Talk: No Belgium

Franco-Prussian War- French Losses

So when the French lose, what else did they lost other than what they lost in the OTL War? RandomWriterGuy 02:27, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Excellent question. TBH, I have no clue yet, but I'll let you know. :P ChrisL123 04:23, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

They wouldn't lose anything else. Heck, even taking A-L otl was rather much and derided as such. Anything else would be worse. Lordganon 07:41, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Post-1914

I'm having trouble for the post-1914 timeline.

What I was thinking was, after the little "stunt" (i.e., the War of 1914) by Austria trying to defeat Serbia and Russia, Bosnia and Herzegovina would be given to Serbia and Galicia would be given to Russia. Germany, of course, would remain unfazed, but the alliance between Austria and Germany would be over. Also, I doubt the ethnic groups would dissolve this early without a major war.

Onto the Russian Civil War, I have a feeling that the Polish would declare their independence from the Russians, but I have no clue if this is possible without some help, and the only help I can think of is Germany. But would they really help them, or would the Polish even need assistance?

Then comes my World War II (well, in this case, the Great War) idea. I was thinking almost like an OTL WWII situation, where Austria would attack Poland and Serbia to get their lands back (and maybe Germany for their lack of help in 1914), the Soviet Union would follow to get Poland back, and of course it would end in the loss of the Austrians and Soviets. But now that I think about it, it doesn't sound that likely. Thoughts on that idea, or what other wars could happen?

ChrisL123 04:23, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

On the assumption that things would follow close to OTL up to 1914, there's no way Germany wouldn't support Austria. There were cults in Germany dedicated to going to war and establishing the German Empire as the dominator of Europe and the world. In addition, by this time Austria was pretty much Germany's lapdog, and Austrian officials went to talk with their German counterparts to ask if it was alright to declare war on Serbia. Once Germany gets involved, it will go to war with France, and either the Schlieffen Plan (Or its ATL equivalent ) succeeds and the Central Powers are victorious before 1916, or it doesn't and you get a situation mirroring OTL with Trench Warfare and all that fun stuff.

There are two ways to avoid this from happening: Keep Bismarck in office (Which can be done by keeping Wilhelm II out of office) or Butterfly your way to an entirely different 20th Century, which presents a challenge, seeing as how Belgium is, well, Belgium.

Whatever you do, good luck.

Jazon Naparleon 04:51, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Without WWI, not only is the Revolution delayed, if it happens at all, but the Soviets won't come to power. Poland would reappear, but bet on the Germans getting it to be a satellite state of sorts. About half of Galicia goes with it, the rest stays with Russia.

The territorial distributions would work out as you say, Chris.

Austrians would not attack the Germans, and probably not the Poles. But bet on the Serbs and Russia being their targets. Would be the "Great European War" or some such thing, not a World War.

A-H did not ask Germany for permission. What they asked for was backing. Nor were they a "lapdog." They'd have done something stupid irregardless.

There is no chance of a "Schlieffen Plan" or an equivalent here. The whole otl Belgian border with Germany is either French, or Dutch. The French part would be fortified, like the south, and really not attackable. And such a tiny part of that border would go to the Dutch, that it's irrelevant. Simply put, the Dutch won;t get attacked. And without a game-winner like the Germans thought they had there, the military is not going to be nearly so in favor of war. Their entire view on the matter was shaped by the belief that they had a weapon that would take out the French quickly and easily. Not the case, here.

The Germans will not go to war with France, and would actually encourage the Austrians to not screw with Serbia. Bet money on the latter not happening, of course.

Remember, Jason: in this atl, Belgium does not exist.

Lordganon 08:19, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'll have to research more to come up with a reason for a Great European War (does an Austrian-lead assassination of a Serbian leader make sense?)

When I do come up with the reason for a GEW, I'm sure it'll be the last straw and the ethnic groups of Austria will finally separate. But would it make sense to have Austria being annexed to Germany (or having it just as a satellite state and then being annexed)?

Also, would the Bolsheviks even make it past the October Revolution, or would they just fail in the Civil War? And this may sound like a stupid question so sorry, but would communism ever spread to China and other nations at all?

ChrisL123 23:29, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Austrian, not likely. They'd have no such groups like existed in Serbia to cause WWI. I could see them inciting someone in Serbia or Russia to do it, mind.

Austria being annexed to Germany makes no sense at all. They would never agree to it.

Bolsheviks wouldn't even make it to the revolution. And no, it wouldn't spread into China. But I would expect something of its nature to appear some inside the former A-H Empire after its dissolution.

Lordganon 05:31, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

About the GEW thing, makes sense.

Gah, sorry, I meant the OTL Republic of Austria, not Austria-Hungary. I thought it'd make sense since OTL Austria has a large German population. And if you did mean OTL Austria then just ignore this, haha.

About the communism thing, interesting. Thanks.

ChrisL123 22:50, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

I knew that you meant otl Austria, lol. And my response was very much meant about it, too. Lordganon 05:22, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Ideas!

