Is the Reinsurance Treaty tenable? (Or, a Russo-German Entente by WW1)

[Karmirdgul]

The German and Russian Empires signed a top-secret agreement known as Reinsurance Treaty in 1887; however, developments elsewhere forced Germany to reject a renewal of the Treaty.

There was a great deal of friendship and mutual understanding between "Willy" and "Nicky" -- with private correspondence between the two cousins ongoing until just before the outbreak of WW1. In the '80s, if memory serves right, the two in private correspondence agreed to informally demark their plans of expansion: Germany was to dominate Europe while Russia's expansions were to focus eastwards. Sounds like a nice plan -- until Russia's loss to Japan in 1905 derailed Russia's plans in Northeast Asia.

Alas, friendship between two emperors does not neccesarily guarantee the friendship between two governments, peoples, armies. The Wikipedia article suggests that Bismarck's prestige practically hinged on said treaty -- therefore the latter was bound to support it. A change of attitudes by the Emperor led him to sack Bismarck and employ von Caprivi in his stead -- the latter than rejected renewing the treaty. Wikipedia's accounts, though, are far from infallible, and I invite appraisals on the veracity of the article.

Question is, could the 'Entente Cordiale' between the German and Russian Empires have been maintained until the eve of WW1, in which they would then fight in the same side? How would the other powers factor in such an arrangement? Austro-Hungarian relationship with the Germans was lukewarm. The former, on the other hand, had every reason to fear Russian expansionism as well as her support for Slavic separatist tendencies? The French were still sore over their defeat to Germany and the subsequent loss of Alsace-Lorraine. If the German-Russian alliance were to be maintained I could see a French-Austrian bloc being formed as a counter. The British and Ottoman positions can be determined will less certainty; the latter were basically pushed into a war the entry to which it was still pondering upon (the Ottomans, like the Italians, were as inclined to join one side of the war as the other) -- I invite you, the Reader, to fathom a guess.

 

[Karmirdgul]

 

[Nivek]

no, both russian and Germany goals were going on very different goals, Bismarck or no Bismarck, Wilhelm or no wilhelm, russia was becoming too insular and one sparking unrest in the Balkans and against the ottomans when the germans at the time didn't care, even if no A-H, both russia and Germany were going different ways

 

[alexmilman]

no, both russian and Germany goals were going on very different goals, Bismarck or no Bismarck, Wilhelm or no wilhelm, russia was becoming too insular and one sparking unrest in the Balkans and against the ottomans when the germans at the time didn't care, even if no A-H, both russia and Germany were going different ways

But going the different ways also means an absence of the conflicting interests, which may be a foundation of “the beautiful friendship”. 😜

In this arrangement both may have a common issue against AH but, again, in not-conflicting way. I’d say that a trigger of the OP schema may be not Russian or German diplomatic initiative but a reapproachment between France and AH, which potentially hurts both German and Russian interests because it emboldens France on Alsace/Lorraine issue (Germany) and AH on its expansionism in the Balkans (Russia).

 

[Teutoberg Forest]

I think a long-term alliance between Russia and Germany is impossible; a Russia not "cut down to size" by Germany would eventually overtake it in military and economic might, which was completely against the strategic interests of Germany. Even with Germany gaining Austria in an alt-WWI, Russia would always have more to gain in terms of influence in the Balkans, and would be poised to rapidly overtake Germany and the rest of Europe economically, especially since this scenario guarantees an easy war for Russia in which none of their core territory gets occupied.

 

[Kaiserboi]

Austria-Hungary needs to have Germany or Russia on her side. France is not enough to help, nor is Italy (which is out of the question) and Britain, however strong, is not a land power and cannot prop up a land empire. If Germany and Russia join forces, Austria will have to become their junior partner or else retreat into isolation; allying against them is just too risky, and is almost guaranteed to get them partitioned.

 

[Aphrodite]

All you need is a Russian victory in the Manchurian War or better yet a navy so big Japan won't think about attacking and Britain won't think about using Japan as a stalking horse.

Russia won't let France get crushed and Germany won't let Austria be destroyed. Other than that, the two can cooperate on anything.

Basically, Russia should double it's navy spending in the 1890s after the turn to the far east.

A Franco Austrian alliance is worthless. The two would be destroyed in a manner of days against Russia and Germany.

