Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[WolfBear]

Well, the Greeks were planning a pre-emptive strike on the Ottomans for September, so it's pretty much guaranteed.

Yes, but as @ATP said, can't it remain a local war?

 

[Eparkhos]

I doubt that this Greco-Turkish War would remain regional. The Greeks were planning this preemptive strike because the Ottomans were about to acquire a pair of dreadnoughts (Sultan Osman-i Evvel and Resadiye) from the British that would give them naval superiority over the Greeks. The Greek plan was to jump the Ottoman dreadnoughts while they were isolated in Greek waters en route to Turkey, which would effectively mean the Greeks firing on ships crewed by British sailors en route to state that the British were trying to court, which is guaranteed to provoke a major (probably violent) reaction from the Brits. The Russians, meanwhile, will be inclined to back the Greeks but might not act directly to support them, so in isolation the crisis might blow over or remain a limited war.

But meanwhile, the German High Command is estimating that the Russian Army will be unstoppable by 1916 if they do nothing, and so they'll see the Russians coming to loggerheads with the British as a chance to jump the Russians (and thus the French) without the British getting involved. Some excuse will be found, and then everything will go to hell.

On a side note, there was also the Albanian Crisis in 1914 that was overshadowed by WWI breaking out, but by the end there were German, Romanian and Austro-Hungarian 'volunteers' directly fighting Ottoman 'volunteers' and Albanian rebels, all while Italy and Serbia were trying to interfere as well. This is also a great potential flashpoint.

 

[stevep]

That would be greek-turkey war,no WW1.Even if Serbia would join/certainly not Bulgary/

Possibly although Serbia was a Greek ally and after the Balkan wars Bulgaria could go either way but most likely to oppose the Greeks and Serbs in this so could well spiral into something much bigger.

 

[Skallagrim]

I doubt that this Greco-Turkish War would remain regional. The Greeks were planning this preemptive strike because the Ottomans were about to acquire a pair of dreadnoughts (Sultan Osman-i Evvel and Resadiye) from the British that would give them naval superiority over the Greeks. The Greek plan was to jump the Ottoman dreadnoughts while they were isolated in Greek waters en route to Turkey, which would effectively mean the Greeks firing on ships crewed by British sailors en route to state that the British were trying to court, which is guaranteed to provoke a major (probably violent) reaction from the Brits. The Russians, meanwhile, will be inclined to back the Greeks but might not act directly to support them, so in isolation the crisis might blow over or remain a limited war.

But meanwhile, the German High Command is estimating that the Russian Army will be unstoppable by 1916 if they do nothing, and so they'll see the Russians coming to loggerheads with the British as a chance to jump the Russians (and thus the French) without the British getting involved. Some excuse will be found, and then everything will go to hell.

So... Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans and the British on one side and France, Russia and Greece on the other?

That'd be a short war. (To the point that I can easily imagine Britain concluding that Germany profited unduly from it, causing Britain to oppose Germany in whatever war comes next.)

Possibly although Serbia was a Greek ally and after the Balkan wars Bulgaria could go either way but most likely to oppose the Greeks and Serbs in this so could well spiral into something much bigger.

In the scenario @Eparkhos outlines, I think Bulgaria would join the winning team and pounce on Greece, while Serbia would try to stay out of it (because anything else would be suicide).

 

[stevep]

So... Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans and the British on one side and France, Russia and Greece on the other?

That'd be a short war. (To the point that I can easily imagine Britain concluding that Germany profited unduly from it, causing Britain to oppose Germany in whatever war comes next.)



In the scenario @Eparkhos outlines, I think Bulgaria would join the winning team and pounce on Greece, while Serbia would try to stay out of it (because anything else would be suicide).

On the 2nd point Serbia might want to support Greece because seeing the latter defeated would leave them isolated and Bulgaria wants even more land from Serbia than it does from Greece. Plus as they showed in 1914 and 1941 the Serbs can be willing, rather like the Poles, to decide death before dishonour.

This might still be the case if a wider war developed as Russia is Serbia's prime protector even if it doesn't move to support Greek earlier.

I knew there were Greek plans for a pre-emptive war with the Ottomans but thought it was meant to be before the ships set sail rather than attack them at sea. That would very much test the pro-Greek feeling in Britain a lot!!

 

[Skallagrim]

On the 2nd point Serbia might want to support Greece because seeing the latter defeated would leave them isolated and Bulgaria wants even more land from Serbia than it does from Greece. Plus as they showed in 1914 and 1941 the Serbs can be willing, rather like the Poles, to decide death before dishonour.

