Say, Do You Hear the Distant Drums? - A Timeline

[Tzeentch]

Say, Do You Hear the Distant Drums?
A Timeline
by
Alexis Harding

ACT I, SCENE 1
1888-1901

Germany

The succession of Frederick III of Germany to the throne of the German Empire in the year 1888 was a great occasion. Frederick, born in 1831, was healthy for his age[1] and a liberal character - much to the chagrin of his Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, arch-conservative and architect of German unification. The fraught relationship between the two would continue until Bismarck's resignation in 1891 over the difficult matter of the Socialist Laws. In late 1890 it was decided that the Laws, banning the Social Democrat Party, were not to be extended past the year 1892. Bismarck, having lost his majority in the Reichstag and unable to dominate Kaiser Frederick, resigned the next year, officially due to reasons of ill health and age. The actual reasons for Bismarck's retirement are still a matter of dispute among historians, but it is believed that his governing without a solid majority as well as his defeat on that particular matter had drastically weakened his constitution.

In 1898, Frederick, taking advantage of the war then raging between Spain and the United States of America, against his better judgement brought the Philippines from Spain. They would end up as little more than a massive sink for money and men until they received independence at the beginning of the 1970's, but at the time the mood for the Philippine annexation was enthusiastic. Also in that year, Russia agreed to a rapprochement and defensive alliance with Germany, in agreement for German neutrality in the 'Drive to the Straits'. An Anglo-German treaty of friendship was agreed upon in 1899, serving to convince the French that Germany planned a second humiliation for the Third Republic.

North America

In North America, the United States of America was beginning an imperialist period which would eventually climax in the National Conservative dictatorship of 1929-2008[2] (it should be stated that National Conservatism only really lasted for a long time in North America - contrast France and Austria - and even then this should probably be noted as due to the problems any land invasion of North America would have to undergo). This began in the Spanish-American War[3], in which America made a protectorate of Cuba, at the time a colony of Spain, as well as seizing Puerto Rico and occupying Haiti. However, the Philippines, desired by the USA at the time, ended up being seized by Germany.

France

The Third French Republic in 1900 agreed to an understanding with Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire in a bid to counter a feared German hegemon. Austria-Hungary was chosen because it had been nationally humiliated in 1866 during the Austro-Prussian War, and like France in part, sought to redress those grievances (however, the public mood in the Augsleich was never as fully in favour of revanche as the French mood was, even during the First European War of 1914-1921). The Ottomans decided to join the French primarily out of fear of Russia, and tentatively agreed to a defensive alliance with France in 1901 . This alliance network would remain unchanged until the First European War, and would be resurrected in part for the second.

Great Britain

The death of the Queen-Empress Victoria in early 1901 was seen as a tragedy by much of Europe. The royals of all her monarchies were present at the funeral, for many were related to that great Queen. She was succeeded by her son Edward VII of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who would preside over the Edwardian era of European history.

-----
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Our divergence, folks.
[2] This will be explained.
[3] As OTL.

[stevep]

Alexis

I think it is going to be awkward for Germany to remain on good terms with Russia, especially giving a free hand in a drive to the straits, and Britain given the latter's interest in denying the Russians control of them. Possible but its going to need some manoeuvring.

Possibly also having Austria making more than the most basic defensive alliance with France. With reproachment between Germany and Russia its going to be very exposed, especially since its almost certain to have Italy on its back as well. It might have no choice if the Russo-German link becomes strong but its going to be a desperate situation for the empire. [Unless the US is also drawn into the anti-German bloc, which might explain how the 1914-21 conflict lasts that long, although it is described as a European conflict].

Sounds like interesting times for N America and possibly also Britain. A long lasting dictatorship in the US will have a huge impact on its development and especially that of Canada and Mexico, depending on the form of the dictatorship.

I'm new to the site but think I will subscribe to see how this develops.

One other point. Did Germany seize the Philippines or buy them? Given their relative inability to project power to the Pacific in strength and the political situation I would have thought the latter might be better. Fearing they can't hold them against the US the Spanish would probably be willing to sell fairly cheaply and it gives the Germans a stronger claim than simply seeking to grab it before it can force independence or be occupied by the US.

Steve

[archangel]

Subscribed, Alexis!

[Tzeentch]

ACT I, SCENE 2
1902-1913

Germany

Germany in the early 1900s was a prosperous country. Frederick III, being an anglophile and seeing no reason to maintain a large navy except to bind Germany and her scattered colonies together, focussed the majority of the military budget on the army. This concerned France, which especially feared a repeat of the humiliation that had been 1871 as well as possessing a lust for revenge. Fortresses were built on either side of the Franco-German border, particularly Strassburg, which became a fortress unequalled in Europe. So, the French generals began to think of ways to get round the mass of fortresses that the region of Elsass-Lothringen was becoming...