Alright, I have a few more ideas for the timeline.

As a sort of prologue, I was thinking that the Ottoman Empire, destined to collapse, would do so during the Unification of Saudi Arabia after the British and French et al would intervene. The borders of the mandates would obviously not be the same as OTL but the principle remains the same, and I'm sure more land than OTL would be lost.

Then comes my Great European War idea:

Adolf Hitler has a greater appreciation of the United Austrian States and becomes the leader of Austria instead of Germany (considering the German Empire doesn't collapse and is still a monarchy, so he can't just become fuhrer). He starts the Great European War by invading nations for both Austrian-dominance and to regain lands lost in the War of 1914. Such would include the Balkan lands and Poland. Italy would probably ally the Austrians as they did with Germany and I assume Turkey would as well (aiming to get the lost lands back as well), meaning the Austrians would last more than they did in the 1914 War.

Does this work, or should I just go with the "Austrians assassinate leaders" route? ChrisL123 04:00, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt that the Ottomans would lose any territory in such a manner. They may have been weak, but until the Allies undertook efforts to raise nationalism among the Arabs, they were fairly loyal to the Empire.

Agreed on the Turks allying with them. But, not Italy. Simply put, the Italians have no reason to do so, and would, as otl, be far more willing to move against them, for their land claims.

Add a bit about him going against the slavs ala~ otl, but worse.

Lordganon 08:29, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

About the Italy and Ottoman Empire thing, that's understandable. But, which Slavs are you talking about? I could understand if he hated South Slavs and the East Slavs, but I'm not sure about West Slavs, considering they live in the same land as him (the OTL-Czechoslovakian area).

And now I have to consider the countries he would attack:

• Poland (for the Slavs and Galicia)
• Russia (unless Hitler makes a non-aggression pact with the Russians like in OTL)
• The Balkans: Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, Greece
• Maybe but unlikely Italy?

And I'm sure that since Hitler can't get much done through Germany, Hitler will try to get through Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula, then trying to get through Persia to Russia but I might just be getting a little ahead of myself.

And then for allies, if Russia doesn't join, I'm sure Romania and Bulgaria still would, like in OTL. How does that sound?

ChrisL123 19:26, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

East Slavs, no question of being very targeted. As would a lot of the South Slavs. West Slavs.... well, not targeted otl, but here could very well be.

Not Greece or Italy, unless everything else is taken - while they do hold claims, of a sort, there, there's closer fish to home to fry.

Even under Hitler, there's no way that A-H in any form could possibly do anything outside of Europe.

Romania would be against A-H. But Bulgaria would actually support them, especially if they move against the Greeks and/or Romania goes against A-H.

Bet on some sort of pact with the Russians ala~ otl.

Lordganon 23:46, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Part II -- Pacific War

I've thought it over, and I've come up with an interesting idea for the Pacific War. It would most likely start around the same time (by that I mean 1937, the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War), but would be much different.

What I was thinking was that the Japanese would influence the Russians to fight alongside them in the Pacific War, promising land rights to Russia (probably Xinjiang). And although the Russians would ally the Japanese, I doubt Hitler would let the Austrians ally them too, seeing no benefit with Russia and Turkey there.

From what I understand, the Japanese were so expansive in OTL because Great Britain was too busy in Europe with Hitler's great expanse and couldn't focus on Japan. I'm sure in TTL, with Great Britain less busy in Europe, they'd do less expansion and might even avoid the US entirely. So, they'd have Russia on their side and the US won't (hopefully) get involved. I'm sure if they expanded not as drastically as OTL, they might be able to win the Pacific War. But I'm sure I might be wrong. Thoughts? ChrisL123 04:20, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I figure they'd still ally. Kind of a four-power version of the otl agreements between Germany, Italy, and Japan. Doesn't hurt them or the Turks, after all.

That was part of their motive otl, but not even close to the main ones. Japan, as I'm sure you know, is limited in resources. While it did get some from the Soviets and elsewhere, that amount was minimal - and with the Russians in this atl fighting a war, they'd not have much to spare. As a response to Japanese aggression, and demands of the American public, the USA cut them off from crucial resources they needed to fight their war in China.

Otl, this meant that they, at the time of Pearl Harbor, had a very limited stockpile. Estimates vary, but usually give them a year, at most, of operations.

Atl, you're going to see many of the same pressures. Even without a PH, war's a given. The European colonies would have the same effective guarantee given as in otl. Best it manages to do is to delay the Pacific War by a few months if it's not a PH-style entry. And, quite frankly, that's the amount of time it would take for the US to get the planes in the area upgraded to ones that could actually fight off Zeros reasonably well, heavily blunting their expansion.

Lordganon 07:28, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

The Second Sino-Japanese War will occur, this is a given. There isn't anything in the way of this. As well, the primary prize for Japan was in fact China itself; Japan wanted a sphere of influence in East Asia. Imagine if Japan fully controlled China? This is how this war needs to be viewed. The Japanese will seek to conquer those territories that will further their war aims in China, which in any TL is their primary battle.

