Is a Russo-German Alliance unbeatable?

Germany and Russia are the most populous nations in Europe and are both extremely powerful. Britain and France got lucky that the two of them went at it TWICE in which ensured German defeat.

Say they decide to work together in either WWI or WWII. After all, Germany's main problem was France (Alsace-Lorraine) and Russia's main problem was Britain (the Great Game) so an alliance could easy be formed in both wars on a "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" deal.

Is there any way a coalition of countries could beat the alliance if the wars start in 1914 and 1939 as OTL?
 
Russia + Germany in WWI sounds plausible, but you have to factor in the result of the October Revolution. Would the new government still support Germany? Perhaps they would just pull out of the war. If so, eventually the Allies will win and the Versaille treaty looks the same, just it takes longer. If Russia stays with Germany to the end, there will still be an Armistice, but more in Germany's favor. Also, since Japan was allied to the Entente during World War One, would Russia invade Japan? Would Japan be pressured to stay neutral, or even join Russia and Germany?

This deserves a timeline.

As for Germany + Russia in World War Two, the Russians would help the Germans take the Middle East. Then the Russians have Persia and the Germans have North Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.

At this point the U.S. decides to declare war, fearing fascist/communist world takeover. Japan fights the US in the Pacific, this time with Russian naval help. They still lose, but Burma is doomed. Japan takes SE Asia and India is invaded from the west by the Russians and from the east by Japan.

Japan will eventually invade Australia, and Germany will try to take Britain, but America will help defend and they will not fall. Then we build the A-bomb and win.
 
In 1939, such a coalition is probably impossible. Hitlers final goal was Lebensraum, and as the Russians already knew from his books, that new German Lebensraum would be Russia.

For a German-Russian coalition in some first world war, the Germans have to decide between Austria-Hungary and Russia. They tried to be allied with both but gave up against Russian wishes - with time passing by, however, such an agreement is simply unsustainable. Now if the Germans opt for Russia, that implies that Austria-Hungary is on the other side. Which in turn brings in Romania, Serbia, Montenegro and Italy. Quite a nice coalition with a good chance to end the dual monarchy early in any future war.

On the other side, Germany and Russia allied brings Britain safely on the opposite side. Japan and the Ottomans might be enemies of Russia.

A main problem though is that on the long run, such a coalition, if successful, would be dominated by Russia, not Germany. A Brest-Litowsk like situation in the East actually is the best case scenario for powerful Germany.
 
The big problem with a 1914 German/Russian alliance is that Russia wanted investment and industrial assistance, which Germany saw early on would rapidly make Germany the junior partner in the Alliance. France was willing enough to accept this in the name of beating Germany, but Germany is unlikely to accept it. Especially since Lebensraum and Drang nach Osten are hardly Nazi inventions. Plus, the Great Game is more of a collective delusion on the part of a portion of the British public than anything serious blocking Russo-British Alliance.

As for a 1939 alliance...well, you'll need a lot of low probability events to get an alliance that isn't constantly planning a mutual backstab.

As for whether they are invincible if the Alliance actually forms...no. In 1914, Russia is still too weak and unstable while by 1939, the USA has grown too strong. Certainly it's an alliance to fear, but still quite beatable.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Both Onkel Willie and yours truly have written TLs that describe a feasible German-Soviet WWII alliance (here and here), while Onkel also wrote a WWI German-Russian-Italian Triple Alliance (here). The WWII super-Axis indeed requires to remove Hitler and his crazy Lebensraum plans at some point, and the Entente screwing up during the Phony War to provoke Russia into joining the Axis (plans to intervene in the Winter War and bomb Baku did exist, you just have to bring them to fulfillment). My TL puts Japan in the Allies, while OW leaves them in the Axis. It is a war that the Allies can't really hope to win, short of using their nuclear deus ex machina, and there are many ways that it may fail to deliver ultimate victory.

