Additional participants in WWI--most likely candidate countries for this?

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,450
Iowa USA
#11
More of a win by doing nothing.
No, but they avoided being invaded, pillaged and occupied for two years.
"No pain, no gain" then.... ;)

I am not very well read on Scandinavia after 1815. The Danes probably were wise to pick up what they did without joining. The comment I made was simply to point out that at least one of the ultimate winners, the Romanians, suffered a fast and near total military whipping.

Romania was quite brilliant in their swapping sides during the next world war, too, come to think of it. (Limited the territorial tribute to the S.U. probably.)
 
Apr 2017
974
U.S.A.
#12
"No pain, no gain" then.... ;)

I am not very well read on Scandinavia after 1815. The Danes probably were wise to pick up what they did without joining. The comment I made was simply to point out that at least one of the ultimate winners, the Romanians, suffered a fast and near total military whipping.

Romania was quite brilliant in their swapping sides during the next world war, too, come to think of it. (Limited the territorial tribute to the S.U. probably.)
If Romania had joined the war in 1914/15 they might have fared better.
Romania made the best of a bad situation in ww2. If they tried to remain neutral Germany/Soviets would have invaded them. Makes you wonder if they stayed allied with Germany till the end, how much more would they have lost?
 
Apr 2017
974
U.S.A.
#13
I’m quite certain Denmark was offered more than what they took so they could have been even bigger winners.
The allies may have offered them all of Schleswig, Holstein, Helgoland and maybe more. It wouldn't have changed the fact that Germany would crush them in weeks and then have a bigger coastline for their navy to operate from. This would be more of a hindrance to the allies than a help. Similar to Romania's "contribution" to ww1, they were defeated just in time for the fall harvest (feed those hungry central powers!).
 
Likes: Kotromanic

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#14
The Churchill memoir "The World Crisis, 1911-1918", poses the counterfactual which would have likely spelled an early defeat for Austria: the addition of both Greece and Bulgaria to the Entente prior to May, 1915.

Greece was dragged into the conflict on the side of the Entente.

To Sparky's post: Denmark joining the Entente would have been no less risky than Romania's entry. Can't win if you don't play the game, as Romania was about the biggest winner in a relative sense of all the victors.
Romania's entry looked less risky in 1916 because Russia was still in the war. Had Russia collapsed before Romania actually entered the war, I suspect that Romania would have only entered the war at the very end--when A-H would have actually been on the verge of imploding.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#16
Few countries other than those involved had any reason to join either side. Aside from those mentioned above:
Scandinavia issued a joint declaration of neutrality during the war. Norway had nothing to gain, Sweden could possibly retake Finland but had to worry about Denmark/Norway siding against them. Denmark could retake german territory but would almost assuredly be crushed by Germany before that happened.
Spain had its own problems and had little to gain (maybe morocco but not worth making an enemy of france).
Switzerland was neutral and wanted to stay that way.
The other American countries had little to gain and wouldn't have made a difference one way or another.
Ethiopia wouldn't have made any effect.
Pretty much every other country in the world already was involved in the war in some capacity (maps were so simple back then, so few countries...).
Good analysis!

BTW, what about the two countries in my OP here?
 
Apr 2017
974
U.S.A.
#17
Are you talking about WWI or WWII here?
WW2.
BTW, what about the two countries in my OP here?
Afghanistan was a remote possibility, it could have created some problems for Britain. The Germans bungled it badly though. I doubt it would have changed the war's outcome. It would only draw away indian troops, few were deployed to Europe, where the war was won/lost. Ultimately the afghans would be repulsed but Britain would be unable to conquer them.

Sweden was in negotiations with Germany before WW1 for a possible joint attack on Russia but was wary of attacks by Norway (and possibly Denmark). Eventually this fear (and British support of said attacks) kept them from getting directly in the war. They did do some favorable things for Germany during the war (Sweden during World War I - Wikipedia), even occupying the Aland islands towards the end. If negotiations had gone differently Sweden may have entered the war but this could have brought Denmark and Norway into it as well (more likely Norway as Denmark would fear german invasion). If Sweden joined the war early and Norway didn't, it may have sped up Russia's collapse. If Norway does enter the war, then it just expands the war. So if Sweden were to join in say, 1914 and Norway doesn't for some reason, then Russia may collapse in 1916. This may (stress the may) give Germany enough of an advantage to fare better in the war. But this relies on Norway not joining the war against Sweden.

As for Morocco, they probably wouldn't want to anger France, especially since they would be fighting alone. The might be more interested in Spanish territory though.

The Netherlands was pretty well answered in the previous posts.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#18
WW2.

Afghanistan was a remote possibility, it could have created some problems for Britain. The Germans bungled it badly though. I doubt it would have changed the war's outcome. It would only draw away indian troops, few were deployed to Europe, where the war was won/lost. Ultimately the afghans would be repulsed but Britain would be unable to conquer them.
I agree that it would be unlikely to change the course of the war. However, what territories--if any--would Afghanistan lose in this scenario?

Also, if Afghanistan is allowed to keep its own ethnic minority territories, wouldn't other Central Powers demand the same thing if they will lose the war?

Sweden was in negotiations with Germany before WW1 for a possible joint attack on Russia but was wary of attacks by Norway (and possibly Denmark). Eventually this fear (and British support of said attacks) kept them from getting directly in the war. They did do some favorable things for Germany during the war (Sweden during World War I - Wikipedia), even occupying the Aland islands towards the end. If negotiations had gone differently Sweden may have entered the war but this could have brought Denmark and Norway into it as well (more likely Norway as Denmark would fear german invasion). If Sweden joined the war early and Norway didn't, it may have sped up Russia's collapse. If Norway does enter the war, then it just expands the war. So if Sweden were to join in say, 1914 and Norway doesn't for some reason, then Russia may collapse in 1916. This may (stress the may) give Germany enough of an advantage to fare better in the war. But this relies on Norway not joining the war against Sweden.
Makes sense.

As for Morocco, they probably wouldn't want to anger France, especially since they would be fighting alone. The might be more interested in Spanish territory though.
Spain wasn't actually involved in WWI, though.

The Netherlands was pretty well answered in the previous posts.
OK.
 
Apr 2017
974
U.S.A.
#19
I agree that it would be unlikely to change the course of the war. However, what territories--if any--would Afghanistan lose in this scenario?

Also, if Afghanistan is allowed to keep its own ethnic minority territories, wouldn't other Central Powers demand the same thing if they will lose the war?

Makes sense.

Spain wasn't actually involved in WWI, though.

OK.
Britain would probably want to maintain an independent Afghanistan as a buffer between india and Russia. That said if the Afghans caused a lot of troube, Britain may decide to take some territory, probably the south (Pashtun areas).
The allies being the winners have the privilege of hypocrisy, they can dictate whatever terms they want. This was demonstrated well in WW1.
No, but I stated it to point out that morocco wasn't interested in French territory.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#20
Britain would probably want to maintain an independent Afghanistan as a buffer between india and Russia. That said if the Afghans caused a lot of troube, Britain may decide to take some territory, probably the south (Pashtun areas).
Without the Pashtuns, there is no Afghanistan. Afghan is another term for Pashtun in a historical sense. The Pashtuns are Afghanistan's lifeblood.

The allies being the winners have the privilege of hypocrisy, they can dictate whatever terms they want. This was demonstrated well in WW1.
No, but I stated it to point out that morocco wasn't interested in French territory.
Fair enough on both counts.