Germany does not invade Belguim in 1914. What does Britain do?

[Aphrodite]

Once War was declared, they didn't wait, Attacks started August 7th with the Battles of the Frontiers, and 10 days later towards East Prussia, three days later against East Galicia. Russian Mobilization started on July 30th.

hundreds of thousands of Russian troops were not yet fully equipped due to lack of transport on the 17th, despite collection of private horses and wagons, along with the few trucks and autos, starting August 1st.

And this is Otl when the Germans clearly were going west and Joffre thought a preemptive attack the best defense. The Russians honor their comitments to attack East Prussia and draw off the Germans

In a German East scenario, all that changes. Joffre has to realign his troops and the Russians move to Case G.

Where are you getting this ? In every WW1 thread you have a completely different perception of reality than most other users.

I don't understand your scenario. So Russia and France wait until Russia is fully mobilized.

Germany deploys 2-3 armies (lets assume 2 so that the West is strongly defended) to the East and the rest to the Western Front with a reserve for a possible French offensive into Belgium.

Germany starts fielding another Army and Russia and France attack when both are fully mobilized.

The attack into Eastern Prussia would be a disaster with 2 defending German armies. Either one or even both Russian armies are destroyed. This would alleviate pressure from A-H because Russia would be forced to shift at least one army to the German front.

So there is no way that A-H breaks and Germany has enough troops to better press their advantage during the Munition crisis later on.

And I don't understand how France is supposed to threaten Germany. If they avoid an attack through Belgium they are limited to the narrow border region. Given their performance IOTL I don't see how they would break through here.

If they attack Belgium we are probably going to see some nasty diplomatical consequences and I still doubt that the French Army could break the German reserve armies who would rush to Belgiums aid.

How is removing Britain from the occasion and assuming a more defensive stance the recipt for a German disaster.

France is basically free to execute their offensive plans which is bound to be a disaster and Russia isn't going to perform better than IOTL but with stronger opposition.

Without an earlier and wide reaching POD France and GB need to roll a series of sixes to avoid a disaster in 1914. Crushing Germany is deep in ASB territory from my PoV.

Given the population and the military expenditures Germany has more available potential. Even if Russia and France significantly raise military investments Germany has simply more breathing room left to intensify the arms race.

The scenario here discussed is no German wank. A German wank would be "no naval arms race", " Germany raises conscription and military spending to french levels" and a more balanced strategy with enough troops in the East.

In this scenario, why are the Russians and French attacking Germany at all? With only two armies in the East, the Germans are no threat to Russia and they aren't attacking France either. The Russians will fully mobilize their twelve armies and slam into Austria first while ignoring the Germans in East Prussia


My opinion might differ from some on here, however the German High command agrees with me as did every military leader of the time. There is simply no German East plan because they thinks its awful. The Germans make it clear that they will attack France even if France is neutral-. They demand that France turn over Toul and Verdun if they want to be neutral. that's how bad they think going East is.

The Eastern deployment that is cited around here is a German contingency for a war with Russia and a neutral France. It is not as made out to be an "East first" option. The Germans think the whole idea so bad they scrap work on it

Amusingly, this has become the secret path to certain German victory around here. To get there requires many absurdities such as the Russians not noticing the Eastern deployment and marching off to disaster at Tannenburg. Ever read a "German East first victory that doesn't include that one? Even though the Russians have lans drawn up for the event, they just throw them in the garbage and march to their doom

On the Western front, Joffre just keeps to his same plan and the Germans just have to wait for him in their secure trenches- which of course ignores the whole nature of trench warfare and that it will take Joffre at least a week to redeploy his forces to avoid Belgum



Not going any further on this here. This thread is not another rehash of the military operations in a German East war plan. It is about British foreign policy in such a scenario. I'll give you the proof latter in the week when I have more time

As for France and GB need to roll a series of sixes to avoid a disaster in 1914- even in OTL with joffre's idiotic strategy, France and Britain have chances to win the war in the West. The French do have an opportunity to capture the German 3rd army and then there is the gap at the Marne. It doesn't take much change in strategy for the French to make up for the loss of the BEF and still come out on top. Really, all he has to do is just what he does OTL to recover at the Marne before the Battles of the Frontier rather than afterward



.

