Talk:First Great War

Some source material can be found at this thread on conculture: [1]

Kick Off?

I'm stuck right now, because I don't know what was the kickoff *there*; And since this is all Ferko's territory, we need to get his input somehow.BoArthur 22:46, 12 Feb 2005 (PST)

Ok, I'm looking now.

All references to 'Austro-Dalmatia' have to be changed to 'Austria', though, as by this time it was simply the Austrian Empire.

I thought about that. I wasn't sure how much difference there was between there and here. BoArthur

1918 Spanish Flu

I really have enough to chew on with working on GW2, but I was wondering if perhaps the Influenza Epidemic had any impact in getting the sides to stop fighting in GW1? For those who don't know--which is probably no one--there was an outbreak of deadly flu in the Autumn, 1918. It swept over the world and killed at least fifteen million, maybe twenty million or more people. In about three months. More folks than had been killed in the first World War. More than the Holocaust. In just three or four months. With events and situations in IB being different, it could easily have started elsewhere than America (where it first appeared *here*). Just a thought. Zahir 08:49, 24 October 2005 (PDT)

It was called the Spanish Flu *here* so, presumably, it started *there* in Spain. It was horrible, and it was an avian flu crossover which is why it was so very deadly, as it was a new strain that no human had ever had before. That's why health officials are so worried about the avian flu outbreaks in China and now Romania.

I would imagine that yes, it did break out *there*. When did GW1 end *there*? I can't remember. Have we ever stipulated a date? If not, it's something to consider. And of course, as you're trying to update GW2, there are direct effects from GW1, so it's important to review this. We'll need to see if Ferko has any say on the matter. (Again). BoArthur 15:23, 24 October 2005 (PDT)

I could be wrong but I always assumed that the first war went the same (baring obvious IB specificities) as our own. It was mostly the aftermath (a more lienient treaty of versaille) that was different.--Marc Pasquin 16:43, 24 October 2005 (PDT)

Actually, it started in Kansas. And in order for the outcome to be so very different, methinks the course of the war has to be different as well. One huge difference immediately comes to mind--no US entering the war in 1917! The NAL was a Commonwealth nation and (presumably) was one of the Allied Powers pretty much from Day One. One simple change might be that the equivalent of the Belgians and Dutch were more friendly to the HRE and were persuaded to allow the Imperial troops passage through into France! Without the bad press the Prussians got for bad treatment of "gallant Belgium" it would have been much easier politically to achieve a negotiated peace. Zahir 17:21, 24 October 2005 (PDT)

Kansas ??? Incidently, Belgium doesn't exist on IB and having the batavian become willing helper of germany is a bit of a stretch. In any case, why would it need to go differently ? The terms of the treaty do not require a more powerful germany, just a different mindset on the part of the allies. --Marc Pasquin 17:40, 24 October 2005 (PDT)

Yeah. Kansas. No idea why it was called Spanish Flu because the first case recorded was in a Kansas army base. Go figure.

I rather thought there was no Belgium in IB but I wasn't sure. My point is not that Germany needed to be more powerful, but that it needed to be less hated by the voting publics of France, England, etc. The brutal invasion of a neutral country and the pounding into rubble of cities that simply defended themselves gave rise to horror stories like the notion of German soldiers bayonetting newborns and the like (not true--although their attempts to police Belgium proved brutal enough). If in fact Batavia (?) were treated better at the very start of the war, when the Von Schlieffen <sp?> Plan was implemented, then much of terrible image Germany/Prussia suffered would have been mitigated. It would have been politically possible for the Allied Leaders not to impose a punitive peace. Although something of the same effect might be accomplished if the NAL GM Gwrthiern ffeil Gwilim had put his foot down and insisted on the "Eighteen Points" in some way (alas, Woodrow Wilson *here* dropped the ball--perhaps unavoidably) espeicially when it came to "Public covenants publically negotiated."

