No Franco-Russian alliance, 1894-1914 - No WWI, or an earlier WWI?

What if there was no Franco-Russian alliance from 1894-1914?

  • A) Germany invades one or more of its neighbors before August 1914

    Votes: 21 24.7%
  • B) Germany attacks none of its neighbors for those 20 years

    Votes: 64 75.3%

  • Total voters
    85
So Germany has to be the aggressor? Seems a bit biased.

No, it is not biased but just logical.

Without a french-russian alliance, there is no sufficiant balance to Germany's power in Europe. So Germany, which under Prussia's lead is very militaristic and imperialist, will have a strong incentive to use its supremacy to furter its positions and advantages in Europe.

That's why some kind of french-russian empire was going to happen anyway.

In history as in alternate history, as I already mentioned, one can't bet on perpetual stupidity of the other players. Sooner or later, the domination of one power or one camp will arouse an alliance to counterbalance it.

That's what Bismarck, who was a political genious, had understood. And that's why he advocated that Germany self-restraint in order to prevent such an unavoidable outcome.

The other point, at least as important, was that everybody knew or should have known (it was obvions from 1688 on), that Britain fundamental strategy was to prevent any power becoming dominant in continental Europe.
 
No, it is not biased but just logical.

Without a french-russian alliance, there is no sufficiant balance to Germany's power in Europe. So Germany, which under Prussia's lead is very militaristic and imperialist, will have a strong incentive to use its supremacy to furter its positions and advantages in Europe.

No, it's definately biased. How else do you explain the fact that Germany is singled out as the aggressor when Germany/Prussia has fought three times less wars between 1700.-1914. than France, not to mention Britain and Russia?

Being militarist and imperialst is no proof, since all European Great Powers were militarist and imperialist. France for example had the second largest colonial empire in the world and maintained a very large army. The UK had the largest empire in history and a war-fleet that dwarfed everyone else. Russia waged war in Europe during the belle epoque, uniquely among the Great Powers, and was parceling out great parts of Central and Eastern Asia for domination.

And somehow Germany is supposed to be the worst of the lot???
 
So Germany has to be the aggressor? Seems a bit biased.

Are you comparing micro-colonial wars with mega european or world wars ?

And does the fact that Britain or France had their own wars justify the wars that militaristic imperialist Prussia, and then Prussia-led militaristic imperialist Germany, ignited from 1864 to 1945 ?

Why going back to 1700 ? In 1700, Prussia was just a second range principality in a balkanized HRE. The situation was very different in the second half of the 19th century.
 
Are you comparing micro-colonial wars with mega european or world wars ?

Since Germany did not actually start WWI I don't see how it goes in favour of the "Germany will start the war" argument. And counting WWII in a discussion about Imperial Germany is intellectualy dishonest.

And yes, France and Britain still have a worse record with "mega European wars". Arguably France had the worst record of them all before the world wars.

And does the fact that Britain or France had their own wars justify the wars that militaristic imperialist Prussia,

Who ever said anything about justifying wars?

and then Prussia-led militaristic imperialist Germany, ignited from 1864 to 1945 ?

You do realise that we are talking about a situation where the alliances that led to WWI don't exist, right?

Why going back to 1700 ? In 1700, Prussia was just a second range principality in a balkanized HRE. The situation was very different in the second half of the 19th century.

So, want to count from 1800.? France still has a worse record for aggression.
 
While Imo the number of "wars" from an arbitrary point in time is not saying much, the monetary numbers from 1903 - 1914, probably the poster is hard to read, are Imo more important.
If Germany was such an aggressive and militarist power, why did it not pump more money into the military from the start? On the other hand, the German Empire tried to balance the sheet and get a neutral balance for money. At least until they "had" to pump more money into the military in response of others doing it too.
 
Since Germany did not actually start WWI I don't see how it goes in favour of the "Germany will start the war" argument. And counting WWII in a discussion about Imperial Germany is intellectualy dishonest.

