Also, if WWI still happens and Russia stays out, it is unlikely that Germany would invade Belgium, preventing or at least delaying British entry and forcing France to fight alone.
I see a good size American victory over the Russians, but what matters is afterward.
You just blew up the Triple Entente. If the Great War still kicks off in 1914/1915, (WW1 was very inevitable at this point.) Russia will be like "Umm....no thank. The Japs, and Yankees just kicked our ass" and stay out of it. The Central Powers only have one front in Europe to deal with: The West. Italy might join the CP, or stay neutral without Russia in the war. The French will hate America forever for fucking them over with the war with the Russian Empire.
The UK won't like it either, losing Russia as ally, and the power it's gains the German Empire, and the CP.
I think the Germans are smart enough to see that aiding the United States is in their best interests. As is a weak Russia. If Russia loses another Eastern War the Czar is not staying in power. If the Germans actually go to war, possibly by aligning with the U.S then they'll have an opportunity to create Bismarck's "Kyivan State.I don't think that the scenario painted would lead to war, but...
Under the following assumptions there COULD be a war between the US and Russia
1. Russia actually WINS the Russsian Japanese War.
2. Russia and the US clash over interest in China
But this scenario needs a reevaluation of forces and logistics
The Conflict would slowly escalate and not materialize out of nowhere.
Both Russia and the US would not start at the same forces and deployments and OTL.
But if staying with the OPs scenario:
@RamscoopRaider thinks the US need 18-24 (?) Months before it lands near Vladivostok and takes it out. But Why would russia sit idle and do nothing. It definitely would expand its forces and stocks in the region - including an increased priority of the Transsib
But would a conflict simmer without battles for such a long time?
Even if the US would land in/near Vladivostok, could it win? - How many troops could the US land in the first 24 hours (compare OTL Operation Neptune had around 200k troops with England as base nearby - A more comparable invasion had initially 5 divisions worth attacking - Gallipoli around 500 transport ships IIRC - using Limnos as initial base nearby.
Honestly I think the AECIR (American Expeditionary Corps in Russia) would not fare better than the Entente at Gallipoli)...
THE Diplomatic situation.
1. Germany would celebrate - first thing it would offer Russia support (the US was not really liked by the Germans) same as during the Dogger Bank incident.
2. France - while not bound to help Russia against the US would be forced to help the Russians - simply to prevent Germany getting influence in Russia
3. Britain - sitting on the fence as it is not an European conflict, and helping either side is a lose-lose situation.
4. Japan - might be tempted to side with the US, but that would mean to anger Britain - and an angry Russia (after the war) without British support is somethng not to be desired
5. THE Ottomans - well maybe distracted by an ATL Balkans war, but would it happen with Russia distracted...
6. A-H/Italy maybe they would use the situation for their own little conflict...![]()
I think the Germans are smart enough to see that aiding the United States is in their best interests. As is a weak Russia. If Russia loses another Eastern War the Czar is not staying in power. If the Germans actually go to war, possibly by aligning with the U.S then they'll have an opportunity to create Bismarck's "Kyivan State.
It took 2 years of wartime priority construction to finish the Trans Siberian starting in 1914 OTL. Hell they may not be able to finish it, as they had to, in OTL, transport bridge sections by sea to Vladivostok during 1914-16, (and lost some due to Emden) impossible with US naval superiority. In any case until the railroad is finished Russia cannot station very many more troops than it used OTL. It can build stockpiles certainly, but more troops simply would mean more mouths to feed until heavy combat starts@RamscoopRaider thinks the US need 18-24 (?) Months before it lands near Vladivostok and takes it out. But Why would russia sit idle and do nothing. It definitely would expand its forces and stocks in the region - including an increased priority of the Transsib
But would a conflict simmer without battles for such a long time?
Even if the US would land in/near Vladivostok, could it win? - How many troops could the US land in the first 24 hours (compare OTL Operation Neptune had around 200k troops with England as base nearby - A more comparable invasion had initially 5 divisions worth attacking - Gallipoli around 500 transport ships IIRC - using Limnos as initial base nearby.
Honestly I think the AECIR (American Expeditionary Corps in Russia) would not fare better than the Entente at Gallipoli)...
