Challenge: German-Russian Dual Alliance in WWI, AND have it be defeated

[Onkel Willie]

It seems you crossed posts with GZ. There getting a de facto protectorate over the Bosporus, Galicia, Bukovina, and protectorates over Persia, Xinjiang, Afghanistan and Balochistan and in addition with A-H gone they become hegemons in the Balkans.

EDIT:

@General Zod: start reading my work now

 

[Susano]

That really doesn't strike me as a plan Russia will be very comfortable with.

It doesnts trike me Russia wouldve gotten much more out of OTL WW1, either if they had won, yet they fought in it.

 

[galveston bay]

I have been running an online alternate history game for the last 5 years, (using rules derived from the World In Flames series of games and its World War I prequel). That situation has developed several times.

First time, the Russians and Germans ganged up on Austria and split it between them after Austria went to war with Serbia. The rationale was gamest, but a case was made that Willy and Nicky become pals as a result of both wanting to humiliate Japan (pre-Russo-Japanese War)... World War I began in 1904

Austria went under quickly, but the Germans choose not to nvade France and let the French bash their heads against the wall in Alsace Lorraine. The British Empire and Americans stayed out of the war and brokered a peace in 1906

Similar situations arose in the next three games, where the Germans and Russians found reasonable ways to ally pre-1910. The general result was France suffering heavily but holding out with British Imperial (and later US) help, and Germany losing all its colonies but the Germans and Russians dominate Europe in return. Usually someone found a reason to beat up the Ottoman Empire and steal territory from it (each side, depending on the game).

The common thread of course is that most of the games saw the war begin in 1904-05 triggered by the Russo-Japanese War (if Germany joins Russia, the English are required to support Japan by treaty)

One game saw war in 1914, for historical causes, but the previous German-Russian alliance. The Germans still can't conquer France in 1914 but by 1916 the English and French are bleeding out, and the Americans haven't the numbers to push the Germans out by 1918. Meanwhile, the Russians and Germans have control of the rest of Europe, and a great deal of the Mideast and the English have problems in India to deal with (the Great Game gets more heated), while the Japanese lack the strength to seriously threaten Russia in Siberia.

in short, a marginal German Russian victory due to exhaustion and collapsing Western morale and will.

Of course these were games, with blood thirsty war gamers, but strategically the implications were interesting.

They seemed reasonable to me based on the results.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Susano, except they had some hopes of their cherished dreams at the Ottoman's expense plus Germany's. Here they've waived any claims on Germany yet their chances against the Ottomans are actually worse and Japan is helping itself to some Pacific territories.


Onkel Willie, and how precisely are they achieving any of that given their serious military inferiority vis a vis the British in Central Asia or the Black Sea/Ottoman Empire? Germany won't be any help inventing the almost imaginary supply lines in Central Asia and I'm not sure whether saddling Russia with Afghanistan is a reward or an insult.

 

[Onkel Willie]

Read:

PoD in the 1870s and Germany modernizing the Russian army and helping economically and Germany is the continent's larges industrial power after all. Oh and the USA will be joining the CPs in our TL.

 

[Troyer IV]

I have been running an online alternate history game for the last 5 years, (using rules derived from the World In Flames series of games and its World War I prequel). That situation has developed several times.

First time, the Russians and Germans ganged up on Austria and split it between them after Austria went to war with Serbia. The rationale was gamest, but a case was made that Willy and Nicky become pals as a result of both wanting to humiliate Japan (pre-Russo-Japanese War)... World War I began in 1904

Austria went under quickly, but the Germans choose not to nvade France and let the French bash their heads against the wall in Alsace Lorraine. The British Empire and Americans stayed out of the war and brokered a peace in 1906

Similar situations arose in the next three games, where the Germans and Russians found reasonable ways to ally pre-1910. The general result was France suffering heavily but holding out with British Imperial (and later US) help, and Germany losing all its colonies but the Germans and Russians dominate Europe in return. Usually someone found a reason to beat up the Ottoman Empire and steal territory from it (each side, depending on the game).

