Was Moscow-Berlin-Vienna aliance possible?

as long as there were polish rebellions to squash that austria couldn't deal with

>what is Holy Alliance

>>3308150
>Holy Alliance
>implying Holy Aliance worked as actual aliance

>>3308009
Such an alliance hinges upon the balance of power remaining the same between the three empires which simply was not possible, as Austria-Hungary grew weaker by the day and Russia continued to modernize and grow stronger.

The Germans always knew they could deal with France, but Russia had a limitless potential for growth which would quickly relegate Germany to a subordinate position if not dealt with before such growth had eclipsed them.

File: Europe 1914.png (143KB, 1773x1797px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1773x1797px

>>3308009
>>3308150
such an alliance was actually created again in the 1870s and 1880s mainly by Bismarck's initiative, didn't last long though because Austrian and Russian interests clashed in the Balkans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_Three_Emperors

>>3308231
>implying you can have an actual alliance in the Westphalian system
Westphalian system is based on the mutual competition between states and the dynamics of swiftly-shifting alliances the prevents a state from becoming a hegemon.
Thus the answer is No, because the Ottoman empire would fall anyway (or it isn't in this model) and the rivarly between A-H and Russian about the balkans was too big. Eventually it weakened the dynamics, and WW1 broke out because of that.

Was it possible for the Germans to conjure up some kind of alliance with the Brits? The one constant I see in modern European wars is that the dirty Anglo always gets his way.

>>3308875
Don't build the High Seas Fleet.
Prussia and Britain were historically allies, while France and Britain were enemies for centuries.
Willy really shat the bed on that one.

File: 1475771912363.jpg (944KB, 1526x3321px)

944KB, 1526x3321px

>>3308150
>Holy
>Alliance

>>3308009
aka the 'Fuck Poland' coalition

>>3308009
>League of the Three Emperors
>Meme created by Bismarck to satisfy his diplomatic ego

Maybe if Wilhelm II wasn't borderline autistic and had retained Bismarck in office

>>3308020
Most were in Russia and the one from 1863 actually prevented Prussian-Russian war and paved the way to German unification.

>>3309330
And in the end all three monarchies died while Poland reemerged as a nation.
So everything went wrong for them.

>>3308875
No.
Britain wanted Germany obliterated before it could ever exert any kind of threat to its hegemony in Western Europe. The moment it received news about France's declaration of war on Germany, Britain knew which side it would take in the Great War.

>>3309602
A re-emergence that only happened because Germany liberated it.

>>3309720
The only reason Britain hated Germany was because of Willy's obsession with Colonies and the Navy. Russia would've been their main rival if Germany kept to itself in Europe.

>>3309735
Yeah, just let Britain keep to itself in its business of conquering all of Africa and Southeast Asia, while Germany is treated as nothing but a buffer state for Russia and picked apart as easily as Turkey.

>>3309726
It happened because Polish nationalists joined the winning side. From time to time both were baiting them with promises of independence but it only happened on October 7th 1918 and not earlier.

>>3309752
>Polish state established in 1916 by Germany
>Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917 establishes Poland, Ukraine. Finland and the Baltic States as independent from the Russian Empire
>But no, it totally took until Germany's surrender for Poland to resurrect

>>3309747
Germany could've expanded it's influence at the expense of the Russians. Eastern Europe is more profitable than overseas colonies.

>>3309758
Poland became independent when the independent regency council announced it in October of 1918. Then this independence got reinforced because of independent Polish army and official delegates on the Paris Peace Conference.
Whatever happened earlier was just an attempt at bringing Poles to whatever side was promising independence (because the population was geographically divided) that had absolutely no power and no independent Polish nation emerged from that.

>>3309761
>Eastern Europe is more profitable than overseas colonies.
I refer you to the impossible-to-ignore economic development gap between the First and Second Worlds.

>>3309768
The war wasn't over yet. Of course they wouldn't have any power by that time. The fact that they managed to declare independence even before its end just shows that they weren't completely under the thumb of German occupation.

>>3309776
Eastern Europe is behind because it was the battleground for 2 world wars and was dominated by soviets for around fifty years.

>>3309784
Yes, and no matter how the war would've turned out, Eastern Europe would've still ended up a partisan battleground for at least the next decade thanks to the rise of communism.

>>3309177
kek'd

>>3309177
I want to murder Voltaire
>>3309578
>Wilhelm II
>Borderline autistic
>Borderline
More like full-blown Asperger's syndrome

>>3309784
No, its because autistic Austrian """economists""" sold all companies to the Kikes, they tunneled them and well known hypercapitalism process happened.
Also dont act like Eastern Europe war rich before WW2