More Central Powers?

[enaks]

What if more countries joined the central powers in the start of WW1?

What countries could have joined them and would it affect the outcome?

 

[ZeletDude]

Italy I suppose.

 

[Godwynn]

The British should have joined with their German brothers in eliminating the Russian and French threat once and for all.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

The British should have joined with their German brothers in eliminating the Russian and French threat once and for all.

but they had a deal to protect Belgium.

anyway, I think it would be interesting if Mexico actually joined the war. It would be interesting if Ottoman plans of "Islamic revolts" in British and French colonies actually worked.

 

[Dachs]

What if more countries joined the central powers in the start of WW1?

What countries could have joined them and would it affect the outcome?

Romania might have joined in, since the Romanians and the Germans had a formal alliance treaty. I imagine this would have aided a Habsburg offensive into Russia a great deal.

Greece could have joined the Central Powers, although I think a civil war would still have been quite likely, just as the Greeks fought one historically. They would not shift the naval equation in the Mediterranean too much, but they would make life very difficult for the Italians. Depending on when the Greeks joined, they might have aided in the destruction of Serbia, too.

Italy might have joined, and the Italian Army was preparing to enter the war on Germany's side in July 1914 before the foreign ministry called the whole thing off and started the great bidding war. Two or three - I can't remember how many - Italian army corps were detailed to go by rail to Lorraine, while the rest of the army was to launch an invasion of southern France. The result? The Italians might not get anywhere in the south (the terrain there is rather as unforgiving as the terrain on the Isonzo, where the Italian armies bled out for two and a half years), but the addition of those corps in Lorraine could permit the Germans to successfully break through the Trouee des Charmes in August-September 1914. And if that happened, the French would have been utterly boned.

Most other suggestions - unless you go back further than 1914 - are unrealistic ones.

but they had a deal to protect Belgium.

The deal was to protect France. Belgium was simply a convenient way to sell the war to the Liberal Party backbenchers. Had the French invaded Belgium, instead of the Germans, the British would certainly not have declared war on them.

 

[ZeletDude]

but they had a deal to protect Belgium.

anyway, I think it would be interesting if Mexico actually joined the war. It would be interesting if Ottoman plans of "Islamic revolts" in British and French colonies actually worked.

Mexico wouldn't join, I don't think they were that stupid and even if they did I'm sure America would of completely overran them

 

[History_Buff]

Muslim revolts would have been interesting, but I don't know that much would have come of it. The North African troops the French were depending on on the Western Front seem unlikely to mutiny, given the number of Metropolitan French around them.

If British India rose, I suppose the obvious force to quell the revolt would be the ANZACs, since they were already headed that way. Given how little was accomplished historically at Gallipoli, I don't know that they'd be sorely missed. I'm sure the Hindus would have lent a hand as well, given what happened in '48. And as I recall, there was a law preventing Indian soldiers serving in Europe. So I guess Germany might have held Tanzania longer, but Smuts would have ended that in good order anyway I think.

 

[Masada]

but they had a deal to protect Belgium.

Germany did as well, it scarcely declared war on itself.

 

[TopGearFanatic]

I feel that the bad guys won WW1. A Siberian assassin kills the Arch Duke Ferdinand, so Austria-Hungary attacks the Serbs in retaliation and in the end their empire is ended and Germany is crippled. Doesn't like like we did the right thing; but again, that's my opinion.

 

[Winner]

Italy I suppose.

"Herr Kommandant, I have news! Italy has entered the war!"
- "On whose side?"
"Why, on ours, of course!"
- "Oh crap..."

I feel that the bad guys won WW1. A Siberian assassin kills the Arch Duke Ferdinand, so Austria-Hungary attacks the Serbs in retaliation and in the end their empire is ended and Germany is crippled. Doesn't like like we did the right thing; but again, that's my opinion.

Actually, he was Bosnian, if I remember correctly

The real tragedy was that Franz Ferdinand while alive totally opposed war against Serbia. The fact that the war erupted supposedly to avenge him was an insult to his memory.

Romania might have joined in, since the Romanians and the Germans had a formal alliance treaty. I imagine this would have aided a Habsburg offensive into Russia a great deal.

I still don't understand why Romania joined the Entente (yes, I know, they wanted territory) - they were almost completely surrounded by the Central Powers, what on Earth were they thinking?

 

[Dachs]

Ah yes, "the Piave" and "Vittorio Veneto". We have dismissed that claim.