Britain would be a non factor on the continent. Germany and Russia would be invulnerable to the British

 

[Merrick]

The problem with the Reinsurance Treaty (or any Russo-German agreement in the 1890s) is Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary is Germany's formal ally, and while Russia has no quarrels with Germany, she does have sharply conflicting interests with Austria in the Balkans. It was these conflicts the broke up the Three Emperors' League after the Russo-Turkish war. (The Reinsurance Treaty was Bismarck's attempt to patch up Russo-German relations after that break-up).

Any sort of official understanding with Russia means abandoning the Austrian alliance. Caprivi (and Holstein's) rationale for dropping the Reinsurance Treaty was that as long as it remained secret, it was completely unenforceable, and if it ever became public the resulting furore could easily cost Germany her existing ally. Even Bismarck, who tried long and hard to keep Russia on-side, ultimately chose Austria-Hungary as Germany's official partner.

Having Germany jump the other way and go all-in on the Russian alliance is an interesting POD. The military balance looks attractive - Germany + Russia can simply dominate Austria + France. But Austria is culturally, economically and historically closer to Germany, and in a German-Austrian alliance, Austria ("a constitutionally-governed, pacific power that lies under Germany's guns") is clearly the junior partner. Would Russia accept a long-term position as Germany's junior ally? Could Germany accept not being the leader of the alliance? And could Germany trust the Slavic Hordes to deliver on their promises when the chips were down? By 1890, Austria is a trusted partner. Russia is a gamble.

It could have happened, it might have worked, and it might have prevented WW1. But I think that a continuation of the Reinsurance Treaty, with Germany covertly dealing with Russia behind Austrian backs, couldn't last forever. Caprivi had that much right.

 

[alexmilman]

All you need is a Russian victory in the Manchurian War or better yet a navy so big Japan won't think about attacking and Britain won't think about using Japan as a stalking horse.

Formally, Russia had a big navy but:

(a) There was no way to maintain a big Pacific Fleet at Port Arthur because (i) the harbor hardly could house even the OTL squadron and (ii) this base did not have and could not have the facilities needed for service and repair of the capital ships. Not to mention that Russia could not fund construction of the effective defensive perimeter, provide reliable supply for a garrison needed for such a perimeter.
(b) Most of the Russian navy circa 1904 was either obsolete or ill-constructed.
(c) Russia did not have money for a complete rebuilding of its navy and industrial capacities/skills needed for doing this reasonably fast and, anyway, the navy had to be split three ways.

The best way to solve this program would be to stick to the existing Russian-Japanese agreements regarding zones of interest, not to make alliance with China and not to do "up yours" with establishing a naval base in Port Arthur after forcing Japan to abandon it. Naval base in Vladivostok would be much more practical and secure and not getting into Korea would help to maintain the friendly relations with Japan. No war and no need for the expensive gimmicks.

Russia won't let France get crushed and Germany won't let Austria be destroyed. Other than that, the two can cooperate on anything.

Well, the "won't" applies to the OTL scenario. If the history of relations is different, so are the attitudes: Russia was gloating when Germany defeated the 2nd Empire and the Germans could be quite cool with dismantling of AH if it is considered unfriendly.

Basically, Russia should double it's navy spending in the 1890s after the turn to the far east.

Spending money is not a solution if you have inferior shipbuilding capacities. In OTL after the RJW naval budget skyrocketed but the results were not impressive. It took 5 years to build the flagship of "Sevastopol" class and by the time it was finished in 1914 it already became inferior in firepower to the British (Iron Duke - 2 years to build) and American (New York - 3 years to build) and in armor protection to the German (König-Klasse - 2 years to build) battleships finished at the same year. Their armor could be pierced even by the 280mm shells of the German battleships and heavy cruisers. Each of these ships had a price tag of 3M pounds while the British battleships built at the same time cost only 2M. At the same time AH was building its dreadnoughts in 2.5 years and they had a better armor. Then goes low quality of the steel used for the main caliber artillery , low quality of the engines, etc.

Arguably, the pre-dreadnought battleships were simpler but Russia still suffered from the low technological level and, as was demonstrated during the RJW, design of its battleships suffered from many faults. The same goes for the engines, artillery, ammunition, etc. Russian Admiralty had pretty much all possible wrong ideas regarding the naval war and results are the history. BTW, under the leadership of Admiral-General Grand Duke Alexey Alexandrovich increasing the naval budget would mean increasing amount of money he is going to spend on his personal "needs" and this would spread down the hierarchy.

