PC/WI: A German-Russian alliance?

Have Austria unify Germany, and then have Russia and Germany plot to split up Prussia.

But that's clearly not at all what you're looking for.
 
Have Austria unify Germany, and then have Russia and Germany plot to split up Prussia.

But that's clearly not at all what you're looking for.
The problem with that is that the opposite is far more likely, Austria was more likely to be divided up with Russia than Prussia was, you would have to go all the way back to the seven years war for what you are proposing to be all that likely imo
 
The problem with that is that the opposite is far more likely, Austria was more likely to be divided up with Russia than Prussia was, you would have to go all the way back to the seven years war for what you are proposing to be all that likely imo

I'm obviously not being too serious.

Anyways, a serious answer has to do with the League of Three Emperors. But, of course, it's not just going to hold by itself, and you need a major POD for this. I recommend one could be Boulanger overthrowing the Third Republic and establishing a revanchist, militaristic French state. He's going to be considered Napoleonic by the rest of Europe, and I cannot imagine that many Russians would be too enamoured by him. Assuming Boulanger is still able to form a rapprochement with Britain, he then fumbles into a war with Germany in the 1890s. Britain then declares war on Germany, and then we can assume that one of the many territorial disputes in the Great Game turns into war as a result. This then means the League of Three Emperors fights a war together against France and Britain.
 
I'm obviously not being too serious.

Anyways, a serious answer has to do with the League of Three Emperors. But, of course, it's not just going to hold by itself, and you need a major POD for this. I recommend one could be Boulanger overthrowing the Third Republic and establishing a revanchist, militaristic French state. He's going to be considered Napoleonic by the rest of Europe, and I cannot imagine that many Russians would be too enamoured by him. Assuming Boulanger is still able to form a rapprochement with Britain, he then fumbles into a war with Germany in the 1890s. Britain then declares war on Germany, and then we can assume that one of the many territorial disputes in the Great Game turns into war as a result. This then means the League of Three Emperors fights a war together against France and Britain.
It's doable I mean even otl when they were allies France and Russia didn't actually like each other that much.
 
Getting a Russo-German alliance requires only that Germany end support for Austria's pretensions in the Balkans. That means either requiring that Austria accept a partition as a condition of the Dual alliance or somewhere later. Conrad's predecessor,Beck urged one as late as the 1890's. Franz Ferdinand would easily have accepted one. Germany's offer to renew the alliance at Bjorko comes a bit too late. By then, Russia needed France as a counterweight to the Dual alliance and France no longer needed help with Britain. Russia also needed good relations with Britain to secure her Eastern relations with Japan.

By 1917, Russia would have been back on her feet and might be more interested in a war of vengeance against Japan. Against this, Nicholas also had to contend with Russian public opinion which was wildly pan-slavic and the easy partition of the Balkans was impossible due to the rise of the smaller Balkan states.

So, if you get the death of FJ anytime before 1904, a Russian victory in the Japanese War or Germany offering Bjorko before the Japanese war and the Anglo-French Entente you could easily have a Russo-German alliance.

A Franco-Austrian-Britain alliance against Russia and Germany is hopeless, doomed and impossible unless the British build up an army of fifty divisions and even then unlikely. Austria couldn't withstand two weeks of war with Russia even when Russia devoted a third of its Army against Germany. France could barely hold on with a German army in the East fighting Russia and the British and Belgian armies at their side. In any war on the continent, Germany and Russia would prove victorious and all the powers would know it. No one would ally with Britain and all would seek to reconcile ith Russia and Germany. It would be the Continental alliance against Britain and Britain would be doomed

The role of French capital in Russia is wildly exaggerated. Russia would be helped far more by avoiding the Russ-German tariff war, reduced military spending because of the end of tensions on the continent or victory in the Japanese War all of which a German alliance would do
 
Austria could hardly afford to be antagonistic to a Russo-German alliance as there would be no hope of any power saving them from quick destruction.
 
Austria could hardly afford to be antagonistic to a Russo-German alliance as there would be no hope of any power saving them from quick destruction.

There's a reason the Austro-Prussian War is called the Seven Weeks War. In 1914, Russia sent only four of her twelve armies against Austria and had Conrad hiding behind the San
How dependent were Serbia and Romania on British imports during this time, though?

Also, Yes, I actually do agree with your general point here. Of course, as far as I know, Germany didn't have as much money to invest abroad as France had; in turn, this could result in a slower Russian industrialization in this TL (but also in a later/delayed WWI in this TL).
Neither Serbia nor Romania had serious trade relations with Britain. Even Italy isn't as dependent on British trade as that coal number implies. If Italy thinks war with Britain is possible, she will stockpile some reserves. Italy's coal imports ran about $50,000,000 a year. At 5% a years supply would cost only $2,500,000 a year. Hippie money. There's also rationing, substitution (wood can replace a lot of the coal) and alternate suppliers. All expensive but war is expensive

But if Russia, Germany, Serbia, Romania and Italy declared war on Austria, I doubt if the Austrian army would even bother to show up. Most likely the troops just don't answer the call and the active duty army deserts. This isn't meant as an insult to the Austrian troops but men don't fight for hopeless causes. You see that in the end of all wars- the losing army simply melts away
 
There's a reason the Austro-Prussian War is called the Seven Weeks War. In 1914, Russia sent only four of her twelve armies against Austria and had Conrad hiding behind the San

