But I'm sure that some-one will say that Italy is the soft underbelly of the Central Powers.
Cheers,
Nigel.
Russo-German alliance
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
But I'm sure that some-one will say that Italy is the soft underbelly of the Central Powers.
Cheers,
Nigel.
The British in OTL managed campaigns at Gallipoli, Africa, the Ottoman Empire, and China. The logistics chain to Naples would not be such a problem.
An Italian invasion would at the minimum reduce the margin of defeat,
They coped without in OTL. Would they be that desperate?
What if he does?
Perhaps. At the least, this is a good point. Is the POD up to AH.com plausibility standards?
An Italian invasion would at the minimum reduce the margin of defeat,
They coped without in OTL. Would they be that desperate?
What if he does?
Perhaps. At the least, this is a good point. Is the POD up to AH.com plausibility standards?
Stalker
Banned
Oh, those stereotypes!
Let's see it point by point.
1. Army: you see, Crimean war was had a great impact on the whole Russian society, and Russia had learned its lesson. In 1860-1870 there was a great reform in Army under war minister Milutin. From then on Russian Army became a conscript army instead of recruit army, and it was also rearmed with up-to-date weapons.
2. Industry: by 1890 the workers and proletarians occupied the main part of total Russian population - 51%. But, yes, over half of industry was light industry - esp. textile industry. But there were heavy industrial regions in Ural (Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Zlatoust), Poland, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod; major mining regions (East Ukraine, Ural etc). Totally, heavy industry was several times as less developed as in Germany but it developed rapidly due to home and foreign investment. Further German investments would help greatly but in OTL they diminished greatly after 1890. Yes, Russia was behind great European powers, in some spheres - far behind but I cannot say She was that backwards. Everything is recognised in comparison.
3. Roads. You see, in that time the USA, for example, didn't have much in a way of solid (cobbled or even asphalted) roads either (we don't speak of railroads here), but we cannot say they were backwards, it was just a specifics and geography. Russia in mid 90s had over 54 000 km of railroads, in 1991 it started Transsiberian railroad. So, by mid 90s Russia had built totally more railroads than Germany (compare with 1870 when Germany had total railroad length much more than Russia) and it built more occupying the 2nd place by the rates of railroad building after the USA. You'd say: of course, Germany is much smaller. Yes, Russia simply had to build more because she needed to cover its vast lands but there always were limits in money and people.
4. I would not call Russian Czars reactionary (In the day of his assasination, Alexander II was going to sign a Constitutional act limiting his powers as the absolute monarch - is it reactionary?
Well, you are welcome to explain what do you mean by that... IMHO, they may be called conservative. If you were in Czar's boots, you'd had leaked the Japs you say? Well, how? You've got little populated areas in Far East, little industrial facilities, Transsib is one-way road interrupted at Baikal where you'll have to ship your troops by other means till they will be able to continue on rails to Vladivostok. You have no big naval power in the theatre at the start and you have the whole Japan near with quite short communications, able to react rapidly. You've got as the opponent on the sea one of the best and fortunate admirals of that time, Togo and don't have brainy admirals of your own on your side except Makarov but he's going to be killed in unfortunate accident in early war...
Someone named Winston Churchill told that about Balkans...
Last edited:
They clearly didn't reform after that. By the time WW1 started, the Russian army was anything but up to date. The Germans kept slapping them silly from the battle of Tannenberg onward. The only notable exeption is the Brusilov offensive which was a rare manifestation of good leadership and planning by the Imperial Russian army. After that the Russian army was going nowhere but downhill due to the deteriorating situation on the homefront. The fact that their minister of defence, Soechomlinov, was an indiot didn't help much either.
That lack of heavy industry only contributed to their defeat. Light industry ain't that important in a war. When WW1 started a Russian artillery battery could fire 850 shells a day while a German one could fire over 3000 shells a day. Russia just didn't produce enough stuff. Russias industrialization started too late and it didn't go fast enough.
Russia at that time had the largest population in Europe. Most of the population didn't have much education. So finding cheap labor to build those roads and railroads isn't very hard. I'm sure that if the Russian government had stimulated foreign investors with low taxes, not too many rules that limit their companies etc, Russia could have had more heavy industry. Russia has massive amounts of resources (coal, oil, natural gas, iron ore, gold, silver, copper etc) and a lot of cheap labor. Why wouldn't they invest? There must be companies that are willing to fund the construction of the country's infrastructure. There's a lot to gain in the long term. Money problem solved
.4. I would not call Russian Czars reactionary (In the day of his assasination, Alexander II was going to sign a Constitutional act limiting his powers as the absolute monarch - is it reactionary?
