The Burma Campaign
The outbreak of World War I presented India with an opportunity to settle some scores against the British Empire, particularly the conflict in 1884 when British forces invaded Bengal-held Burmese territory. Now, with years of military investment, technological advancements, and doctrinal innovations, India was ready for some revenge.

Launching from Agartala, Indian forces executed a swift and coordinated offensive, easily penetrating British defensive lines and capturing key strategic locations such as Chittagong, Paletwa, and Sittwe. Simultaneously, Indian troops advanced towards the Chindwin River, reaching their objective within a matter of weeks. Spearheaded infantry offensives from Imphal further shattered British defenses, culminating in the capture of Pinleibu and the strategic city of Bhamo.

Within a remarkably short span of 1.5 months, Indian forces had encircled and trapped significant numbers of British troops in the Kachin-Sagaing Pocket, cutting off their supply and leaving them to rot and starve away.

Meanwhile, advances towards Mandalay saw fierce battles culminating in Indian control over this crucial railway hub, further weakening British control over Burma.

The situation escalated in Rakhine Province when the British brutally suppressed anti-war protests, triggering widespread revolt. Indian forces capitalized on the chaos, launching an offensive that advanced as far as Thandwe before encountering resistance.

Indian High Command devised a bold strategy, launching pincer offensives from Thandwe and Mandalay towards Magway. Caught off guard, British forces found themselves encircled once again, leading to the annihilation of tens of thousands of troops.

Meanwhile, Indian advances towards Naungpale and Kayah Province severed Shan Province from reinforcement and supplies, resulting in the entrapment of thousands more British troops.

The declaration of war by Thailand didn't help the British circumstances, with Thai forces rapidly gaining ground in Shan Province and other border regions. They were driven by historical grievances against British territorial acquisitions in the 19th century, and wanted to regain that land. However, they faced French Indochinese forces in the east, and were getting pushed back. But Indian intervention swiftly changed the situation, turning the Thai retreat into a grinding stalemate.

By December 1914, Britain had lost more than 75% of Burma, a devastating blow to their prestige and a severe humiliation for them. The Indian Navy, implementing a ruthless blockade of British Burma from bases in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as well as Sumatra, exacerbated the situation, causing widespread starvation among British troops.

India's rapid victories in British Burma not only inflicted major losses on the British but also provided a much-needed morale boost amid the challenges the Central Powers faced on other fronts.
 
Fantastic TL, @LeonardWood6 !

A few queries -

The absolute lack of religious tension in the Sub-continent. The British had some hand in stoking it in OTL, but it certainly wasn't all their doing.
When India got it's independence in 1947, many Muslims were anxious about living in an Hindu-majority country, thus leading to the formation of Pakistan.

That anxiety seems to be missing here.


Also, the Indian Confederation should be absolutely gung-ho about removing British influence in the country.

But, the place names being used seem to be the old anglicised names still.

Trincomalee - Thirukonamalai

Madras - Chennai

Mysore - Mysuru

Cochin - Kochi

Bangalore - Bengaluru

Calcutta - Kolkata

etc. etc.
 
Hi LeonardWood6,
I've been reading through your timeline and its definitely an interesting read, Indian-focused timelines are relatively rare on this site and the more diversity in subject matter, the better!

I have some criticisms, but please keep in mind that these are intended constructively and I give them out because I see some real potential in your writing and worldbuilding.
I understand that the scenario as presented is intended to be an India-wank, and I'm not philosophically-opposed to countrywanks in alternate history, but I think there are some issues that could lead to some interesting content if they are more fleshed out:

Omni-altruism: It seems like in this timeline not only does everything go right for the Indian powers, but that they are at all times engaged in the most morally-righteous international policy possible. The taking in of the Armenians, for instance, could be more believably done if it also included bringing their wealth, or being done as part of a deal being cut with Armenian businessmen, something that would bring tangible benefit to India. Otherwise, they're just hungry mouths to feed in a country which, while far wealthier than OTL, will still have its fair share of struggling agrarian and tribal types.

