There is no way on earth that the Central Powers could advance to Moscow that fast, even with Russia as their only enemy. Too blasted far. Lordganon 18:27, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for saying. Where would be realistic? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:31, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, should I move the start of the offensive backward in time? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:41, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
No, that's pretty well the earliest it could possibly start.
Well, in WWII, with far more mechanized and faster armies, it took the Germans, attacking on a broad front with about the same numbers, etc. scheme as would be available to them here, five months to get near Moscow.
In WWI, even with the Russians in near-collapse, the Germans failed to advance all that far, not getting past the western borders of the Ukraine until the now-Soviets surrendered in 1917.
Napoleon, attacking on a very narrow front, and ignoring a lot of things that made him fail, advanced from Ducal Prussia to Moscow over a period of three months. As I said, however, not on a broad front, and a similarly fast attack in this atl would fail, getting cut off and killed.
In the given timeframe, I expect somewhere around Minsk. No further than Smolensk. Also to about Riga in the north, and at most Kiev in the south. In that era, this would be more than enough to force a peace.
Also, the Germans would take slightly more than that. Only taking the land you note would leave a large "needle" of Russian territory in between Austria and Germany. The Germans would annex pretty well all of "Congress Poland."
And, there was entirely no need for that post on my page, lol.
Lordganon 19:14, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for posting on your talk, but I've replied before on article talk pages and never gotten a reply back. It was just to make sure. ;) Back on topic, I'll just move it backward a couple weeks and have Russia surrender at Smolensk. Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:42, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I missed the part about the annexation. The needle of Russian territory would only be slightly more acute than in 1913, so I don't really see a problem, since the war was short and Germany would be less, well, mean. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:59, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
Much better with the front.
No slightly about it, lol. Have at look at the map here. The purple lines are the same as the 1914 borders, and the lightish green in the northwest of Poland is the areas Prussia received from the partitions. The spurt is rather worse if you take those out, and I really can't see Germany not taking all of Poland.
Lordganon 07:43, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
Look at this map. I was going to have Prussia take the territory it ceded in 1815. I don't think Russia would give up that much land (as in all of Poland) without going further into war. It wasn't a horrible war at all, so I think Germany would rather try to take less territory than more, to minimize the resent among the Russian government. Edit: With Galicia instead of Austria-Hungary to the south of the needle, it would not be as acute either.
Also, would you look at the rest of the timeline, please? I'm trying to get some critique on whether it's plausible--especially the France-Britain alliance sever. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:13, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
Errrr...... that map you're showing me is useless in this context, for all it shows in that region is land that Prussia regained from the Duchy of Warsaw in 1815. Doesn't show anything that they ceded in 1815, at all.
Russian Poland is a pretty small area for them to take, and pretty reasonable, imo. It was also one of their goals, overall. And Galicia, going by your timeline, is a year and half later - and very unexpected. It's still really acute when the peace is going on. In effect, the Russians are transferring control over one of their "sub-kingdoms" to the Germans. Very minor, and removes what is an eyesore from their control.
....The French and British were never actually allied, imo. The French and Russians, sure. But not the Brits and anybody, the Japanese aside. All they ever had with the Russians or French was a series of understandings. And those are things outside Europe, so such events in Europe would have no effect on them.
Lordganon 14:26, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
If it doesn't show anything it ceded in 1815, then how come there is a region that says "ceded in 1815 to Russia"? :P And I know, but a year and a half is a short time to be annoyed by a needle of territory, and an austro-hungarian collapse was expected. Also, I thought the British and French had the "entente cordiale"? I suppose that that wasn't an actual alliance, though, now that I think about it. Thanks, again! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:14, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
On the map you posted, that would be the lightest green, i. e. Prussia's land they got in the partition. They lost some of it, but in 1914 they'll get it back. I just think taking Russia's land (their share of Poland) would be too much. Poland is one of the denser parts of the Russian empire, as well. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:01, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
One more thought: What about Germany only taking back the Austrian and Prussian parts (that aren't controlled by Austria)? That would leave them with no needle. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:07, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
The region that it marks with that note, Time, is an uncolored, unbounded, region of Poland. It doesn't actually show anything.
And, I meant about such a "needle" at the peace talks.
The collapse of Austria-Hungary was never expected like that at the time. In retrospect, without them reforming, it's pretty obvious that it eventually would do so. But to contemporaries? Not in the least.
Yeah, the entente was simply a series of "gentleman's agreements" over colonial issues. Nor was British intervention a pro-French thing - more so, anti-German, and in defense of Belgium. But, I can also say that events in Europe really wouldn't effect that, overall.