Is their a difference in meaning between the words reactionary and conservative? If so, I apologize for that. English isn't my native language. I guess it differs per Czar. Some are conservative, others are not. Alexander II was a good example of a progressive Czar. His succesor Alexander III however was very conservative as was his succesor Nicholas II. There was no constitution. A parliament was only created in 1905 aftera Bloody Sunday. And it was a farce really. That parliament didn't have any power.
I would have invested in Siberia (lots of oil
). I would have recognised Japan as a rising power and threat. Russia and Japan were bound to clash since they both wanted to snatch Korea away from China. I'm very pragmatic and not stupid. Japanese might be Asians but they can still build a modern navy and army with foreign help (which they were getting a lot at the time). For a navy I would ask either the British or the Germans for help. They were numbers 1 and 2 in terms of fleet size as we all know. Both fleets were very modern too. For my army I would ask Germany or France for help. I think Germany would be better. They defeated the French and they're well known for their Prussian militarism and discipline. Knowing that a war with Japan is very likely, I would do anything to ensure victory in a future conflict. I would also build railroads and industrial facilities in the Russian far east even if it nearly empties my treasury.PS can anybody make a Timeline (if there isn't one already) about a WW1 were the CP are Germany, Russia and Italy (and a few Balkan countries) and the Allies are Britain, France, Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungary?
Last edited:
Stalker
Banned
It reformed in period 1905-19012 in command and weapons after RJW. What was not reformed well was strategy and tactics and it was majorily why Ludendorf leaked Samsonov at Tannenberg. But before that Samsonov was able to have some minor defeats over Germans in East Prussia. Russian army had even up-to-date communication units but Sumsonov's 2nd army still used couriers and open (not-encrypted) telegraph communications to relay orders and get them from the HQ. I should also mention Rannenkampf behaviour during Tannenberg. He and Samsonov were fierce rivals ans were narrow to duel during RJW, so, maybe, Rannenkampf bears the part of responsibility for that defeat. Russia also at the beginning of war had the strongest Air Force of that time but again was unable to reproduce or purchase the planes in quantities war required.
It sure was late but it went on very fast. Simply, Russia was at the very start of reforming handicapped by a huge margin. In 1914 that falling behind shortened considerably but as we may see not enough to match the industrial power of Great European powers. The process really started too late, with real impact on industry only after 1860...
It isn't very hard but population density is not that very big, and Russia needs to cover far-far greater distances with its railroad net. That's another side of the medal - Russia didn't have enough population to built railroads ten times as more as Germany to match the latter with the same density.Russia at that time had the largest population in Europe. Most of the population didn't have much education. So finding cheap labor to build those roads and railroads isn't very hard. I'm sure that if the Russian government had stimulated foreign investors with low taxes, not too many rules that limit their companies etc, Russia could have had more heavy industry. Russia has massive amounts of resources (coal, oil, natural gas, iron ore, gold, silver, copper etc) and a lot of cheap labor. Why wouldn't they invest? There must be companies that are willing to fund the construction of the country's infrastructure. There's a lot to gain in the long term. Money problem solved
And they did invest into industry. They did invest into popular education, into regional self-governments (zemstvo) etc. There were 150 million people, continental climate with unpredictable harvesting and vast territories to be covered, populated and guarded. Germany had never had such problems. It always was compact. She did have problems of a different kind - the lack of resources and overpopulation.
Neither do I have English as my Mother tongue.
It's OK.Alexander III The Peacekeeper was like an Old Uncle.
Yes, he a conservative. Nicholas, IMHO, was what we can call reactionary and retrograde although he was a good Christian and a family man.Oil in that time was not discovered yet. Russia had Baku for that.I would have invested in Siberia (lots of oil
I'd not say that Russian government didn't try to develop those lands. There were sporadic attempts befroe 1800 and then it gradually became the major issue of state policy. Before Siberia's being, like Australia, the place of exile and hard labour imprisonment it gradually became the place where the gvt tried to attract the colonists. But one should bear in mind that despite its being a most beautiful land I've ever seen with endless forest landscapes and beautiful mountains, with wide clear water rivers full of fish, the agriculture belt of the Land is quite thin because of hard continental climatic conditions. The summer is very hot but winters are extremely severe. It's not the USA with their much milder climatic conditions, it's more like Canada and look at the population distribution in Canada...
