What if the Germans put the brakes on the Sarajevo Crisis on July 23rd, 1914?

[WolfBear]

Most of what I've seen on this subject says that by 1914, the French, under Poincare's domineering influence, had definitely changed their tune and were making very clear to the Russians that their solidarity with the Russians extended all the way to Russia's Balkan interests as well. In essence, during his July travels to Russia, Poincare was giving the Russians just as much a blank check as the Germans gave the Austrians. The French, or Poincare's motive for sucking up more unconditionally to Russia? Non-stop revanchism? Not exactly. Fear the Germans were getting impossibly stronger? Not exactly either. Apparently it was because Poincare feared *Russia* was soon going to be so strong it wouldn't need any allies at all, and so France felt it had it better to "catch" the next crisis where Russia's interests were at stake to have a war with Russia onside (and Sarajevo fit the bill) because if it waited until it was a French issue, like another Morocco-like crisis, Russia could blow it off.*

*I don't know what stance exactly Russia took in the 2nd Morocco Crisis. In "scoring" that crisis, France "won" in that it annexed Morocco, but "lost" in that it had to give Germany territory in equatorial Africa in compensation.

Where exactly did you read that?

Anyway, I suspect that the 1915 Anglo-Russian Convention won't be renewed since British foreign personnel, even pro-Russian ones, were skeptical about its odds for renewal, especially with Russia being more confident in the mid-1910s than it was back in 1907. However, this won't matter if Germany will still invade Belgium in any future World War, since then Britain would likely still be compelled to fight on Belgium's behalf and thus compelled to subsequently reach a new Anglo-Russian Convention with Russia as soon as possible. However, Germany's window to invade Belgium will close by 1917 or so, so yeah.

I think that it would be in very bad taste for Serbia to invade A-H in 1917 during any Ausgleich crisis (which, BTW, I suspect would become much less likely under Kaiser Karl relative to a Kaiser FF, at least in 1917) considering that Serbian nationalist terrorists killed FF, the heir to the A-H thrones, just three years earlier. I suspect that Romania won't act without Serbia and that Italy and Russia won't spark anything by themselves--and, in any case, neither the Poles nor the Ukrainians in Galicia actually wanted to live under Russian rule.

There could, of course, potentially be a crisis in Ottoman Armenia at some future point in time if anti-Armenian massacres will once again renew there. I previously created this thread about this topic:

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/possible-compromise-candidates-for-the-throne-of-an-independent-ottoman-armenia-in-the-absence-of-world-war-i.6879/

A good compromise to permanently solve the Armenian issue might be to create an independent kingdom of Greater Armenia with some sort of European prince as a compromise king. But it would have to be acceptable to all factions. It would be hard for Russia to oppose this idea if it genuinely cares about the Armenians as opposed to simply wanting to use them as pawns in a geopolitical game. The creation of such a state would also make it impossible for Russia to reach Constantinople by land without invading this state or, alternatively, invading both Romania and Bulgaria. But an eventual Russian amphibious attack on Constantinople would still be possible if Russia will ever actually desire to do this.

 

[WolfBear]

What could Serbia possibly gain from attacking the Ottoman Empire in 1914 or later, when it doesn't have a common border with it?



What could Romania gain from the Ottoman Empire, when it doesn't have a common border with it? Bulgaria can try to join the fight for Thrace, as much in competition with Greece as in cooperation.



Russia could join in, for, or against Ottomans, as much in competition against Greeks and Bulgarians as in cooperation with them, but yes, they certainly want a pound of flesh, they want the straits and the Armenian issue is also an excuse to get involved.

What else would Italy want from the Ottomans so soon, when it's busy wasting money pacifying the Libyan sandbox?



Galicia is technically in the Austrian half, but I imagine you would see the Russians getting that, right? Plus all of Hungary? That's quite a lot.

If there is some kind of partition of A-H, then I would expect it to look like this:

-Germany: German Austria, the Sudetenland, Austrian Silesia, Czechia, South Tyrol, and perhaps most of Slovenia as well.
-Italy: Trentino, Trieste, Istria, parts of western and southern Slovenia, and maybe Fiume as well depending on whether or not Hungary is pro-Russian. A pro-Russian Hungary will get more favorable treatment than one that isn't pro-Russian.
-Romania: Southern Bukovina and either all of Transylvania or only southern Transylvania depending on whether or not Hungary is pro-Russian. And of course the eastern Banat as well.
-Russia: Galicia and northern Bukovina. Of course, Russia could also aim for Subcarpthian Ruthenia and maybe even Slovakia if Hungary will not be pro-Russian.
-Serbia: The western Banat, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and at least the Serb-majority parts of Croatia.
-Hungary: A Hungary that is pro-Russian would only lose southern Transylvania and parts of the Banat. A Hungary that is not pro-Russian could theoretically get pushed to its real life 1920 Trianon Treaty borders.

BTW, @raharris1973, this is off-topic, but have you ever seriously explored the possibility of Princess Elisabeth of Austria being born a boy instead (while keeping roughly the same personality)? :

Archduchess Elisabeth Marie of Austria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

She became a socialist later on in her life, so a socialist Austro-Hungarian Kaiser would certainly be interesting to see if Austria-Hungary will survive in this TL.