Bavarian Raven
Banned
...another thing to think about, denmark, and the rest of the northern scandinavian countries, will they throw their lot in with germany or stay neutral?
Different Allies in WWI
- Thread starter Highlander
- Start date
MrP
Banned
Denmark would probably end up a friendly neutral, IMO. She has nothing to gain from fighting for the Anglo-German-Ottoman side. The RN will keep Denmark's Atlantic trade flowing, and hold the Baltic against the Russians, even in a worst case scenario. Denmark's navy is ok for self-defence, but even the RN's obsolete predreads are better than Denmark's best ships. Were I running Denmark, I'd certainly hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. Sweden's a more interesting case - she borders Finland, and Russia was worried IOTL about Sweden having designs on the area in the event of war. Fenk's currently writing a TL about the Russian Baltic commander, Admiral Essen, Copenhagening the Swedish fleet, and pulling them into the war on the German side.
MrP
Banned
The strength of covering forces is certainly up for debate. The OTL ones were (Derived from John Ellis & Michael Cox, The World War I Databook, 2001 edition, Aurum Press):
GHQ Reserve (Warsaw Area): 6 Infantry Divisions, 2 Schützen Brigades and a Caucasian Cossack Division
North Western Front:
1 Army: 6 Infantry Divisions, 1 Schützen Brigade, 3 Cavalry Divisions and 1 Independent Cavalry Brigade
2 Army: 10 Infantry Divisions and 3 Cavalry Divisions
South Western Front:
En route from Caucasus: 2 Infantry Divisions and 1 Cavalry Division
4 Army: 6 Infantry Divisions, 1 Schützen Brigade, 3 Cavalry Divisions and 2 Cavalry Brigades
5 Army: 10 Infantry Divisions and 6 Cavalry Divisions
3 Army: 12 Infantry Divisions and 4 Cavalry Divisions
8 Army: 9 Infantry Divisions, 2 Schützen Brigades and 2 (later 5) Cavalry Divisions
7 Independent Army: 4 Infantry Divisions
TOTAL:
NW Front: 16.5 Infantry Divisions, 8.5 cavalry divisions
SW Front: 38.5 Infantry Divisions, 20.5 cavalry divisions
The forces covering Finland, the Caucasus, Romania and Japan, and still organising amounted to:
13 Infantry Divisions, 4 Finnish Schützen Brigades, 2 Turkish Schützen Brigades, 2 Caucasian Schützen Brigades, 3 Cavalry Divisions, 1 Caucasian Cossack Division, 17 Reserve Infantry Divisions, 4 Turkestan Rifle Divisions and 11 Siberian Rifle Divisions (these last 15 were at home stations). Most of the above had joined the field armies by the battles of OTL of November '14. However, this amounts to . . . the 17 Reserve Infantry Divisions, as the rest of this stuff is scattered about the Empire, protecting against various stuff.
Tbh, I tend to get a bit confused looking at Russian deployment schedules, because they make every other army's numbers pale into nothingness. So excuse any mistakes I make!
D'oh! I omitted one thing:
6 Independent Army (Finland): 5 Infantry Divisions and 4 Finnish Schützen Brigades
As Susano (?) wrote, such a change in alliances has to happen quite early. Thus Germany can take preparations for such a war.
I will only concentrate on what alliances might appear from a German-British alliance vs. an Austrian-French-Russian one.
First, fighting Austria means fighting alongside Italy and Serbia, and probably Romania. Italy alone wasn't that successful, but it would hold French and Austrian troops and increase the naval supremacy of the British in the Med. Serbia on the other side prooved to be quite effective against the Austrians - in fact, the Austrians required German help on everything. ITTL, they'd get Russian help...
Going for the Ottoman Empire, with Britain AND Germany on the same side, the sultan should have no choice than to enter the war against Russia - which would be quite attractive anyway.
And finally, I'd propose Japan for the British-German side. Japan is easy: they already fought against the Russians and got less than hoped. Furthermore, they are more or less allies to the British IOTL.
Looking at these dynamics, we'd have a well prepared Germany and Italy awaiting the onslaught, with Germany having spent most of its ressources on defence rather than a navy useless ITTL. Austria and Russia would be as weak as IOTL, with their supply routes effectively blocked and pretty much encircled themselves (Russia fights in Europe, in the Caucasus and in the Pacific, Austria in Italy, along the German frontier and in the Balkans). France could easily be blocked by the Royal Navy.