Wider Europe

In 1906 the British entered into service the battleship HMS Invincible, the first all big-gun battleship. Such was its impact on naval warfare, rendering an entire class of battleship obsolete, that all subsequent battleships copying its design were called 'Invincibles'. Frederick began laying down the first Bayern-class battleships in 1908, the French and Americans managed to build theirs sooner (America would be neutral in the beginning of the First European War, but would align with the French in time). In late 1913, a young German engineer called Johann Lettner built the 'Sturmgewehr Mk 1', an early storm rifle[4] that, after being initially distrusted, would see service in the First European War and interbellum period.

The Balkans

The Austrians had administered the Ottoman province of Bosnia-Herzegovina since the treaty of Berlin in 1878, and were extremely desirous of enhancing their position in the wider Balkan region. In 1909 the province was annexed into Austria-Hungary, a move much detested in Europe and especially in Russia and amongst nationalist movements in the Balkans. The Austrians had unwittingly set in motion events that would first kill their Emperor and then end the long length of Hapsburg domination in central and eastern Europe.

In 1912 and 1913 wars occured in the region, highlighting the inability of the world's Great Powers to contain the trouble in the Balkans - an inability that would eventually tear Europe apart.

The Far East

In the Far East of the world, Japan was a rising power. It saw itself as threatened, particularly by the closest of the Great Powers to its location, Russia. Negotiations broke down in early 1904 over the matter of Russian influence in Korea, as Tsar Nicholas II desired to revive Russian patriotism via a short, victorious war. However the war was not to be short, although it would be victorious in a sense. The Japanese leaders gambled on a series of quick victories to knock the fight out of the tottering Russian bear. They knew that by the time the Russian western armies reached the far east, the war would turn into defeat.

Port Arthur was besieged and held valiantly till the war's end, and several notable engagements were fought on land. But it was at sea that the war would be decided. After a series of indecisive sea engagements, the Russian Baltic Fleet arrived, having utilised the Suez Canal to vastly truncate their travel time[5] and taken on fresh coal and supplies at Manila. They forced the Japanese navy to a battle off Vladivostok in early June, managing to inflict severe casualties on the Japanese fleet. With this coming at the same time as Russian reinforcements arriving in Manchuria, the Japanese were forced to agree to a white peace. Japanese ambitions having been halted, the tottering colossus that was Russia would manage to endure in its contemporary form until 1922.

-----
FOOTNOTES:
[4] Assault rifle
[5] The Dogger Bank Incident is butterflied TTL.

[archangel]

Interesting. Imperial Russia bought some time with the victory against Japan in TTL Russo-Japanese War analogue.

Keep it coming, Tzeentch!

[stevep]

Originally Posted by archangel

Interesting. Imperial Russia bought some time with the victory against Japan in TTL Russo-Japanese War analogue.

Keep it coming, Tzeentch!

archangel

It will have bought some time but did the victory hide too many shortcomings? If reform [both military and civil] doesn't come after the war as OTL then things may collapse even more brutally than OTL, or at least more quickly, if Russia is put under heavy stress.

Steve

[stevep]

Tzeentch

One nasty immediate result for Austria of the Bosnian annexation is it angers one country a lot more than Russia, i.e. the Ottomans. Since they are supposed to have joined Austria and France in an alliance in 1901 this is likely to weaken if not break that alliance.

With the Russo-Japanese war what are Anglo-Russian relations like? OTL they were major rivals until Germany became a more threatening power to both. Even then it took a close encounter with Russia in 1904 and French mediation to patch up relations between the two. The threat posed by Russia in the far east was the major reason for Britain being interested in an alliance with Japan. Hence TTL have relations with Russia improved that much that Britain doesn't make such an alliance or has it just hung Japan out to dry? [Strictly speaking the OTL in 1904 didn't commit Britain to war unless a 2nd power [cough France cough] also attacked Japan but allowing Russian military forces use of Suez is a less than friendly act.

Steve

[archangel]

Originally Posted by stevep

archangel

It will have bought some time but did the victory hide too many shortcomings? If reform [both military and civil] doesn't come after the war as OTL then things may collapse even more brutally than OTL, or at least more quickly, if Russia is put under heavy stress.