I agree that the changes from WW1 to GW1 needn't be huge, but the mere fact of how the NAL got involved seems to me to play a major role in the outcome. *Here* the essential change was in General "Black Jack" Pershing insisting that the American Forces remain united and used effectively as whole units rather than used to "plug in" the gaps of manpower created by the grinding death toll. But if American troops were in it from the beginning, that is an inherent POD. At any rate, following all those years of combat, something pushed folks to some kind of an armistice. What was that something? The obvious ploy here would be the Influenza Epidemic, especially in the wake of perhaps some famous deaths--like someone in the royal families on each side maybe? If the Kaiser lost a sister or child, about the same time the monarchs of the FK did so, the shared grief might be a bridge upon which to build first a cease-fire, then a treaty. Just a thought... Zahir 22:43, 24 October 2005 (PDT)

Sorry I got confuse about the kansas thing, thought you were still talking about the first world war. Was trying to figure out when Arduke Ferdinand was in kansas. As for the name, spain was the place were the first large outbreak was reported (at the time).

For the rest, NAL would probably not have the political power to "put its foot down". Rather the fact that IB is in many more integrated the our world is in itself, sufficient to make the victors go easier on the losers. It would be less expensive for the SR for example to go easy on germany then to have to deal with the influx of immigrant coming through its condominium states.

The influenza could have played a role also although leader losing a relative as never stopped war before. Whats one more dead amongst millions ?

As far as whether the Flu itself was a factor or not, my point is that GW1 has some very important differences other than the attitudes of the folks at the negotiating table. In WWI, the sudden infusion of American troops in 1918 meant that Germany's final offensives failed and so the Kaiser's government sued for peace, in effect surrendering. The individual officials who did that, btw, were all dead within five or six years of the war's end--assassinated by outraged Germans. Retaining the Kaiser would prevent that to a large extent, but it seems fairly clear to me that the Germans simply could not be seen as so beastly as they were *here* (where the British Royal Family had to change their name! And people in the US were accused of being traitors for speaking German!). Part of this would, I submit, have to do with (1) The NAL was on the Allied side from day one, and (2) The SR was on the side of the Central Powers. That Gwrthiern ffeil Gwilim might have had direct part in the leadership of the war from the start probably would have made a difference. But at the same time, that meant no sudden infusion of fresh troops in 1918. Perhaps also with SR's navy at HRE's disposal (more or less) the Imperial Army was simply less harsh, especially to Batavia. One other major change--a greater use of airships. Didn't have to be too much greater, but more than *here* seems likely. JMHO Zahir 18:17, 26 October 2005 (PDT)

PODs

I'm going to propose some Points of Departure regarding GW1 to account for the (major) differences in how this ended as opposed to how WWI ended:

• The Schleiffen Plan Since the HRE could count on support from the SR, troops would not have been bled from the Western Front to shore up the planned Eastern Front. As a result, the Western Commanders felt much more confident. They gave Batavia a chance to simply let the Imperial armies through into France, complete with ultimatum. Batavia tried to bluff it out, but in the end one battle was enough to convince them to surrender. The Prussians were not punitive, hence stories of "Hun Atrocities" weren't circulated with anywhere near as much furor. No waves of gallant Belgian refugees into England. But of course this also gave the Allied Powers a chance to properly mobilize. It was still a near thing (remember, the Prussian troops were many more) but the war still bogged down before Paris fell.
• The Americans As part of the Commonwealth, the NAL was of course siding with the Allies. At least in theory. In fact, the GM who was in favor of this died suddenly. His two successors were isolationist (or isolationist-ish) and they severely hampered the war effort. For a long time, supplies from America were interdicted by the Central Navy (in practice, the SR's navy) which did not engage in unrestricted submarine warfare because they didn't have to. Yet convoy defenses did improve and take a toll. When both sides finally--and nervously--saw a major ship engagement happen at Jutland, it was more-or-less a stalemate (as it was in WWI).
• Influenza In our history, this broke out for the first time in the United States among army personnel. The question came up in Wilson's cabinet--Do we ship these (probably infectious) troops to Europe as promised? Here, they did. There, they did not. The course of the epidemic was different. It struck America first and hardest. American troops were sorely missed on the Western Front where things had indeed bogged down into trench warfare. Without major reinforcements, the Allies lost some momentum the Central Powers. Then, of course, the epidemic did ultimate spread and showed no preference for uniforms. As 1918 drew to a close, both sides were exhausted.
• Pope Benedict XV Assume he was much like our version here, he spent enormous efforts in trying to end the war and/or help the victims of same. But unlike here, anti-German propoganda hadn't reached an hysterical pitch and the Allied Powers were not in a position to follow-up on any offensives (due to events via Influenza above--instead of both sides being devastated by the flu, the Allies failed to receive reinforcements at a critical time, then both sides were devastated). So his efforts proved successful.