Furthermore, one has to remember that the Gemrans would have quite a propaganda advantage over the Austrians: The Germans would announce independence for Hungarians, Italians, Romanians, Slovaks, Croats, Serbs, Poles and maybe Czechs and German unification. I could easily see voluntary legions of Austrian POWs fighting against their former homeland for the Germans.
I will only concentrate on what alliances might appear from a German-British alliance vs. an Austrian-French-Russian one.
First, fighting Austria means fighting alongside Italy and Serbia, and probably Romania. Italy alone wasn't that successful, but it would hold French and Austrian troops and increase the naval supremacy of the British in the Med. Serbia on the other side prooved to be quite effective against the Austrians - in fact, the Austrians required German help on everything. ITTL, they'd get Russian help...
Going for the Ottoman Empire, with Britain AND Germany on the same side, the sultan should have no choice than to enter the war against Russia - which would be quite attractive anyway.
And finally, I'd propose Japan for the British-German side. Japan is easy: they already fought against the Russians and got less than hoped. Furthermore, they are more or less allies to the British IOTL.
Looking at these dynamics, we'd have a well prepared Germany and Italy awaiting the onslaught, with Germany having spent most of its ressources on defence rather than a navy useless ITTL. Austria and Russia would be as weak as IOTL, with their supply routes effectively blocked and pretty much encircled themselves (Russia fights in Europe, in the Caucasus and in the Pacific, Austria in Italy, along the German frontier and in the Balkans). France could easily be blocked by the Royal Navy.
Furthermore, one has to remember that the Gemrans would have quite a propaganda advantage over the Austrians: The Germans would announce independence for Hungarians, Italians, Romanians, Slovaks, Croats, Serbs, Poles and maybe Czechs and German unification. I could easily see voluntary legions of Austrian POWs fighting against their former homeland for the Germans.
I would agree with Homer here. The Germans had significantly smaller forces than they could have had in OTL 1914, largely due to concerns about where recruiting was coming from. [I.e. the conservative Junkers preferred recruiting primarily from the more political reliable rural areas rather the urban centres]. However a more liberal Germany would not have this problem while if their facing a combination of the other 3 great continental powers against them I could see a lot of pressure for increased army spending and more widespread conscription so manpower would be considerably greater. Having a markedly smaller navy would also help, in terms of manpower and other resources freed up.
Not so sure Mr P is right that the BEF would be used for raiding the French coast. That requires amphibious assaults, very difficult, especially against a country like France with a good rail network. Also with Germany fighting for its life there's the danger that while the British army is making minimal probes in Brittany or Gascony Britain suddenly finds itself very isolated. As such I think the BEF would cross the North Sea to serve on the western front against the French. [Or possibly if the French have a drive through the Ardennes a landing at Antwerp to link up with the surviving Belgium forces and threaten the flank/rear of the French thrust?]
A comparison with the 7 Years' War was made and in one way it might be highly accurate. Britain would not be able initially to mobilise forces as large, proportionally, as it committed in the earlier conflict and would have relatively few mercenaries to recruit. Also Germany couldn't allow such large areas of its territory to be overrun with the modern reliance on industrial facilities else it would obviously go under. However could see Britain providing money, naval superiority, equipment and increasing numbers of men while Germany carries the bulk of the land conflict. [Inevitable given its larger population and geographical position]. However given the technology available for such a conflict and presuming a POD sometime after say about 1890, so you have a highly developed Germany I would expect the Anglo-German-Ottoman alliance to come out on top in Europe.
In terms of other powers? Can see Japan joining the allies as even if not an alliance with Britain and no Russo-Japanese war earlier the two powers would be natural rivals and Japan could make hay in the far east. Also Britain's naval and financial power will make it a very risky opponent for Japan at this time.
Would expect Italy to also join the allies, although probably after a period of diplomacy and hopefully preparation. Also it might assume a predominantly defensive stance initially, which could help avoid some of its appalling early losses. Its navy and position would be very helpful in securing naval dominance in the Med. Possibly also, presuming possession of either Libya or [given butterflies] Tunisia it might also try a hack at Algeria. Unlikely to be too successful there in the short term but could tie up a lot of the reinforcements the French are expecting from the region].
