Bulgaria causes WWI: AHC/WI the April Uprising sparks a world war
- Thread starter TheseusDeuteros
- Start date
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
It's possible that Russia, looking to protect/absorb Balkan Slavs, could get involved, kicking off some kind of chain reaction (maybe Austria or Britain help out the Ottomans?).
Is there no possible reason for anyone to support the Ottomans? Another minor POD one or two years earlier, or something like that?
I'm sorry for 'bumping', but it'd be really awesome if you guys could share your thoughts on this, because I might be able to write a mini-TL about this during the holidays if I find time 
Have Russia get more openly and decisively involved sooner, and then that lead to British intervention on behalf of the Turks. Austria too joins in support of the Ottomans so to preserve the status quo, and Serbia and Italy side with Russia and Bulgaria. Greece declares war in support of Bulgaria. I don't know how France and Germany will come down, but both are likely to end up involved.
Why would the Britons support Russia? What could be a plausible reason?
And how about Austria? Serbia makes sense, Russia and Serbia always had some sort of unstated alliance. Italy might indeed support the side of the Russians and Bulgarians, because they too had these 'ethnic problems' (you know, they wanted the Italian areas of Austria-Hungary and probably aimed for other areas too, Dalmatia for instance). So it would make sense if the Italians joined the side opposing Austria-Hungary.
You might get Germany on the side of Austria-Hungary too, because, you know, Germans...
A few problems or things to consider, though...
1. The Greeks and Serbs feared Bulgarian dominance in the Balkans. But the Greeks were definetely not going to join the Ottoman side. The Serbs, though, were likely to side with the Austrians (this secret treaty was signed five years after the April Uprising, but I presume there had been sort of an idea about an alliance already).
(link)Wikipedia said:
2. Alexander of Battenberg became the first Prince of Bulgaria in our world's history. Say, he remained important in the 'Bulgarian Question' despite the POD, then he - as a nephew of the Russian Tsar, Alexander II, and born in Austria-Hungary (Verona, which later became part of Italy, to confuse things even more), and son of German nobility - would drag Germany into the war, maybe.
3. How about minorities in Russi during Alexander II's rule? The Poles? The Finnish?
(link)Wikipedia said:
4. How about the League of the Three Emperors? If the Russians and Ottomans are at war, and the British support the Turks, then the Austria-Hungary and Germany might well, according to this alliance, join the Russian side. That conflicts with the theory of Austria-Hungary siding with the Ottomans and British. If they still would, for whatever reason (does anyone have a plausible suggestion?), Austria-Hungary and Germany would end up on opposing sides. That would also be very interesting to see.
(link)Wikipedia said:
5. There was the Reichstadt Agreement in our world's history in July 1876. This would probably be butterflied away if the conflict had already escalted by then. Still, I think it's important to think about this agreement.
(link)Wikipedia said:
Looking at what I underlined, we can see that the Austrians and Russians did not really trust on another, which might open up again the possibility of Austria-Hungary joining the Ottomans.
---
I guess it is all quite complicated, but a chain reaction initiating a global war does not sound very implausible.
I said that Britain would support the Ottomans
That would be interesting, possibly having Serbia, Austria, and Russia on the same side, or Austria and Serbia on one side opposing Russia. The problem with either idea is that it's in the interests of Serbia (and Greece for that matter) to expand, and that will not happen if they side with the Turks instead of fighting them. Remember, this before Stan Stefano; Bulgaria has big dreams, but very small frontiers. If Serbia and Greece side with Bulgaria, then they are in a position to achieve faits accompli in any peace serrlement, thereby checking Bulgarian expansion.
Not relevant. Later on in our timeline, Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar NIcholas II were first cousins and went to war anyway.
This would only become an issue if Germany and Russia were on opposing sides, and/or if the gains of the latter at the expense of Austria-Hungary resulted in postwar upheavals. The Finns were relatively well off for a people subject to the Tsars historically, and the Poles would need outside support, the likeliest of which is German, but that depends on Germany being on the side opposing Russia which is far from certain.
