another election and a Tory government. Ditto the volatile status of Ireland which could be in a state of serious civil unrest at least and at worse full scale civil war, which would distract Britain to put it mildly. As such Britain could easily seat out at least the early part of this conflict.
In terms of the definite combatants I think the EPs have the edge with Hungary in turmoil although the majority of the population of the kingdom of Hungary aren't Hungarians so there could be a hell of a lot of support for Austria in the kingdom. It could go either way or end up in a fairly pointless bloodbath with relatively minimal territorial changes in the end.
If Germany drops its West-first plan (as is probably likely), Russia is in a much worse position even if its Great Military Program is completed since Germany can deploy more troops to the East while playing defense in the West. As for Austria, if Franz Joseph lives significantly longer, then war will be delayed since the Hungarians won't dare to secede under his watch. Basically, whenever Franz Joseph dies, the Hungarians are likely to secede shortly afterwards. Britain remains neutral in this TL's WWI--at least initially. As for Italy, the same thing applies--it remains neutral, at least initially. I do expect Britain and Italy to see how the war will progress before making any big moves away from neutrality, though. If Germany still attacks Belgium (which is unlikely, IMHO), then Britain will probably enter the war in favor of the Entente Powers. Else, Britain would probably remain neutral--at least initially. Also, the Tories would win the 1915 British election in this scenario, no? As for Ireland, Yes, I do expect it to descend into civil war with the British and Irish Catholics on one side and the Irish Protestants on the other side. This would probably provide further incentive for Britain to remain neutral in this TL's World War I. As for your analysis of this war, I disagree with it. Sure, the EPs are likely to initially have the edge due to Hungary being in turmoil and Russia's military being more prepared (and possibly also due to the increase in the French military as a result of increasing conscription from two to three years). However, Britain's and the U.S.'s neutrality in this TL's World War I is likely to significantly pay off for the CPs in the long(er)-run. Ultimately, I think that this will be the decisive factor here. Indeed, without British and American manpower, I simply don't think that France and Russia have what it takes to win this TL's World War I even with Hungary on their side. In turn, the main question for me would be this: Just how much are the CPs going to want in any peace treaty? Are they going to aim for a total defeat of the EPs or would they settle for a generous compromise peace--possibly with the help of British and/or American mediation? For instance, would Germany settle for a Russian withdrawal from Hungary and from the territories west of Minsk and south of Riga as well as from the parts of the Ottoman Empire that it captured in 1877-1878 without demanding more from Russia? Also, would Germany demand Briey and Longwy from France or settle for the status quo ante bellum?
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 28, 2018 11:01:19 GMT
Well by this time the Russians have completed their railway network in the east so can moblise more rapidly. Germany might have recruited more men to counter this but has probably had to at least reconsider if not drop its western strike plan. Not sure what state Austria would be in and would Franz Joseph have died yet or without the stress of the war have lasted a bit longer?
Also what are the status of Britain and Italy in this scenario?
Italy may support the CPs since they are the victims of the original attack in this scenario. Or stay neutral or decide to support the EPs on the basis that they expect the CPs to go down quickly and want a share of the loot.
Britain is more complex. Apart from the issue that its the EPs who started the war which might affect matters in London even if Germany then still attacks through Belgium, there might well be a fear that a quick EP victory could destablish Europe too much. Also are the Liberals still in power as they only had a small minority dependent on Irish Nationalists to stay in power so there might have been another election and a Tory government. Ditto the volatile status of Ireland which could be in a state of serious civil unrest at least and at worse full scale civil war, which would distract Britain to put it mildly. As such Britain could easily seat out at least the early part of this conflict.
In terms of the definite combatants I think the EPs have the edge with Hungary in turmoil although the majority of the population of the kingdom of Hungary aren't Hungarians so there could be a hell of a lot of support for Austria in the kingdom. It could go either way or end up in a fairly pointless bloodbath with relatively minimal territorial changes in the end.