Insufficient social strife: Social hierarchies and relationships of power don't exist simply because they do; they're maintained because there are beneficiaries of those power dynamics. Often, they're willing to fight (or force others to) for their privileges and just saying "there was backlash but it was dealt with" isn't really sufficient imho for the construction of a compelling world. This can also involve lower-class peoples' reactions to technological and industrial development. What would a luddite analogue look like in India? What about all the religious diversity in the region? I know these are things that make writing about Indian history difficult (there is a reason that I haven't ever written an Indian-focused TL) but they're also what makes it interesting to many.

Colonialist Schemes: It seems ITTL that the Indians generally get the upper-hand against the European colonialists through taking them on in open warfare. While that is great, and I'm not attacking the plausibility of it (I'm not one of those "past the 1600s the yuroz are invinzzzzible" people), I think it could open up a lot more veins of content ore (lol) if you got into all the sort of subversive activities the Europeans could do. That includes limiting their access to controlled markets in SE Asia, bribing local governors or lords to smuggle Indian goods, allying with traditional powerbrokers to subvert the power of central government etc. Could see the Mysorean monarch put down an Anglo-Dutch supported revolt by some disillusioned subjects or something like that. Also don't underestimate the willingness of colonial powers during this era to occasionally collude for mutual interest; I could see an Anglo-Dutch attempt to reconquer Ceylon under an Anglo-Dutch condominium to reopen the routes to the East.

These are all just ideas, and I have no idea how experienced a writer you are, so I hope you don't find these comments discouraging (I got very similar feedback about my first couple of TL attempts and they were waaaaaay worse than your one here). If you're doing a sort of broad outline TL with a view towards a more detailed redux I think there's really heaps of potential like I said prior.

Wish you the best and looking forward to more updates!
 
Hi LeonardWood6,
I've been reading through your timeline and its definitely an interesting read, Indian-focused timelines are relatively rare on this site and the more diversity in subject matter, the better!

I have some criticisms, but please keep in mind that these are intended constructively and I give them out because I see some real potential in your writing and worldbuilding.
I understand that the scenario as presented is intended to be an India-wank, and I'm not philosophically-opposed to countrywanks in alternate history, but I think there are some issues that could lead to some interesting content if they are more fleshed out:

Omni-altruism: It seems like in this timeline not only does everything go right for the Indian powers, but that they are at all times engaged in the most morally-righteous international policy possible. The taking in of the Armenians, for instance, could be more believably done if it also included bringing their wealth, or being done as part of a deal being cut with Armenian businessmen, something that would bring tangible benefit to India. Otherwise, they're just hungry mouths to feed in a country which, while far wealthier than OTL, will still have its fair share of struggling agrarian and tribal types.

Insufficient social strife: Social hierarchies and relationships of power don't exist simply because they do; they're maintained because there are beneficiaries of those power dynamics. Often, they're willing to fight (or force others to) for their privileges and just saying "there was backlash but it was dealt with" isn't really sufficient imho for the construction of a compelling world. This can also involve lower-class peoples' reactions to technological and industrial development. What would a luddite analogue look like in India? What about all the religious diversity in the region? I know these are things that make writing about Indian history difficult (there is a reason that I haven't ever written an Indian-focused TL) but they're also what makes it interesting to many.

Colonialist Schemes: It seems ITTL that the Indians generally get the upper-hand against the European colonialists through taking them on in open warfare. While that is great, and I'm not attacking the plausibility of it (I'm not one of those "past the 1600s the yuroz are invinzzzzible" people), I think it could open up a lot more veins of content ore (lol) if you got into all the sort of subversive activities the Europeans could do. That includes limiting their access to controlled markets in SE Asia, bribing local governors or lords to smuggle Indian goods, allying with traditional powerbrokers to subvert the power of central government etc. Could see the Mysorean monarch put down an Anglo-Dutch supported revolt by some disillusioned subjects or something like that. Also don't underestimate the willingness of colonial powers during this era to occasionally collude for mutual interest; I could see an Anglo-Dutch attempt to reconquer Ceylon under an Anglo-Dutch condominium to reopen the routes to the East.

