Europe's relations with Russia in case of no World Wars

Which route does Europe take?


  • Total voters
    66
The Straits are only one of three important chokepoints in the Mediterranean. In fact, they are the least important one. Britain controls the other two - Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. Two out of three ain’t bad. They didn’t have the Suez Canal and Egypt during the Crimean War.
Britain was just as keen on controlling the Mediterranean as it was the Atlantic, and there was no Suez Canal during the Crimean War. The Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet was on its own one of the most powerful navies in the world throughout the 19th century.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Britain was just as keen on controlling the Mediterranean as it was the Atlantic, and there was no Suez Canal during the Crimean War. The Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet was on its own one of the most powerful navies in the world throughout the 19th century.
That’s my point. The Mediterranean has changed significantly since the Crimean War, and even with the Straits Russia still couldn’t overpower Britain, not in the Mediterranean, not in the Pacific, not in the North Sea, and probably not even in the Baltic.
 
But Europe never united to keep the United States out of European affairs did it?
Well the US rise as a global power did coincide with European unification (thought for completely different reasons), and the US isn't right there bordering them.

But you're right, countries such as France which have no clash of interests with Russia could see this as an opportunity, not a threat


About the Straits, I still don't agree. If absolutely forced like in WW1(when Britain promised Russia the straits) then sure they might give in. But there's absolutely no reason why Britain wouldn't try everything that it doesn't come to this, since they went to war and threatened to go to war over precisely that multiple times in the 19th century
 
Having lost faith in the ability of the Ottomans to hold against the Balkan League, GB was looking at an Alliance (Yes like Japan and Portugal) with Greece. This was due to Greece’s competency as a naval power in the eastern Med. The deal would probably include handing Cyprus to Greece while GB acquired Argostoli as a base to bottle the Austrians in the Adriatic. The Russians may have removed the Straits as an impediment but still have a nest of hostile islands in the Aegean.
 
Having lost faith in the ability of the Ottomans to hold against the Balkan League, GB was looking at an Alliance (Yes like Japan and Portugal) with Greece. This was due to Greece’s competency as a naval power in the eastern Med. The deal would probably include handing Cyprus to Greece while GB acquired Argostoli as a base to bottle the Austrians in the Adriatic. The Russians may have removed the Straits as an impediment but still have a nest of hostile islands in the Aegean.
That's interesting. If so, I could see the British pushing Greek claims to Constantinople and Smyrna in order to bring the straits more firmly under their control in a way that could be sold to the Russian and general European public as hard to refuse. Given enough incentives, I suspect the Russians could be convinced to allow it, even if they only intend to do so temporarily. France, I have no idea. It'd have to be sold to the French public pretty well for the French government to be compelled to go along. The Germans, I expect, would be happy enough to see a wedge driven between the Russians and the British and the Russian fleet continuing to be bottled up. Austria won't be particularly happy, but may take the opportunity to further integrate Bosnia and assert more influence in the Balkans. Italy, Spain and the other middle powers are unlikely to care overmuch, while minor powers may like the precedent being set.
 
Last edited:
Having lost faith in the ability of the Ottomans to hold against the Balkan League, GB was looking at an Alliance (Yes like Japan and Portugal) with Greece. This was due to Greece’s competency as a naval power in the eastern Med. The deal would probably include handing Cyprus to Greece while GB acquired Argostoli as a base to bottle the Austrians in the Adriatic. The Russians may have removed the Straits as an impediment but still have a nest of hostile islands in the Aegean.
Interesting, what's the source on that becuse I have never read anything on that but I'm far from well read on this.
 
If so, I could see the British pushing Greek claims to Constantinople and Smyrna in order to bring the straits more firmly under their control in a way that could be sold to the Russian and general European public as hard to refuse.
Not really, it was limited to the Greeks controlling all the Aegean islands including the Dodecanese islands that theItalians held. The other complication was that Cyprus was ‘Turkish’. The overall strategic intent was a base closer than Malta and the Greeks were used for bases all throughout the First World war by the Allies.

The Russians would never accept Greek control of Constantinople and vetoed the use of Greek troops in the proposed Gallipoli campaign.
 
A important aspect is that while Russia would be the biggest winner in demography and economics in no World Wars, they wouldn’t be the only ones, Germany and AH would both have over 100 million people each, France would likely have a population of 70-80 million people and that’s if we ignore their empire and the positive and negative of this. UK would likely be similar in population as in OTL, but with UK still being the main financial center of the world, their deindustrialisation siuld likely have been less painful.
 