It's certainly conceivable, although in the OTL cases, the Serbs felt that Serbia-as-an-independent-nation was already on the line. That's not the case here, so if they grasp just how badly screwed the Greek/Russian side really is, the fact that Bulgaria has designs on Serbia might also be a reason not to jump in. ("Why commit suicide just to avoid potential murder in some not-yet-defined future?")

After all, being isolated sucks, but it's still somewhat better than making 100% sure you'll get scewed over right now.

I knew there were Greek plans for a pre-emptive war with the Ottomans but thought it was meant to be before the ships set sail rather than attack them at sea. That would very much test the pro-Greek feeling in Britain a lot!!

Yeah. Britain would not allow such an attack to go unpunished. That being said, Britain would definitely limit its war aims to punishing Greece, and would not view itself as involved in any wider war that the Ottomans and Germans end up fighting against Russia and France. (It wouldn't be quite on the level of a hypothetical "Trent War", wherein Britain would actively despise its Confederate co-belligerent, but there's no way that Britain atacks France in this scenario, for instance.)

Still, just the fact of Britain not being allied to France and Russia is enough to give the Central Powers a clear victory. Without British economic support, France and Russia fall even earlier than they would otherwise. Russia first, I assume, and then France. (We must note that without Britain involved, there won't be US involement, either -- not even economic.)

Which leaves an aftermath where Russia collapses, Germany can re-deploy a lot of forces to the West, Britain probably offers to mediate, and France agrees to a pretty white peace. (Which Germany can afford to grant, due to the war being much shorter, and due to having made major gains at Russia's expense.)

With Britain having fought on the Ottomans' behalf, relations thre may be much improved. Britain has the option of partnering up with France and the Ottomans (and revanchist Russia) to encircle "Mitteleuropa" and keep German ambitions in check.

 

[Buba]

I thought that the ships were to sail to Turkey with Ottoman crews. I read (or maybe I only think I read) somewhere that Churchill sent the Marines too kick off the Turks of the ship(s)?

 

[WolfBear]

So... Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans and the British on one side and France, Russia and Greece on the other?

That'd be a short war. (To the point that I can easily imagine Britain concluding that Germany profited unduly from it, causing Britain to oppose Germany in whatever war comes next.)

TBH, I'm not sure that there ever actually would be a subsquent Great War in this TL if Germany will feel that this specific Great War has already resolved all of its security concerns indefinitely.

Yeah. Britain would not allow such an attack to go unpunished. That being said, Britain would definitely limit its war aims to punishing Greece, and would not view itself as involved in any wider war that the Ottomans and Germans end up fighting against Russia and France. (It wouldn't be quite on the level of a hypothetical "Trent War", wherein Britain would actively despise its Confederate co-belligerent, but there's no way that Britain atacks France in this scenario, for instance.)

Still, just the fact of Britain not being allied to France and Russia is enough to give the Central Powers a clear victory. Without British economic support, France and Russia fall even earlier than they would otherwise. Russia first, I assume, and then France. (We must note that without Britain involved, there won't be US involement, either -- not even economic.)

Which leaves an aftermath where Russia collapses, Germany can re-deploy a lot of forces to the West, Britain probably offers to mediate, and France agrees to a pretty white peace. (Which Germany can afford to grant, due to the war being much shorter, and due to having made major gains at Russia's expense.)

With Britain having fought on the Ottomans' behalf, relations thre may be much improved. Britain has the option of partnering up with France and the Ottomans (and revanchist Russia) to encircle "Mitteleuropa" and keep German ambitions in check.

How much will Russia lose in the post-alt-World War I peace settlement in this TL?

Also, off-topic, but what are some real-life repetitive historical memes? I can think of:

-Germany expands its sphere of influence into Ukraine in 1918, 1941, and 2014/2022.
-A common bloc dominates most of Europe, other than both Britain and Russia under Napoleon, under Hitler, and again right now under the European Union.

 

[Captain X]

What if General Walther Wever was not killed in that plane accident and continued to be the chief of staff. He is thus able to see his Ural bomber program through, which is ready by 1940.

 

[stevep]

What if General Walther Wever was not killed in that plane accident and continued to be the chief of staff. He is thus able to see his Ural bomber program through, which is ready by 1940.

What does Germany give up to achieve this however? Developing, let alone building a large strategic bomber force is a huge commitment.