The common thread of course is that most of the games saw the war begin in 1904-05 triggered by the Russo-Japanese War (if Germany joins Russia, the English are required to support Japan by treaty)

One game saw war in 1914, for historical causes, but the previous German-Russian alliance. The Germans still can't conquer France in 1914 but by 1916 the English and French are bleeding out, and the Americans haven't the numbers to push the Germans out by 1918. Meanwhile, the Russians and Germans have control of the rest of Europe, and a great deal of the Mideast and the English have problems in India to deal with (the Great Game gets more heated), while the Japanese lack the strength to seriously threaten Russia in Siberia.

in short, a marginal German Russian victory due to exhaustion and collapsing Western morale and will.

Of course these were games, with blood thirsty war gamers, but strategically the implications were interesting.

They seemed reasonable to me based on the results.

Can I play?

 

[RGB]

RGB, except the Ottomans did fight the Russians to a standstill and inflict horrible losses despite being hit from three sides by the British from Egypt, from the Persian Gulf and the landing at Gallipoli.

Yes, okay. I kinda sorta feel you, but not really. Remove the Russian armies on the German front, put them up against the Turks, so this time the Russians actually outnumber them.

Play the scenario again. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Now the Ottomans have no defensive needs against British forces and certainly no reason to fear naval landings while the Russian position in the Black Sea is at serious risk from even a moderate British naval force. Indeed, I am unable to find any reference to a single Russian dreadnaught in the Black Sea in WWI.

Okay.

Aside from These Three (okay, they became serviceable after the war started) there were the PDNs Evstafi and Ioann Zlatoust, Tri Svyatitelya, Rostislav and (ex-Potemkin) Panteleimon. The "Empresses" were in fact reliant on British parts, hence the delays, so a German alliance PoD may butterfly either the delay or even the entire series away. So you can have three decent BBs in 1914, in 1915, or just never.

There are additional heavy cruisers Kagul and Pamyat Merkuria, an old one "Prut" acting as a mine layer (but again, could be refitted for fighting), numerous destroyers and torpedo boats and "Almaz" acting as a plane tender.

Whatever else, you'll need a large enough force to maintain presence there even if the "Empresses" never join the rest of the fleet. That and there's Russian aviation (cutting-edge in the bombing department at the time, actually) and the Russian love for mining vast water spaces to deal with as well.

They may be old but they can mob any one or two new ships (as they proved with Goeben and Breslau) so what will happen is that any "moderately sized" Entente fleet will travel together, reducing their effect on the coast.

And even if the Russians completely refuse to come out and play, British forces are inadequate to stage dangerous landings. We have good examples from WW1 for that as well.

 

[galveston bay]

Can I play?

current game is set in the 19th Century, assumes a Napoleonic victory in 1804, and we are currently at 1844

http://s13.invisionfree.com/Napoleonic_E20/

I am not currently running the game, but assisting the two people that are

I did write the back story, which has more to do with developing an interesting situation then strict accuracy (and plausability at times stretches, but running an interesting game is important)

 

[galveston bay]

Yes, okay. I kinda sorta feel you, but not really. Remove the Russian armies on the German front, put them up against the Turks, so this time the Russians actually outnumber them.

Play the scenario again. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Okay.

Aside from These Three (okay, they became serviceable after the war started) there were the PDNs Evstafi and Ioann Zlatoust, Tri Svyatitelya, Rostislav and (ex-Potemkin) Panteleimon. The "Empresses" were in fact reliant on British parts, hence the delays, so a German alliance PoD may butterfly either the delay or even the entire series away. So you can have three decent BBs in 1914, in 1915, or just never.

There are additional heavy cruisers Kagul and Pamyat Merkuria, an old one "Prut" acting as a mine layer (but again, could be refitted for fighting), numerous destroyers and torpedo boats and "Almaz" acting as a plane tender.

Whatever else, you'll need a large enough force to maintain presence there even if the "Empresses" never join the rest of the fleet. That and there's Russian aviation (cutting-edge in the bombing department at the time, actually) and the Russian love for mining vast water spaces to deal with as well.

They may be old but they can mob any one or two new ships (as they proved with Goeben and Breslau) so what will happen is that any "moderately sized" Entente fleet will travel together, reducing their effect on the coast.

And even if the Russians completely refuse to come out and play, British forces are inadequate to stage dangerous landings. We have good examples from WW1 for that as well.