 

[Winner]

Ah yes, "the Piave" and "Vittorio Veneto". We have dismissed that claim.

Does the fact that I understand the allusion make me a geek, or is Mass Effect sufficiently mainstream now?

EDIT: BTW, I was reading a DH AAR by a German, who, while preparing Germany for WW2, was constantly afraid that Italy might join his alliance. When it did because of some stupid scripted event, he was absolutely mad. So much for Italy's reputation in Germany

 

[LightSpectra]

I feel that the bad guys won WW1. A Siberian assassin kills the Arch Duke Ferdinand, so Austria-Hungary attacks the Serbs in retaliation and in the end their empire is ended and Germany is crippled. Doesn't like like we did the right thing; but again, that's my opinion.

I basically agree with you. Entente apologists have found several ways to suggest that the Central Powers were to blame for the war; that Germany was "evil" or "ultra-militaristic" or "proto-Nazis" (all preposterous); that Germany made war inevitable by initiating the arms race (even though it takes two to race, and the subject usually brought up is the battleship race with Britain, which Germany withdrew from in 1912, two years before the July Crisis); they'll bring up the colonial genocides by the hand of the German Empire (even though Britain and France also did that); they'll bring up Germany's belligerent foreign policy and gunboat diplomacy (even though Britain also did that); they'll bring up how Germany goaded the war by giving the blank check to the Austro-Hungarian foreign ministry (even though the decision for war was already made at that point); they'll bring up how Germany's war plan was a zero-sum game (even though the "Schlieffen Plan" thesis has evolved substantially since the publication of the Guns of August); they'll claim that Germany wanted a war the whole time (without an adequate explanation for how they actually caused it); they'll declare the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia to have been unreasonable (even though the person who ordered the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Dragutin Dimitrijević, was a member of the Serbian General Staff and the government was probably sheltering him); they'll insist that Germany had no obligation to assist Austria-Hungary (even though they had a contractual alliance, whereas Russia did not have the same for Serbia); they'll suggest that the whole war was about monarchism against democracy (even though, of all the major players in the war circa 1914, the only republic was France); they'll claim that the Russian Empire was forced to mobilize because if they didn't, their sluggish rail system would've left them at a severe disadvantage (even though that's a ridiculous Casus belli, and the opening of the Soviet archives has revealed this to be blatantly untrue); and they'll claim that the Central Powers were at fault for post-facto things utterly irrelevant to the issue, including but not limited to: the invasion of Belgium, mustard gas, unrestricted submarine warfare, the Armenian genocide, the Zimmerman telegram, the Nazis, the Manifesto of 93, Mitteleuropa, etc.

 

[Winner]

I basically agree with you. Entente apologists have found several ways to suggest that the Central Powers were to blame for the war; that Germany was "evil" or "ultra-militaristic" or "proto-Nazis" (all preposterous); that Germany made war inevitable by initiating the arms race (even though it takes two to race, and the subject usually brought up is the battleship race with Britain, which Germany withdrew from in 1912, two years before the July Crisis); they'll bring up the colonial genocides by the hand of the German Empire (even though Britain and France also did that); they'll bring up Germany's belligerent foreign policy and gunboat diplomacy (even though Britain also did that); they'll bring up how Germany goaded the war by giving the blank check to the Austro-Hungarian foreign ministry (even though the decision for war was already made at that point); they'll bring up how Germany's war plan was a zero-sum game (even though the "Schlieffen Plan" thesis has evolved substantially since the publication of the Guns of August); they'll claim that Germany wanted a war the whole time (without an adequate explanation for how they actually caused it); they'll declare the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia to have been unreasonable (even though the person who ordered the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Dragutin Dimitrijević, was a member of the Serbian General Staff and the government was probably sheltering him); they'll insist that Germany had no obligation to assist Austria-Hungary (even though they had a contractual alliance, whereas Russia did not have the same for Serbia); they'll suggest that the whole war was about monarchism against democracy (even though, of all the major players in the war circa 1914, the only republic was France); they'll claim that the Russian Empire was forced to mobilize because if they didn't, their sluggish rail system would've left them at a severe disadvantage (even though that's a ridiculous Casus belli, and the opening of the Soviet archives has revealed this to be blatantly untrue); and they'll claim that the Central Powers were at fault for post-facto things utterly irrelevant to the issue, including but not limited to: the invasion of Belgium, mustard gas, unrestricted submarine warfare, the Armenian genocide, the Zimmerman telegram, the Nazis, the Manifesto of 93, Mitteleuropa, etc.