 

[History Learner]

Because if Germany under the Nazis, a rabidly expansionist militaristic state that has made clear its word is worthless, continues to occupy and loot French then Britain has no reason to make a phony peace.

What is the Munich Conference?

Which means moving a lot more equipment and men - including moblising the latter and taking them away from the economy - east and supplying them there. What do you give up in the drive east to do that?

Nothing, because you don't need to mobilize more to use something you already have.

My point was that a Germany doing slight better and overruning its logistical limitations could cause a major disaster for them larger than Stalingrad and a year earlier.

Which ignores that being able to focus its industry means it can increase its logistical capacity.

That's because Britain was fighting an all out war on miltiple fronts. Here none of this is happening. Don't you understand the basis of AH or are you just willing to accept changes that boost your desired result and insist that things that OTL also helped that cause will still happen regardless of events?

I fully recognize it, that's why I'm completely confused by your argumentation; you literally started off this post by saying Britain wouldn't recognize a phony peace but here are saying they are completely at peace and somehow have the financial resources to do such. Which way is it, because it certainly comes off as projection here when you're flagrantly shifting the goalposts to suit whatever end goal you desire here.

Again your ignoring logistics. Also making some dubious statement in those quotes. Britain was never going to align with Nazi Germany after 1939.

No, you're just willfully ignoring the points you find inconvenient; you treat German logistical capacity as static despite the fact it's already been pointed out to you repeatedly that the ability to focus their industry on the Land War in the East means their logistics can be greatly enhanced. For someone who has tried to lecture me in this post about my understanding of alternate history as a concept, it's odd how deterministic you seem set on being for this point.

Likewise, again, what are you talking about? Nowhere in the quotes is Havlat or the other historians he cite suggesting an Anglo-Nazi alliance. I'm assuming you're taking "align" out of context, when there it is explicitly used to mean Britain seeking a peace deal.

I never said that the Soviets would inevitably win. However its far from certain that Germany will conquer as easily as your suggesting. Your also assuming that Britain making peace has no impact on the Soviet actions.

Good thing it's not I suggesting it but multiple historians, with the chief resource I'm pulling from coming out of a peer reviewed journal. It doesn't escape my notice you have to personalize the arguments because you can't actually argue with the historians in question, hence why you've never cited sources despite me asking you to do so multiple times now, and why you further have to engage in cherry picks as above.

As for the Soviets, we've been over that multiple times too. You'll inevitably suggest something along the lines of Stalin mobilizing early, which ignores he ordered a partial mobilization starting in April historically anyway, and will not address the chief reason for why he didn't order a full one being because Soviet logistics literally could not handle such given the immense strain already placed upon their border armies. You'll then talk about strategic retreats or the like, which will ignore a major reason why the Soviets didn't was because the aforementioned border armies have a motorization level about equal to World War I armies, as well as the complete institutional inability to do such; I'll pull from articles or books by David Glantz which show this in great detail.

The reason why I know this is because I've been through this same song and dance with you at least three times on this forum, quite literally on this very topic no less, and each time you re-use the same arguments to which I always debunk with the same sources going directly over why what you propose won't work. There is a reason you've never been able to cite any sources or supporting data despite me asking for it every time, and that is simply because it doesn't exist. For some one who accuses me of trying to stack the decks, that's what your entire argument history shows you doing. I've always gone where the evidence takes me, I cannot say the same for you.

 

[History Learner]

What if General Walther Wever was not killed in that plane accident and continued to be the chief of staff. He is thus able to see his Ural bomber program through, which is ready by 1940.

This also has wide ranging effects on the Luftwaffe in general, beyond the strategic bombing capability; Wever and others were able to restrain Goering and the dive bombing crowd to a certain extent. A better prepared Luftwaffe overall is going to have massive effects on the war!

 

[WolfBear]

In real life, the US has fought several wars in the Asia-Pacific region:

-The Pacific theater of the Spanish-American War
-The Filipino-American War
-The Pacific theater of World War II
-The Korean War
-The Vietnam War

Other than a hypothetical future US-China war over Taiwan or another Korean War, is there any realistic way to get the US to fight another war in the Asia-Pacific region in the future? I mean a large-scale war along the lines of the wars mentioned above, of course.

