If World War I breaks out several years later, does Russia still descend into revolution?

I agree totally. In fact, there is only one thing there that I disagree with. The next UK general election was due to happen in 1915 due to the Parliament Act of 1911, and not in 1917. Everything else I agree with. I am sure that in 1914, it looked like the liberals were going to loose that election, not least of all due to the divisive issue of Irish Home Rule. Now if Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated, and with no war in 1914, could there have been a civil war in Britain between the Irish Nationalists, Liberals and Labour on one side, and the Tories & Ulster Unionists on the other? If so, that would have major ramifications if that had happened? If not, then apart from the Tories winning in 1915, what else would have happened? And, what would the new attitudes of the Tory administration be to relations between Continental powers.

Also, if WW1 had still not happened by 1916, what would the effects of the 1916 Reichstag election be? Could you finally see an SPD majority in the Reichstag and/or a left wing chancellor imposed on the Kaiser? Was there a constitutional crisis waiting just up the road between the Kaiser and the left wing? But if there had been a major power transfer from Kaiser to Reichstag, and from right to left, would such a Germany want to get involved in any war that crops up, such as maybe an Austro-Hungarian war in which an unassasinated Franz Ferdinand tries to federalise Austria-Hungary only for the chauvinistic Hungarians to object?

I would put my money on that Austro-Hungarian War in which Franz Ferdindand's attempts to federalize the Empire are supported by the non-Hungarian ethnic groups but opposed by the Hungarians. Thus you have the civil war, and Russia might get drawn in trying to encourage Serbia to invade the southern slavic territories of the Empire? If they loose this war, there would definitely be a revolution (hopefully a non-Bolshevist one) but whether there would already be one before then, I don't know.

Yes, 1915, I was relying upon the faulty gray cells! Having read Pipisme and getting his opinion, it appears the Conservative would win that election but likely need support from the Unionists to form a coalition government. You have the likelihood that the 6 Counties are "temporarily" left out of "Dominion" Ireland. All that certainly gives us an exciting domestic backdrop beginning in 1914 to this election and beyond. I am not convinced it goes to civil war with no Great War here but I think the UK has a very rocky path ahead. I am not well read enough by far to opine what this Tory government does, but my stating assumptions are that it looks to preserve the Empire first and barring a genuine threat to that it takes a far more "isolationist" stance concerning the continental squabbles.

The other big debate might be over protectionism versus free trade as the Empire takes on more importance to Parliament, all as it struggles to reconcile North and South Ireland. I am still trying to predict how the British economy might do. Still over reliant on finance and Pound power? Unbalanced industry? Losing the race to the Germans and Americans? And now the emerging Russians, A-H and Japanese competitors?

And no matter how cliché it may be, I think Germany was poised for a shift in its democracy. The war likely accelerated it and warped it, I think it would certainly look like a crisis, but I think it does not get to 1848 levels, the SPD shows no signs of working outside the system unless it is forced to and I think the reactionaries of this era are just not in a position to provoke a civil war over it. Begrudgingly I think Wilhelm II gets dragged into a left leaning democracy that renews the welfare state, and it can use Bismarck as its guiding light! Seriously, I think Germany takes a massive shift away from the game of kings, war in future will actually be more dressed ideological and quietly tied to the notions of politicians, just like in the USA. The SPD may be hawkish or not, depends on the issue. We might see economic issues get more attention than pride of place. And here too we must question where the German industrial juggernaut goes.

I do not think A-H goes full civil war but it too should have one of its deepest inner crisis over any reforms from FF. Assuming he still gets killed in 1914, you still have the change of throne once FJ dies, A-H has a tormented future no matter what we do. But how fun to have this multi-ethnic state survive into a future Europe?
 
So with the likely leftist shifts in German politics from 1914 onwards, and the possibility of a liberal and democratic Russian Revolution, do you see these two factors making a General European War less conceivable after 1920? Were you to have an SPD led democratic Germany and a liberal Republican post-revolutionary Russia, would that make war between them impossible?
 
So with the likely leftist shifts in German politics from 1914 onwards, and the possibility of a liberal and democratic Russian Revolution, do you see these two factors making a General European War less conceivable after 1920? Were you to have an SPD led democratic Germany and a liberal Republican post-revolutionary Russia, would that make war between them impossible?