 

[MichaelWest]

Oh, even without the British, Germany could not win the war quickly. It would take at least a year or two, and lots of casualties.

But win, she would.

On this we agree, I fear too many people see the fall of France in 1940 when that could only occur in violation of the objective here, kill the drive through Belgium, even then it takes one more roll of a perfect six for Germany to make the right hook work. And here with more German divisions fighting Russia the war is not Barbarossa, the pace is slow and Russia is mauled but German Cavalry is not riding into Moscow. I think we can give the CPs some sixes here and the war is painfully obviously lost by 1916, France can stay fighting so long as Russia absorbs German attention but Russia will be breaking, the real fear is a separate peace and all those Germans shipped West to crush France. Who blinks first?

And what is victory? Germany has territory occupied in the East but has to share with A-H, only a few square kilometers at best has been taken from France, hell let Germany get some great counter offensives off and gobble up a few tens of miles more into France all over the frontier, the iron ore patch is in German hands, hardly a wank. What does Germany offer France to twist her arm? More importantly what is France prepared to offer to appease Germany before she reorients to invade France? And how exhausted is Germany from breaking Russia? And what pressures are the UK and even the USA potentially putting into a settlement?

Again, I ask what does this victorious Germany do to Britain? This is not fall of France, she is not annexing France and still bottled in the North Sea, her might is trapped on the continent. Is it me or is the fear for Britain irrational? This is not 1940, these are not kacked out vengeful Nazis coming, yet Germany winning stirs the very worst for the Empire? Other than some slaps for not joining Germany, what can the Kaiser take from his Majesty? And if the leadership in London is really that frightened then who are these spineless jellyfish at the helm? It sounds like a Germany wank by virtue of grovelling England handing away the Empire and wringing the hands over how hopeless it is to defend the island. I am sure the very next move is invasion! Find the Sealion tab and ASB away! Sadly I do not find much meat on how the post-war situation goes, the debate rankles over how impossible it is for Britain to skirt the carnage yet be savaged if she does rather than what the Liberals and likely next a new Government does to position the UK for a war between the other biggest players.

 

[Athelstane]

Again, I ask what does this victorious Germany do to Britain? This is not fall of France, she is not annexing France and still bottled in the North Sea, her might is trapped on the continent.

Germany will be far happier with their new Mitteleuropa than more expensive colonies abroad. And too economically damaged by the war to be in the mood for some new effort to knock the British Empire down a peg.

 

[Anchises]

And this is Otl when the Germans clearly were going west and Joffre thought a preemptive attack the best defense. The Russians honor their comitments to attack East Prussia and draw off the Germans

In a German East scenario, all that changes. Joffre has to realign his troops and the Russians move to Case G.


In this scenario, why are the Russians and French attacking Germany at all? With only two armies in the East, the Germans are no threat to Russia and they aren't attacking France either. The Russians will fully mobilize their twelve armies and slam into Austria first while ignoring the Germans in East Prussia


My opinion might differ from some on here, however the German High command agrees with me as did every military leader of the time. There is simply no German East plan because they thinks its awful. The Germans make it clear that they will attack France even if France is neutral-. They demand that France turn over Toul and Verdun if they want to be neutral. that's how bad they think going East is.