When you put it like this, it really looks ambiguous

Anyway, I've always claimed that the war was everybody's fault - nobody had tried hard to avoid it. Germany usually gets the blame because it issued the declarations of war on Russia and France (after both refused to stop mobilizing).

 

[LightSpectra]

What caused a local Austro-Serbian war was a terrorist trying to subvert Austria-Hungary by killing the crown prince and his wife. What caused that to turn into a world war was Russia's refusal to allow their only ally in the Balkans (Serbia) to fall to their rival for regional influence, which activated a system of alliances established before the war began.

Take that as you will.

 

[Winner]

What caused a local Austro-Serbian war was a terrorist trying to subvert Austria-Hungary by killing the crown prince and his wife. What caused that to turn into a world war was Russia's refusal to allow their only ally in the Balkans (Serbia) to fall to their rival for regional influence, which activated a system of alliances established before the war began.

Take that as you will.

Of course, Austria-Hungary knew the Russians would intervene, but it still wanted war against Serbia. The ultimatum issued to the Serbs was basically impossible for them to accept and even if the Serbs did accept it, the Austrians were prepared to refuse any answer as unacceptable and declare war anyway.

So, as I said, it was everybody's fault:

• Serbia's for not knowing its place in the world,
• Austria-Hungary's for being reckless,
• Russia's for being reckless and stubborn,
• Germany's for not recognizing the danger of this recklessness and for not wanting to avoid war,
• France's for revanchism and for supporting Russia's idiotic Balkan designs,
• Britain's for not being able to restrain France and for unnecessarily antagonizing Germany,
• Italy's for being Italian,
• America's for profiteering on the war (and being American).

 

[SnowlyWhite]

I still don't understand why Romania joined the Entente (yes, I know, they wanted territory) - they were almost completely surrounded by the Central Powers, what on Earth were they thinking?

because Transylvania was held by CP and not by Entente?...

that being said I think that with some common sense the situation would've been stable or even progressing in the right direction. Just had to defend in Carpathians(instead of attacking - the position was ideal) and go against Bulgaria.

Anyway, I don't exactly see why we should've go against Entente...

 

[LightSpectra]

Of course, Austria-Hungary knew the Russians would intervene, but it still wanted war against Serbia.

No, they didn't. That's completely wrong. Sergei Sazonov, Russian foreign minister, urged Serbia to accept the Austrian ultimatum. When it appeared imminent that Serbia wasn't going to, he messaged all of the relevant European powers, asking them to collectively accept an extension of the deadline. In effect, Serbia chose to decline the ultimatum under the assumption that Russia wouldn't abandon its only key ally in the region (which was true), which lead to war with Austria.

By insane troll Entente logic, this means the war is Germany's fault.

The ultimatum issued to the Serbs was basically impossible for them to accept and even if the Serbs did accept it, the Austrians were prepared to refuse any answer as unacceptable and declare war anyway.

Also false. The notion that the ultimatum had absurd requests and was just a front to justify an Austrian invasion of Serbia is propaganda that the Entente invented to condemn post-facto the Central Powers. The ultimatum was in fact entirely reasonable, but the Serbs intentionally declined one of the points to start a war with Russia at its back. There's also nothing to indicate that Austria-Hungary would have invaded even if Serbia had accepted it, except statements from the General Staff, none of whom had the authority to commence the invasion.

[*]Austria-Hungary's for being reckless,

How was Austria-Hungary being reckless? Imagine if Barack Obama were assassinated and it was highly evident that the man behind the plot was a significant government minister for some third world country; and the country in question rebuffs any international attempt to investigate the matter. Would the U.S. be reckless for then declaring war on said country?

Germany's for not recognizing the danger of this recklessness and for not wanting to avoid war,

And where did this manifest during the July Crisis, pray tell?

France's for revanchism and for supporting Russia's idiotic Balkan designs,

France had almost nothing to do with the outbreak of World War I.

[*]Britain's for not being able to restrain France and for unnecessarily antagonizing Germany,

Nothing Britain or France did affected the July Crisis in any significant (i.e. possibly altering the outcome of) way.

Italy's for being Italian,
America's for profiteering on the war (and being American).