What concerns Japan, Russia like any other European power underestimated Japan and the Czar and the court at St. Petersburg neglected the threat. If you were the Russian Emperor and had no foreknowledge, you'd surely act like Nicholas. Japan won RJW only because of the outbrake of the First Russian Revolution, the mass strikes all over the whole country and barricades in Moscow, Odessa and Nizhny Novgorod. Russia was almost paralysed.
How could they not see the growing threat that Japan was posing? They were building a big modern army and navy. How could anybody not notice that? The Japanese weren't making any attempts to hide it. The Japanese build up was obvious to anyone who didn't have his head up his ass. The Japanese power had already been shown in the first Sino-Japanese war(1894-1895). After the first defeats in the RJW I would have switched to scorched earth like Russia did when Napoleon invaded. The lack of roads and other useful stuff will make any Japanese offensive a logistical nightmare. If I destroy the little useful assets in the area that the Japanese might want (like the few roads, railroads and bridges) while I'm retreating, things will become even worse for the Japs. Their supply lines will get overstretched. I'll let the Russian winter and the terribly bad infrastructure do its handy work to the Japanese. In the meantime I'll gather my forces. When the Japanese are worn down I'll attack.
And what caused that revolution? It was caused by Russia's defeats in the Russo-Japanese war.
I agree that industrializing such a huge country is difficult but with a little more effort the Russians could have at least industrialized European Russia (everything west of the Ural mountains) up to western European standards. Stalin did it. And remember WW1 starts in 1914 so Nicholas II has twice as much time to do it (20 years). To bad Nicholas wasn't more like Alexander II. A constitution and a Duma that has some power could change Russian history.
In the 'TL' I proposed in the first post Russia is allied to Germany so Russia will be a bit more industrialized due to German investments. BTW we're getting off topic. Lets go back to discussing this WW1 set up:
Germany, Russia, Italy, Romania, Serbia and Greece vs Britain, France,Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungary and Belgium.
Last edited:
My impressions ...
Well for starters, I'd look to see Italy either turn on their alliance fully and actually DoW on them or just snuggle up and wait for offers. I don't see any chance Italy going to war with the crumbling AH AND the British navy. The British got them to stab the Germans in the back with a territory bribe of German speaking lands in Tyrol so that wouldn't happen here but I think they could be tempted with some easy Ottoman pickings along with the safe bet that the CP's could do little to harm them. They could elect to just stay neutral, and an assumed collapse in A-H might move them to do something ... maybe.
Speaking of AH, I don't see how they wouldn't be absolutely annihilated in no time. German plans were built around AH being and ally by WW1 so there is a large degree of speculation about their plans but with that long of border to protect from even a fully distracted enemy and a fully hungry Russia and Serbia you can say good bye to one of the Allied powers very quickly and hello to an enlarged Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria along with an independent Hungary of some sorts in no time.
Also with that set of Allies I don't' know what could prevent an easy march to and eventually the capture and annexation of Constantinople by Russia in short order. I don't see how the allies could keep enough support to the Turks for this not to happen. After that, the Turks would have to sue for peace but they would be chopped up and divided however Russia and Germany liked. British interests around the Suez could be directly threatened as well.
With Russian land and Germany industry, could they be stopped? I don't see either before or especially after a collapse or incapacitation of A-H the full weight of these Central/Eastern Powers couldn't overcome France even with British help. Take what they did while fighting Russia at the same time and the mind whirls thinking of what they could have done with the breadbasket of Europe feeding them & Russian manpower (especially given years of German training).
Wow, this is probably one of my favorite time periods to discuss and could go on forever. Just my initial thoughts to assist in the effort to get back on track
The Kaiser was a complete fool to not renew the treaty!I really doubt Italy would turn on them considering they are getting largely everything that the Entente offered them in OTL and then some.
ITL Trentito, Istria and Dalmatia from AH. and most likely Savory and Nice from France with the possibility of Tunisia as well. Considering what they are getting in this political smörgåsbord, they would have to be stupid to give up this opportunity to be rid of one of their biggest and long time enemies.
Perhaps I underestimate Italy, but I just don't think she has the never to declare war on an Alliance that includes the UK ... unless she sees A-H fall flat on her face and imminent victory over France/UK on land. I suppose she might join in at a later convenient date to try and win some spoils but probably have to see certain things to come about such as having some assurance the Royal Navy wouldn't ravage her coasts and shipping ...