If Germany drops its West-first plan (as is probably likely), Russia is in a much worse position even if its Great Military Program is completed since Germany can deploy more troops to the East while playing defense in the West. As for Austria, if Franz Joseph lives significantly longer, then war will be delayed since the Hungarians won't dare to secede under his watch. Basically, whenever Franz Joseph dies, the Hungarians are likely to secede shortly afterwards. Britain remains neutral in this TL's WWI--at least initially. As for Italy, the same thing applies--it remains neutral, at least initially. I do expect Britain and Italy to see how the war will progress before making any big moves away from neutrality, though. If Germany still attacks Belgium (which is unlikely, IMHO), then Britain will probably enter the war in favor of the Entente Powers. Else, Britain would probably remain neutral--at least initially. Also, the Tories would win the 1915 British election in this scenario, no? As for Ireland, Yes, I do expect it to descend into civil war with the British and Irish Catholics on one side and the Irish Protestants on the other side. This would probably provide further incentive for Britain to remain neutral in this TL's World War I. As for your analysis of this war, I disagree with it. Sure, the EPs are likely to initially have the edge due to Hungary being in turmoil and Russia's military being more prepared (and possibly also due to the increase in the French military as a result of increasing conscription from two to three years). However, Britain's and the U.S.'s neutrality in this TL's World War I is likely to significantly pay off for the CPs in the long(er)-run. Ultimately, I think that this will be the decisive factor here. Indeed, without British and American manpower, I simply don't think that France and Russia have what it takes to win this TL's World War I even with Hungary on their side. In turn, the main question for me would be this: Just how much are the CPs going to want in any peace treaty? Are they going to aim for a total defeat of the EPs or would they settle for a generous compromise peace--possibly with the help of British and/or American mediation? For instance, would Germany settle for a Russian withdrawal from Hungary and from the territories west of Minsk and south of Riga as well as from the parts of the Ottoman Empire that it captured in 1877-1878 without demanding more from Russia? Also, would Germany demand Briey and Longwy from France or settle for the status quo ante bellum?
To answer some points. a) IIRC the maximum term for a Parliament in Britain at this point was 7 years so a new election wouldn't be necessary until 1917 but with the fact the Liberals had only two seats more than the Tories and if they have a dispute with the Irish Nationalists you could see a new election earlier. If so given the tension over Irish home rule - and specifically the forced inclusion of Ulster in it - and the fact the Liberals have been in power since 1906 I wouldn't be surprised by a Tory victory, or at least replacing the Liberals as the largest party.
b) If that happens then any fighting in Ireland would be between the Nationalists and the British government as the Tories would almost certainly reject Home Rule. If the Liberals are in charge then they would probably support the military submission of Ulster to force it into Home Rule but it would be deeply divisive and also likely to see massive opposition inside Britain itself and the army.
c) I could be wrong but I think the original agreement in 1867 over Hungary's status had a 50 year life-span so not sure if discussion could be delayed if FJ was still in power. Possibly it might be kicked into the long grass by having discussions going nowhere but since the Hungarians know that FJ is very old and FF's views on the current agreement - i.e. being hostile to the Hungarian privileges - they can't really afford to wait too long. I think they would be eager to renew the deal for another 50 years and FJ might well be happy to agree. However that would deny the trigger for war your looking at, at least unless FJ died very shortly afterwards and FF came out in opposition to the idea.
d) Agree that Germany is unlikely to attack through Belgium as OTL. However after a defeat of the initial Russian attacks in the east and if the French still have the stupid Plan XVII for frontal attacks on the fortified zone in A-L they might revive the idea as a way to quickly end the war. In this case, especially if they give promises to fully restore Belgium neutrality after the war and if Britain is facing a war in Ireland its by no means certain this will be a casus belli for Britain.