And yes, France and Britain still have a worse record with "mega European wars". Arguably France had the worst record of them all before the world wars.



Who ever said anything about justifying wars?



You do realise that we are talking about a situation where the alliances that led to WWI don't exist, right?



So, want to count from 1800.? France still has a worse record for aggression.

Germany started WWI by advising Austria-Hungary to be firm against Serbia the 5th of July 1914. This was a deliberate "calculated risk" because they wanted to weaken the opposing system of alliances.

And they did It then because they (rightly) calculated that if a conclict started several years later, Russia would be far more modern and powerful.

Like It or not, but from the 1860's to 1945, Prussia/Germany was the destabilizing power of Europe and was the main threat to peace and humain development in Europe. It required the almost total destruction of Germany to end this situation.

I say you are justifying Germany because you being It back to other was that were led by other european countries. And by the way, no previous was in Europe can compare to the destructions of WWI.

I know we are talking about the hypothesis of no triple Entente. What I objected is that there would anyway have been an alliance to counter and prevent a German domination of Europe.
I won't add any more on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Germany started WWI by advising Austria-Hungary to be firm against Serbia the 5th of July 1914. This was a deliberate "calculated risk" because they wanted to weaken the opposing system of alliances.

So do you assert that the Central Powers would have waged war on the whole of Europe if the Russian Empire hadn't begun mobilizing its army?

Like It or not, but from the 1860's to 1945, Prussia/Germany was the destabilizing power of Europe and was the main threat to peace and humain development in Europe. It required the almost total destruction of Germany to end this situation.

That's literally only the case if you view everything from 1860.'s on through the Nazis. In fact before 1914. Germany was less of a destabilizing power and "threat to human development" than Russia. Though using such loaded phrazes isn't really appliable to it either.

I say you are justifying Germany because you being It back to other was that were led by other european countries.

I assume you know what a strawman argument is, right?

And by the way, no previous was in Europe can compare to the destructions of WWI.

That's because of technology.

I know we are talking about the hypothesis of no triple Entente.

Then why do you keep bringing up WWII?

What I objected is that there would anyway have been an alliance to counter and prevent a German domination of Europe.

Possibly. Alliance systems would have shifted in some way but I strongly disagree that the OP's scenario is impossible. Implausible perhaps, but not outside the bounds of reality.

I won't add any more on this subject.

That's your prerogative.
 
Germany started WWI by advising Austria-Hungary to be firm against Serbia the 5th of July 1914. This was a deliberate "calculated risk" because they wanted to weaken the opposing system of alliances.
And what would you call the Russian and French position to Serbia? For me that also is an calculated risk of starting the war...
So simply pointing at one thing and saying that it started WWI is not only dishonest but also shifts blame totaly onto one party. And if I understand it right, most sholars nowadays tend to blame all sides to some degree.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Germany started WWI by advising Austria-Hungary to be firm against Serbia the 5th of July 1914. This was a deliberate "calculated risk" because they wanted to weaken the opposing system of alliances.

And they did It then because they (rightly) calculated that if a conclict started several years later, Russia would be far more modern and powerful.

Like It or not, but from the 1860's to 1945, Prussia/Germany was the destabilizing power of Europe and was the main threat to peace and humain development in Europe. It required the almost total destruction of Germany to end this situation.

I say you are justifying Germany because you being It back to other was that were led by other european countries. And by the way, no previous was in Europe can compare to the destructions of WWI.

I know we are talking about the hypothesis of no triple Entente. What I objected is that there would anyway have been an alliance to counter and prevent a German domination of Europe.
I won't add any more on this subject.

Russian diplomacy facilitated the alliance between Serbia and Bulgaria with the express intent to destabilise the Ottoman and A-H empires. Serbian insurgents/ freedom fighters/ terrorists were active in both empires prior to the war - Serbia itself was heavily supported and funded by Russia and France. Russian and French activity in the Balkans resulted in two Balkan wars and ultimately the start of the First World War. The records of Russian and French communications in the build up to WW1 were destroyed for a reason.