The alliance, per your link, had broken down by 1875, and would likely not have been renewed (if at all) until after this war.
Perhaps, but not likely.
Indeed.
Sorry, typo! I meant the Ottomans...I said that Britain would support the Ottomans
The Great Game was in full force. The last thing Britain wants is the Russian Navy with bases in the Med. This was the point of the Crimean War, only such events had become likelier anyway.
Okay, thank you. Now I understand why the British would be keen to side with th Turks!
For Serbia, it would perhaps make sense to side with the Bulgarians, to expand and check Bulgarian expansion, and also because they didn't really like the Ottomans. After all, the Serbs and Ottomans had quite a few wars and the Ottomans had also conquered quite a lot of Serb-majority areas (parts of Bosnia and the Banat, for example).
However, Greece doesn't seem very likely to side with the Bulgarians to me, because Thrace always was an area of conflict between Turkey or the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, and Greece. I don't think the Bulgarians and Greeks will agree upon the division of Thrace and I can't think of a good reason for the Greeks to join the Bulgarians. Or... wait a moment... well, they will never join the Ottoman side, surely... So, perhaps it's most plausible if they first try to stay neutral, but since that becomes impossible in the global war that started in the Balkans, they join the Bulgarians to fight Ottoman aggression.
Now, a totally different question: how can France and Germany, and possibly other countries, like Spain, the United States, Sweden, Mexico, Japan or China (just naming some random countries, to be honest) get involved?
Consider though Greek foreign policy in this period, and the nationalist diesire in the country to expand north and east. The only thing that might keep Greece out of the war is British pressure, possibly backed by France.
Well, it could be a world war in that colonial fighting happens, but it's not likely for anyone outside of Europe to get in on this except Persia. Maybe Japan is a possibility, but it's not likely and would be more of a nuisance to Russia than an actual threat given that we're essentially just a decade removed from the Meiji restoration.
Already discussed
But what side would they choose in desire of future expansion (areas granted to them after a succesful war)?
Don't get me wrong, I hate any type of war, especially world wars. Still, I'm interested in how this could develop into a global war. Firstly, what do you mean with Persia? How? Second: Japan, how?
Thirdly, I was wondering, what implications will the fact that the Berlin Conference had not occurred yet (so the Scramble of Africa had not been finished yet) have?
Is United States intervention possible under certain circumstances?
And how about France and Germany? I gather they can't stay out of the conflict, but on which sides would they end up?
One last thing, I read this:
(link)Wikipedia said:
This describes that the French and Germans were very hostile to each other in this time period. But that's not so significant, I mean, obvious. But it also tells that many British people condemned the Ottoman oppression of the Bulgarians, so does it make a lot of sense then, if the British side with the Turks?
And to escalate the war even more, what if...
...what if Alexander Soloviev had attempted (in this timeline succesfully) to kill Alexander II in 1876 instead of 1879, just before the outbreak of the war that would develop into World War I? What would the implications be?
We might well also have to discuss the Montenegrin-Ottoman War and the Herzegovina Uprising...
Also, how would Denmark, Spain and Sweden-Norway react to the continuously 'growing' war? And how about tensions between Hungarians and Austrians in their empire?
(link)Wikipedia said:
...what if Alexander Soloviev had attempted (in this timeline succesfully) to kill Alexander II in 1876 instead of 1879, just before the outbreak of the war that would develop into World War I? What would the implications be?
We might well also have to discuss the Montenegrin-Ottoman War and the Herzegovina Uprising...
Also, how would Denmark, Spain and Sweden-Norway react to the continuously 'growing' war? And how about tensions between Hungarians and Austrians in their empire?
katchen
Banned
I could see this dovetailing with an American Civil War in a TL in which the Civil War Crisis got postponed from 1860 by either Stephen Douglas winning the 1860 Election or more likely, by Crittinden's last minute compromise guaranteeing slavery where it already existed,(and extending it to New Mexico Territory) going through and into effect.
