If Afghanistan Enters WWI On the Central Powers Side, What Does It Get At Brest-Litovsk?

[CaliGuy]

If Afghanistan enters WWI on the side of the Central Powers, what, if anything, does it acquire in early 1918 when the Brest-Litovsk Treaty is negotiated?

Also, does Afghanistan keep its Brest-Litovsk territorial gains after the end of WWI if the Entente/Allies still win WWI in this TL?

 

[Morraw]

By the time Brest-Litovsk rolls around, there'll not be an Afghanistan left to get anything from Russia; Britain and Russia would have already occupied it by the end of 1915.

 

[Halagaz]

In theory, the Afghans could ask for West Pamir, which they briefly ruled until it was assigned to the Emirate of Bukhara (a Russian protectorate). But it's a small, unprofitable and poor area even by the standards of the region - hardly worth going to war over. And it's not like any of Afghanistan's claims would get anywhere.

 

[CaliGuy]

By the time Brest-Litovsk rolls around, there'll not be an Afghanistan left to get anything from Russia; Britain and Russia would have already occupied it by the end of 1915.

If so, the Afghans will still have a government-in-exile in such a scenario.

 

[CaliGuy]

In theory, the Afghans could ask for West Pamir, which they briefly ruled until it was assigned to the Emirate of Bukhara (a Russian protectorate). But it's a small, unprofitable and poor area even by the standards of the region - hardly worth going to war over. And it's not like any of Afghanistan's claims would get anywhere.

What about trying to acquire, say, the city of Samarkand?

Also, why wouldn't Germany back its Afghan ally in its claims?

 

[CaliGuy]

Also, Afghanistan probably would have entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers had it had a different Amir back then; after all, to my knowledge, many of the people in the Afghan court were pro-Germany (or, perhaps, anti-Britain) to the point of being pro-WWI entry on the side of the Central Powers.

 

[Tsargrad_or_Bust]

What about trying to acquire, say, the city of Samarkand?

Also, why wouldn't Germany back its Afghan ally in its claims?

To my knowledge Afghanistan had no interest in acquiring Samarkand. The lands it really desired were part of the Raj, not Russia. It's not that Germany wouldn't back Afghanistan's claims, it's that Afghanistan probably wouldn't survive two-three years sandwiched in between British India and Russia. Germany claiming Afghan sovereignty over more bits of the Pamirs wouldn't change much, though it may very well issue statements to that effect.

 

[CaliGuy]

To my knowledge Afghanistan had no interest in acquiring Samarkand. The lands it really desired were part of the Raj, not Russia. It's not that Germany wouldn't back Afghanistan's claims, it's that Afghanistan probably wouldn't survive two-three years sandwiched in between British India and Russia. Germany claiming Afghan sovereignty over more bits of the Pamirs wouldn't change much, though it may very well issue statements to that effect.

To clarify--are you suggesting that Afghanistan would literally capitulate (as opposed to fighting on in exile) within 2 years of entering WWI?

Also, Yes, Afghanistan would prefer parts of British India; however, when the choice is either (at least on paper) getting parts of Russia's territory or getting absolutely nothing, I suspect that Afghanistan would almost certainly choose the former over the latter.

 

[Catspoke]

There was an OTL revolt in the "stan" regions of Russia early 1916 over conscription.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urkun
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/revolt-1916-russian-central-asia

So lets say the German military mission to Afghanistan gets wind of this during their time there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niedermayer–Hentig_Expedition

And goes off north to support it. With the German mission organizing things the revolt spreads and grows (escaping German and Austrian POWs are organized to help). With this expanded revolt, plus OTL Gallipoli, Kut causes Afghanistan to join the war May 1916.

With other more pressing matters, Britain and Russia just contain the region, hoping for a political settlement at some point.

So when March 1918 rolls around, Afghanistan can press its claims (but really just having a bunch of weak "stans" on its northern frontier is a good victory in itself.

 

[Napoleonrules]

The point is that Britain will crush any Afghan govt that attempts to invade Russia. Just as in WWII Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to stop that, and Britain stopped Iraq from being pro- Axis as well.

You can't have Afghanistan be successful against Russia without a PoD that affects Britain, and then your POD is affecting so much more and your wish about Afghanistan is more of a side-effect than the actual reasoning behind the pod. Frankly, I dont see the point. It's just not possible without messing up all the rest of history.