Not so sure that all the Balkans would be on the allied sides. Serbia had quite good relations with Austria until about a decade before WWI. Bulgaria is likely to be on the opposite side of the Ottomans, unless there has been something like the Balkan Wars in which case they will be opposing Serbia. Rumania will want land from both Austria and Russia but won't jump until its pretty damned certain it won't get stomped. Greece has traditionally had good relations with Britain and is vulnerable to naval power but also had good relations with Russia while joining the allies means being on the same side as the Turks! Likely that the Balkans will be pretty complex and convoluted.
The big problem would be the US. Very difficult to see them on the anti-British side due to the latter's naval superiority. Historically the main gripe with Germany was its use of unrestricted U-boat warfare and the resulting civilian losses. In an Anglo-German alliance that side will almost certainly have naval superiority and hence it could well be the French that are using subs. Also the sheer amount the allies had bought from the US meant that there were vested interests in the US in joining the allied side. Again, with British naval superiority its unlikely that the opposing faction will be buying more than the allies from the US. Especially since the more urban and industrial nature of both Britain and Germany make them better customers for the US goods, overwhelmingly agricultural and raw material at this point. Not saying the US will join a grand Anglo-Saxon bloc but difficult to see them joining the opposing side, especially early on.
If they did join later then it depends on what the situation is then and how quickly the US mobilised. OTL it was over a year before the US committed any real combat forces to the western front and that was with several years of pump priming from the allies and much production still needed to come from the western allies to equip their forces when they did start arriving in numbers. Therefore the US could threaten allied naval superiority and also Canada, if Britain can not switch substantial forces across the Atlantic, but their unlikely to have a direct role in Europe.
A lot of other variables depending on individuals, national viewpoints etc. For instance, with a desire to reclaim the 'lost provinces' would the French attack via Belgium, into A-L or both? Would they [and possibly other powers] be obsessed with the cult of the offensive, which could cause very high casualties for minimal gains. Has Britain had an equivalent of the Boer war to modernise the British army and give it valuable experience of organising large forces? In any push through Belgium, or other border regions, how will the respective fortresses compare with the siege artillery available to reduce them? [Some sources suggest that if WWI had come just a little earlier, before the Germans had obtained the necessary heavy guns they would have had a lot more problems with the Belgium fortresses].
Small point. I am assuming an allied naval superiority not just because the RN will almost certainly be the strongest naval power. The opposing forces all have serious problems. Even if the French overcome their historical problems of rotating ministers and policies they will be virtually isolated and also Gibraltar will require them to maintain two separate fleets. Austria and Russia both have very limited industrial resources for naval construction. Austria also has a short coastline and can fairly easily be largely restricted to the northern Adriatic, even if the Italians stayed neutral. Russia has to consider 3 [or 4 if you count any Arctic Fleet] forces none of which can support each other and with the two most powerful geographically blocked from the open seas.
Steve
Not so sure Mr P is right that the BEF would be used for raiding the French coast. That requires amphibious assaults, very difficult, especially against a country like France with a good rail network. Also with Germany fighting for its life there's the danger that while the British army is making minimal probes in Brittany or Gascony Britain suddenly finds itself very isolated. As such I think the BEF would cross the North Sea to serve on the western front against the French. [Or possibly if the French have a drive through the Ardennes a landing at Antwerp to link up with the surviving Belgium forces and threaten the flank/rear of the French thrust?]
A comparison with the 7 Years' War was made and in one way it might be highly accurate. Britain would not be able initially to mobilise forces as large, proportionally, as it committed in the earlier conflict and would have relatively few mercenaries to recruit. Also Germany couldn't allow such large areas of its territory to be overrun with the modern reliance on industrial facilities else it would obviously go under. However could see Britain providing money, naval superiority, equipment and increasing numbers of men while Germany carries the bulk of the land conflict. [Inevitable given its larger population and geographical position]. However given the technology available for such a conflict and presuming a POD sometime after say about 1890, so you have a highly developed Germany I would expect the Anglo-German-Ottoman alliance to come out on top in Europe.
In terms of other powers? Can see Japan joining the allies as even if not an alliance with Britain and no Russo-Japanese war earlier the two powers would be natural rivals and Japan could make hay in the far east. Also Britain's naval and financial power will make it a very risky opponent for Japan at this time.
Would expect Italy to also join the allies, although probably after a period of diplomacy and hopefully preparation. Also it might assume a predominantly defensive stance initially, which could help avoid some of its appalling early losses. Its navy and position would be very helpful in securing naval dominance in the Med. Possibly also, presuming possession of either Libya or [given butterflies] Tunisia it might also try a hack at Algeria. Unlikely to be too successful there in the short term but could tie up a lot of the reinforcements the French are expecting from the region].