The Russians did very well at sea during the First World War, much better then their previous performance in the Russo-Japanese War would suggest. They managed to keep the Germans out of Russian waters through the use of mines in the Baltic, and occasionally sank some major units there. In the Black Sea they staged frequent raids against Turkish coastal shipping and ports and essentially denied that sea to the Central Powers until the Russian collapse.

 

[Onkel Willie]

And they squashed Austria-Hungary which were being run over until the Germans saved their butts.

 

[CheBlodgett]

Hmmm... potential for a Japanese-American front in Siberia... I don't think it'd be too hard, although Russian resources would definately help Germany, but I think Russia would be the loose brick that would bring the whole castle down.

 

[Cornelius]

Interesting discussion, but still I haven't read a single good reason why Great britain should join the entente.
IOTL Great Britain declared war to Germany only after the latter violated the neutrality of Belgium, but, as I wrote before, if A-H is member of the entente, Germany is going to concentrate their efforts against Vienna, not Paris.
We could suppose that Germany attacks France following the Schlieffen plan, but that would delay UK enter into the war at least for an year and by that time germans could decide to use a different strategy or simply had to intervene in a different theatre of operation.

Personally I don't believe that UK would join any alliance before the war itself. IOTL Great Britain never did that even when Germany, Russia and A-H had been allies. Anyway, after the russian defeat of 1905, Russia was "demoted" as main foreign fear.

Her merchant marine and fleet may or may not survive, depending on how much cowardice/common sense they display.

Grimm Reaper, please explain me why having your men slaughtered in a battle that they cannot win should be considered an act of courage. I don't understand why a choice dictated by mere common sense should considered coward, vile or such when committed by italians. Are you telling me that italians are inferior?
Surely, I've been reading too much in that post...

As for Italy and Greece - I would think a million times before joining in anything. I'd probably dishonour the alliance and wait it out until it's clear that one side is winning.

RGB, They would try to find any possible loophole for sure, but outrightly dishonouring the alliance? No one would have ever done that, short of a violent change of goverment.

 

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Interesting discussion, but still I haven't read a single good reason why Great britain should join the entente.
IOTL Great Britain declared war to Germany only after the latter violated the neutrality of Belgium, but, as I wrote before, if A-H is member of the entente, Germany is going to concentrate their efforts against Vienna, not Paris.
We could suppose that Germany attacks France following the Schlieffen plan, but that would delay UK enter into the war at least for an year and by that time germans could decide to use a different strategy or simply had to intervene in a different theatre of operation.

Personally I don't believe that UK would join any alliance before the war itself. IOTL Great Britain never did that even when Germany, Russia and A-H had been allies. Anyway, after the russian defeat of 1905, Russia was "demoted" as main foreign fear.

you bring up good points.

is there a Possible way to, say Have Britian pledge to enter the war if either Belgium or Serbia or even Austira-Hungary is attacked?

 

[Hugo]

In this TL, is there no Russian Revolution? Because food supplies will be short, even if Russia had a better infrastructure. So the people will be hungry in this TL as well. There were uprisings before....

 

[CheBlodgett]

Oi, Cornelius, I'm with you there in terms of the Italians. The nation had just been unified 50 years before and it wasn't well integrated, with the Army of the Savoy providing basically the only stable officer corps. Hell, one Italian king, regent, or something said before the unification "dress them in red, green or blue, they'll all run away the same" when his advisors were discussing uniforms. Got that from Keegan's book on the first world war. The Italians did very well for having an army that was in similar conidition to the Austrian-Hungarian Army.. not the same, but sorta similar.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the Russian Civil War? Say it starts a bit early, and we have a Brest-Litovsk between Russia and, say, OE and (maybe) Britain in 1916, after years of near stalemate in the west (German gains a bit more ground than OTL, but it's still incredibly slow)? After that, we could have Germany against Britain, France, America (joins for for same reasons as OTL; cultural ties with Britain, anger at German u-boating, etc). By this point, we can assume A-H has collapsed. Not too hard to see an Italy waiting it out decide at this point not to throw in with the now more-or-less friendless Germany. Hell, since A-H is more or less defunct at this point, we could see France and Britain promise Austrian territory to Italy. Since it's collapsed, it's not like it'd have any sort of position on the bargaining table.