 

[Aphrodite]

Really you need to get away from this little navy nonsense. Russia had the third largest navy and combined with France was more than enough to check Britain.

In 1895, the British admiralty point blank rejected Salisbury idea of trying to force the straits even with Italian assistance. Only a guarantee of French neutrality or the prior destruction of the French navy was deemed sufficient.

The Admiralty also pointed out that a blockade of Russia was impossible if a land border I e. Germany was open for trade.

In 1898 Salisbury rejected war over Port Arthur with the blunt statement that Britain didn't carry enough guns to fight Russia and France.

Nor would building a large navy be all that difficult or expensive. The navy was the equal of Germany, just not concentrated. To this, Russia would only need to keep a 2-1 ratio against Japan. That would run about 700 million rubles- money Russia could easily afford. Japan would have to double their taxes to match that.

As for quality of ships:. The Russians had access to German, French, American and Italian yards as well as their own. Japan didn't build any of their ships.

Reforming the Russian shipbuilding industry would be easy enough especially if you're building a great navy.

This is in line with Nicholas' objectives and threat assessment.

Nor do you have to maintain a big navy at Port Arthur. You only need enough to keep the Port open until the rest of the fleet gets there. Ideally, the fleet would be concentrated at Dakar where it could be sent to Brest, Toulon or the Pacific as needed.

Finally, there is no chance of Japan attacking Russia without Britain keeping France neutral. Only if Britain values Japan's fleet would they do so. The Japanese alliance had it's goes in Britain.

Remember how Russia wagged it's finger at Japan in 1895? Keep the balance the same.

 

[Aghasverov]

If Russia plans to ever have to actually use her navy in any significant capacity, she'd better make and keep some powerful friends... otherwise, you're bottled up. What good is a large powerful shiny new Baltic Fleet or Black Sea Fleet if you can't take them anywhere?
As far as the Pacific, well... you have to get them there, and (as @alexmilman pointed out), Port Arthur was woefully inadequate, and Vladivostok has its deficiencies (ice in winter and an unenviable location vis a vis a potentially hostile Japan)...
Iron and steel more-or-less wasted on ships would've been better spent double-tracking the TSR all the way to Manchuria, much earlier...

 

[Aphrodite]

If Russia plans to ever have to actually use her navy in any significant capacity, she'd better make and keep some powerful friends... otherwise, you're bottled up. What good is a large powerful shiny new Baltic Fleet or Black Sea Fleet if you can't take them anywhere?
As far as the Pacific, well... you have to get them there, and (as @alexmilman pointed out), Port Arthur was woefully inadequate, and Vladivostok has its deficiencies (ice in winter and an unenviable location vis a vis a potentially hostile Japan)...
Iron and steel more-or-less wasted on ships would've been better spent double-tracking the TSR all the way to Manchuria, much earlier...

First, Russia had powerful friends,. France for example. She also had excellent relations with Austria and the Ottomans until the fall of Abdul Hamid

Control over the Black Sea would have been decisive in WWI. Her inability to bottle up the Goeben allowed the Ottomans to join the war.

Control over the Baltic protected the German coast and tied down about 20 Russian divisions in coastal defense.

Then there is the Battle Of Tsushima. A decisive Russian victory, easily obtained, changes everything.

The Russians got there, they just didn't do it at once. There are a lot of problems the Russians have, they mainly derive from having too small of a fleet for their needs.

If the Baltic and Pacific fleets had united, Japan was beaten. There are plenty of ways to do it. The biggest mistake was not beginning their naval expansion until 1898 and stretching out the program to1905 from 1903.

The only way to defeat Japan is at sea and the defecincies of Port Arthur are not insurmountable. The double tracking of theTransSiberian would be nice. Russia could easily have afforded both. Babies have more flexibility and can meet more challenges.

This thread is premised on keeping friendly relation between Russia and Germany.

That requires a focus on the far east

 

[alexmilman]

Really you need to get away from this little navy nonsense. Russia had the third largest navy and combined with France was more than enough to check Britain.

You have to decide whom you are planning to fight: Britain or Japan. 😜 Russia did have the third largest navy but it was full of the obsolete ships and not very good modern ships. At Tsushima Russia had more battleships than Japan and what was the result?

What united Franco-Russian fleet has to do with the subject of the Reinsurance Treaty? Or with japan.

In 1895, the British admiralty point blank rejected Salisbury idea of trying to force the straits even with Italian assistance. Only a guarantee of French neutrality or the prior destruction of the French navy was deemed sufficient.