I doubt that this Greco-Turkish War would remain regional. The Greeks were planning this preemptive strike because the Ottomans were about to acquire a pair of dreadnoughts (Sultan Osman-i Evvel and Resadiye) from the British that would give them naval superiority over the Greeks. The Greek plan was to jump the Ottoman dreadnoughts while they were isolated in Greek waters en route to Turkey, which would effectively mean the Greeks firing on ships crewed by British sailors en route to state that the British were trying to court, which is guaranteed to provoke a major (probably violent) reaction from the Brits. The Russians, meanwhile, will be inclined to back the Greeks but might not act directly to support them, so in isolation the crisis might blow over or remain a limited war.

But meanwhile, the German High Command is estimating that the Russian Army will be unstoppable by 1916 if they do nothing, and so they'll see the Russians coming to loggerheads with the British as a chance to jump the Russians (and thus the French) without the British getting involved. Some excuse will be found, and then everything will go to hell.

On a side note, there was also the Albanian Crisis in 1914 that was overshadowed by WWI breaking out, but by the end there were German, Romanian and Austro-Hungarian 'volunteers' directly fighting Ottoman 'volunteers' and Albanian rebels, all while Italy and Serbia were trying to interfere as well. This is also a great potential flashpoint.

Would Germany actually be willing to behave aggressively towards Russia if Franz Ferdinand tells both Kaiser Bill and Franz Joseph that he opposes sparking a World War over this issue?

 

[ATP]

What does Germany give up to achieve this however? Developing, let alone building a large strategic bomber force is a huge commitment.

True,but they could bomb soviet factories without problems,becouse practically all soviets fighters was designet to act at low attitudes.And their AA sucked.
Germans would not need much for that,200 would be enough.
50% of oil come from Baku,now germans could easily destroy that refinery.Soviets could fight on their foot after that,not american trucks.

And when allies gave them high attitude fighters? just use heavy bombers as night bombers - USA delivered both radars and night fighters to soviets,but they sucked in using it,and as a result germans used Ju52 to drop ammo for besieged cities in night till the end of war.
There would be no great soviet offensives,but slow advancing,like now on Ukraine.Soviets would take maybe Dniepr river line in 1945,but that would be all.
Central Europe remain free.

 

[stevep]

What is the Munich Conference?

That's where Hitler made commitments he started breaking within a few months.

Nothing, because you don't need to mobilize more to use something you already have.

Which ignores that being able to focus its industry means it can increase its logistical capacity.

Over time yes. You can't pull it out of thin air immediately as it would take time and resources investing in related infrastructure. Moving a lot of additional AA units, men to operate them, supplies and ammo etc several hundred miles east takes resources.

I fully recognize it, that's why I'm completely confused by your argumentation; you literally started off this post by saying Britain wouldn't recognize a phony peace but here are saying they are completely at peace and somehow have the financial resources to do such. Which way is it, because it certainly comes off as projection here when you're flagrantly shifting the goalposts to suit whatever end goal you desire here.

Because your been all over the place on what's going on. Britain won't make peace if German forces are still occupying and looting the hell out of French and other western nations. In which case the war in the west would continue. Hence that is a totally different thing to you suggesting the Nazis have a lot of additional resources to throw at Russia.

No, you're just willfully ignoring the points you find inconvenient; you treat German logistical capacity as static despite the fact it's already been pointed out to you repeatedly that the ability to focus their industry on the Land War in the East means their logistics can be greatly enhanced. For someone who has tried to lecture me in this post about my understanding of alternate history as a concept, it's odd how deterministic you seem set on being for this point.

See my 1st point above.

Likewise, again, what are you talking about? Nowhere in the quotes is Havlat or the other historians he cite suggesting an Anglo-Nazi alliance. I'm assuming you're taking "align" out of context, when there it is explicitly used to mean Britain seeking a peace deal.

Then you should have made that clear. Making peace with an aggressive - not to say deranged - neighbour that still poses a threat to you isn't seeking alignment with them. Plus I'm referring to what your saying because as I pointed out Havlat doens't actually agree with what your saying.

Good thing it's not I suggesting it but multiple historians, with the chief resource I'm pulling from coming out of a peer reviewed journal. It doesn't escape my notice you have to personalize the arguments because you can't actually argue with the historians in question, hence why you've never cited sources despite me asking you to do so multiple times now, and why you further have to engage in cherry picks as above.

As for the Soviets, we've been over that multiple times too. You'll inevitably suggest something along the lines of Stalin mobilizing early, which ignores he ordered a partial mobilization starting in April historically anyway, and will not address the chief reason for why he didn't order a full one being because Soviet logistics literally could not handle such given the immense strain already placed upon their border armies. You'll then talk about strategic retreats or the like, which will ignore a major reason why the Soviets didn't was because the aforementioned border armies have a motorization level about equal to World War I armies, as well as the complete institutional inability to do such; I'll pull from articles or books by David Glantz which show this in great detail.