e) Quite likely that Britain and Italy would join later in the conflict, and probably Turkey on the CP side fairly early. Britain is likely to seek to mediate a moderate peace, to avoid upsetting the balance of power too much, possibly with the implied threat it would come in against whatever side rejected this. Italy is probably more likely to seek to join whoever they think are the winners to gain territory. What's sometimes called fishing in troubled waters.
f) In terms of who wins and what sort of peace occurs it would depend on circumstances. You could see much of Hungary overrun by Russian forces supported by Hungarian rebels, which would pose a serious problem for the CP in terms of the loss of the bulk of their oil supplies and their main source of food surpluses. Although with Britain neutral there is unlikely to be any effective blockade. However the bulk of the German fleet, if as OTL, is very short ranged, targeting a fight with the RN in the N Sea. As such France, with Atlantic bases could have patrols seeking to intercept ships heading for Germany to seize contraband. This is less effective but would have some effects.
If the Germans concentrate on the east they could rough up Russia a lot but it could be tough fighting while the Russian army is reasonably well equipped regulars. Also if they seek to go too far into Russia that could end up badly for them. It was one thing in 1917-18 with the Russian army and society having effectively collapsed and 2-3 years of huge losses. Trying to do that say in the 2nd year of the war could see them having huge logistical problems and also raise Russian nationalism in defence of the motherland. Artillery, dependent on horses to move and supply them, is slow moving and limited in range away from railheads and even against thinly held Russia defences attempts to break through with infantry only is likely to be costly.
There is one wild card in that I have seen it suggested in a war like this that after a failure in attacking A-L - or possibly realising that won't work without a lot of supporting heavy artillery and doctrine changes - the French try a hook through Belgium to get into Germany and help out their ally. This may or may not work, to a greater or lesser degree, but would put a Britain possibly having resolved - at least partly - tension in Ireland, in a difficult position.
g) I think the longer the war goes on and the bloodier it is the more extreme the terms the victor wants will be. Both because of anger at their opponent and to sell to their own people that the huge sacrifices have been worthwhile as well as to prevent their opponents rearming and coming back for another round. On the other hand, if a prolonged stalemate sets in and say Britain is seeking to mediate such a peace a moderate result, possibly with little/no border changes could result.
h) Unless someone carries out a prolonged USW campaign or does something else to really upset the US its likely to stay neutral, while probably being willing to sell to both sides. It has no real interests in Europe at this point and is deeply isolationist.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 29, 2018 1:35:56 GMT
If Germany drops its West-first plan (as is probably likely), Russia is in a much worse position even if its Great Military Program is completed since Germany can deploy more troops to the East while playing defense in the West. As for Austria, if Franz Joseph lives significantly longer, then war will be delayed since the Hungarians won't dare to secede under his watch. Basically, whenever Franz Joseph dies, the Hungarians are likely to secede shortly afterwards. Britain remains neutral in this TL's WWI--at least initially. As for Italy, the same thing applies--it remains neutral, at least initially. I do expect Britain and Italy to see how the war will progress before making any big moves away from neutrality, though. If Germany still attacks Belgium (which is unlikely, IMHO), then Britain will probably enter the war in favor of the Entente Powers. Else, Britain would probably remain neutral--at least initially. Also, the Tories would win the 1915 British election in this scenario, no? As for Ireland, Yes, I do expect it to descend into civil war with the British and Irish Catholics on one side and the Irish Protestants on the other side. This would probably provide further incentive for Britain to remain neutral in this TL's World War I. As for your analysis of this war, I disagree with it. Sure, the EPs are likely to initially have the edge due to Hungary being in turmoil and Russia's military being more prepared (and possibly also due to the increase in the French military as a result of increasing conscription from two to three years). However, Britain's and the U.S.'s neutrality in this TL's World War I is likely to significantly pay off for the CPs in the long(er)-run. Ultimately, I think that this will be the decisive factor here. Indeed, without British and American manpower, I simply don't think that France and Russia have what it takes to win this TL's World War I even with Hungary on their side. In turn, the main question for me would be this: Just how much are the CPs going to want in any peace treaty? Are they going to aim for a total defeat of the EPs or would they settle for a generous compromise peace--possibly with the help of British and/or American mediation? For instance, would Germany settle for a Russian withdrawal from Hungary and from the territories west of Minsk and south of Riga as well as from the parts of the Ottoman Empire that it captured in 1877-1878 without demanding more from Russia? Also, would Germany demand Briey and Longwy from France or settle for the status quo ante bellum?