 

[Lazzars]

i think an important point to make is that without an alliance between both Germany and AH the germans would not have given AH their blank cheque (obviously) and with the two eagles on their backs would they have reacted the same way to Serbia as they did in OTL?

also if there was an entente between france and AH instead of france and russia then germany would have had to undertake two invasions at pretty much the same time as they did in OTL. not knowing enough about the martial skill of the AH army of the time i couldn't comment on whether they could perform better than the russians did in OTL but i'm going to assume they could mobilise faster overall than the russians (as they did a very bad job of that) and maybe depending on how well the invasion goes within the first few months could determine whether the italians forsake the germans or not.

as has already been said the japs would play a huge role here, if the french and brits keep their entente cordial then they are more likely to go to war together against germany. now if i remember rightly the brits and japs had an alliance still at this point, with the japanese proving they were pretty much better than the russians in their war in 1905. but this could be a point where world war boils over somehow as well.

if russia was forced to fight on two fronts they might just forgo fighting in the far east after they loose vladivostok and instead focus on fighting the the middle east (persia, afghanistan and the ottoman empire). this too presents its own problems, again i am assuming but i would guess than the rail system is worst in the non european parts of russia and the railways are already bad as it is. russia might not play a large part in any war until seemingly late on.

 

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

also if there was an entente between france and AH instead of france and russia then germany would have had to undertake two invasions at pretty much the same time as they did in OTL. not knowing enough about the martial skill of the AH army of the time i couldn't comment on whether they could perform better than the russians did in OTL but i'm going to assume they could mobilise faster overall than the russians (as they did a very bad job of that) and maybe depending on how well the invasion goes within the first few months could determine whether the italians forsake the germans or not.

I'm alittle Iffy, and I don't have my WWI book with me right now, But i think A-H was in a slightly better milltery situation than Russia.

as has already been said the japs would play a huge role here, if the french and brits keep their entente cordial then they are more likely to go to war together against germany. now if i remember rightly the brits and japs had an alliance still at this point, with the japanese proving they were pretty much better than the russians in their war in 1905. but this could be a point where world war boils over somehow as well.

well, the Russian navy probably isn't going to split itself between Atlantic and Pacific, especially if they're facing the Royal Navy. so Japan might have an Edge.

if russia was forced to fight on two fronts they might just forgo fighting in the far east after they loose vladivostok and instead focus on fighting the the middle east (persia, afghanistan and the ottoman empire). this too presents its own problems, again i am assuming but i would guess than the rail system is worst in the non european parts of russia and the railways are already bad as it is. russia might not play a large part in any war until seemingly late on.

Good point. Russia can sacrifice some of It's Eastern Bulk, but as the war drags on, that sacrifice may turn around and bite them on the arse.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

i think an important point to make is that without an alliance between both Germany and AH the germans would not have given AH their blank cheque (obviously) and with the two eagles on their backs would they have reacted the same way to Serbia as they did in OTL?

Yeah, but WWI was going to happen sooner or later, anyway. There was a huge amount of international tension at the time; if no major crisis from the Austrians, another one would've sprung up in the next year or two somewhere else.

also if there was an entente between france and AH instead of france and russia then germany would have had to undertake two invasions at pretty much the same time as they did in OTL. not knowing enough about the martial skill of the AH army of the time i couldn't comment on whether they could perform better than the russians did in OTL but i'm going to assume they could mobilise faster overall than the russians (as they did a very bad job of that) and maybe depending on how well the invasion goes within the first few months could determine whether the italians forsake the germans or not.

The Austrian army was kinda bad. Emperor Franz Josef was a bit of a pacifist. He knew that he had to maintain an army, of course, but only spent on it reluctantly, so it wasn't very high quality. I can't say how fast it would mobilize, but it wouldn't be that much better off than the Russians, in any case. It also depends on where the crisis starting WWI springs from.

 

[Antiago]

Interesting discussion, but still I haven't read a single good reason why Great britain should join the entente.

Well, German industry was already bigger than the British ( I think ) so they maybe chooses to 'Balance Europe' to insure the final stop of German economical advance by supporting France and AH.
Or was they still in their European total pacifism stage?

These are just suggestions and I cannot say I'm an expert on the area