The Eastern deployment that is cited around here is a German contingency for a war with Russia and a neutral France. It is not as made out to be an "East first" option. The Germans think the whole idea so bad they scrap work on it

Amusingly, this has become the secret path to certain German victory around here. To get there requires many absurdities such as the Russians not noticing the Eastern deployment and marching off to disaster at Tannenburg. Ever read a "German East first victory that doesn't include that one? Even though the Russians have lans drawn up for the event, they just throw them in the garbage and march to their doom

On the Western front, Joffre just keeps to his same plan and the Germans just have to wait for him in their secure trenches- which of course ignores the whole nature of trench warfare and that it will take Joffre at least a week to redeploy his forces to avoid Belgum



Not going any further on this here. This thread is not another rehash of the military operations in a German East war plan. It is about British foreign policy in such a scenario. I'll give you the proof latter in the week when I have more time

As for France and GB need to roll a series of sixes to avoid a disaster in 1914- even in OTL with joffre's idiotic strategy, France and Britain have chances to win the war in the West. The French do have an opportunity to capture the German 3rd army and then there is the gap at the Marne. It doesn't take much change in strategy for the French to make up for the loss of the BEF and still come out on top. Really, all he has to do is just what he does OTL to recover at the Marne before the Battles of the Frontier rather than afterward
.

1) Why would the Russians abort their attack on East Prussia ? And how on Earth could they "ignore" German armies ?

Russia sends all its Armies against A-H and Germany marches into the Empire unopposed ?

Why did they attack IOTL ? You are applying hindsight here. With 2 German armies in the East Russia can still easily reach numerical superiority and I doubt that they would dig trenches with superior numbers.

Just ignoring 2 German armies is ASB territory. Oh and France might demand offensives against the Germans too in case they need relief.

2) They make these harsh demands against France because they don't believe into French neutrality. It is basically an unreasonable demand to ensure that France is a combatant from the start instead of a surprise attack later.

The whole concept was a quick victory in the West because was France was seen as the weaker enemy.

With a more cautious Commander it is not unresonable to assume that the GGS would send 1-2 additional armies to the East. Simply to protect Silesia/ Eastern Prussia and to create the opportunity to relieve A-H in case they need support. They would havw probably done that IOTL but they lacked the troops in the East.

3) How is France supposed to win in 1914 without the BEF against Germans who don't overextend themselves?

Germany won't go through Belgium as stated in the OP.

France can either smash into the border defenses repeatedly which will create high french losses OR attack through Belgium. Attacking through Belgium is a different can of worms strategically and diplomatically. If they do it they have to fight the Belgians and the German reserves. I don't see them reaching penetrating deep into Germany. They might very well overextend themselves though opening up possibilities for a limited German counter offensive.

 

[Glenn239]

Germany will be far happier with their new Mitteleuropa than more expensive colonies abroad. And too economically damaged by the war to be in the mood for some new effort to knock the British Empire down a peg.

Given that Germany historically was ready for another go after only 20 years, it's hard to see how it couldn't be ready in a couple years had it won a shorter and less costly war.

 

[Athelstane]

it's hard to see how it couldn't be ready in a couple years had it won a shorter and less costly war.

Not so hard for me to see.

Germany is probably still looking at a million-plus casualties and a mountain of debt.

More to the point is the politics that will flow from the dramatic change in German society that would flow from even this more limited war. Demands will be very loud for more Reichstag power. The SPD would likely win the next election. Their interest will be far more on domestic reform than a new naval race with Britain.

 

[MichaelWest]

And here we're closing slightly in to one of my "pet objects" :
the Gladstone treaties of 1870

These two identical treaties with France as well as Prussia to guarantee belgian integrity "guaranteed" France as well as Prussia unanimous british military "partnership" against whoever might violate belgian integrity.
- If France violates Belgium => Britain would side with Prussia
- If Prussia violates Belgium => Britain would side with France

I could envisage, that Belgium would be quite pleased and mybe might even bring up such a proposal in a prolonged time without hostilities (the about 2 weeks/12 days France needed for proper mobilisation. You remember ? 14th day from begin of mobilisation hostilities ahve to commence according to the franco-russian alliance).

