Cold War with Imperial Russia?

During the 1800s, there was something of a Cold War between Russia and the United Kingdom over control of Central Asia and India. Later on, Russia tried to keep the other great powers out of China and Korea to bring them within the Russian sphere of influence. Assuming things go more in favor of the Russian Empire, such as winning the Russo-Japanese War, completing the ambitious pre-World War I military and industrial buildup, and other things, is it possible for a Cold War situation to arise between Imperial Russia and the other great powers in the 20th century? The PoD can be sometime before or after World War I, although obviously the Russian Empire has to survive.

It could create some interesting analogues with the Cold War. British and Russian forces facing each other down in the Khyber Pass and mountains between British Raj and China, Japan being a vital Commonwealth aligned island in the Russian seas of East Asia, etc. The Germans (and perhaps the Austro-Hungarians and Italians) always growing tense at the start of Russia's annual field maneuvers in Poland and whenever Russian naval forces enter the Mediterranean or Adriatic.

It's an interesting setting, but I'm not sure how some of these alliance structures could come into being, or how strong Imperial Russia could get. Perhaps this would have to be a scenario where the major PoD is after the start of World War I (although winning the Russo-Japanese War is vital for Russian power in Asia)?

Is there any realistic way for something like this to come into being?

Just swap out "Soviet Union" for "Imperial Russia", and the scenario you're describing is the OTL Cold War.

If Imperial Russia survives, and even semi-industrializes, some kind of "Second Great Game" is likely between Russia and the Anglo-French. Even with nukes involved, it probably wouldn't be all that similar to the Cold War, though. The US is unlikely to care all that much, so the bipolar world of the OTL Cold War wouldn't really exist here. It would just be great powers competing against one another.

CthulhuFhtagn said:

Just swap out "Soviet Union" for "Imperial Russia", and the scenario you're describing is the OTL Cold War.

If Imperial Russia survives, and even semi-industrializes, some kind of "Second Great Game" is likely between Russia and the Anglo-French. Even with nukes involved, it probably wouldn't be all that similar to the Cold War, though. The US is unlikely to care all that much, so the bipolar world of the OTL Cold War wouldn't really exist here. It would just be great powers competing against one another.

Click to expand...

That's largely my thinking as well. In fact, I had to refrain from writing Soviet Union and Soviet while writing that post.

The alliances are going to be complex. Postwar the Triple Entente/Allied Powers went their own way. It might create an interesting situation for the United States, as some of the tensions that existed with Japan might spill over into tensions with the Commonwealth as well due to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

If the PoD happens sometime before World War I we might see the world divided into American, Commonwealth, French, Triple Alliance, and Russian blocs. Of course other arrangements are possible too, such as the Three Emperors' League staying together, an alliance between the British and Germans, etc.

Delta Force said:

That's largely my thinking as well. In fact, I had to refrain from writing Soviet Union and Soviet while writing that post.

The alliances are going to be complex. Postwar the Triple Entente/Allied Powers went their own way. It might create an interesting situation for the United States, as some of the tensions that existed with Japan might spill over into tensions with the Commonwealth as well due to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

If the PoD happens sometime before World War I we might see the world divided into American, Commonwealth, French, Triple Alliance, and Russian blocs. Of course other arrangements are possible too, such as the Three Emperors' League staying together, an alliance between the British and Germans, etc.

Click to expand...

An interesting scenario might be an early Entente victory with a "Germany must perish!" mindset. Germany is divided up into British, French, and Russian spheres of influence, and ends up playing the same role that it did in the OTL Cold War.

Whether the US gets involved would depend mainly on the British. If Britain keeps the Anglo-Japanese alliance, you could see the Americans aligning themselves with the Russians.

So TTL's Cold War could see a Russo-American alliance, with both powers committed to ending colonialism and supporting popular uprisings around the world. The irony is overwhelming.

Another scenario was in Snake Featherstone's Up With the Star TL.

Although it started as an ACW TL, butterflies result in a rather different WW1 line-up- Britain, Germany, and later the US (as well as Italy & the Ottoman Empire) against France, Russia, & A-H, which the US/German/British alliance wins.

After the war, a failed attempt at revolution & resulting civil war in Russia ends with a 'White' victory that leads to a 'constitutional' figurehead Tsar as window dressing for what amounts to a revanchist fascist dictatorship that starts a round 2 in the 1940s with Russia, Italy, & a few others against the US, Britain, Germany, & Japan. The alt-WW2 ends in a bloody stalemate, as both sides develop nuclear weapons at approximately the same time & use them repeatedly on the battlefield (and start throwing chemical weapons around as well once the nukes start flying.) As things start heading towards MAD territory, both sides call it off, realizing that things are getting way out of hand.

Britain, Germany, & Japan are hit hard enough that they can't really be be considered first-rate powers anymore, and become supporting allies of the US, which enters a cold war with Russia that has some parallels with OTL, as Russia pursued traditional Tsarist goals of aggrandizement in Asia, India (split into rival proxy states), & the Mideast, as well attempting to exploit European decolonization for their own ends.

