No WWI due to a more successful 1905 Russian Revolution?

[Haplogroup]

Historically, in 1905, in large part due to the Russo-Japanese War, Russia underwent a major revolutionary convulsion. The general understanding is that Tsar Nicholas II proceeded to give ground, very temporarily, to the revolutionaries, then walked back everything serious that he had done or promised once he was in a more secure position.

Certainly, there are two other major monarchs of European powers (Charles I and Louis XVI) who made exactly the wrong decisions to get their heads hacked off and their governments replaced, and Nicholas wasn't that smart or that good at politics - he did, ultimately, get his whole family killed due to precisely this sort of failure. Let's suppose he makes various bad moves in handling the revolutionary elements, giving too much ground when they're weak and trying to take too much while they're strong, resulting in a civil war; given the timeline, you're likely to see a broad-based socialist/liberal alliance against an institutional monarchist force. Since it's our assumption here, the former wins.

Let's suppose, however, that the civil war leaves Russia thoroughly exhausted, just as OTL's Russian Civil War did. Some European powers (France, almost certainly; Germany, maybe) intervene, but fail to turn the overall tide of the war, due to its physical scale and the logistical problems involved. Russia loses some of its peripheral holdings, like Poland and Finland, and becomes a shaky, enervated republic, possibly with a heavy influence from an alternate Petrograd Soviet/Congress of Soviets type body. If the political orientation of post-revolutionary Russia in 1905 (or 1906, 1907, etc; whenever our alt-RCW ends) is anything like OTL's 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly, then it will be heavily influenced by the Socialist-Revolutionaries, if not outright run by them.

It seems to me like this effectively prevents the confluence of factors that produced OTL's WWI, and possibly butterflies any sort of "great war" altogether, keeping wars in Europe more along the line of power-against-power than anything else. Assuming that we don't just see an alternate WWI where post-revolution Russia allies with France and Britain to form the triple Entente, etc - what are the long term consequences?

 

[Corjomc]

Perhaps World War I is everyone versus Communist Russia. The trigger point being a Chinese revolution that has them go communist.

The other countries do not like where this is going and its war.

Lots of Fifth Column activity in every country.

 

[Haplogroup]

Perhaps World War I is everyone versus Communist Russia. The trigger point being a Chinese revolution that has them go communist.

If such a war happened, it wouldn't really be a world war - the world wars happened and were so impactful because they were between two sides of roughly equal power, neither of whom had a certain path to victory. A German/French/Ottoman/British/Japanese attack on a nascent Russian Democratic Soviet Republic would just be a Crimean War scenario, one where everybody gets together to push in Russia's shit.

 

[Corjomc]

To even things out throw in a Communist China and a myriad of Bolshevik movements in the countries you just listed.

It could be World Revolution, perhaps led by Trotsky, or Makhno. or the like.

 

[marathag]

t seems to me like this effectively prevents the confluence of factors that produced OTL's WWI, and possibly butterflies any sort of "great war" altogether, keeping wars in Europe more along the line of power-against-power than anything else. Assuming that we don't just see an alternate WWI where post-revolution Russia allies with France and Britain to form the triple Entente, etc - what are the long term consequences?

Without Russia interest in the Balkans and pushing for the creation of and then to direct the leading members of the Balkan League of Serbia and Bulgaria, the Third Balkan War of 1914-15 is a slow Austro-Hungarian grinding down of Serbia and ally Montenegro, that loses the gains of the previous two Balkan Wars.

 

[Salamander]

I think a more successful 1905 Revolution in Russia wouldn't necessarily depose the Tsar, because the support of both the Church and the peasant classes was still strong, but even if it did, I think it would preclude a successful communist takeover. The chaos and opportunity provided by a world war isn't present, so the anger and frustration isn't at the same levels. The threat posed by the Japanese also isn't at the same level as that posed by the Germans a decade later. In fact, if either Japan or Russia had refused US arbitration, Japan would have lost the war on land as they had exhausted the financial and military resources needed to continue fighting.

As a result, a more democratic Russia, with a Tsar actually constrained by his role as a constitutional monarch, would still see itself as a 'protector' of the South Slavs. Which, when combined with a still vigorous revolutionary mindset, would also remain a potential threat to both the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, especially since the industrialization and rearming or Russia would probably be accelerated. Remember than one of the main reasons Germany had for the war was their belief that war with Russia or France was inevitable, and that Germany had to strike before Russia could fully rearm & reorganize.

