If Franz Ferdinand would have lived, what would have been the risk of an eventual A-H-Italy war? I know that Franz Ferdinand was chronically concerned about the risk of an eventual war with Italy, viewing it as A-H's main security problem and viewing any A-H attempts to go to war with Serbia as being a distraction from the real, main Italian threat to A-H. Anyway, though, what do you think? @sillygoose
If Franz Ferdinand would have lived, what would have been the risk of an eventual A-H-Italy war?
- Thread starter WolfBear
- Start date
sillygoose
Well-known member
Without any other major war going on at the same time? None since they were allied and Italy wasn't going to go it alone against A-H. Conrad was more anti-Italian AFAIK though, despite his Italian mistress who later became his wife.
What about while an Austro-Hungarian civil war is going on?
sillygoose
Well-known member
Not without being internationally isolated for invading an ally. If there was another invasion going on by say Russia and it came with entry into the Entente then yes, but otherwise no, Italy is not going out on a limb because they know it will cause a rally around the flag effect and perhaps German intervention.
Would the same also be true for both Serbia and Romania? As in, they themselves would not be the first ones to attack A-H during an A-H civil war in 1917 or whenever? If so, does that mean that the risk of a 1917 A-H civil war escalating into a general European war is unlikely?
FWIW, I was thinking of them supporting their own co-ethnic separatists in A-H and then escalating their own involvement there, but even that's risky, especially as you said considering both Italy and Romania are nominal allies of A-H (though I'm unsure if the Romanian alliance with A-H was ever actually made public). Though Serbia hasn't been an A-H ally since 1903, IIRC.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Yes. Russia might, but the smaller states would not risk being first since they knew that any such thing would result in a 'rally around the flag' effect for A-H. It would clearly force Italy to side with Austria in that situation per their treaty; WW1 saw them slip out due to a technicality, but such a technicality wouldn't exist if Austria was attacked first during a civil war.
Public or not at the time it would be made public and clear they violated it if they did intervene without honoring the alliance. Serbia could attack, but then it wouldn't get the support of Russia given the political implications and no support from Britain if Germany got involved. France too wouldn't intervene in that situation given the internal opposition to foreign adventures in Europe.
If Russia itself will attack, will it actually get French support for this. Because Russia won't move without any French support. And what exactly will Russia's casus belli here actually be? After all, it's not like the Ukrainians, Poles, and Ruthenians in A-H are actually itching to join Russia.
sillygoose
Well-known member
In 1917 who knows? The Russian military build up would be ready and if they can get a small nation coalition who knows.
But a small nation coalition (Italy, Serbia, and Romania, I would presume?) won't be enough to fight against the Central Powers without France's help even in 1917!
sillygoose
Well-known member
Russia after its build up started in 1914 and due to be complete in 1917 plus a 'little entente' could be enough even if France stays out, but creates uncertainty in Germany about their intervention and requiring military screening just in case which siphons off enough strength to tip the balance.
If France won't be attacking, then Germany won't need to have too many forces in the West as a precautionary measure. A small number of German forces in the West would be sufficient, I think, especially since Germany's border with France is relatively short. So, the giant armies that Germany placed on the Western Front in real life could mostly be sent to the east in this TL. This might very well end up making a decisive difference there even with the increased Russian military strength in 1917 relative to 1914. And of course there won't be any blockade of Germany either in this alt-WWI. Overall, things would be looking rather well for the CPs here. Germany isn't anywhere near as weak as, say, the Ottoman Empire (which was defeated by both Italy and the Balkan League in the early 1910s) was during this time.
Plus, what exactly would Russia's casus belli against Austria-Hungary actually be? A-H isn't actually threatening Russia is any way, after all. Nor is it threatening Serbia in any way under FF.
sillygoose
Well-known member
I suppose that comes down to the confidence Germany has that France won't attack. Much would hinge on how well the CPs are doing in the war; if the chance to strike is there France might attack anyway without mobilizing for speed, surprise, and to avoid the socialists stopping the war effort by a strike.