And I think we see the rare genius in his designs, this should secure for the British dominance for generations. It makes her a super power neutral, above the fray and locking the French and Germans in a stand-off such that neither can focus upon the British. I think we still have the Franco-Prussian War, that notches Germany up but the logic remains, the French and Germans vying while Britain is without friends or enemies, only her interests to pursue. And what if they proclaim neutral rights here, possessing the largest merchant marine, the British can sail the seas unafraid, trading with any state to great profit, the RN protecting British and other neutral shipping, the belligerents benefit enough to leave her be. The only danger is a reconciliation between France and Germany or more likely a German-Russian compact to free them from the mutual standoff. I look forward to your British Empire wank, it might be epic!

 

[MichaelWest]

Joffre definitely retreats to the fortress line and pulls an Army out of Alssce to create the sixth army. He also orders a retreat to the Marne. You confuse "defensive" with being passive. There is no sitting in trenches and waiting along the whole line. I have never understood your concept of trench warfare which violate all the rules of war. No commander would ever conduct himself in the way you suggest

The French and Russians are outbuilding Britain by 80%. Many earlier British dreadnoughts are becoming obsolete and they are way inferior to what the French and Russians are building. Since France has a worldwide network of bases and can't be easily blockaded, she represents are far more challenging enemy than Germany could

The Kaiser's military training and knowledge of the military situation in 1914 is astronomically superior to yours or mine. I wouldn't dismiss his opinions without strong proof to the contrary especially when every senior military officer on the continent

And yes I did read the title of the thread. Did you read the entire post I wrote and deliberately quote me out of context? Because it was clear that I was referring to the situation OTL. Everyone know that Germany will invade Belgium and that the wavers will come aboard.

Now read what I wrote would happen in the TTl. Something about France asking Britain to join an ultimatum




This will never work. First, the French and Russians would wait until Russia completed its mobilization. The hammer is likely to fall on the Austrians and the Germans would be stuck trying to attack two fully mobilized enemies

All French attacks OTL are defeated by superior numbers which wouldn't be the case in your scenario

To be honest I find it rather bizarre that the French will abandon the entire offensive doctrine here and retreat. You may be correct in hindsight but I see no argument for such a change of heart or strategy. In fact I would argue that German inaction should propel the French to carry this war to the cowardly Germans and result in the same strategic failure the French saw in the Battle of the Frontiers.

Here I am at a loss for why an apparent Franco-Russian naval build-up is less threatening to Britain's position than the petering German effort. First, a German naval build-up is consistent with her matching Russia and France, her enemies, and why do the French or Russians need such a luxurious fleet when the RN is at hand in the alliance? What do her allies intend to do with their juggernaut that benefits Albion? Better still I am impressed at cowardly Britain snuggling up to France here, what else shall she give to France to assure that they do not turn upon her? I thought Britain won the war against Napoleon?

On the one hand Wilhelm is a dangerous lunatic and on the other a prophetic visionary, the moves you give him play to your script, if I suggest his mercurial inclinations have him decide against invading Belgium because the King is a nice chap you say it cannot be. If he was such a brilliant chess player why did he blunder so badly and why does he not see how avoiding Belgium ties the British in knots, contains France to a narrow front and free him to play victim by letting Russia launch a war it cannot win. Or is he only half-genius?

It is hard to reconcile this, but I gather you have Britain at war no matter what may come and I do not disagree that such an argument is sound, I even lean that direction with you, but that is not precisely the topic at hand, how do the hawks bootstrap themselves into a war when their one overt condition is failed ab initio? Without Belgium what is the reason Britain still goes to war? If you say baldly honor I can agree, if you say stupidity, I can agree, but then why is France not going to throw the BEF at the Germans and hope for the breakthrough you have argued for? And why not let Wilhelm let them throw themselves upon the wire, stand against the machineguns and run into the raining artillery? Once they tire his Generals will counter-attack and Germans are rather masterful at fighting on the defense and exploiting that to counter blow, in fact they built their reputation on being damned hard to defeat and damned good at winning just that sort of war.