These are all just ideas, and I have no idea how experienced a writer you are, so I hope you don't find these comments discouraging (I got very similar feedback about my first couple of TL attempts and they were waaaaaay worse than your one here). If you're doing a sort of broad outline TL with a view towards a more detailed redux I think there's really heaps of potential like I said prior.

Wish you the best and looking forward to more updates!
Yeah... Seems-like he is also just throwing famous names...without actually using them properly.
Some are introduced too early for their age, some's death date are too skewed(I can excuse that) and some important people are not introduced at all!
 
Aight, got some couple of comments to go through.

I've been reading through your timeline and its definitely an interesting read, Indian-focused timelines are relatively rare on this site and the more diversity in subject matter, the better!
Thanks!

I have some criticisms, but please keep in mind that these are intended constructively and I give them out because I see some real potential in your writing and worldbuilding.
I take no offense. In fact, if you have any constructive criticism, please do give it! I am open to any criticism as long as it improves the story.
Omni-altruism: It seems like in this timeline not only does everything go right for the Indian powers, but that they are at all times engaged in the most morally-righteous international policy possible. The taking in of the Armenians, for instance, could be more believably done if it also included bringing their wealth, or being done as part of a deal being cut with Armenian businessmen, something that would bring tangible benefit to India. Otherwise, they're just hungry mouths to feed in a country which, while far wealthier than OTL, will still have its fair share of struggling agrarian and tribal types.
I guess you can say that it's my Indian bias (because I myself am Indian after all :coldsweat:).I was thinking that India would take in the Armenians because it would mitigate the fallout that could result if the Armenian Tragedy got out of hand. Children were especially of priority to be sent to India, because India wanted to raise children in state-sponsored orphanages to become strong loyal Indian citizens. Also, I was thinking that India would certainly want Armenian skilled labor, as that improves their economy. Skilled labor, and potentially raising those immensely loyal to India would certainly be of benefit to India, which I believed would outweigh their initial situation of being a burden to India. That, and Consul Jindan Kaur's main goal was to prevent the image of the war being righteous to be tarnished. I feel that the cost of taking them in would be minimal compared to what could happen if the Armenian Tragedy became widespread and known in India (anti-war backlash).


Insufficient social strife: Social hierarchies and relationships of power don't exist simply because they do; they're maintained because there are beneficiaries of those power dynamics. Often, they're willing to fight (or force others to) for their privileges and just saying "there was backlash but it was dealt with" isn't really sufficient imho for the construction of a compelling world. This can also involve lower-class peoples' reactions to technological and industrial development. What would a luddite analogue look like in India? What about all the religious diversity in the region? I know these are things that make writing about Indian history difficult (there is a reason that I haven't ever written an Indian-focused TL) but they're also what makes it interesting to many.
I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree that perhaps I should try to incorporate more of that into this story. Don't think I'm deflecting your criticism. I am not. But I do believe that I did cover the caste system in a previous post. As for the Luddite analogue for India... perhaps the traditional weaving business and the craftsmen could serve as them. As for lower-class peoples' reaction to technological and industrial development... I would say that they overall benefit from it. Shudras, Vaishyas, Untouchables, and the lower end of the class & caste system would definitely benefit from it for sure. They'd definitely support this, because they earn more money, improve their standing, and in the case of the untouchables, are not literally outcasts anymore. I did talk about how the Santiniketan Education System faced opposition from many, but were supported by a lot more people. I think that the same stakeholders would support and be against technological & industrial development. As for religious diversity... I mean, India has long been diverse. And besides, the British did stoke the flames of religious hostility to further divide the populace of India. Here, they are not around to do that, allowing there to be lesser tensions. Also, there was a reason that the Indian Confederal Government emphasized and played up nationalism. It was to reduce other ethnic & religious tensions.

Colonialist Schemes: It seems ITTL that the Indians generally get the upper-hand against the European colonialists through taking them on in open warfare. While that is great, and I'm not attacking the plausibility of it (I'm not one of those "past the 1600s the yuroz are invinzzzzible" people), I think it could open up a lot more veins of content ore (lol) if you got into all the sort of subversive activities the Europeans could do. That includes limiting their access to controlled markets in SE Asia, bribing local governors or lords to smuggle Indian goods, allying with traditional powerbrokers to subvert the power of central government etc. Could see the Mysorean monarch put down an Anglo-Dutch supported revolt by some disillusioned subjects or something like that. Also don't underestimate the willingness of colonial powers during this era to occasionally collude for mutual interest; I could see an Anglo-Dutch attempt to reconquer Ceylon under an Anglo-Dutch condominium to reopen the routes to the East.
Ah. Yeah, I do wish I could've covered that more. But oh well.

