• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Most Plausible Alternate Central Powers?

P

Polyphemus

Some kind of robot
Pronouns
they/them
Since my other thread about which alternate Axis Powers led to some really interesting discussion, I thought I might make a version for WWI. What countries could be wrangled into joining up with the Central Powers? This might be a bit of a trickier question due to the tangled web of alliances and treaties at the time, though.

I feel the most popular proposals have been Mexico due to the Zimmermann Telegram; and also Italy due to being a signatory of the Triple Alliance. Mexico at least is a pipe dream in my eyes, though I'll happily defer to someone with more knowledge of the period than myself.
 
Polyphemus said:
Since my other thread about which alternate Axis Powers led to some really interesting discussion, I thought I might make a version for WWI. What countries could be wrangled into joining up with the Central Powers? This might be a bit of a trickier question due to the tangled web of alliances and treaties at the time, though.

I feel the most popular proposals have been Mexico due to the Zimmermann Telegram; and also Italy due to being a signatory of the Triple Alliance. Mexico at least is a pipe dream in my eyes, though I'll happily defer to someone with more knowledge of the period than myself.
Click to expand...

Italy isn't plausible. Most Italians hated Austria-Hungary and and Italy was dependent on trade with the UK.
 
Japhy said:
Italian Democracy being what it was war with the Central Powers in the name of Austrian concessions Is very plausible IMO.

Romania is an option too but for Marie.

I've seen Sweden show up in some AH but I've never known what the basis for that is.
Click to expand...

Italy would be willing to stay neutral but not to join the Central Powers. Italy couldn't afford to join the Central Powers. It was dependent on trade with the UK.
@Yokai Man has argued a Central Powers Romania is implausible.
 
Ricardolindo said:
Italy would be willing to stay neutral but not to join the Central Powers. Italy couldn't afford to join the Central Powers. It was dependent on trade with the UK.
@Yokai Man has argued a Central Powers Romania is implausible.
Click to expand...
Germany was also dependent on Trade with the UK. It doesn't take a lot of political changes in Rome for the Alliance to be honored. I don't think like some people suggest that it's a guaranteed victory for the Central Powers if they do though.

But I would bow to Yokai Man's expertise.
 
Last edited:
Italy joining the war at all was a pretty dumb idea, so I could see all the reasons not to join it on behalf of their nominal allies getting chucked out and "WE'RE ALL IN [here's our demands]".

More German backing for the Easter Rising could've seen a brief Irish Free State that declares itself with the Central Powers (though it wouldn't have lasted very long)
 
Japhy said:
Italian Democracy being what it was war with the Central Powers in the name of Austrian concessions Is very plausible IMO.

Romania is an option too but for Marie.

I've seen Sweden show up in some AH but I've never known what the basis for that is.
Click to expand...
Probably because there was strong pro-German sentiment in the upper classes - and also because Admiral Essen, commander of the Russian Baltic Fleet, apparently wanted to "contain" the Swedish navy in August 1914, which likely would've ended poorly for Russia and may have pushed Sweden over the line.
 
Japhy said:
Germany was also dependent on Trade with the UK. It doesn't take a lot of political changes in Rome for the Alliance to be honored. I don't think like some people suggest that it's a guaranteed victory for the Central Powers if they do though.

But I would bow to Yokai Man's expertise.
Click to expand...
I should point out that Romania and Italy had numerous secret accords and agreements between 1914 and 1915,where by all accounts Bratianu managed to easily convince the Italian government to cooperate against the Austrian-Hungarians in the name of shared national interests-Italy getting Trieste and Romania Transylvania and what not.

europecentenary.eu

The Romanian-Italian secret agreements from the beginning of the First World War

At the beginning of the First World War, Romania and Italy were in a similar situation. Both states were bound to the Central Powers through secret agreements, but their main national objectives were in conflict with Austro-Hungarian interests. Many Romanians and Italians lived on the territory of t
europecentenary.eu europecentenary.eu

The main point was the obligation of the parties not to leave neutrality without 8 days' prior notice as well as permanent mutual consultations and mutually agreed actions on the issue of maintaining or leaving neutrality,with both Italy and Romania collaborating to make sure that the other goes with the Habsburgs on the right time.