A important aspect is that while Russia would be the biggest winner in demography and economics in no World Wars, they wouldn’t be the only ones, Germany and AH would both have over 100 million people each, France would likely have a population of 70-80 million people and that’s if we ignore their empire and the positive and negative of this. UK would likely be similar in population as in OTL, but with UK still being the main financial center of the world, their deindustrialisation siuld likely have been less painful.
That's a bit far off into the future, the 500+/100+/100+ million numbers, late 70s or 80s. I suspect Germany will have the atomic bomb by the mid to late 30s, at which point the conventional war making potential of Russia ceases to matter as any conflict with a credible military power will be nuclear.

Imo, by 1925 or so Russia would be peer with Germany, by 35 with Germany, A-H and the Ottomans. So there's a bit of a window of opportunity for the Franco-Russian alliance. What would the British do? Would they be preoccupied by an Irish civil war or troubles in India? Or would they pivot towards Central Powers after the Russian pull something in China/Central Asia?
 
A important aspect is that while Russia would be the biggest winner in demography and economics in no World Wars, they wouldn’t be the only ones, Germany and AH would both have over 100 million people each, France would likely have a population of 70-80 million people and that’s if we ignore their empire and the positive and negative of this. UK would likely be similar in population as in OTL, but with UK still being the main financial center of the world, their deindustrialisation siuld likely have been less painful.
Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand will also all have received much more European migrants, and thus would likely have higher populations. Less diverse, but higher. There may also be a boost to these countries, and the US and Latin America, when the greater number of white settlers in other colonies largely leave during decolonisation, which I'd expect by the 80's and 90's at latest, if for no other reason than that indirect control is significantly cheaper than direct rule. If Britain binds the dominions more closely, either as allies or in an imperial federation, they'd boost Britain's power and influence significantly. Without the world wars, the myth of empire and the identity as Britons overseas isn't discredited, or is less discredited. Additionally, the colonies would be a boost the population of London at least, as it'd be the world city to people from the Empire, its position as a centre of trade, finance and culture unchallenged by New York.
The cultural and scholarly importance of Berlin would be undamaged by the wars and Nazism, and it wouldn't be divided, so it'd be bigger to. Italy, meanwhile, would probably continue its prewar migration patterns for a bit longer (young men, usually from the mezzogiorno, go to Northern Europe or the Americas for work, save up enough money to buy land, then return home and buy land) and without fascism Italy would urbanise sooner (fascist Italy discouraged urbanisation because unemployed and underemployed rural people are easier to brush under the carpet and ignore than urban unemployed and underemployed people, who tend to form mobs), and probably in an even more uneven way than it did OTL, when there was at least some effort to encourage industrialisation in the South post war. That said, without the depression, perhaps sustainable industries might be able to develop in the South, redirecting migration towards Naples, Catania and other southern cities. Much depends on how the government in Rome plans for the future. Either way, Italy likely has a higher population, and thus more weight to swing around.
France definitely has a higher population without losing so much of two generations of young men. They also probably keep at least some of Algeria, giving them a foothold in Africa and reason to be wary of any attempt by the Turks to use Islam as a political tool. They may also try to integrate more overseas departments than iotl. Depending on how it's handled, and how tightly France tries to hold onto her colonies, this could either be a boost to their power or a lengthy quagmire that entangles and distracts France for a generation or more.
The Balkan nations will also have higher populations, and thus more influence and likely more advanced economies. Depends really on whether the region remains relatively stable with occassional squabbles leading to either diplomatic spats or short, sharp wars, or is a perpetual hotbed of conflict and proxy wars.
 
That's a bit far off into the future, the 500+/100+/100+ million numbers, late 70s or 80s. I suspect Germany will have the atomic bomb by the mid to late 30s, at which point the conventional war making potential of Russia ceases to matter as any conflict with a credible military power will be nuclear.
There was something of a tendancy in the antebellum world towards codifying the laws of war and banning certain weapons and acts, see the Hague and Geneva conventions, the first of which were pre-wwi. The great powers might agree among themselves to ban nukes as inhumane, while quietly maintaining the ability to create them relatively quickly. Even during ww2 there was debate about the ethicality and safety of atomic weapons. From memory, there was serious concern that the first test would ignite the whole atmosphere. Without the level of desperation of the second world war, it may well be judged too risky by everyone.
 