To answer some points. a) IIRC the maximum term for a Parliament in Britain at this point was 7 years so a new election wouldn't be necessary until 1917 but with the fact the Liberals had only two seats more than the Tories and if they have a dispute with the Irish Nationalists you could see a new election earlier. If so given the tension over Irish home rule - and specifically the forced inclusion of Ulster in it - and the fact the Liberals have been in power since 1906 I wouldn't be surprised by a Tory victory, or at least replacing the Liberals as the largest party.
b) If that happens then any fighting in Ireland would be between the Nationalists and the British government as the Tories would almost certainly reject Home Rule. If the Liberals are in charge then they would probably support the military submission of Ulster to force it into Home Rule but it would be deeply divisive and also likely to see massive opposition inside Britain itself and the army.
c) I could be wrong but I think the original agreement in 1867 over Hungary's status had a 50 year life-span so not sure if discussion could be delayed if FJ was still in power. Possibly it might be kicked into the long grass by having discussions going nowhere but since the Hungarians know that FJ is very old and FF's views on the current agreement - i.e. being hostile to the Hungarian privileges - they can't really afford to wait too long. I think they would be eager to renew the deal for another 50 years and FJ might well be happy to agree. However that would deny the trigger for war your looking at, at least unless FJ died very shortly afterwards and FF came out in opposition to the idea.
d) Agree that Germany is unlikely to attack through Belgium as OTL. However after a defeat of the initial Russian attacks in the east and if the French still have the stupid Plan XVII for frontal attacks on the fortified zone in A-L they might revive the idea as a way to quickly end the war. In this case, especially if they give promises to fully restore Belgium neutrality after the war and if Britain is facing a war in Ireland its by no means certain this will be a casus belli for Britain.
e) Quite likely that Britain and Italy would join later in the conflict, and probably Turkey on the CP side fairly early. Britain is likely to seek to mediate a moderate peace, to avoid upsetting the balance of power too much, possibly with the implied threat it would come in against whatever side rejected this. Italy is probably more likely to seek to join whoever they think are the winners to gain territory. What's sometimes called fishing in troubled waters.
f) In terms of who wins and what sort of peace occurs it would depend on circumstances. You could see much of Hungary overrun by Russian forces supported by Hungarian rebels, which would pose a serious problem for the CP in terms of the loss of the bulk of their oil supplies and their main source of food surpluses. Although with Britain neutral there is unlikely to be any effective blockade. However the bulk of the German fleet, if as OTL, is very short ranged, targeting a fight with the RN in the N Sea. As such France, with Atlantic bases could have patrols seeking to intercept ships heading for Germany to seize contraband. This is less effective but would have some effects.
If the Germans concentrate on the east they could rough up Russia a lot but it could be tough fighting while the Russian army is reasonably well equipped regulars. Also if they seek to go too far into Russia that could end up badly for them. It was one thing in 1917-18 with the Russian army and society having effectively collapsed and 2-3 years of huge losses. Trying to do that say in the 2nd year of the war could see them having huge logistical problems and also raise Russian nationalism in defence of the motherland. Artillery, dependent on horses to move and supply them, is slow moving and limited in range away from railheads and even against thinly held Russia defences attempts to break through with infantry only is likely to be costly.