Steve

I hope the Russian Empire uses the time to make the reforms. They had so much potential, if they had done the reforms for a generation more, all that happened OTL could have been avoided or at the very least reduced in scope.

Archangel

[Grey Wolf]

I always love to see different versions of how the chaos of international relations at the start of the 1890s could have played out. The Franco-Russian alliance of the time was far from immutable, so having it collapse when Russia realises that an alignment with Germany would be better for it is not that unlikely. Franco-British rivalries in Africa were so bad that they almost led to war in 1897/9 and a consequence of this could well be to draw Britain towards the Russo-German axis (a term I am not using anachronistically, since when Hitler and Mussolini used it they were meaning it literally, which I am here).

Germany buying the Philippines certainly makes sense - after all they bought the Carolines and Marianas in OTL, and sent their best ships in the East to Manila in 1898. The Americans are going to be VERY pissed off with the Germans, but initially there is not much they can do. Japan's view on things will depend on whether they become British allies (in which case they'd probably go along with it, in return for some Russian guarantees over Korea) or they don't, at which time they will find that the Russo-German-British block against them forces them in only one direction - into the arms of France, and of the USA

I like how you have an ATL Dreadnought named as HMS Invincible, which I have always thought was the most likely alternate name for such a ship. The Germans naming theirs Bayern would imply they did not rebuild the Sachsen class of battleships, but that would be well enough in keeping with your not having them pursue a naval race of any kind. Without a need to keep a certain number of vessels of certain types in commission at any time (as per the OTL Naval Laws) ships at the end of their original life may well be scrapped, reducing overall numbers, but allowing for additional expenditure in this ATL on "dreadnoughts" which might otherwise have bust the naval budget wide open.

OK, Part 2 I like what you have done with the Russians and Japanese. German ownership of the Philippines, and Russia and Britain being in the same alignment alongside Germany would work wonders, and if Britain and Japan never signed their alliance, then the Dogger Bank incident would not have happened since the idea of Japanese torpedo boats hiding amongst British fishing ships would not have arisen.

Port Arthur certainly could have held if the relief fleet was coming hell for leather, as it is usually forgotten how long it actually did hold out for. Given some other luck, Makaroff lives longer for example, and Wiren's determination to survive in a world where relief is really coming in time, then this is a realistic proposition.

Steve raises good points, as always, but I think you can get round most of them, mainly by adopting the suggestions he puts forward. If the price of a German-British alignment in the later 1890s is buying into a British-Russian rapprochement, then I think this would largely be saleable to the British political elite, especially after near-war scares with France, which would have happened at a time when Britain had NO firm alliances. If we examine what Britain was worried about in the Far East, it was not so much Russian ambitions even in Korea, but the idea of Russian dominance of China, so if Russia is more flexible on withdrawal from Manchuria (as opposed to Liaoyang which it is leasing) then Britain is going to be amenable to agree a compromise.

I do think that Austria may be shooting itself in the foot, but even here things can perhaps be made logical. OTL Austria took advantage of Russian weakness to annex Bosnia-Hercegovina at a time when Russia could not militarily intervene. BUT there was a basic agreement that if Russia increased its territory, then so could Austria and a Russian victory in the war against Japan would give Russia complete dominance of Korea, in the same way that in OTL it gave this to Japan. At best Korea will become a protectorate like Khiva and Bukhara, that most people will soon forget IS a protectorate. A victorious Russia, still focused on the East, could afford to give some ground in the West, since Russian foreign policy usually swung West-East-West etc, so at this time would remain basically focused out East, tho with the Straits agreement with Germany in reserve.

If this Straits agreement is SECRET then it is feasible that Britain does not actually know that by allying with Germany it has also aligned itself alongside a Russo-German agreement to allow Russia to seize the Straits. Politics in this period was ALWAYS bi-lateral, even where agreements and alliances drew other countries in - eg in OTL agreeing the Triple Entente, Britain came to separate agreements with France and Russia. Here, in agreeing the German-British accord, Britain would have one set of agreements with Germany, and another with Russia, and may well be ignorant over a secret treaty between Berlin and Saint Petersburg that neither side reveals to them.

OTL the Rumanians and Austrians managed to keep the Austro-Rumanian codicil to the Triple Alliance secret from everyone. So Britain may think that it has by its diplomacy focused Russia on the Far East, made concessions there (Lioayang, Korea etc) in return for Russian guarantees over China (Manchuria etc) and think that by focusing Russia on the Far East it has in effect diverted their attention away from Europe.