...Time, Congress Poland is basically the areas marked on the map I linked to that were given up by the Austrians and Prussians.
Lordganon 00:53, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
How does it not show anything? It shows land Prussia got from the partition, but lost in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna.
Er, what? You mean the needle of Russian territory protruding into Germany and Austria, right? I figured that since the entirety of that needle was gained by Austria in the partitions of Poland, Germany (or Austria) could get it in peace talks in 1914.
Okay, I don't know much about the political expectations of the leaders in early 1914 and earlier, but I reasoned that with an aging Franz Joseph and a divided empire resentful of their controllers, it would collapse after his death.
Okay, though I thought British opinion was in favor of the French anyway, though just not to a military extent. Breaking the alliance cordiale is rather important in my timeline, though I'm still torn over Britain and Germany growing close together.
I completely misunderstood that; I'm not good with Polish history, so I thought you were referring to all territory going to the three nations in the Partitions of Poland. I just looked up a map, and it seems quite reasonable for Germany to annex Congress Poland. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:09, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
Two more questions: Would Prussia annex Poland into its territory or create a separate duchy? Right now, I have Prussia annexing (later used as an argument for Hanover and Hesse becoming independent of Prussia), though it could be changed.
Is a unification of Austria (post collapse, that is) into Germany that is supported by the people of Austria plausible? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:10, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
...The map I quoted had it, yours did not. That's what I'm saying. No matter.
Barring some sort of reform, the A-H Empire will collapse eventually. Though, it would start with issues between the Austrians and Hungarians, not the minorities. Any attempt at reform, or even demands for it, will open the wounds between the two. And, without reforms passing, it would't make it to 1920.
Yeah, the collapse of any of the empires at the end of the war otl was a big shock to everyone.
Even today, the Brits and French still don't overly care for each other. While they like good relations, their alliances, etc., opinions remain. Been like this since the 1880s. And, as I said, it's much more so the Brits didn't like the Germans, and their policies, and definitely did not want them in control of the continent, as per their centuries-held policy. Basically, they prefer the French to the Germans, but...... they still don't really care for each other, lol.
So long as the Germans mess around in the colonies - especially with them getting some French ones - and have such a large fleet, they and the Brits will be at odds.
Most likely, a revival of a Polish Kingdom, effectively occupied by the Germans, would be created, something ala~ their plans late in the war otl. You can see them here. But it would still be under the German Empire, I suspect.
Very doubtful in any context, however, that Hanover or Hesse are revived, especially Hanover. What you may see, however, is portions of the dissolved state of Hesse-Kassel, annexed by Prussia, given to The Grand Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, a member state of the Empire.
Austria joining the German Empire, while interesting, is pretty unlikely. Austrians may speak a German dialect, but they sure as heck don't consider themselves at all German, lol. Unless defeated like otl, no one would ever consider it.
Lordganon 09:29, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
I was having the Serbs have minor revolts, followed by others (including Croats, Slovenes, Slovaks, and Czechs) and jumping on the bandwagon. Then the Austrians and Hungarians fall apart from each other. Would that work?
Thanks for the info, I'll keep that in mind. =) Though: If Germany only took present day Benin from France (Hungary would take another part), would it take long for relations to heal with Britain? All Britain conceded was rights to build a navy.
I guess Hanover doesn't need to be independent, though, I think I'll keep that anyway. For the Polish Kingdom, would it be a "sovereign" puppet state, or a member state of the German Empire? I'm not quite sure what you're recommending.
Well, the German Empire was more confederate as I can remember, so I don't expect the Austrians to be outraged, as instead of being reduced to little power, they would simply be part of a larger country, sort of like what Austria-Hungary was. After all, Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, etc. did it. I thought they might feel safer within the German Empire, now that their empire has collapsed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:14, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, only the Serbs weren't loyal, overall, and a Serb rebellion wouldn't get any of the others to do it. Some of the threats made by Hungary about reforms, however..... were a bit disturbing, quite frankly. I honestly can't even begin to go into how much the Hungarian government was against the thought of reforms.
Colonial issues with the Germans wouldn't go away. And, even if the Brits conceded that - which, realistically, is something that they wouldn't do - that does absolutely nothing to solve the matter of the German Fleet. Whatsoever.
A Polish Kingdom, under a German Prince, and part of the German Empire. As I said, look at that link for their plans. I'd guess that Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse - of the deposed branch that ruled Hesse-Kassel before it was annexed, and brother-in-law of the German Emperor - would be named king. Call the movement of former Hessian territories to the other Hesse state to be in exchange for disavowing their own crown for the new one.