Now, I am at a complete loss how this is relevant to anything under discussion.

The Admiralty also pointed out that a blockade of Russia was impossible if a land border I e. Germany was open for trade.

Wow, why did it take the Admiralty and not, say, the Foreign Office, to figure out such an obvious thing?

Nor would building a large navy be all that difficult or expensive.

Really? Do you understand that for building even pre-dreadnought navy you need a well-developed metallurgy, armament industry, engine-building industry, electric industry and the list is going on. Russian Empire of the late XIX had very little of those. The same goes for technical qualification of the crews. On “Peresvet” during the test trial the main caliber guns proved to be unreliable which forced to lower weight of a charge, increase weight of a barrel and limit the maximum angle well below projected. On “Oslyabya” steam engines of the Baltic Plant had been heavier then projected by 103.15 tons and each of the main caliber barrels was 2 tons heavier than projected. Construction took 7 years (1895-1902). After only 3 months of the service it required a fundamental change of the steam engines. Armor of the ships of that class was simply inadequate: in less than a hour “Oslyabya” sunk. Small wonder - as a model for the battleship Russian Admiralty chose British battle cruiser, which was intended for raiding, not fighting the battleships.

The navy was the equal of Germany, just not concentrated.

Such a trifle.😂 Russia could not “concentrate” it’s navy by the obvious geographic reasons.

To this, Russia would only need to keep a 2-1 ratio against Japan. That would run about 700 million rubles- money Russia could easily afford. Japan would have to double their taxes to match that.

This is a plain and clear nonsense. Port Arthur could hardly handle even the existing squadron and its dock was too small even for “Petropavlovsk” class battleships. Small tool shop could not produce artillery barrels or armor, etc. The only practical alternative was, instead of PA lunacy, start developing industry in Vladivostok (plan was considered and abandoned in a favor of the colonial adventure) but if the Russian Pacific fleet is in Vladivostok, then one of the main reasons triggering RJW is gone and you need no crazy naval program on the Far East.

As for quality of ships:. The Russians had access to German, French, American and Italian yards as well as their own. Japan didn't build any of their ships.

French. Yes, sure. “Charles Martel”. Russia would need to have more of those and a potential enemy would die from laughing.

Buying ships from the Brits would be reasonable (they built Russian icebreakers) but would the Brits be ready to build a major navy for Russia taking into an account very tense relations? Highly questionable.

Reforming the Russian shipbuilding industry would be easy enough especially if you're building a great navy.

No, it would not be easy, just as it was not easy to provide Russian army with the adequate weaponry. Russian Admiralty was defining what should be built and bought and their decisions had been generally bad from ship construction to munition. And even these decisions could not be implemented adequately by the Russian industry. Then, the technical schools had not been producing enough qualified specialists to serve as the mechanics, electricians, etc. on the ships. The Russian admirals had been under impression that they are still in Nelson and Ushakov times with fighting at the short distance.

Who would be doing all needed reforms? The ASBs? Definitely not the high ranking cadres available.

I’m not commenting on the rest of the geopolitical fantasies because they are absolutely irrelevant to the issue of the Russian-German alliance.

 

[Aghasverov]

You have to decide whom you are planning to fight: Britain or Japan. 😜 Russia did have the third largest navy but it was full of the obsolete ships and not very good modern ships. At Tsushima Russia had more battleships than Japan and what was the result?

What united Franco-Russian fleet has to do with the subject of the Reinsurance Treaty? Or with japan.



Now, I am at a complete loss how this is relevant to anything under discussion.



Wow, why did it take the Admiralty and not, say, the Foreign Office, to figure out such an obvious thing?





Really? Do you understand that for building even pre-dreadnought navy you need a well-developed metallurgy, armament industry, engine-building industry, electric industry and the list is going on. Russian Empire of the late XIX had very little of those. The same goes for technical qualification of the crews. On “Peresvet” during the test trial the main caliber guns proved to be unreliable which forced to lower weight of a charge, increase weight of a barrel and limit the maximum angle well below projected. On “Oslyabya” steam engines of the Baltic Plant had been heavier then projected by 103.15 tons and each of the main caliber barrels was 2 tons heavier than projected. Construction took 7 years (1895-1902). After only 3 months of the service it required a fundamental change of the steam engines. Armor of the ships of that class was simply inadequate: in less than a hour “Oslyabya” sunk. Small wonder - as a model for the battleship Russian Admiralty chose British battle cruiser.