Out of curiosity, why did Bismarck historically choose AH over Russia when the relative strengths of both were apparent even then?
And just to touch on one or two points that can be overlooked in the 'grand diplomacy' picture...
So in any timeline, instability, caused by internal issues, is going to be visited on Russia. The German Empire, never a bastion of liberalism, is only going to strengthen the resolve of the autocratic Tsar. Similarly an alliance with the Supreme Autocrat of St Petersburg could quite possibly radicalise the SPD and perhaps intensify Germany's own domestic fissures
Incidentally an alliance with Germany would likely hinder Russia's industrial development. With German domestic industry expanding at fantastic rates throughout the pre-war decades there was very little capital available for export. In contrast London and Paris remained, by far, the two largest exporters of capital in the world (respectively) with the latter in particular investing heavily in Russian infrastructure. In addition you might well see Russia get caught in a trade dependency loop where its agricultural produce is exchanged for German manufactured goods to the detriment of its industrial base
And just to touch on one or two points that can be overlooked in the 'grand diplomacy' picture...
Eh... no. The Revolution of 1905 was caused by a whole range of deep-rooted social issues that mobilised large segments of the Russian population (bringing about a marriage of liberal professionals, urban workers, and peasants) against the Tsardom. This would have occurred, at a different date perhaps, with or without war in the East
So in any timeline, instability, caused by internal issues, is going to be visited on Russia. The German Empire, never a bastion of liberalism, is only going to strengthen the resolve of the autocratic Tsar. Similarly an alliance with the Supreme Autocrat of St Petersburg could quite possibly radicalise the SPD and perhaps intensify Germany's own domestic fissures
The difference being that Stalin was halfway competent. An equivalent industrialisation campaign under the Tsardom is completely impossible without major structural changes to the state apparatus
Incidentally an alliance with Germany would likely hinder Russia's industrial development. With German domestic industry expanding at fantastic rates throughout the pre-war decades there was very little capital available for export. In contrast London and Paris remained, by far, the two largest exporters of capital in the world (respectively) with the latter in particular investing heavily in Russian infrastructure. In addition you might well see Russia get caught in a trade dependency loop where its agricultural produce is exchanged for German manufactured goods to the detriment of its industrial base
Stalker
Banned
In my opinion, we may not put all the blame onto the poor head of Kaiser Willie. Going back to the events of 1870s, i may refrain here that Bismarck tried to make a bargain with Russia over the issue where Germany wold carry out defensive war against France over Alsace. He asked Russia to stay neutral in that case. His offer was rejected by by Russian Prime-Minister, a convinced Anglophile Gorchakov on behalf of Alexander II.
Russian sporadic Anglophilia and Anglophobia is direct reaction of foreign policy of the British Cabinet. Take out Benjamin Disraeli and let Gladstone be a Prime-Minister all that time, and you may see quite a different result.
But Revolution of 1905 by itself was not something inevitable.
Russian sporadic Anglophilia and Anglophobia is direct reaction of foreign policy of the British Cabinet. Take out Benjamin Disraeli and let Gladstone be a Prime-Minister all that time, and you may see quite a different result.
Of course, social tension was growing in Russia but there also were some developments to decrease it, The question was only what wins in the long run - growing tensions or the means to cope with them? My guess though that sooner or later the explosion would have taken place anyway.Reekwind said:
But Revolution of 1905 by itself was not something inevitable.
Such major changes are simply inevitable. So, there is quite a pressing necessity for changes. If there's no changes, Russia collapses inevitably as result of social explosion. And we'll get any other variety of Stalin.Reekwind said:
In pre-war decades Russia occupies the first place in Europe by rates of industrial growth (see chart 2 here: http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1658/papers/Borodkin.pdf) , not to the small degree, due to German investments which even in this period of cooling of Russo-German relations are more than all other Western investments put together. So. I see here only positive changes especially if investments are purely industrial because financial investments may simply be sacked by the corrupt Russian bureaucrats.
I’m not sure if there would even be a war though in this timeline. AH simply isn’t strong enough to act as a counterbalance in the East against either Russia or Germany let alone both they’d have to go far beyond OTL insanity to go to war.