In this way, the political and military realities in 1918 are such that the Allies cannot really hope to conquer Prussia (unlike here, where they knew they could) and it was not political suicide for them to negotiate a truce with the "Filthy Hun." Zahir 10:48, 17 February 2006 (PST)

Alliance systems

I've been pouring over the excellent * Eastern Europe maps and reading Harry Turtledove's Great War alt-history series, so my mind has naturally wondered to the rather fuzzy domain of IB GW1. We know how it began (as here, nationalism in the Balkans threatened the Austro-X Empire), we know how it eneded (Spanish flu and stalemate), and most of the rest is just technical military details which I may concern myself with later, with the exception of who fought on which side. Here's what I think is generally taken as a given:

• Germany, Hungary and Austria form part of the Central Powers.
• France, Russia, the FK, Non-Austrian Dalmatia (don't make me spell it in full) and a half-hearted NAL form part of the Allies or Entente.

And what I think we can deduce:

• The Italies were quite likely Allied, given that they were so during GW2, with the exception of the Papal State, given the Pope's desire for peace.
• The RTC didn't come off too well, since it was split in two. Since Russia was torn by civil war and miserable defeat for most of the war, can we assume it was a junior Central Power? Perhaps it had become a reluctant German vassal like a more enduring version of Germany's East European puppets *here*?
• I take it that the original Danubian Confederation was Dalmatia receiving most of the southern (can I say Slavic? Are Dalmatians Slavs?) Austrian Empire. But Bulgaria was a big country to be annexed forcefully by Dalmatia. Shall we assume it was Allied, as a pro-Russian state? (The man on the street was pro-Russia *here*, but the king wanted slices of Serbia and Romania. Given the nearby Austrian and Ottoman territories to be seized, he'd have an incentive to be Allied, *there*)
• Greece was Allied, as it seized large tracts of Ottoman territory.

Your opinion? Schlock Junkie, 6th August 2007 (BST)

It was Austro-Dalmatia, actually, and the Dalmatians are romance speakers.

As for the other parts, I'm not entirely sure, I've somewhat left that as mental gray area. I know we were working out earlier wars to figure out the details of GW1 later. BoArthur 17:44, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

They may be Romance speakers, but aren't they slavic ethnically? Also, is it at all possible for someone to whip up a map of Europe just before GWI, colored for the alliances (Central Powers, Allies, etc...)? Seth 05:36, 7 August 2007

A few points:

• In the case of Italy, I'm not sure. Probably Allied or neutral. The Two Sicilies were allied.
• Russia's history is about the same as *here* until 1918. Both Russian revolutions also took place *there* and Lenin was in power for a while. It was Soviet Russia that signed the humiliating Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Before that, Russia had been on the side of the Allies, after that it was neutral. When the White Armies took over in Russia, the First Great War was already over.
• As far as the Balkan goes, Allied were Dalmatian Hercegovina, Muntenia, and Bulgaria. On the side of the Triple Entente were: Austria, Hungary, Montenegro, Turkey. Xliponia was neutral. I'm not really sure about Greece. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 02:37, 7 August 2007 (PDT)