IOTL it required two pretty substantial armies on the border. IOTL there were also fears the Belgians would allow the rest of the French army to move through the Ardennes, which would turn their border defenses and leave no reserve to cope with pinning offensive in A-L at the same time.
Maybe. See above. If the little states jump in and the Hungarians are still being dicks about the civil war then things could get real hairy real quick for the CPs, since it would leave Germany alone to deal with the Russians while still keeping some reserves in the west.
Probably not, but you never know. The French navy was still a thing and the British were demanding a demilitarized English Channel. That leans only the very long shipping route north of Britain, which the French could interdict with submarines and British intelligence clandestinely passed on. Not sure what German convoy abilities were at the time, since their fleet was built for North Sea combat, not long range escorting. Plenty of chance to have a rather effectively blockade via those methods. Transshipping though could be done more easily.
Things aren't as bad as they were IOTL 1914, but that doesn't mean they'd actually be good here, especially if Russia looks like it is being badly defeated and France jumps in.
Minority rights or some BS excuse they can make up. People can always find a reason for war if they want.
Though it would be a risky gamble for France since France could lose a lot if its side will lose the war. Briey and Longwy, for instance.
If France goes through Belgium, then the odds of Britain entering the war on Germany's side increase expotentially, no? Especially also considering the fact that Russia is stronger in 1917 than in 1914 and that this war started as a result of blatant and unprovoked Russian aggression.
Germany would still be able to make use of German Austria and Bohemia along with their manpower, industries, and natural resources, no? So, Austria-Hungary's industrial core would still remain in CP hands. And the CPs would now have a shorter front line to defend, especially if they would have also lost East Prussia in the meantime.
Any chance of French USW bringing the US into the war on the German side?
You mean "Germany looks like it is being badly defeated", no?
Sure, but a lot depends on whether this excuse is actually sufficiently convincing. The de facto Tsar in charge of the Russian Kremlin right now knows this all too well.
sillygoose
Well-known member
They probably would only join in if they think they could tip the balance; they wouldn't join in if they thought they'd lose.
Hell no. The British government never really cared about Belgian neutrality, they used it as casus belli. All it would ensure is British neutrality officially (not unofficially) if the French kept their move in the Ardennes.
This book explains the reasons Britain really got into the war, they didn't care about Russia or France since they didn't consider them a threat and probably thought they could work with a reduced power Germany against the French and Russians...much like they did in the 1930s.
Sure, but there is the manpower problem and Habsburg manpower was limited in the face of a civil war and a Russia+little Entente+French potential entry.
Shorter front line isn't necessarily a defensible one when faced with all of the above.
Who said anything about USW? The French could follow cruiser rules. Plus again the whole issue with USW was the loss of US ships, not anyone else's, which likely won't be an issue here.
No, I meant Russia. Russian defeat would probably trigger French entry. I was talking about the CPs actually starting to win and getting jumped on as a result.
Was their excuse for war in 1914 IOTL convincing? As long as the right people don't care you can gin up anything in the age before the internet.
Makes sense.
Why did Britain go to war in 1914, then?
The manpower losses should not be too huge since they would only be losing, say, a couple dozen million people while still keeping something like almost 100 million people.
OK.
Except the CPs might be content to restore the status quo ante bellum situation if this means avoiding a French entry into the war. Then what would the French fight for? If Russia is simply getting expelled from all German and A-H territory but isn't losing any of its own territory, then what exactly would the French complain about?
Yes, it was, actually, because Russia offered to settle this dispute at the Hague but A-H said No. This doesn't necessarily mean that Russia's decision to go to war in 1914 was not stupid, only that it was defensible.
BTW, using minority rights as an excuse for Russia to go to war with an A-H led by FF would be rather fishy considering that FF would be rather pro-minority--other than of course for the Hungarians. Is Russia going to want to go to war for the Hungarians, who have a history of oppressing Slavs?