France also isn’t going to be eager to jump into a war since Austria is clearly going to get beat like a redheaded stepchild fast and hard if things to blows. Would France even pursue an alliance with Austria-Hungary since they really can’t provide an effective counterweight to anybody?
Hell Britain doesn’t even have the excuse of Alsace-Lorraine to take leave of their senses. The manpower disparity is simply going to be too much in the German Russian alliance’s favor. So unless you have a more militant USA whose allied from the get go I don’t see a world war happening. At most I think you’d see a twentieth century partition of Austria-Hungary. You may not even have a war over that given enough time AH with a lack of any strong neighboring allies to prop it up could simply collapse all on its lonesome.
France also isn’t going to be eager to jump into a war since Austria is clearly going to get beat like a redheaded stepchild fast and hard if things to blows. Would France even pursue an alliance with Austria-Hungary since they really can’t provide an effective counterweight to anybody?
Hell Britain doesn’t even have the excuse of Alsace-Lorraine to take leave of their senses. The manpower disparity is simply going to be too much in the German Russian alliance’s favor. So unless you have a more militant USA whose allied from the get go I don’t see a world war happening. At most I think you’d see a twentieth century partition of Austria-Hungary. You may not even have a war over that given enough time AH with a lack of any strong neighboring allies to prop it up could simply collapse all on its lonesome.
That's why a war will break out. German military leaders will know this too. Germany will take any chance too get in a war with France. German is probably able to come up with some ridiculous casus belli which might sound plausible at that time. Germany wants a colonial empire. Unfortunately Africa was already more or less cut up between France and Great Britain so they need a war to grab their colonies. It would be interesting to see what Japan does. Japan in that time had an alliance with Britain. Would they go to war with Germany and Russia? If so would Russia get beaten again as in the Russo-Japanese war or would the German army and the German fleet in the far east be able prop up Russia's forces there? I know more about Europe than Asia so I'm not sure.
A war in Europe would likely be a win for TTL's Central Powers. Russia would probably overrun Austria-Hungary and Italy would probably jump in shortly before victory. Russia would gobble up Galicia. Italy would get Istria, Dalmatia and South Tyrol. Serbia would take Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia and Romania would take Transylvania. Germany would then take Austria and Czechia. The only thing that would remain of Austria-Hungary is Hungary and Slovakia which could become an independent Hungarian kingdom under the Habsburgs.
The Ottomans would quickly be defeated by Russia. There's nothing there that can stop Russia from marching all the way to Constantinople. Greece would likely snatch away Thrace and maybe even bits of the Turkish west coast when the Ottoman defeat is clear. After that Russia, Germany and to a lesser extent Italy could cut up the Ottoman Empire any way they liked. Modern day Turkey excluding Constantinople the Bosphorus and maybe the Dardanelles would be all that remained of the Ottoman Empire.
France and Britain would then face the entire German army and a Russian expeditionary force in northern France and alpine fighting against the Italians in the south. Russia, Germany and Italy would eventually have won simply due to sheer numbers. A very harsh treaty similar to that of Versailles would likely be imposed on France. Belgium will be cut up into Flanders and Wallonia. Belgian Luxembourg, Liege and Luxembourg will be annexed. Italy will get Nice and Savoy. Germany will take Belgian Congo and several French colonies too.
Britain could continue to fight a naval war though which could be very annoying to the Germans. On the other hand Germany and Russia have the entire European mainland, its resources and its population under their control. As powerful as it may be, the British Empire can't liberate the entire continent on its own. Germany could simply stop all trade between Europe and Britain. I don't know if that would effect Britain. Germany certainly can't defeat Britain militarily. The Royal Navy is just to big. Eventually they would sign a peace treaty but its unlikely that it would have been very harsh. Britain would just reject it and continue the war if it were. Any peace treaty will probably be a restoration of the status quo ante bellum.
Last edited:
The thing is.. you tend not to get wars where everyone suddenly decides to pile on the weaker powers. Well, not outside of questionably written AH. This is because people generally don't want to go to war for fun, especially since the weaker power(s) will make concessions if they are clearly about to be pounded into the dirt.