It took 2 years of wartime priority construction to finish the Trans Siberian starting in 1914 OTL. Hell they may not be able to finish it, as they had to, in OTL, transport bridge sections by sea to Vladivostok during 1914-16, (and lost some due to Emden) impossible with US naval superiority. In any case until the railroad is finished Russia cannot station very many more troops than it used OTL. It can build stockpiles certainly, but more troops simply would mean more mouths to feed until heavy combat starts
The Gallipoli penninsula, being generous, has a quarter the coastline as Primorsky Krai and is within 200 miles of the center of the Ottoman rail net. Supporting masses of troops was easy, and outflanking difficult. With much more coastline outflanking becomes much easier, especially with such a sparse rail net
I did say the US would first go after places like North Sakhalin, and Kamchatka
Source for the low priority? Whole campaigns were fought to try to open a supply route to Russia. I'd imagine that you know, a railroad connected to a completely unthreatened ice free port would be very important as a potential supply route. Plus of course if I am right and they do need to ship parts by sea, it won't be getting finished anywaysThe Transib had low priority in OTL 1914-1916 - no need to shift troops and materiel between the Primorje and the rest of Russia - The rail to Murmansk was built instead...
While the Far ast is larger than Gallipoli - the Problem for the US is that the farther from the Pop centers of the region they land the more they get into a logistical hell - supporting large number of US troops is not easier without good harbours.
Well if the go forNorth Sakhalin and Kamchatke - good less troops the Russians have to worry about. There are only two things important in the East. and That is Vladivostok and the Transsib.
The US' presence likely stops it from escalating as none of the Entente would want anything to do with a war with them. Does France even join a war against Germany and the US with the knowledge that Britain is now unlikely to come to their air?If Germany enters the war so does French. So starts with US/Germany vs Russia/France.Since former is more stronger Britain has real chance side with later. Then there is lurking A-H, Italy and Ottomans. Basically WW I starts in 1912. Maybe Central Powers (including US) would win this time![]()
I think the Germans are smart enough to see that aiding the United States is in their best interests. As is a weak Russia. If Russia loses another Eastern War the Czar is not staying in power. If the Germans actually go to war, possibly by aligning with the U.S then they'll have an opportunity to create Bismarck's "Kyivan State.
The Pacific Theater, which would be the primary one, would be dominated by the Americans. The Russian Far East Fleet is still not up to full strength following 1905. The Americans will have much greater naval strength, however, they'll need a place to stage it. The Philippines are still a bit far. I look for the U.S. to work to reach some accommodation with Japan for basing rights. The U.S. might build up their forces in Japan and then make a push for Vladivostok. Should if fall, and that's a big if, then the U.S. will call on the Russians to make peace. I'm sure the Russia people may at this point be ready to yet again take up the revolutionary mantle, so the government would rapidly agree to peace. I don't believe the terms would be too harsh. Fishing rights perhaps along with reparations. I simply don't see the U.S. asking for something like Kamchatka, though if TR were in office...........?
As a Russian Jew in America, whose Great Grand father came to the US in 1912, I can say that you may want to change the PoD from being related to Americans coming to the defence of Jews facing antisemitism. Damn near ASB in 1912. 1) Americans tend to be racists and antisemites (seriously don't argue against that point after what happened in November) 2) You state anti-russian backlash in America... most Russians in America at that time will be Jews anyways... Russia had a greater number of Jews than Germany or any other place in Europe 3) in the US you had two primary groups of immigrant Jews- German Jews and Russian Jews, and German Jews being more educated, assimilated into Western culture, agnostic, and being better-off often discriminated against the more religious, superstitious, less educated rubes from Russia. You're not going to the German Jewish community as up in arms as you might think. (The Power Broker, which is a biography of Robert Moses is an excellent book that describes the dynamic between Russian and German Jews when it talks about Moses' mom and Robert's own identity with Judaism)
Can you elaborate on this 'Kyivan State' idea? I haven't come across it and can't find sources
If I recall correctly it was a letter Bismarck wrote though I can't quite remember to whom. I found it in the book "Dreadnought" which is without question in my opinion the most superb work on this time period.
snip
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Wilhelm_of_Austria
How about this chap? ^
I'm interested in bumping this, if only to get ideas on TR winning as a Republican under these circumstances and who and/or what replaces the Czar.
Any thoughts?
Edit: Or this fellow: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Karl_Albrecht_of_Austria ?