Fact is, the dynasty that would be in place in Hanover would be very related to the British royals. While they did support the Germans, and paid for it, and would here too, the fact remains that they are cousins to the British Royal Family. That alone makes a restoration doubtful, and it would be both bad precedence and run counter to the idea of the empire for them to put someone else on the throne.
The Austrians have long been independent, and "special." The others only did it under duress, and in a glory-high, after the events of 1870. And, as I said, don't really consider themselves to be "German." It's just not something that they would do. Quite frankly, even with the stuff going on in Germany under Hitler, and after a massive defeat - an Austrian - and the rigged "Anschluss," most Austrians didn't want it.
Lordganon 03:04, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you again for keeping this going!
I didn't know that, I thought most minority areas were resentful. With that known, I think that I'll remove Czech, Slovene, and Croat independence, and perhaps Galician as well, from the timeline (though keeping Serb, Montenegrin, and Bosnian). That will strengthen Austria a bit, as well, and perhaps make it likelier for them to remain non-German Empire.
France had disputes with Britain, but settled them in the 1890s or 1900s (the decade. I can't remember which), which allowed the entente cordiale. Couldn't the same thing happen with Germany? The matter of the navy is troubling agreed, but Britain and Germany would eventually be able to get around it, I think.
Perhaps, though there's still Hesse-Darmstadt that would continue to advocate for Prussia's state of Hesse, and I'm fairly sure the residents of former of Hanover and Hesse would prefer a restoration to endless Prussian rule. As for Hanover, they only got annexed because they were allies of Austria in the Austro-Prussian War. The personal union ended in 1837, due to Salic Law and Queen Victoria. I'm sure that eighty years later, that would be forgiven.
Well, I think there were some other circumstances that modified that. Firstly, they probably thought they wouldn't be getting enough autonomy. Secondly, Germany wasn't exactly in a glory period. I think it might be able to be pulled off, especially with the countries being really close. After all, they supported "Greater Germany", if they could be the dominant state. Now, when they are severely weakened, as long as they retain autonomy, I think it could be possible. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:44, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, most were pretty loyal. Galicia and the Bukivina were definitely not very, either.
But, in the context of the empire falling apart, loyal or not, all of the ethnic groups are going to take advantage of it to gain independence. They just wouldn't revolt out of the blue and be the cause of it. Loyalty is only useful to a point, after all.
It's both of those decades. Fact of the matter is, the crux of their dispute is the matter of the fleet. British policies for centuries have been for theirs to be strongest, to make the kingdom secure. No way that changes. But, the Germans and their new polices run directly counter to this. And the Germans wouldn't drop it, either.
It's just not something that the two would ever get over.
....I already noted that Hesse-Darmstadt would be the ones to benefit from any cession of parts of the rest of Hesse. The residents of the two areas should pretty much not care one way or the other, either.
Yes, I'm aware of the circumstances involved in Hanover. But what I'm saying is that even after that time, that's too closely related for it to be a good idea. As seen otl, their loyalties are not guaranteed.
Austria and Germany being close is always overstated. No matter what, the Austrians would never agree to be under anyone else. They could preach of autonomy all they wanted, but it wouldn't happen. Really, that concept in the German Empire was a work of fiction, overall, largely existing in theory. There's no question who was actually in charge. On a certain level, it was very much so more like a more centralized USA.
Lordganon 05:11, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Okay. If Bukivina was independent, would it become part of Galicia, merge into Romania, split on ethnic lines, or remain independent? Also, was Bosnia loyal? Since they were comparatively recently annexed, I thought they wouldn't. But I actually don't know.
Slovenia, Croatia, and etc. would vouch for their independence at the Congress of Budapest (where borders were decided), and not revolt? Or how would it happen?
I still think that they would be able to settle their naval disputes, as the Brits have done so with other empires. Agreed, it would take a lot of work, but I don't understand why it would not be possible once relations have thawed further. Especially if a chancellor that a foreign affairs strategy like Bismarck got into office (isolate France, attract allies--not interfere, interfere, interfere like Wilhelm).
I know (about Hesse), but why would the residents not show a preference for having their own kingdom? Also, being related to Britain could actually be good, since Germany is warming up to Britain, and having the House of Hanover having some territory might be a pro.
Alright. So, Austrians only wanted to be part if they could be the lead state (over Prussia), and that ended with the Austro-Prussian War? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:11, February 14, 2012 (UTC)