Austro-Hungary and Germany btw couldn’t really convince either to join their side since a) both hated the Habsburgs and wanted the lands that had Italians/Romanians in them,b) Romania really loved France and the public and the politicians at large would have demand the abdication of Carol I if he made Romania join the central Powers and c) the treaties made with the Central Powers weren’t legally biding in the view of the governments in Rome and Bucharest and were only technically defensive and since Austria attacked first,well,they aren’t really forced to abide by them.

So yeah,Romania would have always at some point joined the Antante due to this and Francophone feelings. Same with Italy in my view,though I could see some changes made so that they remain neutral til the Central Powers go under and they join to loot the dying empire.
 
I'm trying to figure out what Sweden joining the Central Powers after Russia attacks them for no reason and probably gets a black eye from doing so amounts to.

Finland is not where I would like to fight a war and Norway and Denmark are probably still staying neutral, the Swedish fleet would be busy in the Baltic and also not that interested in sortieing out against the Royal navy and I don't see more than perhaps a symbolic commitment to the Western Front.


It almost seems like a clever way of showing a work is set in an alternate history if you drop in a mention of Sweden as a German ally which a history buff will notice at once is off yet the world is plausibly quite similar to our own due to the limited divergences.
 
Yokai Man said:
I should point out that Romania and Italy had numerous secret accords and agreements between 1914 and 1915,where by all accounts Bratianu managed to easily convince the Italian government to cooperate against the Austrian-Hungarians in the name of shared national interests-Italy getting Trieste and Romania Transylvania and what not.

europecentenary.eu

The Romanian-Italian secret agreements from the beginning of the First World War

At the beginning of the First World War, Romania and Italy were in a similar situation. Both states were bound to the Central Powers through secret agreements, but their main national objectives were in conflict with Austro-Hungarian interests. Many Romanians and Italians lived on the territory of t
europecentenary.eu europecentenary.eu

The main point was the obligation of the parties not to leave neutrality without 8 days' prior notice as well as permanent mutual consultations and mutually agreed actions on the issue of maintaining or leaving neutrality,with both Italy and Romania collaborating to make sure that the other goes with the Habsburgs on the right time.

Austro-Hungary and Germany btw couldn’t really convince either to join their side since a) both hated the Habsburgs and wanted the lands that had Italians/Romanians in them,b) Romania really loved France and the public and the politicians at large would have demand the abdication of Carol I if he made Romania join the central Powers and c) the treaties made with the Central Powers weren’t legally biding in the view of the governments in Rome and Bucharest and were only technically defensive and since Austria attacked first,well,they aren’t really forced to abide by them.

So yeah,Romania would have always at some point joined the Antante due to this and Francophone feelings. Same with Italy in my view,though I could see some changes made so that they remain neutral til the Central Powers go under and they join to loot the dying empire.
Click to expand...

How much did Romania overestimate its military capabilites? In our timeline, it was curbstomped by Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria.
 
Last edited:
Gonna come in here just to point out that maybe looking outside of Europe is a good approach to this, considering the fact that so much has been said about the few neutral European powers already, as well as the number of random colonial revolts and such that had an axe to grind against the British and French.

Lij Iyasu, Emperor of Ethiopia from 1913 to 1916, may have held pro-Ottoman sentiments, most likely assisted in the transfer of munitions to Dervish rebels in Somalia during the Somaliland Campaign in our timeline, and the Germans sent multiple ambassadors, including German ethnographer and general crackpot Leo Frobenius, to try and persuade him to openly join the war on the side of the Ottoman Empire. If one of those missions had been more persuasive to him then I could see Ethiopia forming a formal alliance with the Central Powers. That said though, the Ethiopian Christian nobility hated him for his pro-Ottoman leanings and overthrew him in 1916 in our world for it, a process which would likely only be expedited by openly joining the Central Powers. Probably the most interesting thing you could get out of this would be the possibility of the Quadruple Alliance becoming the Quintuple Alliance with a fifth full member in Africa of all places, which would lead to some weird commemorative items and propaganda pieces.

Alternatively, if Kirpal Singh's last-minute intelligence transfer to Punjab CID somehow doesn't make it, then you could very well have the Ghadar plot to start an anti-British uprising in Punjab and Bengal on 15 February 1915 actually be set in motion, which would have major ripple effects around the British Empire, although in all honesty my guess as to the outcome would be something similar to the Easter Rising in Ireland, a few days or weeks of major conflict in Punjab, Bengal, and among the Indian regiments in Singapore before British reinforcements rush in and crush the rebellion. That said though, this could end up affecting British troop movements that would have otherwise gone to the Western Front for a while, so take that as you will.
 