The fascist government in Russia collapses in the early 1980s as over several years starting in the late 1970s, the Tsar of the time exploits dissatisfaction over Vietnam-type failures & a collapse of the fascist government in Italy to weaken the fascists & reassert his traditional powers, culminating in a purge of the fascists when he learns of a planned putsch against him & prepares a counterstroke using the military, followed by detente with the US.

Back in the 1800s alexis de tocqueville actually predicted a cold war between the US and Russia in his book "Democracy in America"

I wouldn't call a struggle between Imperial Russia and UK a Cold War - unlike the conflict between US and USSR, there wouldn't be an ideological component (Capitalism vs Communism).

CthulhuFhtagn said:

Just swap out "Soviet Union" for "Imperial Russia", and the scenario you're describing is the OTL Cold War.

If Imperial Russia survives, and even semi-industrializes, some kind of "Second Great Game" is likely between Russia and the Anglo-French. Even with nukes involved, it probably wouldn't be all that similar to the Cold War, though. The US is unlikely to care all that much, so the bipolar world of the OTL Cold War wouldn't really exist here. It would just be great powers competing against one another.

Click to expand...

Consider that the US joined WWI, when there was no big ideological differences between the two sides.

Corbell Mark IV said:

Consider that the US joined WWI, when there was no big ideological differences between the two sides.

Click to expand...

True, but that was an actual war. The scenario the OP was proposing is basically the Great Game II: Game Harder.

Two things. I would have Russia win the 1905 war with Japan. (Very Plausible with better leadership and Foresight). This would make them more formible in Asia as they would Control Manchuria and Korea at the very least.

Perhaps the Allies win WWI and Divide up Germany like at the end of WWII.

Now all you need to change this from the New Great Game to a Cold War is an ideological component.

The Western powers get more democratic while Russia gets more Messianiac.

Russia's ideological Allies become the Catholic (and Orthodox) Dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America. Russia is driven to expand to keep from imploding from its ethnic Mix.

The Cold War Battlefields would be China, the Middle East Oil Fields, Latin America, and Southern Europe. With Africa and the any leftist state being non-aligned.

Spare Change said:

Now all you need to change this from the New Great Game to a Cold War is an ideological component.

The Western powers get more democratic while Russia gets more Messianiac.

Russia's ideological Allies become the Catholic (and Orthodox) Dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America. Russia is driven to expand to keep from imploding from its ethnic Mix.

Click to expand...

I've read an idea like that in sources written before World War I. Essentially the idea was that Russia represented a crossroads between East and West, but didn't really belong to either. The sources thought that Russia would essentially be a more Westernized analogue to Japan as it modernized, taking Western technology while retaining much of its old ways of doing things.

Where it gets interesting and similar to an ideological conflict is that it mentions that religion is more important in Russia than other parts of the Western world. That's definitely true, as Russian policy has always had something of a defender of the faith streak to it. Even in East Asia they tended to get along fairly well with the locals relative to the British and Japanese.

Not sure how the Orthodox and Catholics would end up on the same side of things, but if a wave of socialism and communism hit Europe and elsewhere post-war I could see that happening.

A Orthodox/Catholic-Communist Cold War could be quite interesting, especially with Russia as the defender of the faith. Interesting and very plausible inversion. Might be a bit closer to Cold War than Great Game though, being a lot more ideological.

The POD would need to be further back than 1905. The Russian fleet thought the British fishing fleet in the North Sea were the Japanese! No way they could have defeated the Japanese.

It's a very interesting OTL, an Imperial Russia changes a lot of things at the end of world war one, without a powerful communist country what becomes of China, if the Great game continues after WW1 how does that affect Indian independence, can Great Britain afford the cold war after WW1 on it's own?

MarkA said:

The POD would need to be further back than 1905. The Russian fleet thought the British fishing fleet in the North Sea were the Japanese! No way they could have defeated the Japanese.

Click to expand...

Not by much. Despite having superior leadership and surprise the war was not a blow-out.

If the Russians (best Admirals and Generals) were waiting for the Japanese in order to spring their trap it probably would have been a different story.

Also Russia did not need an outright naval victory. It simply needed a fleet in being and winning on land.

In OTL you are right, Russian Naval Strategy was terrible. But it is not a huge POD to have a competent Admiral (plenty of good Naval Officers existed) and for the Russians to be on alert for a Japanese Naval Strike.

Now if you want Russia to win so decisively that it is able to invade Japan and perhaps take Japan's Northern Island away from it (or more) then yes you would need a POD before 1900.

Delta Force said:

I've read an idea like that in sources written before World War I. Essentially the idea was that Russia represented a crossroads between East and West, but didn't really belong to either. The sources thought that Russia would essentially be a more Westernized analogue to Japan as it modernized, taking Western technology while retaining much of its old ways of doing things.