As it concerns the WWI alliance, it requires Germany making the decision to prefer Russia and Italy to Britain and Austria as their allies of choice in the 1870s. OW's TL uses a Congress of Berlin PoD where Germany decides to favor Russian interests against Austrian ones. Russia is pleased and Austria alienated, so a German-Russian-Italian Triple Alliance forms. Another possible one may be Prussia and Italy doing better in 1866, and fighting France together, so they form a strategic partnership and Austria remains hostile, forming an alliance with France. Faced with the Franco-Austrian Entente, the German-Italian bloc forms an alliance with Russia. Victory for this Triple Alliance is not guaranteed, but very likely, since Austria would be quickly overrun, and then the CPs would be free to use their superior resources to overrun France and Turkey, without really fearing British blockade anymore.
 
Last edited:

Shackel

Banned
Well, if butterfliesmake capitalism more powerful, it could make an "Anti-Capitalism" alliance.

Or Hitler gets shot in WWI. Commy Germany.
 
Germany and Russia are the most populous nations in Europe and are both extremely powerful. Britain and France got lucky that the two of them went at it TWICE in which ensured German defeat.

Say they decide to work together in either WWI or WWII. After all, Germany's main problem was France (Alsace-Lorraine) and Russia's main problem was Britain (the Great Game) so an alliance could easy be formed in both wars on a "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" deal.

Is there any way a coalition of countries could beat the alliance if the wars start in 1914 and 1939 as OTL?

No, in fact it somewhat implausible and perfectly defeatable and arguably makes Germany's position weaker in 1914. Few Points.

1. Germany can not attempt a fast victory against France because it would leave a long, undefended southern border against Austria - in fact it is Germany who will be on the defensive against the Franco-Austrian offensive in a two front war. France will be spared from the destruction of much of it's industrial goodies being in the way of the front. Austria will be quicker to mobilize than Russia with French capita that OTL went to Russia. Much of Germany's industrial regions are near the Austrian border of which Germany will be very hurt if it loses (like France OTL).

2. Russia will be slower to mobilize here than in OTL because of lack of French investment in exchange for lower quantities of German investment (German capita investment over broad was limited and went mostly to itself while French investment often went overseas to Russia).

3. The Ottoman Empire will be on the Entente side from day 1. Many of their leaders were pro-French and pro-Britain only driven to the CP by the fact that Russia, their mortal enemy, was on the side of Germany. Instead of having to fight many, many fronts against numerous opponents (British, French, Arab, Russian, etc) - in this case it will be well supplied and supported the British, eager to stop Russian expansionism in "their lake", in a single narrow front.

4. Russia, instead of fighting on 1 single front, will be fighting on 4 different fronts, 3 of which are extremely difficult logistically - against the Austrians in Eastern Europe, against the Ottomans in the mountains, against the British in Afghanistan, and against Japan in the Far East. Considering Russia could not even defeat Japan in 1 front - how is it possible for 4?

5. No sane Italian leader will attempt to ally itself with the Russo-German alliance, the Italians will be neutral. Italy is a peninsula country that heavily depends on shipping to transport materials domestically (railroads in Italy were underdeveloped). You have the French navy in the West. You have the Austrian navy in the East. You have British navy just about everywhere. Your colonial possessions are surrounded by Britain and France. Sure Italy does not have much to gain by being neutral to an Entente member, but it sure has a lot to lose if it went with Germany.
 
Last edited:
Russia + Germany in WWI sounds plausible, but you have to factor in the result of the October Revolution. Would the new government still support Germany?
Ahm, if russia and germany had worked together in WWI most likely there wouldn't be an october revolution as we know it. It was a german plot to send Lenin back to russia to destablize it by causing a revolution.

By thinking about that it means that "we" germans not only responsible for bringing the nazis over the world but also the communist east block.
 
By that same line of thought, Britain and France would also be responsible for the Nazis rise to power, as there were numerous things they could've done to prevent it.
The problem is that this trail of thought doesn't lead anywhere. History doesn't happen in isolation, but is a collection of countless actions, reactions, counter-reactions, counter-counter-reactions, and so on ad nauseum. If you try to sort out clearly who is "responsible" for what, you'll likely be busy until the end of time.

- Kelenas
 
Germany and Russia are the most populous nations in Europe and are both extremely powerful. Britain and France got lucky that the two of them went at it TWICE in which ensured German defeat.