Secondly the question is of 'who benefits?'. People don't like it when one member of the alliance gains massively while another gains only a little. This tends to change the alliance from one of atleast quasi-equals to one of dependence. Does it really serve Russian interests to have A-H dismembered and have France completely humiliated by Germany? It seems not. Russia might get a friendly Serbia and Bulgaria (although Pan-Slavism was more in the rhetoric than the reality) but it seems Germany shall pocket for herself the valuable Czech territories, gain influence over Hungary and possibly out and out annex the Austrian territories. To Germany a chunk of European territory is going to be far more desirable than some profitless sweeps of Africa. When Germany feels like acquiring Poland or possibly Ukraine who is Russia going to turn too? France has been humiliated and possibly permanently ended as a great power. Will Russia turn to her old friend Britain? It doesn't seem likely.
All in all a lasting German and Russian alliance is highly unlikely because their goals in Europe were almost directly opposed. If they do form an alliance the result shall be peace since the alliance shall not extend to a carve up of the other European powers. Its like in timelines where some Anglo-German alliance carves up the entente, with the British gladly making some pan-European Germany which is clearly destined to rule the world just for the chance to annex French Polynesia. It just doesn't make sense.
Secondly the question is of 'who benefits?'. People don't like it when one member of the alliance gains massively while another gains only a little. This tends to change the alliance from one of atleast quasi-equals to one of dependence. Does it really serve Russian interests to have A-H dismembered and have France completely humiliated by Germany? It seems not. Russia might get a friendly Serbia and Bulgaria (although Pan-Slavism was more in the rhetoric than the reality) but it seems Germany shall pocket for herself the valuable Czech territories, gain influence over Hungary and possibly out and out annex the Austrian territories. To Germany a chunk of European territory is going to be far more desirable than some profitless sweeps of Africa. When Germany feels like acquiring Poland or possibly Ukraine who is Russia going to turn too? France has been humiliated and possibly permanently ended as a great power. Will Russia turn to her old friend Britain? It doesn't seem likely.
All in all a lasting German and Russian alliance is highly unlikely because their goals in Europe were almost directly opposed. If they do form an alliance the result shall be peace since the alliance shall not extend to a carve up of the other European powers. Its like in timelines where some Anglo-German alliance carves up the entente, with the British gladly making some pan-European Germany which is clearly destined to rule the world just for the chance to annex French Polynesia. It just doesn't make sense.
There is one problem with this C and the problem is Wilson only wone his second term by 7000 votes.
There is no way in hell he'd ask congress for a DoW where there was no real chance of victory.
Lets look at the new central Powers position.
Russia, German and Italy plus possibly Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia.
These would crush A-H and the Ottomans by the end of 1916 conservative estimate.
So a one front war excluding the far east which could be dealt with later.
Large increase in manpower.
Russia and the rest of the central powers states should be able to supply the food and resources that Germany's industry lacked in OTL.
So we find that Germany is not lacking in food, fuel or resources apart from rubber and certain other metals that Britain has control of.
Russian Baltic Fleet joins forces with the HSF will just add problems for the Entente and once the Turks are knocked out then the Black sea fleet come into play as well.
Even if the USA enters on schedule in 1917 I see the best result for the Entente is a draw.
That opens a new can of worms/
If a draw with the CP on top then Germany gets it's colonies back and the US gov is in a pretty pickle as they would have to pay compensation for all the seized German ships and assets that they sold off.
One called aspirin will cost the US gov dearly maybe more then the cost of all the others combines.
If the US don't compensate then we'd see US assets seized and not returned as well as the uS possibly locked out of european and central powers markets.
Wilson would go don in history as the man who destroyed the US economy.
The US congress wouldn't let this happen Wilson wouldn't get His Dow and and with out this the Entente would have to make terms on the best of a bad situation.
You might even see GB abandon France and Japan to save her Empire.
I'm quite sure Russia would love to gain Korea.
Stalker
Banned
You seem to have missed quotations here.
An old friend who did all to put Russia on leash and keep her from the Straits, who tried all his best to provoke Persia into the war with Russia, who was narrow to start war in Central Asia to prevent Russian expansion there, who did everything to deprive Russia of all the fruits of her victory in Balcan War in San-Stefano and Berlin Congress, who started Crimean war against Russia, who threatened the battleships and a new war when the Russian army encamped at Adrianopols (Edirne)? Yes, it's quite a normal policy of one competing colonial power against the other colonial power but it does't look very friendly from the Russian point of view.No, just change the Serbian vector of Russian policy in Balkans to Bulgarian vector, and everything goes to the places it belongs.
If you put Serbia and Greece into the list, then you will have to exclude Bulgaria from it. These are opposing powers with the long-lasting tradition of enmity. Besides, one of Hapsburgs is on the Bulgarian throne and Greece wants Bulgarian Thrace.