These are all just ideas, and I have no idea how experienced a writer you are, so I hope you don't find these comments discouraging (I got very similar feedback about my first couple of TL attempts and they were waaaaaay worse than your one here).
I have written some things, but overall, not an experienced. Thank you for the feedback.
Wish you the best and looking forward to more updates!
Thank you!
 
The Rise of the Socialist Party of America
The political landscape of the United States at the start of the 20th century was marked by a growing discontent among the populace. Workers felt marginalized by the increasing power of trusts and monopolies. President William McKinley's survival of an assassination attempt in 1901 and subsequent term until 1904 did nothing to address these grievances. His successor, James Schoolcraft Sherman, continued McKinley's conservative policies, failing to enforce antitrust legislation and allowing the trusts to consolidate even more power.

With both Republicans and Democrats unable and/or unwilling to challenge the status quo, many disillusioned workers turned to the Socialist Party of America (SPA) for an alternative. Led by the charismatic Eugene V. Debs, the SPA garnered significant support among those dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. Debs' message of workers' rights and economic equality resonated with many Americans who felt marginalized by the rapid industrialization and concentration of wealth and power by the trusts.

The 1912 presidential election proved to be a major event in American politics. The race was fiercely contested between William H. Taft of the Republican Party, Woodrow Wilson of the Democratic Party, and Eugene V. Debs of the Socialist Party. While Taft and Wilson represented the mainstream establishment, Debs emerged as a formidable challenger, winning a respectable share of the popular vote and securing seats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the SPA. Furthermore, the SPA managed to win control of several state governments, particularly in the Mid-West and Western USA.

Debs' strong showing in the election forced the mainstream parties to take notice of the SPA and recognize it as a significant threat to their power. The rise of the socialist movement challenged the entrenched interests of big business and advocated for policies that prioritized the needs of working-class Americans. Despite this, though, any real progress and change would be slow, frustratingly slow.

That was, until the Sinking of the Lusitania.

America's entry into World War I following the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 would dramatically alter the course of both American and world history...
 
Italians join the War
The declaration of war by Italy against Austria-Hungary marked a significant moment in the war. As the Italian Army launched its offensive against Austro-Hungarian positions in the South Tyrol and along the Isonzo River, it became evident that the mountainous terrain would pose challenges for the Italian forces.

Svetozar Borojević, a skilled Austro-Hungarian commander, recognized the strategic importance of the mountainous regions. So he implemented a "Defense-in-depth" strategy. He ordered the construction of multiple lines of trenches, fortified positions, and defensive structures, creating formidable obstacles for the Italian troops to overcome. The rugged terrain provided natural advantages for defense, enabling Borojević to exploit the geography to repel any Italian advances.

The Italian offensive faced numerous setbacks, exacerbated by the incompetence of Italian General Luigi Cadorna. Following outdated tactics, characterized by frontal assaults and wave attacks, resulted in heavy casualties among Italian troops. Despite some initial gains, the Italians soon found themselves bogged down in the face of determined Austro-Hungarian resistance.

The situation for the Italian Army worsened with the outbreak of a paratyphoid epidemic among the Italian troops. This debilitating disease spread rapidly, causing widespread illness and further disrupting Italian military operations. The Italian High Command, faced with the challenge of containing the outbreak and caring for the sick, was forced to cancel planned offensives.

The combination of ineffective leadership, difficult terrain, and the outbreak of disease dealt a series of blows to the Italian war effort. Already, it seemed that luck wasn't with the Italians. And it hadn't even been one month since Italy plunged into the conflict.
 
The Fall of Serbia
The Central Powers' offensive into Serbia marked a significant turning point, with far-reaching consequences.

