Could Russia have refused to protect Serbia from a A-H invasion?
- Thread starter Femto
- Start date
Femto
Banned
Could the Czar refuse and still keep his head? If he could then is a good deal. And I doubt he would be ousted for refusing to go to war with A-H and Germany. Maybe the Russians would mock him more for being a weak ruler and a cuckhold, but that's more of the same.After the failure of the russo japanese war...nopeRussian Prestige was collapsing and that was a cheap attempt of glory
Depends, if this cost all of french loans and now france demand a payment...you could say is possible a russian revolution because a default?
It is a cloudy issue, since formally the Czar could totally stop it. They can't even mobilize without the Czar's approval. And yet....informally not even the Russian Empire was an autocratic dictatorship with no other power bases. The various Ministers held considerable power and influence over both Russia and the Czar.
Femto
Banned
Why would the French ruin Russia? If they do this then they are all alone. This doesn't make any sense.
Femto
Banned
He had more powers than Willy II for sure. I doubt the ministers would commit to a titanic struggle between great powers without the support of the Czar.
Because if they backdown in the war with serbia, there not guarantees they would even support france(see the cartoon), russia unable to even play the card of slavic defender...again that was just a line of thought, if anything Russia got even worse than russo japanese war, the whole Summer Crisis was a do or never for russia
Femto
Banned
Even if they never support France in any war this would still be stupid. Having a strong Russia in East Prussia's doorstep, even if it is an isolationist one, is still a big boom of leverage that Paris would never let go.
Remember Russia planned the ultimatum because they knew the french could support them, now they backed down their own ultimatum..hardly something would give you guaranted, again if russia don't goes to war them, maybe war in 1915 or 1916...
In 1873 Germany formed the League of the Three Emperors, a grand alliance of themselves, Austria, and Russia. This alliance was aimed in part at keeping down France. After that fell apart the Triple Alliance was formed in 1882, and again Germany and Austria were included, allied with Italy. It wasn't until 1887 that France and Russia had a rapproachment that led to their alliance. Fourteen years after Germany had first tried to form a gigantic bloc, and five years after it had formed a second one.
France didn't change Europe into a set of two gigantic blocs. It formed a second one to oppose the bloc that was actively hostile to it and had been from the beginning.
Getting Back Into topic femto..yes he could refuse, but either he would need now to push a war for himself or trully do something in the next crisis, as russia prestige is now on negative numbers(ie is the new laughingstock of europe)
marathag
Banned
Well, other than the time that Napoleon put Europe on the road to two gigantic blocks.
Some Europeans were justifiably leery of France.
Interesting how Russia is at the same time the laughing stock of Europe and the most feared state because of its immense growth economically and militarily.
The best thing the russians could have ever done for themselves is to forget the Balkans and other foreign entanglements and concentrate on building up their own country. When the soviets did that in an incredibly brutal way and from much worse starting conditions they ended up one of the 2 superpowers of the world.
Edit: And as you yourself point out the Balkan involvement for Russia was a f*king prestige project. They (tsarist Russia) died for that. It was not vital for them to get involved.
Last edited:
Losing against japan and not backing your own lies(ie being the defender of slavs) cause that, again there debate how much france would have loan to russia before an economic crash kill that..again russias a literal new market at the time, so the economical growth would have happen, the development will always be unequal...
You are overlooking one thing. The Turkish Straits.
The Balkans were the key to the Straits which were viewed as absolutely, totally essential to Russian security.
After loosing to Japan sure. But a decade later everyone in Europe was sh*ting themselves from the growing might and potential of Russia.
Thats a much better point but:
1. Serbia is very far from the straits, if you are interested in those you have to look for Sofia (or Athens).
2. The reality of the matter was that Russia needed the following things in regards of the straits:
- that they are open for Russian commerce
- that they are not open for the warships of other powers (because lets face it: Russia was never going to be a top dog in naval power in the mediterranean)
Both of these can be achieved without directly owning the straits. That would be of course better and again give a lot of prestige and have religious significance. But than you would have to hold it and keep it - not easy tasks.
But the important part for this discusion is my point 1: Serbia has no significance in the question of the Straits. Russia did not back them because of that.
France was absolutely not responsible for the outbreak of the war. If anyone was it was the Austro-Hungarians, who were never interested in a peaceful settlement with Serbia, their entire ultimatum was drawn up so that it would be impossible for the Serbs to agree.
The Germans great sin was believing that their allies possessed common sense.
Just do what Russia has always done when it needs prestige, kick the crap out of the Ottomans.After the failure of the russo japanese war...nopeRussian Prestige was collapsing and that was a cheap attempt of glory
They did try to fold that into OTL WW1 and it...kind of worked? For awhile?