There is one wild card in that I have seen it suggested in a war like this that after a failure in attacking A-L - or possibly realising that won't work without a lot of supporting heavy artillery and doctrine changes - the French try a hook through Belgium to get into Germany and help out their ally. This may or may not work, to a greater or lesser degree, but would put a Britain possibly having resolved - at least partly - tension in Ireland, in a difficult position.
g) I think the longer the war goes on and the bloodier it is the more extreme the terms the victor wants will be. Both because of anger at their opponent and to sell to their own people that the huge sacrifices have been worthwhile as well as to prevent their opponents rearming and coming back for another round. On the other hand, if a prolonged stalemate sets in and say Britain is seeking to mediate such a peace a moderate result, possibly with little/no border changes could result.
h) Unless someone carries out a prolonged USW campaign or does something else to really upset the US its likely to stay neutral, while probably being willing to sell to both sides. It has no real interests in Europe at this point and is deeply isolationist.
Steve
A. Agreed that a Tory victory is likely in the next British elections--whenever they will be. B. Why would the British Army object to forcing Ulster under Home Rule? Also, why was the idea of a plebiscite in regards to this never seriously considered? As in, letting the people of northern Ireland themselves decide what they want. C. As far as I know, the Ausgleich only had a ten-year lifespan. Indeed, I know that it was last renewed in 1907. Thus, it would be up for renewal in 1917 and then again in 1927 and 1937. Also, no matter what deal the Hungarians make with Franz Joseph in 1917, Franz Ferdinand is almost certainly going to want to implement universal suffrage in Hungary as soon as he comes to power. Thus, as soon as FF comes to power, the Hungarians will likely head for the exits. D. The idea of invading Belgium later on in the war might be risky for Germany since the Russian military would already be fully mobilized by that point in time. Sure, Germany could try it, but it would need to keep a lot of its troops in the East in order to prevent that front from completely collapsing--which in turn is going to reduce the likelihood of the Schlieffen Plan actually working in 1917 (or whenever this TL's WWI will occur). As for Britain, I suspect that a lot might depend on just how tired Britain is of war after its troubles in Ireland. E. Agreed with all of this. However, I do wonder if Britain can sell the idea of entering the war to force a compromise peace to the British public, though. After all, this might entail a lot of British bleeding. F. Agreed with all of this. However, please keep in mind that if Germany deploys most of its troops to the East, it is likely to recapture Hungary within a relatively short time-frame--with Germany also possibly capturing Poland, Lithuania, and Courland as a bonus. Indeed, even with a more powerful Russia, a greater German focus on the East in 1917 might very well allow it to pull off something such as the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive--but with this offensive also including Hungary in this TL. Completely agreed about the blockade part. In regards to going deep into Russia, what I think that Germany would aim for would be to advance up to the outskirts of Minsk and Riga--perhaps attempting to capture one or both of these cities as well--and then go on the defensive in the East. As for the West, I suspect that Germany would try to capture Briey and Longwy but otherwise play defense. The smart thing for Germany to do would be to create a good defensive line in both the West and the East and then watch France and Russia bleed themselves dry trying to penetrate the German defenses. In fact, it would be even better if Germany is able to successfully build a Hindenburg-type line on one or both of these fronts. Agreed that France is likely to go through Belgium after getting mauled in Alsace-Lorraine. Of course, France might limit its invasion of Belgium to the Ardennes in order to avoid angering Britain too much--though that's certainly not guaranteed. G. If the war is a stalemate, I think that the front lines could very well become the new borders. After all, I strongly doubt that Germany would be willing to agree to a status quo ante bellum peace if it is occupying French and/or Russian territory. I do think that the final peace is likely to be more tame than, say, Brest-Litovsk due to the fact that Russia and France would probably be unwilling to fight to the very end in this TL's World War I. Still, a lot is probably going to depend on just how magnanimous Germany is willing to be during this TL's World War I. H. Completely agreed with this. If Britain remains neutral, the U.S. almost certainly also remains neutral.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 29, 2018 22:17:18 GMT
To answer some points. a) IIRC the maximum term for a Parliament in Britain at this point was 7 years so a new election wouldn't be necessary until 1917 but with the fact the Liberals had only two seats more than the Tories and if they have a dispute with the Irish Nationalists you could see a new election earlier. If so given the tension over Irish home rule - and specifically the forced inclusion of Ulster in it - and the fact the Liberals have been in power since 1906 I wouldn't be surprised by a Tory victory, or at least replacing the Liberals as the largest party.