Not so sure that all the Balkans would be on the allied sides. Serbia had quite good relations with Austria until about a decade before WWI. Bulgaria is likely to be on the opposite side of the Ottomans, unless there has been something like the Balkan Wars in which case they will be opposing Serbia. Rumania will want land from both Austria and Russia but won't jump until its pretty damned certain it won't get stomped. Greece has traditionally had good relations with Britain and is vulnerable to naval power but also had good relations with Russia while joining the allies means being on the same side as the Turks! Likely that the Balkans will be pretty complex and convoluted.
The big problem would be the US. Very difficult to see them on the anti-British side due to the latter's naval superiority. Historically the main gripe with Germany was its use of unrestricted U-boat warfare and the resulting civilian losses. In an Anglo-German alliance that side will almost certainly have naval superiority and hence it could well be the French that are using subs. Also the sheer amount the allies had bought from the US meant that there were vested interests in the US in joining the allied side. Again, with British naval superiority its unlikely that the opposing faction will be buying more than the allies from the US. Especially since the more urban and industrial nature of both Britain and Germany make them better customers for the US goods, overwhelmingly agricultural and raw material at this point. Not saying the US will join a grand Anglo-Saxon bloc but difficult to see them joining the opposing side, especially early on.
If they did join later then it depends on what the situation is then and how quickly the US mobilised. OTL it was over a year before the US committed any real combat forces to the western front and that was with several years of pump priming from the allies and much production still needed to come from the western allies to equip their forces when they did start arriving in numbers. Therefore the US could threaten allied naval superiority and also Canada, if Britain can not switch substantial forces across the Atlantic, but their unlikely to have a direct role in Europe.
A lot of other variables depending on individuals, national viewpoints etc. For instance, with a desire to reclaim the 'lost provinces' would the French attack via Belgium, into A-L or both? Would they [and possibly other powers] be obsessed with the cult of the offensive, which could cause very high casualties for minimal gains. Has Britain had an equivalent of the Boer war to modernise the British army and give it valuable experience of organising large forces? In any push through Belgium, or other border regions, how will the respective fortresses compare with the siege artillery available to reduce them? [Some sources suggest that if WWI had come just a little earlier, before the Germans had obtained the necessary heavy guns they would have had a lot more problems with the Belgium fortresses].
Small point. I am assuming an allied naval superiority not just because the RN will almost certainly be the strongest naval power. The opposing forces all have serious problems. Even if the French overcome their historical problems of rotating ministers and policies they will be virtually isolated and also Gibraltar will require them to maintain two separate fleets. Austria and Russia both have very limited industrial resources for naval construction. Austria also has a short coastline and can fairly easily be largely restricted to the northern Adriatic, even if the Italians stayed neutral. Russia has to consider 3 [or 4 if you count any Arctic Fleet] forces none of which can support each other and with the two most powerful geographically blocked from the open seas.
Steve
MrP
Banned
Steve, I think you're right about me being wrong about the BEF being used for coastal attacks. I hadn't realised until the other day the sheer amount of work Wilson and his half a dozen staff did to get the BEF to France IOTL. I now think the BEF will have to be landed in Germany or held back in Britain, because any major landing will require a proper harbour, and cannot be accomplished in this era if it's properly defended.
Of course. I assumed that the war started from the same reasons as IOTL, thus Austria vs. Serbia and hence Serbia on the Allied side. OF course you're right: anything can happen on the Balkans. However, about half of the Balkan countries should side with the Allies. Given what problems the Austrians had with Serbia IOTL, this wouldn't be a main spot of the war, yet quite consuming considering troops.
I fully agree with that. Additionally, I'd count in that the vast majority of Americans had ancestors of British or German origin, which should also help in getting them on the Allied side, if they choose a side.
Given the pre-war situation, Germanies defense plans should concentrate on holding against the French, thus we'd see a heavily fortified frontier and a bulk of German troops in Alsace-Lorrain. We'd essentially have the situation of WWI IOTL reversed, thus it may well be that France attacks through Belgium - with the additional benefit of cutting of the shortest way between Germany and Britain through Antwerp and the Rhine, which alone should be considered an important strategic goal.
On the other side, France must follow offensive plans: As we both stated, France will be isolated and a blockade will be in place. Thus France somehow has to connect with Austria to get a propper supply base.