Say they decide to work together in either WWI or WWII. After all, Germany's main problem was France (Alsace-Lorraine) and Russia's main problem was Britain (the Great Game) so an alliance could easy be formed in both wars on a "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" deal.

Is there any way a coalition of countries could beat the alliance if the wars start in 1914 and 1939 as OTL?

In 1914? I just read the 'Three emperors' of Miranda Carter (although the translation of the Dutch title is 'The decline of the old Europe' (so Rumsfled should really read it;))).
Anyway 1914 is too late for an alliance; due to hesitations, interventions and policies, the Germans and the traditional Prussian ally Russia began to distrust each other, which led to an increase in influence of the panslavics (Russia*)and the pangermanics(Germany*).

(*= which due to territorial claims and sympathy for certain minorties were bound to crash in the some time future)
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Really, all Germany would need to do it sit still on Alsace-Lorraine with 40% of her army and use the remaineder against Austria-Hungary. The Habsburgs are screwed. They are intensely vulnerable to the Germans, Russians, Serbs and Romanians, all of whom will gang up on her for their scraps, leaving a rump Hungary under Russo-German domination. All of Austria's industry with any military purpose is just across the border in Bohemia and German Austria, lightening strike and she's crippled, especially with her crappy generalship. The Russians kept a number of armies near the border OTL that were 90% mobilized at all times, meaning they could intervene with 25% of their army in about 10 days, which when combined with all the other threats, will be plenty to collapse Austria-Hungary. Germany snaps up German Austria, Russia gets Galicia and Slovakia, maybe Moravia too if Germany doesn't insist on the Czech areas.

Actually, why would there even be a war? Austria-Hungary is too vulnerable to be stupid/insane enough to attempt it!
 
Really, all Germany would need to do it sit still on Alsace-Lorraine with 40% of her army and use the remaineder against Austria-Hungary.

If there is a Russo-German alliance, I think Britain would give the OK for France to invade Belgium to bring the war to Germany. Hell, Britain would likely join the invasion.
 
Really, all Germany would need to do it sit still on Alsace-Lorraine with 40% of her army and use the remaineder against Austria-Hungary. The Habsburgs are screwed. They are intensely vulnerable to the Germans, Russians, Serbs and Romanians, all of whom will gang up on her for their scraps, leaving a rump Hungary under Russo-German domination. All of Austria's industry with any military purpose is just across the border in Bohemia and German Austria, lightening strike and she's crippled, especially with her crappy generalship. The Russians kept a number of armies near the border OTL that were 90% mobilized at all times, meaning they could intervene with 25% of their army in about 10 days, which when combined with all the other threats, will be plenty to collapse Austria-Hungary. Germany snaps up German Austria, Russia gets Galicia and Slovakia, maybe Moravia too if Germany doesn't insist on the Czech areas.

Actually, why would there even be a war? Austria-Hungary is too vulnerable to be stupid/insane enough to attempt it!

Unless Austria Hungary continues the three emperors's alliance....
 
If there is a Russo-German alliance, I think Britain would give the OK for France to invade Belgium to bring the war to Germany. Hell, Britain would likely join the invasion.

That might be the case - but it wouldn't help them that much. The additional frontline the French/British would gain from such a move is minimal. And to flank the Germans in Alsace-Lorraine, they'd have to cross the Eifel and the Rhine in such a move. Not a good idea.

Furthermore, I think that the Dutch would join the Germans in such a scenario. If Britain and France are willing to violate Belgian neutrality for the sake of a small strategic advantage, they'd be willing to violate Dutch neutrality as well for a by far greater strategic advantage. Finally, such an act wouldn't really help in bringing the US into the Allied camp, although it wouldn't necesserily prevent it altogether.
 
That might be the case - but it wouldn't help them that much. The additional frontline the French/British would gain from such a move is minimal. And to flank the Germans in Alsace-Lorraine, they'd have to cross the Eifel and the Rhine in such a move. Not a good idea.