b) If that happens then any fighting in Ireland would be between the Nationalists and the British government as the Tories would almost certainly reject Home Rule. If the Liberals are in charge then they would probably support the military submission of Ulster to force it into Home Rule but it would be deeply divisive and also likely to see massive opposition inside Britain itself and the army.
c) I could be wrong but I think the original agreement in 1867 over Hungary's status had a 50 year life-span so not sure if discussion could be delayed if FJ was still in power. Possibly it might be kicked into the long grass by having discussions going nowhere but since the Hungarians know that FJ is very old and FF's views on the current agreement - i.e. being hostile to the Hungarian privileges - they can't really afford to wait too long. I think they would be eager to renew the deal for another 50 years and FJ might well be happy to agree. However that would deny the trigger for war your looking at, at least unless FJ died very shortly afterwards and FF came out in opposition to the idea.
d) Agree that Germany is unlikely to attack through Belgium as OTL. However after a defeat of the initial Russian attacks in the east and if the French still have the stupid Plan XVII for frontal attacks on the fortified zone in A-L they might revive the idea as a way to quickly end the war. In this case, especially if they give promises to fully restore Belgium neutrality after the war and if Britain is facing a war in Ireland its by no means certain this will be a casus belli for Britain.
e) Quite likely that Britain and Italy would join later in the conflict, and probably Turkey on the CP side fairly early. Britain is likely to seek to mediate a moderate peace, to avoid upsetting the balance of power too much, possibly with the implied threat it would come in against whatever side rejected this. Italy is probably more likely to seek to join whoever they think are the winners to gain territory. What's sometimes called fishing in troubled waters.
f) In terms of who wins and what sort of peace occurs it would depend on circumstances. You could see much of Hungary overrun by Russian forces supported by Hungarian rebels, which would pose a serious problem for the CP in terms of the loss of the bulk of their oil supplies and their main source of food surpluses. Although with Britain neutral there is unlikely to be any effective blockade. However the bulk of the German fleet, if as OTL, is very short ranged, targeting a fight with the RN in the N Sea. As such France, with Atlantic bases could have patrols seeking to intercept ships heading for Germany to seize contraband. This is less effective but would have some effects.
If the Germans concentrate on the east they could rough up Russia a lot but it could be tough fighting while the Russian army is reasonably well equipped regulars. Also if they seek to go too far into Russia that could end up badly for them. It was one thing in 1917-18 with the Russian army and society having effectively collapsed and 2-3 years of huge losses. Trying to do that say in the 2nd year of the war could see them having huge logistical problems and also raise Russian nationalism in defence of the motherland. Artillery, dependent on horses to move and supply them, is slow moving and limited in range away from railheads and even against thinly held Russia defences attempts to break through with infantry only is likely to be costly.
There is one wild card in that I have seen it suggested in a war like this that after a failure in attacking A-L - or possibly realising that won't work without a lot of supporting heavy artillery and doctrine changes - the French try a hook through Belgium to get into Germany and help out their ally. This may or may not work, to a greater or lesser degree, but would put a Britain possibly having resolved - at least partly - tension in Ireland, in a difficult position.
g) I think the longer the war goes on and the bloodier it is the more extreme the terms the victor wants will be. Both because of anger at their opponent and to sell to their own people that the huge sacrifices have been worthwhile as well as to prevent their opponents rearming and coming back for another round. On the other hand, if a prolonged stalemate sets in and say Britain is seeking to mediate such a peace a moderate result, possibly with little/no border changes could result.
h) Unless someone carries out a prolonged USW campaign or does something else to really upset the US its likely to stay neutral, while probably being willing to sell to both sides. It has no real interests in Europe at this point and is deeply isolationist.