Generally I think the world might be better off if Germany and Russia had been able to transition from autocracy to democracy in a gentler manner. I feel the cancer of Communism as it developed has been as damaging generally as Fascism and the Nazis were acutely, we walk in the broken glass of that violent death. We might have had a far better chance to get a genuine global village but for the destruction of the Second World War and its roots. So I do ponder the brighter side of possibility.

There will always be conflicting interests, vanity, caprice, the prospect of war is always there but I think the tide is going out as the 1920s dawns. I do not think that an SPD led Germany is going to simply become pacifist, anymore than France or the USA or even Britain were under their liberal democratic governments, it is far more complex. The German SPD was bitterly opposed to the Communists, Republican France was best of friends with Czarist Russia, etc., and why does America support dictatorships the world over? Self-interest. The seeds of war can be found in other places but I think the climate of 1914 was one in which Kings sat at chess boards and Generals moved toy soldiers, the reality of modern industrial warfare, economics and technology were not quite top of mind for men who still rode horses. Without the war another might be easier, WWI was truly a war to end wars, but we still got another war and many more after, we live in the shadow of nuclear weapons and wars rage around the globe. I might sound utopian but I am pragmatic, these great powers were going to compete and bump into each other for generations to come, as we still do, very old prejudices, slights and prides still show their hand, I am not convinced we simply get peace, but I think 1914 shattered the possibility for a gentler evolution.
 
The war looks very different if it breaks out in late 1916/early 1917 than it does in 1914. For one Austria Hungary is even closer to collapse and the Ottomans are likely either consolidating or Ortomanizing everything in their orbit with rebellion likely in a few places. German synthetic tech is better as are (everyone's) aircraft. Submarines are more mature and the chance to choke Britain is now more real. France has or will soon introduced the Lebel semiautomatic battle rifle while Russia has a few unique tricks of its own. Armored cruisers/tanks are being perfected by the British and the US is still recovering from 1913 albeit nicely. Germany and Britain have probably divided Angola and Mozambique for themselves (maybe discovering Rhapta in the process?) while the Italians are developing their navy further.

In short it's not nearly as favorable for the Central Powers unless they seduce one of the Allies away, even then it's not a balanced fight and results likely don't vary from OTL. Russia likely has another large scale rebellion but is able to weather it thanks to a firm grip on food and guns.
 
Generally I think the world might be better off if Germany and Russia had been able to transition from autocracy to democracy in a gentler manner. I feel the cancer of Communism as it developed has been as damaging generally as Fascism and the Nazis were acutely, we walk in the broken glass of that violent death. We might have had a far better chance to get a genuine global village but for the destruction of the Second World War and its roots. So I do ponder the brighter side of possibility.

There will always be conflicting interests, vanity, caprice, the prospect of war is always there but I think the tide is going out as the 1920s dawns. I do not think that an SPD led Germany is going to simply become pacifist, anymore than France or the USA or even Britain were under their liberal democratic governments, it is far more complex. The German SPD was bitterly opposed to the Communists, Republican France was best of friends with Czarist Russia, etc., and why does America support dictatorships the world over? Self-interest. The seeds of war can be found in other places but I think the climate of 1914 was one in which Kings sat at chess boards and Generals moved toy soldiers, the reality of modern industrial warfare, economics and technology were not quite top of mind for men who still rode horses. Without the war another might be easier, WWI was truly a war to end wars, but we still got another war and many more after, we live in the shadow of nuclear weapons and wars rage around the globe. I might sound utopian but I am pragmatic, these great powers were going to compete and bump into each other for generations to come, as we still do, very old prejudices, slights and prides still show their hand, I am not convinced we simply get peace, but I think 1914 shattered the possibility for a gentler evolution.
Germany. Was. Not. An. Autocracy.
 
Germany. Was. Not. An. Autocracy.

