An alt-WWI involving the Three Emperors' League on one side and an Anglo-Franco-Italo-Ottoman alliance on the other side?

[WolfBear]

What if the Three Emperors' League would have survived as a result of some kind of German-mediated deal or something between Russia and Austria-Hungary in regards to the Balkans, which in turn would have eventually caused the Franco-British to move closer together as well as to align more closely with the Ottomans? Then, once Russia would have eventually decided to make a move on the Ottoman Empire, the Anglo-French could militarily intervene in order to protect the Ottomans just like they did back in 1853-1856 during the Crimean War. In such a scenario, Germany might attack France through Belgium in an attempt to reduce the pressure on the Russians in the Caucasus, while Italy might use this as a golden opportunity to make territorial demands at Austria-Hungary's expense and use it as an opportunity to declare war on Austria-Hungary with Anglo-French support once Austria-Hungary refuses these territorial demands. Since Austria-Hungary would be a treaty ally of both Germany and Russia, the Anglo-French would not perceive it to be unreasonable on Italy's part to make territorial demands on Austria-Hungary in an attempt to weaken it.

So, you essentially see three fronts here: A Western Front, as in WWI, an Italian Front, again as in WWI, and a Caucasian Front, except with the Anglo-French helping the Ottomans and the Germans helping the Russians. It's also possible that Japan would militarily intervene in this war on the Anglo-French side in order to conquer both Russian northern Sakhalin and Germany's Chinese and Pacific possessions. In which case this alt-WWI is going to have four fronts in it.

Now, the crucial question is this: Can anyone actually achieve a decisive victory in this alt-WWI? And is there any realistic chance of German USW eventually bringing the Americans into this alt-WWI on the Anglo-French side? If so, would that be enough to eventually tip the balance in this war in favor of the Anglo-French?

 

[WolfBear]

Another way to make this happen is to have Russia defect from France to Germany sometime in the 1910s or 1920s in real life:

Without hindsight, was the Russian decision in 1914 to go to war the right one?

What I'm intrigued by is the willingness of Russian soldiers to succumb to defeatism after the US had already entered World War I. There were also some mutinies elsewhere in 1917, such as in France, but nowhere near Russia's levels. Interestingly enough, by Anatoly Karlin's own criteria, this...

www.the-sietch.com

Yes, this is classic British strategy. Alternatively, of course, one of the other likely flashpoints of the 1910s could result in a Russo-German realignment, keeping Britain on the side of the French, while trying to pry off Italy and the Ottomans in response.

Personally I feel like a revival of the Three Emperor's League was possible, given the personal outlook of the personalities involved and the changing strategic outlook. In that case, it would've been the aforementioned vs an expanded Entente, formally adding Italy and the Ottomans to its ranks.

@History Learner Who do you think would have won such an alt-WWI?

And @stevep, what do you think about my scenario here?

 

[stevep]

Well if that triple alliance [TA] got together they would be very, very tough to beat. The opposing Anglo-French-Italian-Ottoman bloc [QA call it] would be on the defensive, at least if they had any sense and would have to try and wear their opponents down without being exhausted themselves. Likely Japan would support the QA for reasons of self-interest I suspect and would tie up some Russian resources but nothing that would really drain the TA unless the Russians really made an issue of it. It would need a fair level of inefficiency and division between the TA for them to likely be defeated. Austria and Russia have poor quality, at least on the offensive but have a lot of manpower and Germany has manpower, a very good army and a formidable industrial and technological base.

Even if the US were brought into the conflict fairly quickly, say Teddy wins in 1912 and something like the Lusitania incident happens it would be a hell of a fight for them to wear down the TA to a stalemate unless either Germany or Russia really breaks down.

 

[WolfBear]

Well if that triple alliance [TA] got together they would be very, very tough to beat. The opposing Anglo-French-Italian-Ottoman bloc [QA call it] would be on the defensive, at least if they had any sense and would have to try and wear their opponents down without being exhausted themselves. Likely Japan would support the QA for reasons of self-interest I suspect and would tie up some Russian resources but nothing that would really drain the TA unless the Russians really made an issue of it. It would need a fair level of inefficiency and division between the TA for them to likely be defeated. Austria and Russia have poor quality, at least on the offensive but have a lot of manpower and Germany has manpower, a very good army and a formidable industrial and technological base.

Even if the US were brought into the conflict fairly quickly, say Teddy wins in 1912 and something like the Lusitania incident happens it would be a hell of a fight for them to wear down the TA to a stalemate unless either Germany or Russia really breaks down.

What would the QA goals be in this TL? Alsace-Lorraine for France, Eupen and Malmedy for Belgium, the Italian-majority parts of A-H for Italy, and a return of Kars and Ardahan Oblasts to the Ottoman Empire?

 

[stevep]

What would the QA goals be in this TL? Alsace-Lorraine for France, Eupen and Malmedy for Belgium, the Italian-majority parts of A-H for Italy, and a return of Kars and Ardahan Oblasts to the Ottoman Empire?

Well I think the primary aid would be survival. Its that unbalanced a conflict given the resources available for the TA unless they really cock things up. [Any reasonably competent gamer could win as the QA in a war game based on this scenario fighting against an AI - or AS as I often call it - but its likely to be a hell of a slog for quite a while. Winning playing a member of the TA would be a doddle apart possibly from playing Austria.]

If they can avoid any loss of territory, for either them or important neutrals such as Belgium, Iran etc then I think that would count as a victory. Any actual territorial gains - although German African colonies and TA outposts in China and the like are probably going to be captured since the QA should have the edge in the naval war - would be a bonus. [Although Germany, with Russia as an ally could make a hell of a challenge to the RN at sea in this scenario - or as OTL go for USW and possibly ultimately anger the US].

A big QA win would be to have a member of the QA collapse or defect - say due to internal collapse - even if the latter was only into neutrality.