Steve
A. Agreed that a Tory victory is likely in the next British elections--whenever they will be. B. Why would the British Army object to forcing Ulster under Home Rule? Also, why was the idea of a plebiscite in regards to this never seriously considered? As in, letting the people of northern Ireland themselves decide what they want. C. As far as I know, the Ausgleich only had a ten-year lifespan. Indeed, I know that it was last renewed in 1907. Thus, it would be up for renewal in 1917 and then again in 1927 and 1937. Also, no matter what deal the Hungarians make with Franz Joseph in 1917, Franz Ferdinand is almost certainly going to want to implement universal suffrage in Hungary as soon as he comes to power. Thus, as soon as FF comes to power, the Hungarians will likely head for the exits. D. The idea of invading Belgium later on in the war might be risky for Germany since the Russian military would already be fully mobilized by that point in time. Sure, Germany could try it, but it would need to keep a lot of its troops in the East in order to prevent that front from completely collapsing--which in turn is going to reduce the likelihood of the Schlieffen Plan actually working in 1917 (or whenever this TL's WWI will occur). As for Britain, I suspect that a lot might depend on just how tired Britain is of war after its troubles in Ireland. E. Agreed with all of this. However, I do wonder if Britain can sell the idea of entering the war to force a compromise peace to the British public, though. After all, this might entail a lot of British bleeding. F. Agreed with all of this. However, please keep in mind that if Germany deploys most of its troops to the East, it is likely to recapture Hungary within a relatively short time-frame--with Germany also possibly capturing Poland, Lithuania, and Courland as a bonus. Indeed, even with a more powerful Russia, a greater German focus on the East in 1917 might very well allow it to pull off something such as the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive--but with this offensive also including Hungary in this TL. Completely agreed about the blockade part. In regards to going deep into Russia, what I think that Germany would aim for would be to advance up to the outskirts of Minsk and Riga--perhaps attempting to capture one or both of these cities as well--and then go on the defensive in the East. As for the West, I suspect that Germany would try to capture Briey and Longwy but otherwise play defense. The smart thing for Germany to do would be to create a good defensive line in both the West and the East and then watch France and Russia bleed themselves dry trying to penetrate the German defenses. In fact, it would be even better if Germany is able to successfully build a Hindenburg-type line on one or both of these fronts. Agreed that France is likely to go through Belgium after getting mauled in Alsace-Lorraine. Of course, France might limit its invasion of Belgium to the Ardennes in order to avoid angering Britain too much--though that's certainly not guaranteed. G. If the war is a stalemate, I think that the front lines could very well become the new borders. After all, I strongly doubt that Germany would be willing to agree to a status quo ante bellum peace if it is occupying French and/or Russian territory. I do think that the final peace is likely to be more tame than, say, Brest-Litovsk due to the fact that Russia and France would probably be unwilling to fight to the very end in this TL's World War I. Still, a lot is probably going to depend on just how magnanimous Germany is willing to be during this TL's World War I. H. Completely agreed with this. If Britain remains neutral, the U.S. almost certainly also remains neutral.
Rather late here so a quick reply. On point b) see Curragh_incident. A lot of the officers of the army were either highly conservative or in many cases from the Protestant minority in Ireland. Since the later were largely from the Catholic south even the exclusion of Ulster wouldn't have affected their status.
As far as I'm aware the Catholic 'nationalist' were absolutely determined not to allow any part of Ireland to stay outside of the Dublin government under an Home Rule establishment. Although skimming through the notes to find the reference to the Curragh incident - my spellings not good so couldn't go straight to it - I did not a reference that the bill that passed through Parliament allowed the Ulster counties to vote on whether they would be affected by the bill. Which would have divided Ulster as several of the original 10 counties were predominantly Catholic but probably was unacceptable to the Nationalists anyway. All in all a mess waiting to happen.
|
|