So, if your alt history timeline has Afghanistan join the Central Powers, that's fine, but what happens is that Afghanistan is occupied and a regime change occurs. It doesn't work that it gets more territory. If you're going to have something happen, then be prepared for the consequences. Can't shoehorn events to fit what you'd like to happen.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Is it an Afghani or Iraqi proverb that says it's better to have an Englishman as an enemy rather than an ally as they pay you more when you're an enemy?

It's all well and good saying Afghanistan was anti-British (they were, the third Anglo-Afghan War broke out in 1919 after all) but it's an entirely different proposition to have that anti-British feeling expand to agression. A POD that puts Afghanistan in the position to be able to attack Britain or Russia would surely result in a larger British presence in the NWF when War breaks out.

As other posters have said, I doubt they would last until Brest-Litovsk, let alone benifit from it.

 

[arctic warrior]

Seems like you all forgotton whats been going on in Afghanistan since 1979... The Brits might well occupy it but would have to garrison it heavily to maintain something like order. They would have to prop up somebody to be able to pull out when it just remains a swamp pulling down troops and materiel for no gain.

 

[CaliGuy]

A POD that puts Afghanistan in the position to be able to attack Britain or Russia would surely result in a larger British presence in the NWF when War breaks out.

Wouldn't keeping troops close to Europe be more important than that, though? After all, if Britain defends the NWF but Paris falls to the Germans, Germany ends up getting a huge win!

 

[CaliGuy]

The point is that Britain will crush any Afghan govt that attempts to invade Russia. Just as in WWII Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to stop that, and Britain stopped Iraq from being pro- Axis as well.

You can't have Afghanistan be successful against Russia without a PoD that affects Britain, and then your POD is affecting so much more and your wish about Afghanistan is more of a side-effect than the actual reasoning behind the pod. Frankly, I dont see the point. It's just not possible without messing up all the rest of history.

So, if your alt history timeline has Afghanistan join the Central Powers, that's fine, but what happens is that Afghanistan is occupied and a regime change occurs. It doesn't work that it gets more territory. If you're going to have something happen, then be prepared for the consequences. Can't shoehorn events to fit what you'd like to happen.

Oh, sure, Britain and Russia can do a regime change in Afghanistan. However, the CPs can regard such an Afghan regime as illegitimate and thus still support the Afghan government-in-exile as the legitimate Afghan government--up to the point of supporting its claims at Brest-Litovsk in 1918.

 

[sloreck]

Afghanistan in 1914 has a "military" suitable for tribal raiding and not much more. Germany after the start of the war can't supply anything to Afghanistan. Sure the British using forces in India can probably take Kabul - big whoop. Even doing that uses resources needed elsewhere where it matters. As long as the UK keeps Afghani forces out of India (small raids excepted) that is just fine and the Indian Army can handle that thank you. The Afghanis can, maybe, stir up some trouble in the stans but only so much - yes they are all Muslims but different ethnicities/tribes. By 1916 the Afghans will probably be on the receiving end of poison gas, for which they have zero defense.

If the Afghans do enter the war on the CP side there will be some British movement north of the Khyber, and free hand for the "butcher and bolt" strategy. The Russians may or may not try a few advances but they are very resource limited. The Germans would love to have the Afghans pile on because anything that diverts any men or supplies there is less they have to deal with where it counts.

If the Afghans do join the CP, and get some bits from Brest-Litovsk, when Germany gives up they are so far up the creek without even a canoe. The British now have a legitimate excuse to take and hold whatever bits of southern Afghanistan they care to, and if in the process of "liberating" the stolen bits the Red Army lops off some of northern Afghanistan the British won't be happy but won't do much.

The only way the Afghans win is by not playing.

 

[CaliGuy]

Afghanistan in 1914 has a "military" suitable for tribal raiding and not much more. Germany after the start of the war can't supply anything to Afghanistan. Sure the British using forces in India can probably take Kabul - big whoop. Even doing that uses resources needed elsewhere where it matters. As long as the UK keeps Afghani forces out of India (small raids excepted) that is just fine and the Indian Army can handle that thank you. The Afghanis can, maybe, stir up some trouble in the stans but only so much - yes they are all Muslims but different ethnicities/tribes. By 1916 the Afghans will probably be on the receiving end of poison gas, for which they have zero defense.

If the Afghans do enter the war on the CP side there will be some British movement north of the Khyber, and free hand for the "butcher and bolt" strategy. The Russians may or may not try a few advances but they are very resource limited. The Germans would love to have the Afghans pile on because anything that diverts any men or supplies there is less they have to deal with where it counts.

