If not in 1914 then when?

Russia's problems were not military,

Well, if we look at all those Russian victories in WWI :rolleyes:

they were social and economic. Yes, Russia was industrializing, but at an alarming rate. People were literally thrown off there ancestral lands if they didn't produce enough food, forcing them into the cities. The cities became overcrowded and the workplace conditions were absolutely horrendous.

Now, where's the difference to industrialization as it happened in the UK? Or in Germany? Or nowadays in China? Strikes, turmoil, granted. But overthrowing the csar by a bunch of communists? No way, this required WW1 to happen.
 
Very perplexed about all this doom and gloom for Russia. Economic growth brings a sense of national well-being, and whilst in its foundations the Russian economy was underpinned by French loans, it was generating its own wealth by 1914, and the expansions were bringing to the fore a leading industrial class within the country.

Germany has the growing problem of the SPD within the Reichstag, and there is going to be pressure to bring them into government if they keep on getting a higher percentage of the electoral returns.

Bulgaria just got stomped in its revenge war - its not going to start another one, and in OTL only joined in WW1 after the failure of the Dardanelles Offensive had made it seem that the Entente was not likely to win. It has ambitions in all directions, so can afford to sit and wait if a crisis breaks out, see who offers it the best deal.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I think both side would benefits and be challenged by moving the war into the future.
Yes Russia was a rising star economical, but one of the CPs had even greater growth Austria-Hungary. While AH are going to have much of the same problems as OTL, it greater economical and industrial growth will have two positive aspects, the growth of the Social Democrats which will likely be transnationale (they were in Germany, where Danish and Polish Social Democrats was more loyal to unity of the party than to their respective nations), and as source of production for the german war machine (so even if AHs army make the same mistake as OTL, it would be a net benefit for the CPs). Beside that Germany are still growing faster than France so France are going to be worse and worse position the farther the war move into the future. Political Germany stand before some big changes, SPD are almost sure to gain power in the next few elections, which will mean reforms of German political system, and strengthen internalism versus nationalism. Likely we see something like that happeniong with Socialists in France too, making a war more unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, if everyone seems to become less likely to go to war it might make Russia more likely to go it alone against the Ottomans, reckoning that it won't drag in the Triple Alliance against it. This may be especially so if Britain is deeply drowning in Ireland, and Germany just got its first SPD Chancellor.

Of course, things might change once the war is underway, but if the first acts do not bring about instant declarations, then you have more of a Crimea Part 2 than an analogue to OTL WW1

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Well, if we look at all those Russian victories in WWI :rolleyes:

While I don't actually think that revolution was inevitable even without the war, Russia did win military victories. It wasn't in a state of continuous military disintegration: rather, huge blunders were made in 1914, the ramfications of these in combination with a supply crunch meant much of the combat zone had to be abandoned in 1915, but in 1916, Russia's economy bit its lips, the army was reconstituted, and it went back on the attack with some success.

In January 1917, the Russian army was quite capable of keeping what it had, but began to come apart as the state did. The military was indeed crippled by political, social, and economic failure. I maintain, however, that that failure would not have happened, at least not in at all a similar way, without the war.

Now, where's the difference to industrialization as it happened in the UK? Or in Germany? Or nowadays in China? Strikes, turmoil, granted. But overthrowing the csar by a bunch of communists? No way, this required WW1 to happen.

Absolutely. Yelnoc was very incorrect to assume that the "Bolshevik revolution" was coming in a few years. Whethe rthe Tsarist regime survives or not, the Bolsheviks were fairly marginal on the Russian far left before the war, never mind the left in general.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
To say that would be a tad bit ignorant of the situation. Russia's problems were not military, they were social and economic. Yes, Russia was industrializing, but at an alarming rate. People were literally thrown off there ancestral lands if they didn't produce enough food, forcing them into the cities.

The cities became overcrowded and the workplace conditions were absolutely horrendous. If the Great War did anything it postponed a revolution. Now that revolution would most certainly be a democratic one, much like February. The Great War rallied the Middle class and upper class behind a common banner of pan Slavic fervor and nationalism, the lower classes cared little about it only that they were going to be doing the fighting.

Russia would continue its industrial advances but by 1915 look for large scale strikes in Moscow and St. Petersburg (whose name won't change) and look for those strikes to be suppressed harshly, followed by yet another disorganized revolution much like 1905

But if the Middle Class (which was very small) had not been caught up in a nationalist frvor, they would probably join the protests. Russia would be forced down the reformist path.
 
But if the Middle Class (which was very small) had not been caught up in a nationalist frvor, they would probably join the protests. Russia would be forced down the reformist path.

Why? You just pointed out they're a small element of the population. Not to mention that I don't see why they would join the protests - they're doing alright, and it's pretty rare for middle class people as a bloc to be sympathetic to violent working class oiks on strike unless they have some serious grievances of their own too.
 
Again, the biggest losses in the war were not blamed on the Czar, in fact Tannenburg, Mansurian lake, and the great retreat all happened under his uncle. It was after that when nicholas took over. In fact the greatest loss of like, the brusilov offensive, was a shot in the arm for the Czar (even though he royaly screwed the pootch on that one by not sending in the other two army groups)

Well maybe not the Czar, but wasn't one of the main reasons the Kenesky administration lost all its credibility was its unwillingness to make peace? or am I just completely wrong?