Normally, Germany and Russia are turned backs to each other and their interests do not interfere, AH put apart. Austro-Hungary's interests is the only obstacle between Germany and Russia. If Germany prefers alliance with Russia to that with AH, no obstacles I can see at all.
Try telling that to Wilhelm II. He admired Britain and wanted a colonial empire that could equal that of Britain. Germany deserved a place under the sun. And Africa isn't entirely profitless. It depends what part of Africa you get. Belgian Congo for example was rich in diamonds, gold and oil.
Russia would have enough to gain from this alliance. Germany would invest in Russian industry and they'll help the Russian army to become a more effective fighting force. Once Germany rids itself of Austria-Hungary I don't see any conflicting interests between the two. After the war is over the Russians will have a seat on the conference table. They'll get Galicia, the Bosphorus, Constantinople and other bits of the Ottoman Empire. Russia's two main enemies wil be wiped away. Because of this Russia could extend its influence to the Balkans without being bothered by the other two. The Balkans will effectively become Russia's backyard.
Secondly the Germans could help Russia to defeat Japan. Until a victory in the west occurs however the Russians wil just have to rely on scorched earth. Assuming that Japan is defeated after France and Britain are out, both Russia and Germany can extend their sphere of influence into China. Russia will happily take Korea and possibly Manchuria. Germany can take whatever piece of China they're interested in as long as there aren't any Russians on it. China is big so there's enough space for both of them.
That's very true. I think that the differences in the strategic situation of Germany will force even Wilhelm II. to reconsider his dreams.
We have to acknowledge that a Russian-German alliance against a French-Austrian one changes the strategic situation considerably. ITTL, the Germans have to face a two-frontier war that is fundamentally different than IOTL. IOTL, French and Russian troops could only connect literally through either Berlin or Vienna, thus if they had won the war decisively. ITTL, the primary strategic goal of France would be to get a viable connection to AH through Alsace and southern Germany - especially if Italy joins Germany and blocks the Adriatic. On the other side, Germany will be much more concerned by its vast frontier to AH.
Therefore I'd bet that France will follow an offensive strategy: reconquer Alsace-Lorraine fast and establish a link to the ally AH, whereas Germany will concentrate its strategy on blocking this link and taking out AH early. Therefore I think the Germans will go for a "AH-first" strategy, attacking AH early from all sides (there's plenty of enemies around AH
) and only defending the rather short frontier in Alsace - which is easily defendable in the Vosges-mountains anyway.Another important point: this changed strategic situation will probably butterfly away the invasion of Belgium - at least at the beginning of the war.
I'm not sure about the military help, but Russia is an ideal goal for German investment: Instead of building railways in Anatolia, German Banks can invest in Russian transportation - something that will prove to be a viable investment once German industries need Russian ressources during the war.
That's very true. I think that the differences in the strategic situation of Germany will force even Wilhelm II. to reconsider his dreams.
We have to acknowledge that a Russian-German alliance against a French-Austrian one changes the strategic situation considerably. ITTL, the Germans have to face a two-frontier war that is fundamentally different than IOTL. IOTL, French and Russian troops could only connect literally through either Berlin or Vienna, thus if they had won the war decisively. ITTL, the primary strategic goal of France would be to get a viable connection to AH through Alsace and southern Germany - especially if Italy joins Germany and blocks the Adriatic. On the other side, Germany will be much more concerned by its vast frontier to AH.
Therefore I'd bet that France will follow an offensive strategy: reconquer Alsace-Lorraine fast and establish a link to the ally AH, whereas Germany will concentrate its strategy on blocking this link and taking out AH early. Therefore I think the Germans will go for a "AH-first" strategy, attacking AH early from all sides (there's plenty of enemies around AH
Another important point: this changed strategic situation will probably butterfly away the invasion of Belgium - at least at the beginning of the war.
True, But it will Tend to Put The Invasion of Switzerland on The Table, for The French Anyway ...
Some of The Best Mountain Passes in The Area, are on The Swiss Side of The Border ...
Only a FOOL would Think it was a Good Idea, But will The French Believe that their Elan will Carry them Through?
A Quite Accurate Assessment, Peri-Bellum ...
Just as in The Above Example, where I Assumed The French to be Foolhardily Brave ...
Will The Germans in yours, Prove to be Deviously Cunning enough, to Put The Means of War in Place a FULL Generation Early?