Well, I believe we can assume Greece was Allied, as after the war it made inroads into Ottoman territory. Also, what is the status of: Nassland, SR, Bohemia, RTC, Batavia, Jervaine, and the Iberian state? Seth 3:30, 7 August 2007

Bohemia was neutral (see: http://ark.wz.cz/ib/pemis_ksichtny11.html), Nassland was simply not involved (see: http://ark.wz.cz/ib/dihemo.html) Jan II. 04:36, 8 August 2007 (PDT)

Due to its condominium situation, Jervaine is probably constitutionaly neutral. --Marc Pasquin 19:53, 7 August 2007 (PDT)

Well, Belgium was neutral *here*, but Germany still invaded it, and looking at the GWII maps, it invaded it then. What's to keep it from being invaded *there*? Seth 7:08, 8 August 2007

Thanks for the prompt response, everyone, and very interesting. With regards to Dalmatians, I did mean ethnically. BoArthur, I assume you were refering to my list of central power when you said "Austro-Dalmatia actually". What can I say? I'm lazy. Everyone says "Austria" instead of "Austria-Hungary", and, differant as things are *there*, human laziness and fallibility are likely just as prevelant.

(Actually, "Austria" is quite correct in this case. IIRC Austro-Dalmatia was transformed into "Austria" in 1905 - so more or less the opposite happened from *here*) —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 11:37, 8 August 2007 (PDT)

• Batavia my have fallen victim to *there's* Schleiffen Plan equivelant, and likely satyed neutral or went Allied.
• Portugal pitched in for the Entente, *here*, and is one of the least changed countries *there*, but the rest of Iberia was probably neutral, in my opinion.

Who's responsible for the new flag-links? Most of them I think are fine, but perhaps we should be a bit more definate before starting on real editing? Schlock Junkie, 7th August 2007

That was me. Most of the flag links are already QSS, but can be changed or omitted pretty easily. Zahir 11:24, 8 August 2007 (PDT)

France show the modern one. for the period in question, it should be a plain tricolore.--Marc Pasquin 21:14, 8 August 2007 (PDT)

Just regarding my parts of the world, the provinces of Australasia would have been on the allied side from the begining and followed the FK. Aothearoa (who was not part of australasia yet) would have been officialy neutral but did send some troops (mainly from the concessions) as part of the ANJAC contingent.

New Francy was neutral and did a fair amount of trading due to its status. A large number of neofrancian zouaves volunteered to defend the Papal State and went to europe. This was done without any kind of official blessing from the government although it did nothing to prevent anyone from joining a foreign army.--Marc Pasquin 21:14, 8 August 2007 (PDT)

I'm coming up with a map right now. How are these for alliances (at least in Europe):

Allies: France, Russia, Portugal, Federated Kingdom, Greece, Albania, Dalmatia-Hercegovina, Mutenia, Bulgaria, Italy, Two Sicilies, and the Republic of the Two Crowns (overran by the HRE, which was divided by HRE.

Central Powers: HRE, Austria-Dalmatia, Scandinavian Realm, Hungary, Montenegro, and the Ottoman Empire.

Well? Seth 00:44, 10 August 2007

It would depend entirely on the year the map would represent. There was no Republic of the two Crowns at the time; it's either Republic of Both Nations, as it was called officially, or Veneda, as everybody used to call it. The Republic was neutral before 1915, in 1915 it joined the Allies, later in 1915 it was overrun and a puppet king joined the Entente. But even then, this king was more like a Qvisling type than a full-fledged ally of the Germans. For the rest:

• Albania was not a country yet - it was part of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
• Any reason why Portugal would be part of the War?
• Austro-Dalmatia was simply "Austria" since 1905.
• We still don't know precisely what the role of Scandinavia was during the war. We've always been under the assumption that it was neutral, and even if it's true that "Scandinavia was on the side of the HRE", we still don't know if that implied any military activity on its part. Even if we were to follow the suggestion I made on Conculture (that it was actually the SR that pushed both sides into a stalemate), we can't sanction that without Kristian's consent. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 00:47, 10 August 2007 (PDT)