To date I find your moves laudable but the pedantic France will prevail and Britain will conquer all stance needs some actual flesh to alter my position. I am waiting for it, I am wanting it, because I do hate to simply disagree.

 

[MichaelWest]

Given that Germany historically was ready for another go after only 20 years, it's hard to see how it couldn't be ready in a couple years had it won a shorter and less costly war.

What is she going for? Her supremacy and more vitally her security on the continent is now secure, she has a circle of cowed nations and advantageous trade relations, her erstwhile ally in Vienna is still badly wounded and asking for more than her fair share in spoils, France is very unlikely conquered, merely reduced to irrelevance, and Russia might not have collapsed into civil war and emerged the USSR. Britain was annoying in her lack of true friendship but then the English were regarded as unreliable, but her Empire is the market place, London is still the world's banker, Germany is going to sit at the table a peer, she might bluster and act a bit more pompous, but what does Wilhelm want? Germany will take the same 20 years to recover her economy, but that will be from more industry and trade, what is left to conquer? And how does the public not evolve? Will the democracy not deepen and the citizenry not ask for more say? I read too much of OTL events after Versailles in this argument, that Germany had designs on conquering the world, it is only a matter of time before we all learn to speak German?

 

[marathag]

nd here with more German divisions fighting Russia the war is not Barbarossa, the pace is slow and Russia is mauled but German Cavalry is not riding into Moscow.

But they don't need to.
Japan didn't need to march to Moscow to get a settlement in 1905.
That's what 2nd Reich Germany needs, a Russia out of the War and ending support for Pan-Slavism in the Balkans, not subjugation and annihilation as the Nazis desired. The Germans wanted Russia weakened, not destroyed.

 

[MichaelWest]

So with Belgium not being invaded on August 4th, what do they do with their field army? Do they continue to mobilize? How fully mobilized where they OTL at this point?

And what do Albert and the Government do diplomatically?

I would argue they mobilize and prepare for war, the German feelers have made them nervous and a shit pile of German troops are massing beyond their frontiers to the South, I think the assumption that someone will cross Belgian territory to or from Luxembourg is a given, and the diplomacy continues to beg Germany to back down. And when the Germans fail to march on Belgium but war has opened all down the Franco-German frontier Belgium bites it nails. The British make noises about coming to defend Belgium and France has felt her up for a free pass to get at those Germans, we all speak French after all? Belgium looks this way and that uncertain who will use her to out flank the stalemate deepening in the Frontier War, but as Germany moves East and it becomes obvious some greater portion of her Army is going to take on the Bear little Belgium can relax her stance and only worry seriously about French duplicity or desperation. She hopes now to sit the war out, profiting from selling her butter to Germany who is building guns, Antwerp is a transit point for neutral shipping and innocent goods. Belgium may tire from the French machinations to get her to betray Germany and invite the wrath of the Kaiser who has proven the only one not dastardly enough to violate her, in the clutch Wilhelm honored the neutrality.

 

[Anchises]

What is she going for? Her supremacy and more vitally her security on the continent is now secure, she has a circle of cowed nations and advantageous trade relations, her erstwhile ally in Vienna is still badly wounded and asking for more than her fair share in spoils, France is very unlikely conquered, merely reduced to irrelevance, and Russia might not have collapsed into civil war and emerged the USSR. Britain was annoying in her lack of true friendship but then the English were regarded as unreliable, but her Empire is the market place, London is still the world's banker, Germany is going to sit at the table a peer, she might bluster and act a bit more pompous, but what does Wilhelm want? Germany will take the same 20 years to recover her economy, but that will be from more industry and trade, what is left to conquer? And how does the public not evolve? Will the democracy not deepen and the citizenry not ask for more say? I read too much of OTL events after Versailles in this argument, that Germany had designs on conquering the world, it is only a matter of time before we all learn to speak German?

I would mostly agree. If Germany wins they have everything they want for the moment. Especially because they are tired and any new conflict would be more damaging than profitable.