The joint Austro-German offensive, preceded by a massive artillery bombardment, started the series of devastating setbacks to Serbia and the rest of the Entente. Despite the valiant resistance put up by Serbian troops, the onslaught proved overwhelming. The British and French rushed to reinforce their Balkan ally, but Serbia found itself weakened by internal strife and a typhus epidemic, weakening its ability to withstand the Central Powers' advance.

Bulgaria's entry into the war on the side of the Central Powers dealt a severe blow to the Entente's efforts in the region. The Bulgarian Army swiftly engaged French forces at Salonica and captured key territories, including Skopje, further isolating Serbian troops from their allies. With German, Austro-Hungarian, and Bulgarian forces making rapid advances, suffering and privation became widespread in Serbia.

The fall of Nis ended the Serbian control over the Berlin-Delhi Railway. Facing overwhelming odds, hundreds of thousands of Serbian soldiers and civilians were forced to embark on a grueling retreat across many miles of treacherous mountain terrain to seek sanctuary in Albania. Among them were King Peter and high-ranking government officials, who shared in the hardships endured by their soldiers and civilians.

The Serbian retreat inadvertently left behind a treasure trove of Entente-provided equipment, which the Bulgarians and Austrians wasted no time in repurposing for their own use. As the Serbian refugees traversed the mountains, they faced not only hunger, disease, and privation but also attacks from vengeful Albanian tribesmen seeking retribution for past grievances.

The evacuation of Serbian refugees to the Greek island of Corfu, done by British, French, and Italian steamers, saw many tragic incidents occur, including sinking of steamers by German U-boats, as well as aerial bombardments by Austrian pilots targeting defenseless civilians and soldiers on the beaches. It also inadvertently drew Greece into the conflict, as King Constantine's attempts to remain neutral were thwarted by Prime Minister Venizelos' decision to allow the Entente to use Corfu as a base. This perceived act of aiding the enemy forced Greece to enter the war, albeit reluctantly, further complicating the already volatile situation.

The mountainous terrain along the Greco-Serbian border was a formidable natural barrier. It offered a strong defensive position for Entente troops which were sheltering in Greece. While this provided some measure of security, it also prevented any significant intervention in occupied Serbia, leaving the Serbian people at the mercy of their conquerors.

And the Central Powers were hardly merciful conquerors...
 
The Occupation of Serbia
The occupation of Serbia by the Central Powers during World War I became a nightmare, with brutality, oppression, and systematic violence sadly being common. The occupying forces, operating under the guise of maintaining order, unleashed a wave of terror and reprisals, targeting anyone suspected of harboring Pan-Slavic sentiment or resistance to the occupation.

Under Franz Joseph's directive to take "all measures necessary" to maintain control, the occupiers committed crimes with impunity. Summary executions, arbitrary arrests, imprisonment, and torture became commonplace, causing more suffering and despair among the Serbian population.

The occupying troops were fueled by resentment and deep-seated hatred toward the Serbs.

Austrian soldiers, seething over the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, vented their frustrations upon defenseless Serbian villages, leaving behind a trail of devastation and despair. German troops, embittered and angry at Serbia for causing the war, also unleashed their fury on civilians.

Bulgarian soldiers, still scarred by the humiliation suffered at the hands of Serbia during the Balkan Wars, also were brutal, establishing "reeducation camps" to forcibly indoctrinate Serbian children into becoming loyal Bulgarians.

The involvement of Indian and Ottoman troops further only added to the horrors. Dispatched by Consul Jindan Kaur to support their allies, Indian troops readily participated and committed acts of brutality without hesitation. Ottoman forces, embittered by the humiliation suffered in the First Balkan War, and seeking revenge, also joined in the orgy of death and suffering inflicted upon the Serbian populace.

Despite the overwhelming brutality of the occupation forces, Serbian resistance persisted. To alleviate their strain and maintain control, the occupiers sought collaborators among the Serbian population. The Ottomans suggested the use of Serbian Muslims as collaborators and informants. This suggestion would be implemented. Serbian Muslims had endured persecution and mistreatment under Serbian rule since 1912, and the Central Powers exploited their grievances against the Serbian government. The Serbian Muslims gladly collaborated with the Central Powers, as they viewed it as an opportunity to to exact revenge upon their neighbors and former persecutors. Serbian Muslims were vital in maintaining control and suppressing rebellions.

