Imperial Russia's WW1 war aims

Does anyone know what Russia's war aims were in the event Russia was victorious? I have never found anything internet or otherwise that even suggests what they might have wanted.
 

Stalker

Banned
Russia never aimed at East Prussia as the war trophy.
Galitsia is a different kettle of fish. Add control over the Black Sea Straits and Constantinople. Russia had always been obsessed with the idea of controlling the Straits and Constantinople. Britain on the other hand, even being Russia's ally, would be extremely unwilling to let the Russians lay their hands on such a prize. ;)
 
Does anyone know what Russia's war aims were in the event Russia was victorious? I have never found anything internet or otherwise that even suggests what they might have wanted.
Russia didn't go to war to GAIN anything. They went to war to support Serbia. Oh, sure, if they won, they'd love to get hegemony over the Balkans and/or Constantinople, but that's not why they went to war.
 
Russia didn't go to war to GAIN anything. They went to war to support Serbia. Oh, sure, if they won, they'd love to get hegemony over the Balkans and/or Constantinople, but that's not why they went to war.

Casus Belli is differant from war aims. Britain went to war over Belgian neutrality, and that didn't stop us immediately saying "right, we went the Cape-to-Cairo line".

I believe Galicia was probably a given, with Bukovina if Romania didn't get it. East Prussia, nope. What would the Russians want with a slab of Germany which Germany would be most unwilling to part with? If they adjusted the German frontier at all, which is in doubt, they'd want the Polish provinces. Duchy of Warsaw borders, and perhaps something in Upper Silesia, although that's likely since Poznan contains very little of any importance to Germany wherea US is insanely valuable.
 
Little territorial gains for Russia, its gains are all through the other slavs gaining. German/Austrian Poland is about it I'd imagine.
 
Casus Belli is differant from war aims. Britain went to war over Belgian neutrality, and that didn't stop us immediately saying "right, we went the Cape-to-Cairo line".

??Ya, but stopping the Huns was the real war aim. The other stuff was gravy for a peace conference, no? Isn't a "war aim" 'why I'm fighting the war/what I want to get out of it'? A kind of strategic reason where the actual 'casus belli' is a tactical even, as it were? And I would say that Russia's support of Serbia was, indeed, a strategic geopolitical stand.
 
??Ya, but stopping the Huns was the real war aim. The other stuff was gravy for a peace conference, no? Isn't a "war aim" 'why I'm fighting the war/what I want to get out of it'? A kind of strategic reason where the actual 'casus belli' is a tactical even, as it were? And I would say that Russia's support of Serbia was, indeed, a strategic geopolitical stand.

A war aim is "what I want to get out of it." "Why I'm fighting it" is a Casus Belli. The Casus Belli was the Serbia issue. The war aims included the survival of Serbia, but that sort of goes without saying.

But then, these terms aren't in a book of rules. You're entitled to your interpretation, but I do think mine is the literal meanings of the terms.
 
A. J. P. Taylor in his “The Struggle For Mastery In Europe 1848-1918” mentions several Russian war aims which their leaders broached from time to time during the war. I found the mention of Hanover very quixotic leading me to believe that Nicholas II, for the sake of his Danish mother, might also have insisted a defeated Germany cede Schleswig-Holstein in its entirety back to Denmark which would be in keeping with his “Mainz” remark below.

(Page 527): “The Russians fought to perserve the free passage of the Straits, on which their economic life depended”

(Page 532): The Russians were in a different case. Though they invaded east Prussia for the sake of their French allies, they had no serious ambitions against Germany herself; their concern was to destroy Germany’s link with the Near East, the Habsburg monarchy, and they would welcome any assistance for this purpose.”

(Page 536): “…Russia and France, too, wanted to turn their backs on Europe. Therefore all were committed to the destruction of Germany as a Great Power.”

(Page 538): “The Russians were hardest put to it to devise practical claims against Germany; in essence, they asked nothing from her except to be left alone while they destroyed Austria-Hungary. Any territory they took from Germany would be inhabited by Poles; and though they had promised on 14 August (1914) the revival of the Polish nation ‘free in its religion, its language, and its internal administration’, they were reluctant to put this promise into practice. Therefore they fell back on vague talk of ‘destroying German militarism’: Prussia must be dismembered and, as a sop to supposed English sentiment, Hanover must be restored.”

(Page 539-540): “The Russian military men, in occupation of Polish Galicia and much disliking it, urged that they had nothing to gain from defeating Germany; control of the Straits seemed to them the only prize worth fighting for.”

(Page 541): On 4 March (1915) he (Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov) formarly demanded of his two allies that the Straits and adjoining territory be included within the Russian empire.”

(Page 542): (On 5 March 1915) “Nicholas II said to Paleologue(France’s ambassador to Russia): ‘Take the left bank of the Rhine; take Mainz, go further if you like.’ “

(Page 543): “The Russians claimed a further reward for approving this agreement (the Franco-British Sykes-Picot agreement): they were allotted Armenia and Kurdistan (16 Sept 1916).”


(Page 545): “(Russia) Having estranged Bulgaria by keeping her out of Constantinople in 1913, he (Sazonov) now hoped to win her over by the offer of Macedonia, which was in Serbian hands; and the Serbs would have to be mollified by great gains on the Adriatic. More vaguely, Sazonov saw the shadow of a union between Italy, Hungary, and Rumania, which would threaten his own project of a Slav confederation in the Balkans…. (Page 546)”Still Sazonov would only compromise: he gave up the Croat part of Dalmatia (to Italy), but demanded southern Dalmatia for Serbia.”

(Page 556) Allied war aims presented to President Wilson on 10 January 1917: “The Entente therefore demanded ‘the liberation of the Italians, as also of the Slavs, Rumanians and Czechoslovaks from foreign domination and ‘the freeing of the populations subject to the bloody tyranny of the Turks’. They thus committed themselves to the dismemberment of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires.”