And once they actually assume the responsibilities that winning brought them they are probably completely busy with holding their new sphere together. Crisis is already looming in the Middle East, in A-H and in Russia. With a possible Bolshivist Revolution, a civil war waiting to happen in A-H and the weak Ottoman Empire Germany is going to be busy in the coming decades...

We would possibly see a British-German Detente. The new continental hegemon and the old naval hegemon would probably find common ground pretty soon. The necessities of power...

I would disagree with your calculation that Germany needs 20 years to recover its economy though. The war was shorter, much less costly in treasure and blood and the devastating effects of Versaille never unfolded ITTL. Germany still has a fully intact merchant marine and no reperations to pay. Possibly even recieves reparations that would help to get the state finances in order again.

But they don't need to.
Japan didn't need to march to Moscow to get a settlement in 1905.
That's what 2nd Reich Germany needs, a Russia out of the War and ending support for Pan-Slavism in the Balkans, not subjugation and annihilation as the Nazis desired. The Germans wanted Russia weakened, not destroyed.

If some sort of Russian Empire survives it would be actually beneficial for the German Empire. White Generals/the Tsar/Cadets would be infinetly better than crazy Bolsheviks hellbent on closing Russian markets and spreading Communism.

I don't think that Germany would allow Russia to retain its Eastern European holdings though. At least not in Poland, not in the Ukraine and not in the Baltic States.

The days of Nicolaus are over if he lost the war and most of the Eastern European holdings of the Empire. The Nationalism that swept Russia in 1914 quelled the unrest but a bitter and costly failure will reignite it very quickly. If Russia settles with Germany in 1915/1916 there might be enough room to prevent the rise of the Bolsheviks (or another radical force ITTL).

In 1915 the economy might be salvagable enough to calm the unrest and the army might be strong and loyal enough to crush uprisings.

In 1916 the Whites might have a better and more unified base to win a civil war. Especially with German support.

 

[MichaelWest]

And once they actually assume the responsibilities that winning brought them they are probably completely busy with holding their new sphere together. Crisis is already looming in the Middle East, in A-H and in Russia. With a possible Bolshivist Revolution, a civil war waiting to happen in A-H and the weak Ottoman Empire Germany is going to be busy in the coming decades...

We would possibly see a British-German Detente. The new continental hegemon and the old naval hegemon would probably find common ground pretty soon. The necessities of power...

I would disagree with your calculation that Germany needs 20 years to recover its economy though. The war was shorter, much less costly in treasure and blood and the devastating effects of Versaille never unfolded ITTL. Germany still has a fully intact merchant marine and no reperations to pay. Possibly even recieves reparations that would help to get the state finances in order again.

If some sort of Russian Empire survives it would be actually beneficial for the German Empire. White Generals/the Tsar/Cadets would be infinetly better than crazy Bolsheviks hellbent on closing Russian markets and spreading Communism.

I don't think that Germany would allow Russia to retain its Eastern European holdings though. At least not in Poland, not in the Ukraine and not in the Baltic States.

The days of Nicolaus are over if he lost the war and most of the Eastern European holdings of the Empire. The Nationalism that swept Russia in 1914 quelled the unrest but a bitter and costly failure will reignite it very quickly. If Russia settles with Germany in 1915/1916 there might be enough room to prevent the rise of the Bolsheviks (or another radical force ITTL).

In 1915 the economy might be salvagable enough to calm the unrest and the army might be strong and loyal enough to crush uprisings.

In 1916 the Whites might have a better and more unified base to win a civil war. Especially with German support.

Indeed, winning is not always the brass ring, becoming the continental hegemon might prove a bitter pill. Indeed, I feel Germany and the UK have more in common and a beneficial relationship to build than any recourse to war. Given how far a bled yet victorious Britain went post-Versailles and then to appease Hitler, I cannot fathom how an untouched Britain does not presume it will still be the dominant partner in the future. And I am pessimistic for sake of argument, but in truth I think this Germany roars back to life. Going to a fiat currency and internalizing her debt would give her entire banking structure a leap forward, her industry should have access to resources and markets, even without reparations Germany should be poised for an economic windfall. And yes all that will throw cold water on the Empire-wank that should be waiting, Britain will be squeezed between the USA and Germany something ugly, but she is healthier for this race.