To wit: (from n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise
Amendments to the Constitution
This compromise might well have passed if William Seward had gotten the Republican nomination for President on the first ballot. Seward, as a newly entering Secretary of State was far less militant than Abraham Lincoln. He expressed sentiments in favour of allowing the South to secede rather than take the US into war to suppress the South. Seward surely would have supported a compromise to avert secession, and by making it clear to his party in Congress that he WOULD stand by and allow secession to occur if the compromise didn't pass, probably could have persuaded enough Congresspeople and state legislators to pass the compromise.
But Crittinden's Compromise (and the existence of a half slave U.S. which would continue so indefinitely) would threaten to derail the worldwide momentum toward Abolition of slavery that Great Britain was spearheading. Possible points of friction in the 1860s would be 1. US intervention in Mexico provoked by French intervention in Mexico. Unlike OTL, and unlike in 1848, this time, US annexation of Mexico would be seen by southerners as the only way for the South to expand and to gain parity with the North in terms of numbers of new slave states. So any US intervention in Mexico could easily now be a prelude to US annexation as slave territory, since Mexico is south of 36 degrees, 30 minutes.
2. Southern US orvertures to Cuban "secessionists from Spain" now that Spain was looking toward abolition of slavery in Cuba, which at that time OTL, it was (1873). A Cuban (and Puerto Rican) secession followed by annexation by the US to preserve slavery there would be another provocation
and 3. The purchase of slaves from the Pacific Islands, which are non-African and therefore not covered by US constitutional prohibitions on AFRICAN slave trade. The "blackbirding" of Pacific Islanders (Polynesians and Melanesians) was becoming prevalent at that time, and due to the geography of the Pacific, beyond the capacity of the UK's Royal Navy to interdict.If Mexico was in US hands, slaves could be landed on the Sonora Coast of the Gulf of California or anywhere in the Pacific. And even if not, once in the country, California probably could not (and with no way to send them home, probably would not) interfere with slave trafficking across it's territory to Arizona-New Mexico. This would be another point of friction, especially once blackbirding spreads to New Guinea, close to Australia. I would not even put it past Colonial Australians who wanted Australia's Aboriginals gone to kidnap and illegally traffick in Aboriginals as slaves destined for the US. .
(Not that the illegal trafficking in Africans --or African Brazilians or even free African Colombians--would stop completely despite enforcement efforts. (After all, the US is unable to prevent trafficking to or within the US IOTL today).
All of these issues would lead to ever worsening relations and increasing tensions with Great Britain during the 1860s and early 1870s. And very likely to an American naval buildup to counter the UK, which unlike most European nations, the US has the resources and the harbours to accomplish. If the UK finally embargoes cotton or any other product manufactured with slave labour, the US would be casting about for other markets, from which Central Europe and Russia would be obvious.
Despite an aversion to slavery on the part of Germans, Russians and Austrio-Hungarians, an alliance between the League of the Three Emperors and the US would not be out of question under these circumstances, particularly if and when the UK puts it's weight behind protecting the status quo and the Ottoman Empire. The Central Powers will need an ally that can at least potentially match the UK navally and the US is that power. Also, all four powers are challenging and rejecting the hegemony of the United Kingdom and it's right to be the arbiter of international law and morality, much as Russia and China and Iran today reject the hegemony of the United States IOTL. On that basis alone, there is grounds for an alliance---and a buildup to a truly world war between the US and the Central European nations and Western Europe (UK and France and Netherlands) supporting the Ottoman Empire even if it means the three Emperors accepting the legitimacy of Americans owning other human beings.
To wit: (from n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise
Amendments to the Constitution
- Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
- Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
- Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
- Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
- Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
- No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.
- That fugitive slave laws were constitutional and should be faithfully observed and executed.
- That all state laws which impeded the operation of fugitive slave laws, the so-called "Personal liberty laws," were unconstitutional and should be repealed.