Furthermore, I think that the Dutch would join the Germans in such a scenario. If Britain and France are willing to violate Belgian neutrality for the sake of a small strategic advantage, they'd be willing to violate Dutch neutrality as well for a by far greater strategic advantage. Finally, such an act wouldn't really help in bringing the US into the Allied camp, although it wouldn't necesserily prevent it altogether.

I think you got it mostly right, except the Dutch part. I doubt they'd pick a side even if French and British troops move through Belgium, they'd only pick a side if they got invaded. The dutch were quite attached to their colonies and a war against Britain would mean the loss of those. They'd try to avoid that if at all possible.
 
I think you got it mostly right, except the Dutch part. I doubt they'd pick a side even if French and British troops move through Belgium, they'd only pick a side if they got invaded. The dutch were quite attached to their colonies and a war against Britain would mean the loss of those. They'd try to avoid that if at all possible.

Whereas that's true, the question is whether the Dutch would believe that the Allies stop on the Dutch border. I wouldn't believe that.

Second, question is what the Belgian army would do. They have to retreat, and probably they'd try to retreat into Germany. Best way to do that: cross the Netherlands, already suspecting an aLlied attack on themselves...

I agree that the Netherlands do not want war, but I believe that the Allied invasion of Belgium would start a chain reaction which would end in the Netherlands joining the Germans and an endless (and fruitless) discussion after war whether this was intended or not from either side.

Anyway, the main point starting the discussion was whether Germany is in a better strategic situation with Austria-Hungary in the Allied side. Now considernig the options:
1. defensive stand against the French. Good strategic situation: Defenses in the Vosges mountains, ultimate second defense line on the Rhine. Should provide enough time to destroy AH.
2. France and Britain invade Belgium. Pretty much the same situation as in 1. German frontline in the West increased by 60 km in the Eifel mountains. The Netherlands are unhappy, so are the US. Probably the Germans advance into Belgium, securing Luxemburg and Liege, a good defensive position in the Ardennes and along the Meuse, and at least some Belgian troops helping them. Should provide enough time to destroy AH.
3. France and Britain invade the whole Benelux area. The Germans advance, probably halting the Allies along teh Meuse-Rhine line, securing a good defensive position, local support, the Dutch fleet, probably most of the Dutch army and parts of the Belgian army. Should provide enough time to destroy AH.

Now once AH is completely occupied, the Germans can turn West with the help of the Russians and their food situation as well as supply with raw materials secured.

A main point is also that with France AND Austria-Hungary on one side, Italy should definitely be on the other side. This should distract quite a lot of troops from the Allied side into the Alpes. Question is whether France then wants to enlarge its front line at all.
 
A main point is also that with France AND Austria-Hungary on one side, Italy should definitely be on the other side. This should distract quite a lot of troops from the Allied side into the Alpes. Question is whether France then wants to enlarge its front line at all.

While I agree that Italy will probably join Germany-Russia, there is nothing to say it will happen at the start of the war, they might join in 1915 or even 1916 depending on how the war goes. While it's true AH would be surrounded the italian-austrian border is not condusive to war, just like the french-italian border, so I see it like this. France and AH agree on a defensive war against Italy, making Italy expand troops in the mountains and if they see Italy is managing to push to far on one side, the other will launch a counteroffensive that would force Italy relocate some of its forces.

There is also the option for a Franco-Austrian attack on Italy if it joins Germany, with the hope of forcing it out of the war quick, by isolating it and inflicting a couple of quick defeats.

While talking about Italy you have to also remember that with the German fleet locked in the Baltic, they'd be at the mercy of the British-French in the Med, also it's african colonies will be occupied practically right way.
 

Don Grey

Banned
I think a russo-german allience in ww2 isnt possible to many intrests that clash. Hitler sees the slavs as inferior and wants eastern europe as "living space".The soviets arnt to fond of the germans either. Stalin also wants eastern europe aswell.But if they were to to get past there diffrences then yes the alliance would be unbeatable. But the most likely time for a russo german alliance would be in my opinion ww1. But then it wouldnt be unbeatible it would just be hard to beat.
 
In this WWI the British and French not only have Austria-Hungary but Japan and the Ottoman Empire as allies and can certainly find something to bribe Italy with so the odds aren't so one sided.
 
Top