There was something of a tendancy in the antebellum world towards codifying the laws of war and banning certain weapons and acts, see the Hague and Geneva conventions, the first of which were pre-wwi. The great powers might agree among themselves to ban nukes as inhumane, while quietly maintaining the ability to create them relatively quickly. Even during ww2 there was debate about the ethicality and safety of atomic weapons. From memory, there was serious concern that the first test would ignite the whole atmosphere. Without the level of desperation of the second world war, it may well be judged too risky by everyone.
No World Wars does not mean no wars at all, for example you can have a nice little war in Manchuria against Japan, it's far away and logistics is difficult at best, so there's plenty incentive to use any advantage there is, for example poison gas, to win this rematch.
 
No World Wars does not mean no wars at all, for example you can have a nice little war in Manchuria against Japan, it's far away and logistics is difficult at best, so there's plenty incentive to use any advantage there is, for example poison gas, to win this rematch.
But without a world war, th other great powers and their presses will turn on and condemn you, and may apply economic and diplomatic penalties. Without the existential threat of a world war, your allies are unlikely to censor their presses to spare your blushes, and then are unlikely to be able to resist the public pressure to punish you in some way for your inhumanity.
 
But without a world war, th other great powers and their presses will turn on and condemn you, and may apply economic and diplomatic penalties. Without the existential threat of a world war, your allies are unlikely to censor their presses to spare your blushes, and then are unlikely to be able to resist the public pressure to punish you in some way for your inhumanity.
I'm not sure European press would care all that much about gassed Chinese civilians or Japanese soldiers. It's not like they gave much of a damn about the regular pogroms against jews much closer to their own countries.
 
A important aspect is that while Russia would be the biggest winner in demography and economics in no World Wars, they wouldn’t be the only ones, Germany and AH would both have over 100 million people each, France would likely have a population of 70-80 million
Of course all other countries would have a higher population too. But Russia would be the relative winner.

I suspect Germany will have the atomic bomb by the mid to late 30s, at which point the conventional war making potential of Russia ceases to matter as any conflict with a credible military power will be nuclear.
Even if we assume nuclear weapons develop and everyone has them that doesn't change inherent power dynamics. Pakistan and China are both nuclear powers, there's no doubt that China is more powerful and exerts it's influence over Pakistan.

France and the US are both nuclear powers too, there's no doubt which one is more powerful.
 
Even if we assume nuclear weapons develop and everyone has them that doesn't change inherent power dynamics. Pakistan and China are both nuclear powers, there's no doubt that China is more powerful and exerts it's influence over Pakistan.

France and the US are both nuclear powers too, there's no doubt which one is more powerful.
That has more to do with Pakistan being a basket case that depends on foreign states to even function as a state, and China provides these "services" because Pakistan is useful to them. South Korea too is very small and is not in the Chinese camp despite everything, i'd not expect Germany to become dependent on Russian goodwill either no matter what happens.

Frace/USA is a remnant of the World Wars, kept up by good diplomatic relations and large trade that influences the decision of the French business (=ruling) elite weather or not they wish to stay bound to the USA. The USA was useful to them to bind Germany to the West so they're not a danger any more and and to repel Soviet influence. Militarily the French have always been very confident, and that one time even left Natos command structure, the French politicians said something along the lines that they have enough nukes to destroy everything important in the Soviet Union, so it doesnt matter that the Soviets can destroy every village in France, the same applies to France/USA.
 
I'm not sure European press would care all that much about gassed Chinese civilians or Japanese soldiers. It's not like they gave much of a damn about the regular pogroms against jews much closer to their own countries.
Far away peoples about whom we know nothing and frankly could care less than that, would be the attitude. Unless it suited the government of the day's purposes to make a fuss.
 
That's a bit far off into the future, the 500+/100+/100+ million numbers, late 70s or 80s. I suspect Germany will have the atomic bomb by the mid to late 30s, at which point the conventional war making potential of Russia ceases to matter as any conflict with a credible military power will be nuclear.

Way too early IMO. It took until the mid-1940s OTL with the richest country in the world pouring money into during a world war. In TTL there is no such push for it. Mid 1950's is the earliest I would think. It could be Germany but it could also easily be GB or France.
 
More likely nuclear power by the 30’s. Developing a nuclear weapon would cost several years of their defence budget to realise.
 
Top