And I desperately hope for an enlightened Russia, even a surviving monarchy but true democracy to take her into a future. But I still allow for Russia to hold out long enough to doom herself, that is the irony, as I see it the more it is argued that Germany cannot win so quickly the Russians get deeper in the abyss. And I do agree, Germany will peel off the non-core Russian turf, likely taking the Baltics at minimum, Poland and Finland should get out of Russian dominance, the Ukraine too, but there is room for even that to scale back. In any event, here A-H is better mixed in and moderating German gains. Is it rosy for Eastern Europe? Maybe not but they do avoid the otherwise screwing they got.

 

[Athelstane]

To be honest I find it rather bizarre that the French will abandon the entire offensive doctrine here and retreat. You may be correct in hindsight but I see no argument for such a change of heart or strategy. In fact I would argue that German inaction should propel the French to carry this war to the cowardly Germans and result in the same strategic failure the French saw in the Battle of the Frontiers.

I agree. Everything we know about Joffre says he will pursue Plan XVII with every last measure of cran he has in his bosom straight up the rugged hills of Lorraine and Alsace until he's piled up the better part of a million French casualties.

 

[Hammurabi]

Why is it immediately assumed that Russia looses against Germany?

I cannot think of any scenarios where Germany knocks Russia out of the war in any capacity.

 

[Athelstane]

And I desperately hope for an enlightened Russia, even a surviving monarchy but true democracy to take her into a future.

Your only real choices in Russia - barring long-term civil war - will be either a socialist SR state, or a populist integrist one, like in Carlton Bach's outstanding timeline. A democratic regime simply is not in the cards for Russia at that juncture. An illiberal society is going to end up with an illiberal government of some kind.

 

[Athelstane]

Why is it immediately assumed that Russia looses against Germany?

I cannot think of any scenarios where Germany knocks Russia out of the war in any capacity.

Because Russia actually DID lose in our history, even with Britain, Italy, and Japan joining the Entente?

 

[Anchises]

Your only real choices in Russia - barring long-term civil war - will be either a socialist SR state, or a populist integrist one, like in Carlton Bach's outstanding timeline. A democratic regime simply is not in the cards for Russia at that juncture. An illiberal society is going to end up with an illiberal government of some kind.

Don't you think it might be possible that illiberal democracy arisis?

A Republican strongmen is able to cut a deal between the governing party and the Generals. White Freikorps defending the Republican Government because a Restauration of the Monarchy is not going to happen.

The result is an evn more fucked up version of Weimar. It is not going to last but with a Tsarist bureaucracy and army that is not completely exhausted I could see it happening.

 

[MichaelWest]

Your only real choices in Russia - barring long-term civil war - will be either a socialist SR state, or a populist integrist one, like in Carlton Bach's outstanding timeline. A democratic regime simply is not in the cards for Russia at that juncture. An illiberal society is going to end up with an illiberal government of some kind.

And I will read that timeline for some ideas on Russia. Currently I am taking a pessimistic path on the war, ending in a stalemate, Russia goes communist and Imperial Germany gains an implacable new foe. I am hoping to be persuaded in all of this to craft a socialist led Russia that wobbles as dysfunctional as the Weimar but has the delicate seedlings of democracy and liberality that gives Russia a brighter future.

 

[Hammurabi]

Because Russia actually DID lose in our history, even with Britain, Italy, and Japan joining the Entente?

Russia lost economically in total isolation . As soon as Britian joins in this ATL the Ottomans are opened up by the BEF and Russia gets a steriod injection of global capital.

Nevermind the fact that their prewar armies dont get mauled in frontier battles.