Well it was an odd federal monarchy with a roughly democratic legislature, the point is that it was moving from historical autocracy to modern democracy, Germany was not yet what we would call a democracy in 1914 with a badly flawed franchise and an executive dominated by those born to it not elected. Had the war not intervened I think modern Germany would be a strange hybrid of American federalism and British Parliamentary institutions. One can quibble Russia was not an autocracy too, but its institutions seem even less evolved, perhaps why they did not last long.
 
Well it was an odd federal monarchy with a roughly democratic legislature, the point is that it was moving from historical autocracy to modern democracy, Germany was not yet what we would call a democracy in 1914 with a badly flawed franchise and an executive dominated by those born to it not elected. Had the war not intervened I think modern Germany would be a strange hybrid of American federalism and British Parliamentary institutions. One can quibble Russia was not an autocracy too, but its institutions seem even less evolved, perhaps why they did not last long.
It still shouldn't be lumped together with Russian Tsar could still do basically anything he wanted meanwhile the Kaiser could be and was with some regularity completely ignored by his government.
It is a serious pet peeve of mine when people call imperial Germany an Autocracy, a conservative reactionary constitutional monarchy? Sure but an Autocracy? Not really even close.
 
It still shouldn't be lumped together with Russian Tsar could still do basically anything he wanted meanwhile the Kaiser could be and was with some regularity completely ignored by his government.
It is a serious pet peeve of mine when people call imperial Germany an Autocracy, a conservative reactionary constitutional monarchy? Sure but an Autocracy? Not really even close.

I do not disagree with you. But from the vantage of American notions there was little difference. I find the cliché that the Kaiserreich was just Nazis in waiting pure rubbish. So apologies offered.
 
I do not disagree with you. But from the vantage of American notions there was little difference. I find the cliché that the Kaiserreich was just Nazis in waiting pure rubbish. So apologies offered.
No real need to apologise, I was just out to see what I perceived as an error corrected.
I don't see why the vantage of American should be valued especially when contradicted by fact. ahh yes the proto-Nazi Kaiserriech fiction is also one of my least favourite cliches out there, especially when it is paired with attempts to make the Kaiserriech look antisemitic, the irony being that Jews were doing quite well for themselves in pre ww1 Germany.
 
Last edited:
So we could have a democratic Russian republic rather than the Bolsheviks?
Much as I'd like to see that I very much doubt it I'm afraid. There simply wasn't that great a (for want of a better term for it) democratic tradition in Russia, authoritarian, centralised, rule was simply too entrenched.

However what could have happened (IMO) was a pretty weak Social Democrat government with democratic characteristics and leanings that might have kept the more extreme (both in ideology and methods) groups out of power while creating the foundations for a democratic state. There would have been very serious instabilities within such a state, ethnic and nationalistic tensions[0][1]

Then there's the potential for foreign meddling, the biggest wild card[2] in this area is Wilhelm II. Would he stand by and watch Russia fall apart?
then there's Britain and France; the former has still geo-political conflicts with Russia[3] but also familial ties with the Tsar. If Nicholas II is deposed, or personally endangered, might Britain contemplate some intervention[4]? Now in a 1915 (just to take a possible period) without a major war happening, the UK has a large navy and a small army free for meddling[5].

If Russia looks too weak, or too chaotic then it'll start looking like a take-away buffet for it's neighbours[6]. That would release a few gigaflutters of butterflies onto the course of history and perhaps start a major war.

But assuming Russia could survive the first five years, taking us to 1920, then I would be cautiously hopeful that it could modernise and democratise successfully in the longer run. The biggest obstacle would be either a belated Great War, with significant Russian involvement, perhaps as a distraction from domestic problems[7], or the probably inevitable economic adjustment and a global depression. So I'm not so optimistic about the country not falling into some from of absolutism[9] in the long term.





[0] What is up with this forum's lack of super/sub scripts?

[1] The classic ones being Poland and Finland, both of which wanted independence.

[2] Or loose cannon if you prefer.

[3] Cough, India, cough.

[4] To "restore peace" of course.

[5] Assuming said army isn't in Ireland... I refer you to the Third Home Rule Act which was only suspended due to certain events in Europe. Also the IVF, UVF, Curragh not-quite-Mutiny and Irish Citizen Army.