Factor in Serbia's resentment over Autro-Hungarian annexing Bosnia-Herzegovina, a similar resentment towards Serbia by the Austro-Hungarian establishment, the rising tensions among the minorities demanding more equality with both Austria & Hungary within the Dual Monarchy, and that the 1st & 2nd Balkan wars will almost certainly still happen roughly on time, I don't really see how WW1 could be butterflied away. For this to happen, I think the P.O.D. would have to be pre-1900.

 

[mianfei]

If the political orientation of post-revolutionary Russia in 1905 (or 1906, 1907, etc; whenever our alt-RCW ends) is anything like OTL's 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly, then it will be heavily influenced by the Socialist-Revolutionaries, if not outright run by them.

I was thinking that this might mean a Russia that degenerates into the kind of royal dictatorship found in the other Orthodox states in interwar Europe, as that was the fate of attempts by the peasantry to rule independently in countries like Bulgaria after the First World War.

That kind of Russian government, though, might preclude a First World War, as it would like be far less expansionist.

On the other hand, attempts at a peasant state would be probably highly nationalistic and giving more leeway to separatist movements at any point in actual Russian history. Also, if the Russian empire did split peacefully or even relatively peacefully, it might have meant that the colonial states would have competed more aggressively over Africa and Southeast Asia, producing a war without the participation of Eastern Europe?

 

[AltoRegnant]

I think a more successful 1905 Revolution in Russia wouldn't necessarily depose the Tsar, because the support of both the Church and the peasant classes was still strong, but even if it did, I think it would preclude a successful communist takeover. The chaos and opportunity provided by a world war isn't present, so the anger and frustration isn't at the same levels. The threat posed by the Japanese also isn't at the same level as that posed by the Germans a decade later. In fact, if either Japan or Russia had refused US arbitration, Japan would have lost the war on land as they had exhausted the financial and military resources needed to continue fighting.

As a result, a more democratic Russia, with a Tsar actually constrained by his role as a constitutional monarch, would still see itself as a 'protector' of the South Slavs. Which, when combined with a still vigorous revolutionary mindset, would also remain a potential threat to both the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, especially since the industrialization and rearming or Russia would probably be accelerated. Remember than one of the main reasons Germany had for the war was their belief that war with Russia or France was inevitable, and that Germany had to strike before Russia could fully rearm & reorganize.

Factor in Serbia's resentment over Autro-Hungarian annexing Bosnia-Herzegovina, a similar resentment towards Serbia by the Austro-Hungarian establishment, the rising tensions among the minorities demanding more equality with both Austria & Hungary within the Dual Monarchy, and that the 1st & 2nd Balkan wars will almost certainly still happen roughly on time, I don't really see how WW1 could be butterflied away. For this to happen, I think the P.O.D. would have to be pre-1900.

If anything, the full on revolution could oust a lot of the aristocracy from their military command as the Duma asserts itself, leading to young blood professional talent educated in britain, germany or france. Making russia more powerful. Same with a more liberal economy

 

[mjwebb76]

As I frequently note in various questions about WWI, it really depends on what you mean by would WWI not happen.

If you mean, would some conflict arise between Germany (and its friends) and France (and its friends) between 1910 and 1925, I think the answer its highly likely. If you mean, would WWI play out in a similar way to how it plays out IOTL (stalemates on both fronts) a wide variety of events could change this.

For example, if the 1905 Revolution leads to a weak non-scary Russia, you could imagine a third Balken War where Austria goes after Serbia.

Conversely, if the Republic of Russia Army by 1914 has competent (perhaps battle-hardened generals) you could imagine an alt-Battle of Tannenberg where Imperial German suffers a devastating defeat resulting in the collapse of the front in 1914.

I am of the strong belief that some Great Power conflict in the early 20th century was highly likely but that WWI being as devastating and world-changing as it was is highly contingent.

 

[brunohusker]

I don’t see it. If anything you might see a kind of Democratic Russia with a new dynasty of constitutional monarchist czars feel they not only need to protect brother Slavs, but spread democracy to them. Thus you might still end up with similar issues, though

 

[Aphrodite]

If the Russian "revolution" of 1905 expanded the most likely scenario is the Kaiser sends the German Army to help put it down - just like the Kaiser offered

Diplomatically, the Treaty of Bjorko is likely to survive and France forced to choose between Russia and the British.

WWI as we know it is butterflied away but a gang tackle of Britain is a distinct possibility

 

[Haplogroup]

As I frequently note in various questions about WWI, it really depends on what you mean by would WWI not happen.

"WWI" being defined as a great power conflict between two "teams" containing multiple great powers, that are closely-matched enough that both sides can realistically see themselves as winning a total victory, as compared to, say, a many-versus-one gank (e.g. Crimean War) or a 1v1 (e.g. Franco-Prussian War), and that is not a limited, colonial, proxy, or otherwise minor war.