Germany was backing up a long term ally against the on going threat of terrorism/destabilization - facilitated by a Russian/French proxy. Since defending itself from French aggression in 1871 (essentially its formation), Germany was not involved in any significant conflict until WW1. As far as human development, German literacy was among the highest in Europe and Germans were disproportionately represented among Nobel prize winners of the time.

On the other hand, Wilhelm II was a dick.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Without the Russians, the French would have been more receptive to German offers. Greater cooperation between the two in Africa and Asia could easily have been the result at the expense of the British whom everyone thought were getting greedy
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Without the Russians, the French would have been more receptive to German offers. Greater cooperation between the two in Africa and Asia could easily have been the result at the expense of the British whom everyone thought were getting greedy

Interesting - any thought on how the lack of a Russian alliance might change France's overall investment portfolio?

Perhaps less investment in building up Russian rail to help develop "the Russian steamroller" and more investment in French domestic industry/infrastructure, or a more randomly dispersed set of overseas investments, inside and outside France's own colonial empire.
 
Without the Russians, the French would have been more receptive to German offers. Greater cooperation between the two in Africa and Asia could easily have been the result at the expense of the British whom everyone thought were getting greedy

Now that you mention it, that does sound interesting.

Can we come up with a flashpoint like the ARW to bring 'everyone' in against Britain, and would 'everyone' stand a chance?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Now that you mention it, that does sound interesting.

Can we come up with a flashpoint like the ARW to bring 'everyone' in against Britain, and would 'everyone' stand a chance?

I've been kicking a TL around in my head based on the perceived British treachery in the various crises of 1895-96. Namely her refusal to join the triple intervention (an intervention the British had themselves proposed in October and December of 94), the refusal to aid the Italians in Ethiopia, their attempts to impose reforms in Armenia (later they ran around trying to depose the Sultan),the offer to give Albania to Italy (really, did Salisbury actually think the Austrians would like that?) and the Americans over Venezuela

In a way, its remarkable that the world doesn't unite against the British- nearly everyone had a quarrel with them over something.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
I've been kicking a TL around in my head based on the perceived British treachery in the various crises of 1895-96. Namely her refusal to join the triple intervention (an intervention the British had themselves proposed in October and December of 94), the refusal to aid the Italians in Ethiopia, their attempts to impose reforms in Armenia (later they ran around trying to depose the Sultan),the offer to give Albania to Italy (really, did Salisbury actually think the Austrians would like that?) and the Americans over Venezuela

In a way, its remarkable that the world doesn't unite against the British- nearly everyone had a quarrel with them over something.

Because usually the dispute was colonial, and not on countries' own doorsteps - why would Germany seriously concern herself with the fate of the Transvaal when she had "unfriendly" France & Russia close to hand? The British policy of "divide & rule" worked well in both colonial & diplomatic circles, and it is noticeable that the ententes gradually worked out were initially to solely colonial concerns.

If Britain had really tried to throw her weight around on the continent then there might have been the chance of a Franco-Russo-German rapprochement but while there were European divisive issues the Brits were quite safe, and they nearly always only intervene when they have continental allies.

So your POD's would need to make Britain more aggressive diplomatically in Europe enough to override the problems between Germany-Russia, Germany-France and to a lesser degree Russia-AH, AH-Italy & France-Italy.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
I believe it was the other way around eg Willy and Nicky on a boat circa 1904.

Sure the Russians would have been happy to make a deal with the Germans- they had no quarrel with them at all other than the German habit of backing Austrian pretensions in the Balkans but how does that relate to France's attitude towards Germany?

Without a Russian counterweight to Germany, the French could only pursue a colonial policy in conjunction with Germany something they often did See for example the successful effort to block the Anglo-Congo treaty

The Germans offered to co operate with the French on other issues (see Portuguese territories) that France declined. The Germans even offered the French the opportunity to join Bjorko
 
Top