Such a trifle.😂 Russia could not “concentrate” it’s navy by the obvious geographic reasons.


This is a plain and clear nonsense. Port Arthur could hardly handle even the existing squadron and its dock was too small even for “Petropavlovsk” class battleships. Small tool shop could not produce artillery barrels or armor, etc. The only practical alternative was, instead of PA lunacy, start developing industry in Vladivostok (plan was considered and abandoned in a favor of the colonial adventure) but if the Russian Pacific fleet is in Vladivostok, then one of the main reasons triggering RJW is gone and you need crazy naval program on the Far East.



French. Yes, sure. “Charles Martel”. Russia would need to have more of those and a potential enemy would die from laughing.

Buying ships from the Brits would be reasonable (they built Russian icebreakers) but would the Brits be ready to build a major navy for Russia taking into an account very tense relations? Highly questionable.



No, it would not be easy, just as it was not easy to provide Russian army with the adequate weaponry. Russian Admiralty was defining what should be built and bought and their decisions had been generally bad from ship construction to munition. And even these decisions could not be implemented adequately by the Russian industry. Then, the technical schools had not been producing enough qualified specialists to serve as the mechanics, electricians, etc. on the ships. The Russian admirals had been under impression that they are still in Nelson and Ushakov times with fighting at the short distance.

Who would be doing all needed reforms? The ASBs? Definitely not the high ranking cadres available.

I’m not commenting on the rest of the geopolitical fantasies because they are absolutely irrelevant to the issue of the Russian-German alliance.

A combined Franco-Russian Flotilla pre-WWI would be a fearsome thing indeed

 

[alexmilman]

If Russia plans to ever have to actually use her navy in any significant capacity, she'd better make and keep some powerful friends... otherwise, you're bottled up. What good is a large powerful shiny new Baltic Fleet or Black Sea Fleet if you can't take them anywhere?
As far as the Pacific, well... you have to get them there, and (as @alexmilman pointed out), Port Arthur was woefully inadequate, and Vladivostok has its deficiencies (ice in winter and an unenviable location vis a vis a potentially hostile Japan)...
Iron and steel more-or-less wasted on ships would've been better spent double-tracking the TSR all the way to Manchuria, much earlier...

And keeping nose out of other’s zones of interest would remove the RJW from the picture making the whole issue moot (why are we even discussing it within framework of the Russian-German alliance?). As we know in OTL after the RJW Russia and then SU lived happily with a minimal fleet on the Pacific while Japan turned against Britain and US.

Off topic, Vladivostok was mentioned because there was a plan to build it into the industrial region capable of supporting, if needed, repair facilities for the major ships. Ice is not a major problem: the icebreakers already had been available.

 

[alexmilman]

A combined Franco-Russian Flotilla pre-WWI would be a fearsome thing indeed

Led by: 😂

 

[wcv215]

Then there is the Battle Of Tsushima. A decisive Russian victory, easily obtained, changes everything.

This uh…would be the same Russian fleet that panicked at the sight of fishing vessels and proceeded to shoot hundreds of shells at those and each other’s in the North Sea? And whose gunnery was so bad that it couldn’t even be comfortably said to have won.

It’s kind of hard to see such a force decisively beating anything.

 

[Aghasverov]

Led by: 😂
View attachment 676129

Unnngghhh.....
Though, to be fair, I've seen worse... think you and I both posted a few pics of 'em in another thread recently

 

[Aghasverov]

This uh…would be the same Russian fleet that panicked at the sight of fishing vessels and proceeded to shoot hundreds of shells at those and each other’s in the North Sea? And whose gunnery was so bad that it couldn’t even be comfortably said to have won.

It’s kind of hard to see such a force decisively beating anything.

Those fishing boats were a menace!!! And they looked just like Japanese torpedo boats! If you squint hard enough... through the fog...

 

[Aphrodite]

This uh…would be the same Russian fleet that panicked at the sight of fishing vessels and proceeded to shoot hundreds of shells at those and each other’s in the North Sea? And whose gunnery was so bad that it couldn’t even be comfortably said to have won.

It’s kind of hard to see such a force decisively beating anything.

Not at all. First we could find amusing incidents from the British, such as the time they rammed their own battleship in peacetime on a clear day.

Second, we're spending a bunch more on the Russian navy. This means they spend more time at sea, take gunnery practice, buy better shells and support equipment