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

Apr 2017
974
U.S.A.
#21
Without the Pashtuns, there is no Afghanistan. Afghan is another term for Pashtun in a historical sense. The Pashtuns are Afghanistan's lifeblood.



Fair enough on both counts.
Historically yes, but in modern Afghanistan the Tajiks and other groups play an important part.
Upon further examination of the period, if Afghanistan had intervened during the war it would probably go just like it did in real life during the 3rd anglo-afghan war (1919), ending in more or less a draw (no territorial concessions).
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#22
Historically yes, but in modern Afghanistan the Tajiks and other groups play an important part.
Upon further examination of the period, if Afghanistan had intervened during the war it would probably go just like it did in real life during the 3rd anglo-afghan war (1919), ending in more or less a draw (no territorial concessions).
Russia is also going to be fighting Afghanistan in WWI, no?
 
Apr 2017
974
U.S.A.
#23
Russia is also going to be fighting Afghanistan in WWI, no?
The Afghans would probably concentrate on invading india, not wanting to take on both Britain and Russia simultaneously. If they or Russia mounted an offensive it would probably bog down due to the terrain and lack of forces to spare. If Russia did invade it would fizzle out with the onset of the revolution, probably not having made much progress.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#24
The Afghans would probably concentrate on invading india, not wanting to take on both Britain and Russia simultaneously. If they or Russia mounted an offensive it would probably bog down due to the terrain and lack of forces to spare. If Russia did invade it would fizzle out with the onset of the revolution, probably not having made much progress.
Does Afghanistan gain any Russian territories in Brest-Litovsk?
 
Apr 2017
974
U.S.A.
#25
Does Afghanistan gain any Russian territories in Brest-Litovsk?
Interestingly in real life parts of central asia were semi-autonomous emirates/khanates under Russian authority. If Afghanistan had invaded Russia (a big if), they would probably try to either annex them or liberate them. In real life Revolutionaries rebelled against these central Asian monarchs, siding with the Bolsheviks. In this alternate timeline the Bolsheviks would probably reclaim any lost territory, as the populace would rebel against the local rulers that would be supported by the afghans.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#26
Interestingly in real life parts of central asia were semi-autonomous emirates/khanates under Russian authority. If Afghanistan had invaded Russia (a big if), they would probably try to either annex them or liberate them. In real life Revolutionaries rebelled against these central Asian monarchs, siding with the Bolsheviks. In this alternate timeline the Bolsheviks would probably reclaim any lost territory, as the populace would rebel against the local rulers that would be supported by the afghans.
I thought that a lot of Central Asians also disliked Russia after it began drafting them, though.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,005
#30
Sweden was in negotiations with Germany before WW1 for a possible joint attack on Russia
You're going to have to actually source that one for me, because Sweden bloody well was NOT in that kind of negotiations.

Sweden's line since the Crimean war was consistently that no war with Russia, even if won, would bring guarantees against a future Russian attack on Sweden. I.e. unless other great powers were going to actively guarantee fighting Russia on Sweden's behalf in the advent of a successful reconquest of Finland, Sweden wasn't interested. And even should one or more such power make the offer (none did) successive Swedish governments had a fairly jaundiced view of 1) their willingness to actually honour any such commitment, and 2) their ability to do so even if they would. Fight Russia alone, and Swedish national survival would instantly be on the line. So no wars with Russia. (Already Charles XIV's death-bed advice to successor Oscar I in 1844 was "Only fight a war with Russia if you have exhausted every other possibility – with Britain, never"!)

The Swedish QUEEN, who was German, might gave been mouthing off in Berlin, but that's about it. In the Swedish constitutional monarchy the royals made as much actual foreign policy as the British royals, i.e. bugger all.

The watershed moment in Swedish politics – when the queen wanted her husband Gustaf V to grab the "reins of power", i.e. a little royal coup d'état – was in 1913 on the basis of a populist agrarian movement, "The Farmer's March" to Stockholm. 30 000 "stout yeomen" were drummed together to make their opinions known to the majesty. The write/explorer Sven Hedin was on standby speech-making and preparing proclamations. (Hedin hero-worshipingly doted on the Kaiser, and in WWI became Sweden's most outspoken public champion of Sweden joining Germany in the war.)

But when push came to shove, while the majesty graciously received the marchers at the royal castle, and accepted their petitions, he did nothing else. Judicious move on his part, since the very next day the Socialist Party had organised a public manifestation in Stockholm at least twice as large. The royals trying something in the autocratic line would have had the democratic Social Democrats in the streets in force ASAP. (The king was friends from school with the Socialist leader Hjalmar Branting, and so might have had advance notification of rather more than contemporaries assumed.)
 
Likes: Futurist