Therefore, the Japanese alliance with the Axis would be with the aim of facilitating these efforts, namely making sure the European powers give Japan its opportunity in Asia. Gatemonger 03:54, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

The USA would still become a superpower. One big on isolation, but one irregardless. Heck, by 1914 you could even argue that it was stronger than most of the European powers. Something that was actually getting more in their favor each year.

The World Wars had nothing to do with the world population rising like that. It was a sign of progress, nothing more. It will still happen. Heck, without the wars of otl, it's likely to be higher.

Lordganon 04:21, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that was likely to happen. But I don't think they'd be become the largest power in the world, considering they wouldn't have any part in the major wars except for maybe the Pacific War.

About the population, I'm not sure yet. I'll get back to you though.

And I was thinking about Italy's involvement lately. I don't think they'd be against the Austrians in TTL, unless I've missed a really important detail. Without Russia being communist, Mussolini would probably be closer to them and he wouldn't be against Hitler making treaties with them. Then Turkey would come into the picture and they'd have a three-way alliance made of major powers. If Hitler would have been able to make a non-aggression pact with Germany, it would have been four against two (France and Great Britain). They'd really have nothing to lose (well, that'd be what they think). What would be the problem with Italy joining the Axis powers?

ChrisL123 03:31, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

The population, economic power, and resources of the USA more or less guarantee that they will be the strongest. A Sleeping Giant, more or less.

Italy had claims on Southern Tyrol - today, Trentino and South Tyrol provinces in Italy - Istria, and Dalmatia. It's a lot of territory. Add to that their claims on the Turks. Make no mistake, as well, that Hitler and Mussolini held rather different ideologies.

They have a very large amount of claims here. They acted on them otl when given the chance, and they'll do it atl as well.

Lordganon 05:22, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

No Belgium means No Belgian Congo

The headline says it all. I'm curious what your plans for Belgium's overseas empire are. Gatemonger 03:58, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

TTL Congo

Aha, I've been waiting for someone to ask that. When I was thinking about the timeline, I just figured the colonial powers in the area would simply settle in the OTL Congo area and colonize it. Forgive the crudeness of the map, it's just an outline of what the area will look like, I'll make it nicer in a few days. ChrisL123 04:35, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

The Germans will expand further inland, as will the French and Portuguese. But, more or less right on the other levels.

The Brits would end up with a tiny land passage to connect all of their colonies.

Lordganon 05:25, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference

i was curious in this subject myself so I did a little research of my own. I think the map you have is good, but a way to explain it might be useful. It seems the actions of the Belgians were responsible for the calling of this conference. It established the Belgian Congo as almost a buffer region between the other empires. Without this, the Scramble for Africa would have been more multifaceted and the nations would have tried carving up Africa in new ways. Gatemonger 17:05, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

What you're missing there is that outside of the Belgian claims, the continent was already more or less divided up by that time. Lordganon 06:34, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

How about a Dutch or French Congo taking up most of the OTL Belgian Congo. The eastern part could be a British Congo so that the UK has their Cape to Cario since the UK won't get Tanzania from Germany after WW1 since the war never happened? Portugal can also get a small slice of the Congo.

24.147.1.197 15:50, November 27, 2013 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

Dutch, no way.

As noted above, you'd see the French, Portuguese, Brits, and to some small degree the Germans, split up the otl Congo.

Lordganon (talk) 12:38, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Cold War

Will there be a COld War in this TL? RandomWriterGuy 18:56, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yes actually, but it'd be different from OTL.

With Russia being an Axis power, they'd be pretty busy. Helping the Austrians, keeping the Polish and Baltics under their hands, helping the Japanese conquer Asia, trying to conquer Xinjiang, trying to attack and conquer the rest of China, trying to conquer British India with the other powers to effectively control most of the continent, and so when it comes to the Americans being involved in the war, they're not gonna have troop involvement to defeat them. Troops are going to be disorganized, and they might not have enough mainland troops to help in an invasion. So while the Allies get the upper hand and start to stop the Axis advances.

Back in Germany, without Hitler being there to scare Einstein, he'd stay in Germany and will probably warn the Germans of Austrian nuclear projects and the Germans would begin nuclear testing with the British, a TTL version of OTL. The Americans would probably try a nuclear project but not as successful as OTL, and would rely on manpower. The Germans would drop a bomb on Austria, leading in their surrender and the Russians would probably be beaten by a combination of manpower and nuclear weaponry.

And so instead of a Soviet Union-American Cold War, it would instead be a German-American Cold War. It would probably have similar details from OTL, but I'll have to flesh out the details later. The US is likely to win again, though. ChrisL123 20:28, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Germany - even the German Empire - doesn't have the population to play such a role. It'd have to be them allied with someone else. Lordganon 22:10, March 11, 2012 (UTC)