Delayed ww1

BooNZ

Banned
The Russian modernization may have started in 1906, but it only ever picked up in 1912. It was in that that year that the Russians began their military reform, began a vast industrialization effort, and began a vast railroad building effort. The latter two funded by French loans. I agree with you that the Russians would in no way be unstoppable, but I strongly disagree that they would fail just as they had in 1914. The Russians were not even halfway through their military reform at that time, and had they been allowed to complete it (in 1917) the Russian military would become a far more formidable force capable of defeating the German army. But that doesn't mean that 10 out of 10 times they would win.

From 1908 to 1912 total Russian military spending exceeded total German spending (including significant naval costs). From 1913 German military spending started to exceed total Russian military spending. From what I understand, most the projected increases in Russian budget would have been absorbed by increases in the size of its standing army, so it could be mobilised quickly. This would not have addressed the inherent deficiencies in the Russian Army, demonstrated repeatedly OTL...
 
A CP victory requires not only that the Russians fail offensively, but that they fail defensively also.
Apart from the blunder of the initial offensive agaist Prussia, the Balance of Russian operations in 1914/1915 against Germany, the Ottomans and A-H is not that bad. (A-H suffered 2.100.000 casualties in 1915, according to Philipott)

Yeah, but the "all-conquering unstoppable Russian steamroller" people often invoke requires Russian sucesses on the offense. Otherwise the only way the Russians win is if the Germans die of boredom.
 
Yeah, but the "all-conquering unstoppable Russian steamroller" people often invoke requires Russian sucesses on the offense. Otherwise the only way the Russians win is if the Germans die of boredom.

No really. As WW1 demonstrated, wars can end in two ways. One is military victory, the other is regime change.
Imperial Russia was brought down by regime change in OTL, but A-H was periously close to it in 1917 (some gov members expected colapse within months) before gaining an extra year when events in Russia gave them a life extension.

A-H would not last much longer than OTL in any attricional war, and in an alternate later WW1 there is no garantee it would outlast Imperial Russia.
Its colapse would leave Germany alone and without prospects for victory, which is never good when you have a non representative government.
 
No really. As WW1 demonstrated, wars can end in two ways. One is military victory, the other is regime change.

Wars can end in a lot more than just two ways.

Imperial Russia was brought down by regime change in OTL

I think that the ongoing disastrous war and the long line of Russian defeats had something to do with that as well...

but A-H was periously close to it in 1917 (some gov members expected colapse within months) before gaining an extra year when events in Russia gave them a life extension.

A-H would not last much longer than OTL in any attricional war, and in an alternate later WW1 there is no garantee it would outlast Imperial Russia.
Its colapse would leave Germany alone and without prospects for victory, which is never good when you have a non representative government.

This rests on the assumption that Russia would last longer than OTL somehow.
 
Wars can end in a lot more than just two ways.

Not often. Most wars end when one side wins (ties are rare) and victory is either gained because one side loses in the battlefield, or renounces the war because of regime change. feel free, of course, to give examples of relevant exceptions...

I think that the ongoing disastrous war and the long line of Russian defeats had something to do with that as well...

Imperial regimes were obsolete in 1914 and war proved democracies to be more resilient. The history of the russian revolution is well know, how close the A-H, and the even the IG leaderships were to loosing control during the war not so much

This rests on the assumption that Russia would last longer than OTL somehow.

Most of the Russian defeats in 1914 were the consequence of supporting the French in an effort to derail the Schliefen plan, in which they can be argued to have been a very costly, but not futile, exercise. In a later WW1 with a diferent plan a Russian army focusing on defending from the germans and attacking A-H would be a totally diferent preposition.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Imperial regimes were obsolete in 1914 and war proved democracies to be more resilient. The history of the russian revolution is well know, how close the A-H, and the even the IG leaderships were to loosing control during the war not so much

OTL the Entente (Britain, France and Russia) had overwhelming advantages over the Central Powers in terms of the size of economies, size of industry and access to manpower and trade. OTL Russia collapsed and without the appearance of the USA, France would have done likewise. Also, without the appearance of the USA, the Entente likely would have run out of funds to maintain their war effort.

Clearly the Entente "democracies" were far less resilient in terms of warfare than their CP counterparts and would have lost without the intervention of the USA. Clearly one should not judge societies on the ability to wage war alone. If we compare imperial Germany to pre-ww1 UK, Germany was a world leader in the fields of science and also had the most progressive social welfare system in the world. Generally the differences between rich and poor were less pronounced in Germany, when compared to upstairs, downstairs UK.

Further, pre-WW1 the economies of 'obsolete' regimes such as Germany, A-H and Russia were enjoying far higher growth rates than the UK and France. On balance, I don't think WW1 proved democracies were better than anything.
 
Top