If the Afghans do join the CP, and get some bits from Brest-Litovsk, when Germany gives up they are so far up the creek without even a canoe. The British now have a legitimate excuse to take and hold whatever bits of southern Afghanistan they care to, and if in the process of "liberating" the stolen bits the Red Army lops off some of northern Afghanistan the British won't be happy but won't do much.

The only way the Afghans win is by not playing.

Several questions:

1. Did the Brits actually use poison gas in WWI?
2. Would the Brits and Russians try promoting separatism in Afghanistan in WWI in this TL (think of an Afghan equivalent of the Arab Revolt in the Middle East in 1916-1918)?
3. Which Russian territories would the Afghans actually acquire at Brest-Litovsk?
4. Wouldn't the Bolsheviks be too busy dealing with the Basmachi to invade Afghanistan before 1922-1925?
5. Couldn't the Brits support allowing the Afghans to keep their Brest-Litovsk gains in order to weaken the Bolsheviks?
6. Which Afghan territories, if any, would Britain actually want to acquire after the end of WWI in this TL?

 

[mangelwurzel]

in this TL does the Emir reject King George V's letter of Praise and increasing the subsidy and does the Eastern Persian Cordon fail or not get established ?

 

[CaliGuy]

in this TL does the Emir reject King George V's letter of Praise and increasing the subsidy and does the Eastern Persian Cordon fail or not get established ?

Yes, he rejects these things; also, the eastern Persian Cordon fails to get established in this TL.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Wouldn't keeping troops close to Europe be more important than that, though? After all, if Britain defends the NWF but Paris falls to the Germans, Germany ends up getting a huge win!

Indian troops had no real effect on the defence of Paris, so losing them wouldn't affect that. I was, however, suggesting more along the lines of increased recruitment in India to have a larger Indian Army 'at home' rather than denuding the contribution of the Indian Army to the other campaigns of the British Empire.

As others have said, the Germans can't help the Afghans once War breaks out. This means your POD for a victorious Afghanistan requires a stronger Afghan military pre-1914, which IMO would result in a stronger Indian Army in India. Once Afghanistan declares for the CP, they're asking for this stronger Indian Army to invade. So for Afghanistan to gain from Brest-Litovsk (presumably in the form of territory they have gained themselves, as opposed to 'gifts' from the Germans) they're required to defeat Russia and Britain. I find that handwavingly unlikely.

Also, don't forget if your POD has the Afghan militarily involved in Russia in 1914, there's a fair chance Britain will see that as a greater threat to its interests than the areas that they took part in with OTL 'sideshow' operations. Fighting Afghans on the NWF to defend Delhi or sending Indian troops to Gallipoli? I know which one the CIGS is going to chose.

 

[CaliGuy]

Indian troops had no real effect on the defence of Paris, so losing them wouldn't affect that. I was, however, suggesting more along the lines of increased recruitment in India to have a larger Indian Army 'at home' rather than denuding the contribution of the Indian Army to the other campaigns of the British Empire.

As others have said, the Germans can't help the Afghans once War breaks out. This means your POD for a victorious Afghanistan requires a stronger Afghan military pre-1914, which IMO would result in a stronger Indian Army in India. Once Afghanistan declares for the CP, they're asking for this stronger Indian Army to invade. So for Afghanistan to gain from Brest-Litovsk (presumably in the form of territory they have gained themselves, as opposed to 'gifts' from the Germans) they're required to defeat Russia and Britain. I find that handwavingly unlikely.

Also, don't forget if your POD has the Afghan militarily involved in Russia in 1914, there's a fair chance Britain will see that as a greater threat to its interests than the areas that they took part in with OTL 'sideshow' operations. Fighting Afghans on the NWF to defend Delhi or sending Indian troops to Gallipoli? I know which one the CIGS is going to chose.

Excellent post!

However, two things:

1. I would like to point out that I actually was talking about Afghanistan receiving territorial "gifts" from the Germans at Brest-Litovsk; indeed, expecting Afghanistan to successfully fight against Britain and Russia is obviously unrealistic--as you yourself point out!

Anyway, how would my clarification here change your answer in regards to this?

2. Wasn't Gallipoli very important to the Entente/Allies because a victory there would open up the Straits and thus allow Britain and France to begin exporting large amounts of goods and war materials to Russia?