SpudNutimus said:
Alternatively, if Kirpal Singh's last-minute intelligence transfer to Punjab CID somehow doesn't make it, then you could very well have the Ghadar plot to start an anti-British uprising in Punjab and Bengal on 15 February 1915 actually be set in motion, which would have major ripple effects around the British Empire, although in all honesty my guess as to the outcome would be something similar to the Easter Rising in Ireland, a few days or weeks of major conflict in Punjab, Bengal, and among the Indian regiments in Singapore before British reinforcements rush in and crush the rebellion. That said though, this could end up affecting British troop movements that would have otherwise gone to the Western Front for a while, so take that as you will.
Click to expand...
That happening could see the Ottoman and German missions to Afghanistan succeed in convincing Habibullah Khan to strike India whilst it's "distracted", just as his nephew Amanullah would later do in the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919. Whether that helps or hinders the rebel cause I have no clue, but certainly would put a cat among the pigeons.
 
Building on the "outside of Europe" suggestion: What would need to change for the Japanese Empire to join the Central Powers?

First thought: no UK-Japan treaty in 1902, thus no basis to the latter's becoming a de facto if not necessarily de jure member of the Allies. Japan might therefore not go after Tsingtao and the German Pacific island territories, but could perhaps be drawn into a much earlier version of its WWII occupations in China and operations against Hong Kong, Indochina and perhaps even the Philippines (once/if the US enters the war in 1917)?
 
Could you finick things so that the German-aligned states created in eastern Europe after Brest-Litovsk end up involved in the war on the CPs side? I doubt they would actually do anything, as I'm unsure if the governments had any meaningful power, but could you nominally get Lithuania, the Baltics, Poland etc. in the Central Powers?

MAC161 said:
Building on the "outside of Europe" suggestion: What would need to change for the Japanese Empire to join the Central Powers?

First thought: no UK-Japan treaty in 1902, thus no basis to the latter's becoming a de facto if not necessarily de jure member of the Allies. Japan might therefore not go after Tsingtao and the German Pacific island territories, but could perhaps be drawn into a much earlier version of its WWII occupations in China and operations against Hong Kong, Indochina and perhaps even the Philippines (once/if the US enters the war in 1917)?
Click to expand...

Alternatively, could you get OTL's Entente-aligned Japan bullying China badly enough that they go to war and China is at least a sort of CP co-belligerent? Or does Britain have enough of a sway to stop Japan getting carried away/China so much of a mess that they'll fold to whatever Japan demands without risking war?
 
TR1996 said:
Alternatively, could you get OTL's Entente-aligned Japan bullying China badly enough that they go to war and China is at least a sort of CP co-belligerent? Or does Britain have enough of a sway to stop Japan getting carried away/China so much of a mess that they'll fold to whatever Japan demands without risking war?
Click to expand...
OTL, the Beiyang government declared war on the Central Powers in August 1917 - but that was after Japan's Twenty-One Demands, Yuan Shikai's abortive monarchy, Duan Qirui strongarming parliament into breaking ties with Germany against Sun Yat-Sen's opposition, Zhang Xun's abortive restoration of Pu Yi (backed with German arms and money, according to Wikipedia), and then Duan Qirui taking power again and allegedly using the war effort as an excuse to raise a large army with Japanese loans, this time without Li Yuanhong being able to fire him for them.

A lot was happening in China at the time. But whilst keeping Duan Qirui out of power avoids China joining the Entente, your likeliest flashpoint is going to be the Twenty-One Demands. Perhaps a desperate Yuan Shikai accepts all of them (rather than stalling until the most objectionable were dropped) and Japan gets dragged into propping up his attempted rule? Or perhaps Japan's alleged promise of recognition for his Emperorship actually comes through?

EDIT: I forgot about Sun Yat-Sen, whose First Constitutional Protection Movement was set up with the help of German money after Duan Qirui's takeover of the Beiyang. Turning the conflict between Yat-Sen and the Beiyang into something that requires active outside-China intervention, however, is gonna be tricky (and would also occur in 1917 at the earliest).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top