(Page 556-557): “France should receive the coal-mines of the Saar as well as Alsace-Lorraine; and the rest of the left bank of the Rhine should become ’an autonomous and neutralized state’, garrisoned by French troops. In return, Russia should be free ’to fix her western frontiers as she wished’. By this agreement of 14 February 1917 France made at last the sacrifice which Napoleon III had always refused and which the Third republic had hitherto evaded. She abandoned Poland to Russia for the sake of the Rhine frontier.”
 
A good resource here is Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy by David Stevenson. Contains a whole chapter on war aims for all the major powers, and if I can remember (the book is not with me atm) several paragraphs devoted to Russia's aims.

In short Russia wanted the straights, Constantinople, and a greater degree of hegemony in the Balkans; they had no interest in annexing any part of Germany. Tsar Nicholas' obsession was with gaining access to the Mediterranian.
 
Would they really have wanted to formally make Istanbul and the straits part of the Russian Empire? Or just maintain control over the rights of passage?
 
I actually saw a map of their claims, I believe posted on this very forum. Unfortunately, I can't find a single trace of it. It actually looked quite a bit like their claims in WWII, except replace Poland with more Russia. If anyone can dig it up, I'd be much obliged.
 
Russia's aim in the Bosporus was I believe to colonize the area with Cossacks and turn it into a neo-byzantine puppet state. Here is a map that you are thinking of?
Europe_map_1919.jpg
 
Debated whether to post a new topic concerning the subject but decided to just ask those visiting the subject area already.

Let's say the Allies are victorious in WW1 only with Russia staving off the Revolution. The Western powers have to own up to all their promises to Russia. How does this affect the map of Central and Easter Europe? Also ... how would this effect the alliance system(s) of the time? Such a Russia is going to quickly set up all kinds of ties and alliances to the smaller Slav states that spring out of A-H? Would she have any need for the French alliance? Would France and especially the UK be able to stand Russian control the straights? Backing up, would such a colossus creating a 'cold war' fear of East versus West? What kind of possibilities open up for a Post War Germany eventually? Do American interests and decisions change?
 
@lonewulf: I imagine they'd be so unstable and so indebted to the Entente they'd need to keep the alliance going for at least a little while.
 
If Russia made it through the war without revolution it would be one major feat onto itself. Although for the sake of argument if they did, I cannot see the straights being made 'Russian' territory; i.e with America in the war you might see the area made into a Danzig-style free territory administered by the League (Britain and France would not accept Russia having land on the Mediterranian, along with the USA). Border changes would be miniscule thanks to the national self determination clause Wilson wanted to be used to determine territorial changes (and he could not be ignored at this stage in the war either way thanks to the huge amount of troops the USA was now supplying). Such a result would make Russia into the eastern version of Italy, angered that her demands had not been met and probably would be the death of the Tsar.
 
Does anyone know what Russia's war aims were in the event Russia was victorious? I have never found anything internet or otherwise that even suggests what they might have wanted.

Russias foreign policy has always pretty much been the same.
Things like
-Buffer Zone in eastern europe
-Ports in baltic
-Some hegemony in the balkans and control over constantinople (eg basically a mediteranean port)
-Influence in middle east
-Expansion in afghanistan
and so on are all constant themes of russian foreign policy

The justifcations have changed depending on who was tsar/leader of the politburo/president etc etc but the aims are pretty similar.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I consider it well documented that controlling the Bosporus was a first priority strategic aim, as was free passage in and out of the Baltic through the Danish straits. The last was formally secured by the Treaty of London of 1851 (or 52, anyway just after 1st S-H war). Reducing Germany to a state where Denmark wasn't obliged to be a de-facto vassal of Germany would also ensure that Denmark not as in OTL WWI on German request fortified and mined the Baltic entrances.

If Istanbul/Constantinopel somehow was taken I guess the Turks living there would suffer a fate similar to the Armenians and Greeks who during/after WWI were either killed or deported.

The big question is however how GB will handle a victorious Russia. Russia only was displaced as "Primary threat to the Empire" because Germany worked hard on being worse. With Germany, at least for some time pacified, Russia will not only be back as a power on collision course with the Empire, but with access to the high seas to be so.

The Russian industrialization, which in OTL had the biggest growth rate pre-WWI also must be expected to carry on, and a glance at the pre-WWI Russian naval plans will reveal that the Russian Navy would reveal that it would not be much short of the Kaiser’s navy in challenging the Royal Navy.

The British simply will have to rethink their entire strategic set-up. I guess the British-Japanese alliance has a good chance to survive, and the British probably would like Germany back in business ASAP. A Washington conference on naval disarmament will certainly have to include Russia, but it will be even harder than in OTL. Not only is Russia unlikely to let herself restrain, now the after centuries hard work finally has grabbed a chance, but the British will in this ATL have at least one genuine threat to their Empire. So if USA as in OTL suddenly finds herself stuck with an unbalanced and obsolescent navy expansion, I’m afraid they will be met with: “We need our navy, and you do with yours whatever you need to!”.

I really can’t see this developing into a war between USA and the British Empire, as long as the British leave the Americans to be Americans on their own two continents. Seen from early 20th century USA had a background of long and successful isolationism, mixed with general dislike of colonialism. I doubt if you on that background could find political support for throwing USA into a renewed imperialist race – no matter on what side. But the scenario will be pretty much taken from Lenin’s textbook about imperialism, and internal rest from communist movements might easily shortcut all the imperialist contests. I could imagine W. Europe going into a huge and bloody civil war and USA perhaps providing the last minute cavalry charge on the side of the “whites”.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Top