- That the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 should be amended (and rendered less objectionable to the North) by equalizing the fee schedule for returning or releasing alleged fugitives and limiting the powers of marshals to summon citizens to aid in their capture.
- That laws for the suppression of the African slave trade should be effectively and thoroughly executed.
This compromise might well have passed if William Seward had gotten the Republican nomination for President on the first ballot. Seward, as a newly entering Secretary of State was far less militant than Abraham Lincoln. He expressed sentiments in favour of allowing the South to secede rather than take the US into war to suppress the South. Seward surely would have supported a compromise to avert secession, and by making it clear to his party in Congress that he WOULD stand by and allow secession to occur if the compromise didn't pass, probably could have persuaded enough Congresspeople and state legislators to pass the compromise.
But Crittinden's Compromise (and the existence of a half slave U.S. which would continue so indefinitely) would threaten to derail the worldwide momentum toward Abolition of slavery that Great Britain was spearheading. Possible points of friction in the 1860s would be 1. US intervention in Mexico provoked by French intervention in Mexico. Unlike OTL, and unlike in 1848, this time, US annexation of Mexico would be seen by southerners as the only way for the South to expand and to gain parity with the North in terms of numbers of new slave states. So any US intervention in Mexico could easily now be a prelude to US annexation as slave territory, since Mexico is south of 36 degrees, 30 minutes.
2. Southern US orvertures to Cuban "secessionists from Spain" now that Spain was looking toward abolition of slavery in Cuba, which at that time OTL, it was (1873). A Cuban (and Puerto Rican) secession followed by annexation by the US to preserve slavery there would be another provocation
and 3. The purchase of slaves from the Pacific Islands, which are non-African and therefore not covered by US constitutional prohibitions on AFRICAN slave trade. The "blackbirding" of Pacific Islanders (Polynesians and Melanesians) was becoming prevalent at that time, and due to the geography of the Pacific, beyond the capacity of the UK's Royal Navy to interdict.If Mexico was in US hands, slaves could be landed on the Sonora Coast of the Gulf of California or anywhere in the Pacific. And even if not, once in the country, California probably could not (and with no way to send them home, probably would not) interfere with slave trafficking across it's territory to Arizona-New Mexico. This would be another point of friction, especially once blackbirding spreads to New Guinea, close to Australia.
I would not even put it past Colonial Australians who wanted Australia's Aboriginals gone to kidnap and illegally traffick in Aboriginals as slaves destined for the US. .(Not that the illegal trafficking in Africans --or African Brazilians or even free African Colombians--would stop completely despite enforcement efforts. (After all, the US is unable to prevent trafficking to or within the US IOTL today).
All of these issues would lead to ever worsening relations and increasing tensions with Great Britain during the 1860s and early 1870s. And very likely to an American naval buildup to counter the UK, which unlike most European nations, the US has the resources and the harbours to accomplish. If the UK finally embargoes cotton or any other product manufactured with slave labour, the US would be casting about for other markets, from which Central Europe and Russia would be obvious.
Despite an aversion to slavery on the part of Germans, Russians and Austrio-Hungarians, an alliance between the League of the Three Emperors and the US would not be out of question under these circumstances, particularly if and when the UK puts it's weight behind protecting the status quo and the Ottoman Empire. The Central Powers will need an ally that can at least potentially match the UK navally and the US is that power. Also, all four powers are challenging and rejecting the hegemony of the United Kingdom and it's right to be the arbiter of international law and morality, much as Russia and China and Iran today reject the hegemony of the United States IOTL. On that basis alone, there is grounds for an alliance---and a buildup to a truly world war between the US and the Central European nations and Western Europe (UK and France and Netherlands) supporting the Ottoman Empire even if it means the three Emperors accepting the legitimacy of Americans owning other human beings.
Last edited:
No, the British were a key factor in preventing the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. What's different is that under OTL circumstances, the confluct was contained to the extent that most of the relevant powers could essentially stay out of the fighting, including Britain.