The reason why I know this is because I've been through this same song and dance with you at least three times on this forum, quite literally on this very topic no less, and each time you re-use the same arguments to which I always debunk with the same sources going directly over why what you propose won't work. There is a reason you've never been able to cite any sources or supporting data despite me asking for it every time, and that is simply because it doesn't exist. For some one who accuses me of trying to stack the decks, that's what your entire argument history shows you doing. I've always gone where the evidence takes me, I cannot say the same for you.

I'm not the person who called someone else a liar because they dare to disagree with them. That you can't take criticism of your ideas, which as I've pointed out in the past are different from the sources you quote isn't my problem.

 

[stevep]

True,but they could bomb soviet factories without problems,becouse practically all soviets fighters was designet to act at low attitudes.And their AA sucked.
Germans would not need much for that,200 would be enough.
50% of oil come from Baku,now germans could easily destroy that refinery.Soviets could fight on their foot after that,not american trucks.

And when allies gave them high attitude fighters? just use heavy bombers as night bombers - USA delivered both radars and night fighters to soviets,but they sucked in using it,and as a result germans used Ju52 to drop ammo for besieged cities in night till the end of war.
There would be no great soviet offensives,but slow advancing,like now on Ukraine.Soviets would take maybe Dniepr river line in 1945,but that would be all.
Central Europe remain free.

You would need more than 200 I suspect given that both Britain and the US employed thousands. Despite that they only really hammered German industrial production, odd exceptions aside, in the last 18 months or so of the conflict.

Plus give the very large distances involved they also need accurate guidance for such distance targets. At times even in mid war allied bombers have difficulty finding even reasonably close targets such as the Ruhr and some of the cities in NW Germany. Again its even more difficult doing that at night.

 

[Buba]

Strategic bombing is overrated - with everything the Wallies threw at it German industry was churning out stuff by the ton. There are other examples - North Vietnam, anyone?
Germany - who can match the Allied strategic bombing effort only in some drug induced dreams - will not achieve much.
Nevertheless those suggested "200 bombers" might be the best thing - some nuisance, harrasement raids against Soviet factories in the Ural (still won't reach those deep in Siberia, though) would force the Soviets into some diversion of resources - AA guns, dispersion, etc. - while not drawing away that many German resources. Maaaybe worthwhile, although IMO more Pz.IV tanks manufactured in '40-41 would had been better use of those Uralbomber allocated resources.
Needs a better mind than mine (and access to data I don't have) to work out the "return on outlay" of such an endeavour.

 

[ATP]

You would need more than 200 I suspect given that both Britain and the US employed thousands. Despite that they only really hammered German industrial production, odd exceptions aside, in the last 18 months or so of the conflict.

Plus give the very large distances involved they also need accurate guidance for such distance targets. At times even in mid war allied bombers have difficulty finding even reasonably close targets such as the Ruhr and some of the cities in NW Germany. Again its even more difficult doing that at night.

True about Germany - but soviets,unless germans,made few big factories instead of more smaller.Easy targets,and once destroyed soviets would lost big part of their production.
Especially true about Baku - it was bonfire waiting to happen,with oil in earh so few fire bomb would probably burn entire refinery.

 

[stevep]

True about Germany - but soviets,unless germans,made few big factories instead of more smaller.Easy targets,and once destroyed soviets would lost big part of their production.
Especially true about Baku - it was bonfire waiting to happen,with oil in earh so few fire bomb would probably burn entire refinery.

You still have to get there and if your consuming a lot of resources developing building and maintaining a heavy bomber force, even a relatively small one, something else has to give. Plus don't forget that to have say 200 a/c in an attack you would need to build a lot more because of losses in developing and earlier service, a/c being unavailable on the day etc. Not to mention you have to reach the target which means a very, very long flight, even from say occupied Donbas region.

I have read before suggestions that safety measures at Baku were appalling and a lot of the local earth was soaked with leaking crude. [Think it was from a US drilling expert]. This would fit in with the rather reckless behaviour and poor training so frequent in the USSR. However that would also suggest that some accidents would have happened which could have been disastrous for the region. Never heard either way so would like some clear evidence either way.

 

[WolfBear]

What if this plan would have actually been implemented or, alternatively, will be implemented in the future? :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_river_reversal