As Steve says, tho, the main problem here is Austro-Ottoman relations, but even here we can see that "Ottoman" is not a cohesive word. If as per OTL we are looking at the overthrow of one Sultan and the rise of a political party that will dominate the next we could perhaps see a way through - after all the Young Turks owe their rise to Abdul Hamid's fall, and if the latter is linked to Austrian annexation of Bosnia, then room for a rapprochment down the line is open. It happened in OTL, so there is no reason why it could not happen here, especially as France is going to be dominant in Constantinople in this ATL. By alignment with the Russians, both Germany and Britain are going to seem less welcome than the French, and France has an equal claim to anyone to be the protector of the Ottomans.

One thing I think this WILL result in is no Balkan Wars - France is going to be too much in anyone's face if they try anything. Italy certainly is not going to be brave enough to attack the Ottomans in Libya if Franco-Ottoman relations are good, and the secret agreements at Berlin seem like a thing of the past. Without the Italo-Ottoman War, the Balkan League is not going to get its boost, and thus the Albanian/Macedonian/Thracian lands are going to remain Ottoman into the world war that is to come.

This is a GOOD thing for the longevity of this war, that you probably have mislabelled as a European war, since any war involving European empires is going to be by definition global. With Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire sharing a border in Novi-Pazar, and all the Balkan states weakened (including Rumania which here does not get the S Dobruja as the 2nd Balkan War does not happen), then the balance of forces will not be so bad as it might appear.

However, Russia-Germany-Britain is ONE HELL OF an alignment, and I think the USA needs to enter this war in alliance with France, Austria and the Ottomans earlier than you envisage - the second year of the war at the latest. Even if some of the Balkan states cleave to an Austro-Ottoman alliance, the balance is going to be against them.

I also cannot conceive of how Italy can support a Franco-Austrian-Ottoman alliance, since the ONLY powers it has any ambitions against are France, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. However, considering it is virtually surrounded by those countries, I could certainly see it opting for neutrality in the longer term (ie not as a short-term wait-and-see proposition).

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[stevep]

Grey Wolf

I would agree agreements were generally bi-lateral but not sure you can say always. Wasn't the Triple alliance such a multi-lateral treaty?

However you raise some good points. If Britain is seen as clearly friendly with Russia and Germany the Franco-Austrian bloc would appear the only option for the Ottomans and a new government might swallow their distaste over the loss of Bosnia. Especially if they, unlike Britain, suspect/realise there is a Russo-German agreement over the straits.

I think it would need some agreement between Britain and Russia, probably mediated by Germany but this is more difficult to see than OTL. For one thing France, even when allied to Austria is far less threatening that Germany to Britain's core interests, so the incentive to need an agreement is less. For another, such an agreement means giving up close relations with the Ottomans and raises awkward questions about Egypt and Cyprus, still legally Ottoman possessions. On the Russian side, they will make some gains in the Far East and have the deal on the straits so might be willing to come to terms over China and Persia.

On Italy I doubt that it would stay neutral if Britain is closely and clearly aligned to the Russo-German pact. The lack of a threat from Germany and Russia would mean that the Med would continue to be the main fleet concentration area for the RN and it would easily secure Italian coastlines against the potential enemy. Hence while Italy might sit on the fence for a short while I could see them joining in pretty quickly with so many potential gains. Also I wouldn't rule out a pre-war grab for Libya say if they knew they would have German and thought they would have British support.

Also concerned about the overall balance as even with the US in very early it would take at least a year, more likely two, to tool up and get a decent army built and also it would probably be under-estimated by its opponents, excepting possibly Britain.

One way around that and which might keep Italy neutral for a while is if Britain basically does 'an Italy', at least for a while. By that, I mean it stays neutral, which could be the case if the Russo-Germans are seen as the aggressors, as any agreement Britain makes are very likely to be defensive. I could see this being very likely if Britain realises that the Russians are going for the straits, possibly in contravention of an agreement between the two. Britain could then sit out say the 1st year or two of the war until other events bring them in on whatever side Tzeentch decides.

Steve

[stevep]

Originally Posted by archangel

I hope the Russian Empire uses the time to make the reforms. They had so much potential, if they had done the reforms for a generation more, all that happened OTL could have been avoided or at the very least reduced in scope.

Archangel

archangel

In one way they may have a better chance as without the disorder that racked the country after the defeat OTL there is far less destruction. However my concern is that after a victorious war and with [presumably] no civil unrest, the problems in the military and need for reform will be less clear and complacency is more likely to occur.

In one way this might be better for the TL. A markedly weaker Russia might make things more balanced and possibly persuade other powers [most noticeably Italy] not to leap in on the winning side.

Steve