The multinational occupation force, while symbolizing cooperation among the Central Powers, also proved the complicity of all the nations in the atrocities inflicted upon the Serbian population. The occupation of Serbia served as a grim reminder of the human cost of war, as well as the depths of brutality man was willing to sink to in pursuit of victory.
 
Yeah... that isn't good. It was not an easy thing for me to write. But it is realistic, because similar things happened IRL in Serbia when it was under occupation. I am researching more into WWI as it happened IRL, and I'm reading the book WWI: A Complete History, by Martin Gilbert. It's incredibly good, and I'm using it to help me here. It contains a lot of vital information.
 
Last edited:
Yeah... that isn't good. It was not an easy thing for me to write. But it is realistic, because similar things happened IRL in Serbia when it was under occupation. I am researching more into WWI as it happened IRL, and I'm reading the book WWI: A Complete History, by Martin Gilbert. It's incredibly good, and I'm using it to help me here. It contains a lot of vital information.
Sadly that is extremely realistic.
 
Aight, so you know, to make this fair and not a Central Powers wank (thanks to India) Russia is a lot stronger and actually competent. And you all will soon see the consequences of that.
 
The Russian Schlieffen Plan
Russia found itself in a challenging conflict against India, with the joint Indo-Afghan forces dealing significant blows to the Russian Army in the early stages of the war.

The Russian Army had attempted to launch several offensives in an attempt to reclaim lost territory. However, the strength of the Indo-Afghan defense proved insurmountable, thwarting Russian attempts to regain ground. The human wave tactics employed by the Russians faltered against the well-coordinated defense strategies of their adversaries.

India's vast manpower reservoirs posed a formidable advantage over Russia, with millions of willing volunteers ready to join the ranks of the Indian Armed Forces. Unlike Russia, which resorted to conscription to bolster its ranks, India's voluntary recruitment surpassed expectations.

Recognizing the urgency to reverse India's territorial gains and prevent potential uprisings in Central Asia, Russia deliberated on alternative strategies to circumvent Indo-Afghan defenses. Drawing inspiration from Germany's military strategy, Russia devised a plan to penetrate Afghan and Indian territory through Iran.

Similar to Germany's invasion of Belgium to bypass French fortifications, Russia aimed to use Iran as a conduit to penetrate India's defenses. Russia sought to outflank Indo-Afghan positions and launch a surprise offensive from the West, where it was going to be unexpected.

This operation would be called: Operation Alexander.
 
Operation Alexander
As tensions escalated, the Qajar Dynasty found itself entangled in a complex web of geopolitical maneuvers.

The Qajar Dynasty, though officially neutral, had tacitly backed the Central Powers due to historical grievances and aspirations for regional power balance. The Berlin-Delhi Railway, a symbol of economic prosperity and industrialization, had bolstered Iran's position and mitigated British influence. Resentment toward Russia, stemming from previous attempts to gain Iranian Azerbaijan, further fueled Iran's tacit support for the Central Powers.

Operation Alexander's success relied on meticulous planning and stealth tactics. Russian forces, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, infiltrated Iranian territory, bypassing populated towns and cutting telegraph lines to maintain secrecy. The audacious nature of the operation was underscored by the ruthlessness with which fleeing individuals were shot, preventing the dissemination of information.

However, German intelligence intercepted communications related to Operation Alexander, alerting Iran and India to the impending invasion. The British, already aware of the operation, attempted to intercept the messages to preserve the element of surprise. Despite their efforts, the news of the Russian incursion spread, eliciting shock and indecision in Iran and alarm in India.

In Iran, the revelation of the Russian invasion caused a state of paralysis and indecision. Conversely, in India, immediate alarm ensued, prompting rapid redeployment of troops to the Iran-Afghanistan border to confront the encroaching Russian forces.