Where it gets interesting and similar to an ideological conflict is that it mentions that religion is more important in Russia than other parts of the Western world. That's definitely true, as Russian policy has always had something of a defender of the faith streak to it. Even in East Asia they tended to get along fairly well with the locals relative to the British and Japanese.

Not sure how the Orthodox and Catholics would end up on the same side of things, but if a wave of socialism and communism hit Europe and elsewhere post-war I could see that happening.

A Orthodox/Catholic-Communist Cold War could be quite interesting, especially with Russia as the defender of the faith. Interesting and very plausible inversion. Might be a bit closer to Cold War than Great Game though, being a lot more ideological.

Click to expand...

To Flesh this out:

From the time of Athens and Sparta, Land powers have been traditionally Autocratic whie Sea Powers have been more Democratic. On one side the Russians: They control the Heartland of the World Island (Eurasia) which is in easy striking distace of Western Europe, The MidEast Oil Fields, China etc. and while being blessed with interior lines of communications. On the other side The English Speaking Peoples: They dominate the watery Rim of the World through their economic and naval strength along with their strong neo-liberalism (economic imperialism). Many foes of the Anglo-Americans (dictatorships, some of the UK's traditional European rivals (especially Cathoic rivals), foes of neo-liberalism in South America and other portions of Rim World) would side with traditionalist Russia.

The Geo-Political Map of this Absolutist/Democratic Cold War would look like this.

The British and Russians would certainly be at odds, so the question is who their allies would be, as well as any other alliances. If there is distrust between the Americans and British, such as a continuation of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, they might not necessarily be on the same side. It seems it would look something like this to me:

Commonwealth Alliance:
-- France
-- Japan
-- United Kingdom

Russian Alliance:
-- China (?)
-- Russia

Depending on if/when/how World War I happens, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy, and the United States could be difference alliances (as well as the Ottomans, should they survive).

Ideology was a big reason for the cold war. Without communism, what you see is the game of great powers trying to maximize their influence rather than an existential struggle fought by proxy.

TO91320 said:

Ideology was a big reason for the cold war. Without communism, what you see is the game of great powers trying to maximize their influence rather than an existential struggle fought by proxy.

Click to expand...

Ideology was certainly a huge part of it.


But if Stalin has NOT parked thousands of tanks in the middle of Europe, that would have been much less of an issue.

Real Conflict of Real Interests was also a big part of it.


Those conflicts would still be there is you had a very strong Czarist Russia poised to be an European Hegemon,

And it is not impossible to imagine other types of ideological conflict.

As some of the others have posted on.


A strong monarchy ruling over a police state would be a very different imperial power than OTL UK.

Spare Change said:

To Flesh this out:

From the time of Athens and Sparta, Land powers have been traditionally Autocratic whie Sea Powers have been more Democratic. On one side the Russians: They control the Heartland of the World Island (Eurasia) which is in easy striking distace of Western Europe, The MidEast Oil Fields, China etc. and while being blessed with interior lines of communications. On the other side The English Speaking Peoples: They dominate the watery Rim of the World through their economic and naval strength along with their strong neo-liberalism (economic imperialism). Many foes of the Anglo-Americans (dictatorships, some of the UK's traditional European rivals (especially Cathoic rivals), foes of neo-liberalism in South America and other portions of Rim World) would side with traditionalist Russia.

The Geo-Political Map of this Absolutist/Democratic Cold War would look like this.

Click to expand...

Interesting map, but description politically inaccurate.

1) For most of history the Pivot Area was controlled by nomadic tribes from the Scythians to the Mongols. With the exception of the Mongol Empire the it was not under control of one nomadic leadership. The Russians only took real control of the Pivot Area in the nineteenth century. Even then their postion of Sibera was pretty weak.

2) With the exception of the Mongols when armies did advance out of the Pivot Area into the Marginal Crescent, it was to cut loose from it. The Aryans, Turks, Huns and Khitan only conquered areas and became new rulers. They had little or no interest in the original home and other than stopping incursions by their "brothers".

2) Until the Renaissance the Rim did not exist an an entity. Until then no one had the ships for the job. When it did, it was first dominated by the Spanish who were not particularly democratic or liberal.

3) Up until the nineteenth century dominating the Rim of the World was a sink activity in the fact that large sections of it were throughout most of history of marginal economic value (Australia, southern Africa and the Norht American plains). In addition, the bits that mattered economically (Europe, Middle East, India, China) were under local control. As long as you can sail your ships relatively safely between them you didn't care who thinks they rule the seas.

4) The so called foes of neo-liberalism would not automatically sign up with traditionist Russia. From the Gauls who fought with Caesar to South Vietnam small groups frequently join a powerful entity because it is powerful and has plenty of goodies to give away. Hand outs often trump ideology.

If this Russia gets Constantinople as part of WWI spoils, that would finally give Russia the Warm Water Port, they have always wanted.

And greatly complicate the Balance of Power, and make the Med a much more exciting theater of the Cold War.