But yeah, barring another random and unforeseen crisis like Franz's assassination the war would probably start off between Russia and the Ottomans, If it looked like Russia was going to win you can bet that they'll be a race between several of the Balkan states to see who gets Thrace and Istanbul.
 
I agree that the most probable outcome would be a slightly delayed World War.
The tension were so much piled up that only a slight igniter was necessary.
Of course, the precise date and circumstances may be consequential ...


It seems to me that the long-term perspectives of Germany are underrated.
True, in terms of armament relative to the other powers, it can hardly become any better for Germany than IOTL in 1914.
But note that Germany had a very dynamic economy at that time, which in peace would leave France, Britain, and Russia far behind in a decade or so.
I don't think that the SPD was so much of an internal problem - after all, they even agreed to the war loans. The SPD of 1914 was already becoming tame - being a German worker at that time was certainly not an enviable situation, but they had far more to lose than their chains by that time.
The biggest problem for Germany is that it focussed too much on its military, and too little on its actual chance, namely international trade.
 

Susano

Banned
There were also speculations on this forum, in earlier threads, that France might not be able to bear its speed of its arment programm in the 20s anymore and that Russian development might not be all that stable, either (which would mean WW1 was in the worst possible time window for Germany). I cant quite remember the arguments for that anymore, though...
 
I'll be writing short vignettes set in a world where a later and less bloody World War I happened.

Prologue: All the Yesterdays Past
January 1st 2010
Santa Barbara Sheraton International Resort
Santa Barbara, California
United States of America

The fifty-fifth annual Global Conference was taking place in the main conference room of the resort. The heads of state and government of all the Great Powers and most of the minor powers were present. All of them were dressed somberly in top hats and tweed suits for the conference. Wine was being served as the delegates began taking their seats. The President of the Conference Miguel Castanavos of the Kingdom of Spain began his opening speech in perfect English:

“My fellow Terrans, to-day we have met once more in the interest of human unity and global reconciliation. First of all I would like to thank the resorts for letting us use the hotel for this conference. Many problems still remain unsolved in this new year but overall the Global Unity Plan is fast making progress. We may be able to introduce a global currency starting in 2015. However first let us discuss the main problems facing us to-day. First of all is the territorial dispute between the German and British Empires over the German Southwest African and South African borders. The Conference’s Grand Council has decided it to be arbitated at the Hague this May. Does everyone acquisece?”

The German Emperor and Chancellor along with the British Prime Minister nodded to themselves as they took generous helpings of the Santa Barbara county wine. Only the French President, Le Crouex and the Ottoman chancellor refused the wine. Castanavos went on in his speech of various minor problems in this near-perfect globe now reaching eight billion souls. He then went on to speak of global progress. He spoke of the global life expectency reaching 73, of the establishment of the Mars base last year, of the building of great international colonies in the Amazon basin. With that Castanavos finished his speech and stepped off from the podium in a shower of great applause. Outside of course rain fell on Southern California but inside in the comfortable setting everyone bathed themselves in the warmth and comfort and the fellowship of diplomacy. Each year progress continued and had so for sixty-five years since the end of the Second Great War and the Trans-Pacific War.
 
There were also speculations on this forum, in earlier threads, that France might not be able to bear its speed of its arment programm in the 20s anymore and that Russian development might not be all that stable, either (which would mean WW1 was in the worst possible time window for Germany). I cant quite remember the arguments for that anymore, though...

1914 and France had just launched an insanely ambitious naval building programme covering a potential 3 classes.

You could also look at naval stats elsewhere and ask how the nations involved economies' deal with this - Greece, the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary and Italy

It would be interesting if there was an economic crash in the late teens brought abuot by these

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
If you avoid the war for the time being, there is - as was already stated - no trigger for the Russian revolution.

However, there have been upheavals in Russia even before the war.
It is doubtful if and when an ultimative revolution will take place;
but in any case, social differences and autoritarian exertion of power
was more pronounced than in the rest of Europe. That is not exactly
a warrantor of stability ...
 
If you avoid the war for the time being, there is - as was already stated - no trigger for the Russian revolution.

However, there have been upheavals in Russia even before the war.
It is doubtful if and when an ultimative revolution will take place;
but in any case, social differences and autoritarian exertion of power
was more pronounced than in the rest of Europe. That is not exactly
a warrantor of stability ...

I think it's worth pointing out that in the Soviet period, a totalitarian state presided over a transformation of society, with perhaps the greatest military disaster in the history of the world being thrown in for good measure, and never suffered any crippling unrest, let alone overthrow.

There are many major differances, mostly making the Tsarist state less stable, but still, there is no guarantee that the Tsarist state can't survive.
 
There are many major differances, mostly making the Tsarist state less stable, but still, there is no guarantee that the Tsarist state can't survive.

The difference that makes Tsarist Russia less stable is they were less relentless. They had at least some moral. and respect for human life.
 
Top