[6] As Sir Terry put it:
"Uberwald is like this big suet pudding that everyone’s suddenly noticed, and now with this coronation as an excuse we’ve all got to rush there with knife, fork and spoon to shovel as much on our plates as possible?"
"Your grasp of political reality is masterly, Vimes. You lack only the appropriate vocabulary".

[7] "What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution". Vyacheslav Konstantinovich von Plehve [8]

[8] "The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions". Robert Wilson Lynd

[9] Communist, fascist, nationalist, militarist, expansionist, some sort of _ist.
 

Deleted member 94680

Also, if WW1 had still not happened by 1916, what would the effects of the 1916 Reichstag election be? Could you finally see an SPD majority in the Reichstag and/or a left wing chancellor imposed on the Kaiser? Was there a constitutional crisis waiting just up the road between the Kaiser and the left wing?

The Kaiser won't have any Chancellor imposed on him as he appoints the Chancellor. You may have a Chancellor with not workable majority or a lack of support, but that's pretty much OTL for German politics leading up to WWI anyway. Also, FYI, there was already a SPD majority from 1912, so obtaining one in 1916 won't make any noticeable change.

But if there had been a major power transfer from Kaiser to Reichstag, and from right to left, would such a Germany want to get involved in any war that crops up, such as maybe an Austro-Hungarian war in which an unassasinated Franz Ferdinand tries to federalise Austria-Hungary only for the chauvinistic Hungarians to object?

I would put my money on that Austro-Hungarian War in which Franz Ferdindand's attempts to federalize the Empire are supported by the non-Hungarian ethnic groups but opposed by the Hungarians. Thus you have the civil war, and Russia might get drawn in trying to encourage Serbia to invade the southern slavic territories of the Empire? If they loose this war, there would definitely be a revolution (hopefully a non-Bolshevist one) but whether there would already be one before then, I don't know.

This Austro-Hungarian Civil War idea that continually floats around is near-ASB. FF may try and federalise the Empire (or may not, as no-one seems to know exactly what he wanted to do), but he won't do anything to the point of Civil War as that would obviously be the death of the Empire and even FF wasn't that stupid. A compromise of some kind would be found, in true A-H style.


The war looks very different if it breaks out in late 1916/early 1917 than it does in 1914. For one Austria Hungary is even closer to collapse and the Ottomans are likely either consolidating or Ortomanizing everything in their orbit with rebellion likely in a few places.

Why? War hasn't broken out and there's been no July Crisis or Russian invasion, so why would either of these be the case?

German synthetic tech is better as are (everyone's) aircraft.

Why? Wasn't in OTL, there was no real interest in the much vaunted Haber process until War made it necessary - Germany simply imported nitrates like everyone else. Aircraft would be slightly better - a few more years' experience would ensure that, but nowhere near the dedicated war machines we had in 1917 OTL without combat experience.

Submarines are more mature and the chance to choke Britain is now more real.

Why? Once again, no real experience or motivator to improve the existing models.

France has or will soon introduced the Lebel semiautomatic battle rifle while Russia has a few unique tricks of its own.

This is possible, provided they implement doctrine to take advantage, but as to Russia, I'm not so sure. Unless the unique tricks are in the field of graft and corruption.

Armoured cruisers/tanks are being perfected by the British and the US is still recovering from 1913 albeit nicely.

Tanks? Where the heck would that come from without three years of trench stalemate and the Landships Committee?

Germany and Britain have probably divided Angola and Mozambique for themselves (maybe discovering Rhapta in the process?)

Unlikely, as the negotiations died pre-war OTL and there's no reason to see them making a comeback without a radical change to the German bargaining style or diplomatic personnel. Also, it was purely aimed at 'buying' British neutrality and failed totally.

while the Italians are developing their navy further.

Granted, but so is everyone else.

In short it's not nearly as favorable for the Central Powers unless they seduce one of the Allies away, even then it's not a balanced fight and results likely don't vary from OTL. Russia likely has another large scale rebellion but is able to weather it thanks to a firm grip on food and guns.

Russian having another large scale rebellion isn't likely at all. Industrial strife maybe, an isolated mutiny possibly but in 1905 it took losing a War just as 1917 did for a large scale event to brake out.
 
Top