As Russia pressed forward with its offensive into Afghanistan, expecting minimal resistance, they were met with unexpected opposition from Indian and Afghan forces, disrupting their momentum and inflicting casualties. However, the Russian advance persisted, albeit slowed by the unexpected confrontation.

Meanwhile, the exposure of Operation Alexander plunged the Tsar into a momentary crisis of confidence, and he almost called off the operation. However, the determination of Lavr Kornilov persuaded the Tsar to proceed, reinforcing the commitment to the operation despite the setback.

Unbeknownst to both the Entente and Central Powers, the unfolding events in Iran would soon escalate and get out of hand fast...
 
Mohammad Hassan Mirza's Revolt
The fallout from Russia's stealth invasion of Iran were immense, sparking a chain of events that plunged the nation into turmoil and civil strife.

Initially, Ahmad's denouncement of the Russian invasion seemed to signal a firm stance against the Russian invasion. However, the British, wielding their influence and leveraging promises of investment and threats, managed to sway Ahmad's allegiance. Despite their diminished military capabilities and the encroaching threat of starvation due to the Indian blockade, the British projected an image of strength to secure Ahmad's compliance. The promise of investment and threats proved instrumental in swaying his allegiance. Ahmad succumbed to their enticements, allowing Russian troops to utilize Iran as a base and obstructing Indian materiel and troop movements to the Ottomans.

This abrupt betrayal angered India, viewing it as a betrayal of trust and a dire threat to their strategic interests. For the Central Powers, particularly Germany, the interruption of the vital supply line posed a severe national security risk, prompting Kaiser Wilhelm II to despair momentarily.

However, this despair would soon turn into determination. The disruption of the Berlin-Delhi Railway galvanized the Central Powers into action, with Erich von Falkenhayn and the German High Command tasked with reopening the crucial lifeline, given full power by the Kaiser to do whatever was needed. The prospect of losing access to essential supplies like food and facing the full brunt of the Entente blockade created a sense of urgency.

However, Ahmad Shah Qajar's opportunistic collaboration did not proceed unchallenged. His decision was met with staunch opposition from within Iran. It would all come to a head with a revolt, one led by Mohammad Hassan Mirza Qajar, his own brother. Mohammad Hassan Mirza Qajar was angered at his brother's decision, and recognized the folly of aligning with the Entente powers. He viewed the Central Powers as more favorable allies who had contributed significantly to Iran's prosperity through the construction and utilization of the Berlin-Delhi Railway.

Indeed, the construction Berlin-Delhi Railway had led to economic prosperity in Iran, spurring industrialization and foreign (German and Indian) investment. In addition, Iran had been making a respectable amount of revenue from the Central Powers using the railway, charging a reasonable fee to the Central Powers for using the railway through their territory.

To Mohammad Hassan Mirza, the idea of aligning with the Entente was an insulting one. The British and Russians had inflicted humiliations upon their nation, and his brother was aligning with them? He couldn't allow his misguided foolish brother to jeopardize Iran's interests any longer. Leading a significant portion of the Qajar Army, Mohammad Hassan Mirza rallied against Ahmad Shah, and vowed to protect the Berlin-Delhi Railway and defy Ahmad's cooperation with the Entente.

As news of Mohammad Hassan Mirza's revolt against his brother Ahmad Shah Qajar spread, jubilation and relief swept through the leadership of the Central Powers. Kaiser Wilhelm II, in particular, was reportedly ecstatic at the news. The reaction among the leadership of the other Central Powers nations mirrored Wilhelm's enthusiasm, seeing the revolt as a potential turning point in their favor.

Mohammad Hassan Mirza's request for Central Powers support to protect the Berlin-Delhi Railway met with an immediate affirmative response. The Central Powers wasted no time in mobilizing a multinational force composed of troops from India, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, Austria, and Bulgaria. Upon arriving in Iran, the multinational force swiftly moved to reinforce Hassan Mirza, deploying along strategic points along the railway to repel incursions from Ahmad's loyalists and Russian forces. The coordination and cooperation among the different contingents showed the efficiency and effectiveness of the Central Powers' joint efforts.

As the conflict escalated, Iran became a battleground for competing geopolitical interests, and the nation was engulfed in a maelstrom of violence and instability.
 
Top