Oh, my mistake. I took the rest of your post seriously but didn't discover that you were joking until the end.

 

[Winner]

because Transylvania was held by CP and not by Entente?...

that being said I think that with some common sense the situation would've been stable or even progressing in the right direction. Just had to defend in Carpathians(instead of attacking - the position was ideal) and go against Bulgaria.

Anyway, I don't exactly see why we should've go against Entente...

I didn't suggest Romania should have joined the Central Powers. I questioned the sanity of joining an alliance whose enemies almost totally surround your country. It was almost as stupid as if Switzerland declared war on Nazi Germany in 1942.

There is always time for late-war backstabbing, when the risk is minimal. And even if Romania stayed completely neutral for the whole war, it would have been able to seize Transylvania anyway when A-H was defeated. I mean, Denmark did exactly nothing throughout the war and it still got territory from Germany.

 

[Winner]

No, they didn't. That's completely wrong. Sergei Sazonov, Russian foreign minister, urged Serbia to accept the Austrian ultimatum. When it appeared imminent that Serbia wasn't going to, he messaged all of the relevant European powers, asking them to collectively accept an extension of the deadline. In effect, Serbia chose to decline the ultimatum under the assumption that Russia wouldn't abandon its only key ally in the region (which was true), which lead to war with Austria.

How's that completely wrong? Everyone knew Russia would hardly remain idle while A-H was crushing its only potential ally in the Balkans. A-H was playing with fire, and it dragged Germany into the affair hoping that German involvement would dissuade the Russians from attacking.

It was a reckless gamble, which led to a general war. Germany should have told A-H to chill out and settle for partial acceptance of its terms.

By insane troll Entente logic, this means the war is Germany's fault.

I didn't say that.

Also false. The notion that the ultimatum had absurd requests and was just a front to justify an Austrian invasion of Serbia is propaganda that the Entente invented to condemn post-facto the Central Powers. The ultimatum was in fact entirely reasonable, but the Serbs intentionally declined one of the points to start a war with Russia at its back.

Revisionist nonsense. Austria basically demanded that Serbia removed officers from its military/civil administration whose names would be provided by Austria. Serbia accepted everything except this single point.

It's well sourced that Austria actually re-drafted the ultimatum to make it so outrageous that the Serbs would never accept it, and that Germany had actively encouraged this behaviour.

There's also nothing to indicate that Austria-Hungary would have invaded even if Serbia had accepted it, except statements from the General Staff, none of whom had the authority to commence the invasion.

That's a lie, basically everyone in the A-H government (except the PM, ironically) was in favour of war, they were just looking for ways to make it look at least partially legitimate, hence the ultimatum.

How was Austria-Hungary being reckless? Imagine if Barack Obama were assassinated and it was highly evident that the man behind the plot was a significant government minister for some third world country; and the country in question rebuffs any international attempt to investigate the matter. Would the U.S. be reckless for then declaring war on said country?

1. The analogy is wrong and biased (Serbia did accept everything except relinquishing its sovereignty in matters pertaining to sensitive internal affairs)
2. If the said 3rd world country was a under protection of another superpower which was practically guaranteed to go to war to defend it, then HELL YES, it would be totally reckless.

If you want an analogy, here you go: during the Cold war, a Cuban terrorist assassinates the the President-elect before he takes office. The US government demands that Cuba not only hands over all suspected accomplices of this terrorist, but also grants the US the right to dismiss any Cuban official in the government and the military that it deems "hostile to US interests". If Cuba refuses, the US threatens an invasion. The USSR meanwhile makes it crystal clear that if the US invades Cuba, it will mean war with the Warsaw Pact.

Under these circumstances, any sane US president would back down from a military solution. WW3 would simply not be an acceptable price to pay for punishing a small nuisance of a country on its borders.

And where did this manifest during the July Crisis, pray tell?

Are you serious? Germany encouraged A-H's aggressive behaviour the whole time.

France had almost nothing to do with the outbreak of World War I.

Nothing Britain or France did affected the July Crisis in any significant (i.e. possibly altering the outcome of) way.

Their role was limited to the latter part. If France hadn't mobilized and made it clear to Germany that it wouldn't support Russia in its war against Germany/A-H, the Germans would have had no reason to invade it. Conversely, Britain should have made it clear from the beginning that it would defend France.

Oh, my mistake. I took the rest of your post seriously but didn't discover that you were joking until the end.

I was only joking at the end.