Neither Serbia nor Romania had serious trade relations with Britain. Even Italy isn't as dependent on British trade as that coal number implies. If Italy thinks war with Britain is possible, she will stockpile some reserves. Italy's coal imports ran about $50,000,000 a year. At 5% a years supply would cost only $2,500,000 a year. Hippie money. There's also rationing, substitution (wood can replace a lot of the coal) and alternate suppliers. All expensive but war is expensive

But if Russia, Germany, Serbia, Romania and Italy declared war on Austria, I doubt if the Austrian army would even bother to show up. Most likely the troops just don't answer the call and the active duty army deserts. This isn't meant as an insult to the Austrian troops but men don't fight for hopeless causes. You see that in the end of all wars- the losing army simply melts away
Come now, even the Austrians would fight long enough to make the Italians look inept ;)
 
Getting a Russo-German alliance requires only that Germany end support for Austria's pretensions in the Balkans.
Another reason Ottomans winning their 1877 war with Russia would work as a PoD then; presumably, Austria may not be able to make pretensions to Bosnia if the issue Serbia and Montenegro were resolved differently.
 

Perkeo

Banned
I can see only one argument against an alliance with Russia: A breakup will hurt Germany a hundred times more than Russia and both sides know it.
But the advantages are huge:
- The two-front-war is averted
- Germany can expand without getting any more foreign nationals in
- If they still want to challenge Britain, they now have another wannabe sea power in the boat - giving them the capacity to actually accomplish something.
- All disputes with Russia and Italy are settled - since they were with Austria not Germany itself.
 
I think chance of Russo-German reconciliation was permanently removed by Bosnian crisis, and Russians being double-crossed by Austrians with German support. This was also why Russians protected Serbia so aggressively in 1914, they tried being nice with Germans in 1908, and they ended up blackmailed and humiliated for their effort.

If Germany tries to reign in Austria, but Austria for some refuses to accept her status as junior alliance partner, annexes Bosnia anyway, and by doing so humiliates both Germany and Russia, well, they just removed main reason why Germany and Russia couldn't be allies. That's the latest POD I can think of that results in German-Russian alliance.
 
I can see only one argument against an alliance with Russia: A breakup will hurt Germany a hundred times more than Russia and both sides know it.
But the advantages are huge:
- The two-front-war is averted
- Germany can expand without getting any more foreign nationals in
- If they still want to challenge Britain, they now have another wannabe sea power in the boat - giving them the capacity to actually accomplish something.
- All disputes with Russia and Italy are settled - since they were with Austria not Germany itself.

The Russian Navy was always larger than Germany' with the exception of the brief period after the Japanese War

But an alliance with Russia means Russo-German domination not only of the continent but also the seas. The British fleet was never bigger than the fleets of the continental powers and France and Austria are likely to be towing the Russo-German line pretty heavily. We know that in 1914-18, Britain couldn't keep the sea lanes open against Germany alone and that was with the help of the French and Italian fleets. Germany was also suffering heavily from the blockade and fighting a two front war. While German colonies might be lost, they don't matter much. British trade with the continent was vital to her economy and is doomed the day war is declared- even before the submarines are launched.

I think its a nightmare for Austria, France andBritain and even united the three of them don't stand much of a chance. Somehow, they would need to come up with a strategy that allowed them to defeat Germany before Russia could come to her aid Even if Britain bankrolled Austria and brought her army up to German standards, the Russo-Germans still should be able to defeat her with ease
 

Perkeo

Banned
Have Austria unify Germany, and then have Russia and Germany plot to split up Prussia.

But that's clearly not at all what you're looking for.

Austria won't want a German nation state, nor will Russia be that Germany's ally.

There is a simple reason why Prussia united Germany and Austria didn't: The Germans were the majority in Prussia and the minority in Austria. And there is a reason why Russia didn't stay Austrias ally: The Balkans.
 
I'm obviously not being too serious.

Anyways, a serious answer has to do with the League of Three Emperors. But, of course, it's not just going to hold by itself, and you need a major POD for this.

No you don't, just have Peter III a better ruler, poof done.
 
There is a simple reason why Prussia united Germany and Austria didn't: The Germans were the majority in Prussia and the minority in Austria.

I agree, and you need a POD at around the time of the Congress of Vienna to change that.

My more serious answer is further down the page.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I can see only one argument against an alliance with Russia: A breakup will hurt Germany a hundred times more than Russia and both sides know it.
But the advantages are huge:
- The two-front-war is averted
- Germany can expand without getting any more foreign nationals in
- If they still want to challenge Britain, they now have another wannabe sea power in the boat - giving them the capacity to actually accomplish something.
- All disputes with Russia and Italy are settled - since they were with Austria not Germany itself.
Agreed with all of this. Indeed, allying with Russia appears to be a much safer option for Germany if Germany is OK with becoming the junior partner in an alliance in the long(er)-run.

I think chance of Russo-German reconciliation was permanently removed by Bosnian crisis, and Russians being double-crossed by Austrians with German support. This was also why Russians protected Serbia so aggressively in 1914, they tried being nice with Germans in 1908, and they ended up blackmailed and humiliated for their effort.

If Germany tries to reign in Austria, but Austria for some refuses to accept her status as junior alliance partner, annexes Bosnia anyway, and by doing so humiliates both Germany and Russia, well, they just removed main reason why Germany and Russia couldn't be allies. That's the latest POD I can think of that results in German-Russian alliance.
By that point in time Russia was already allied with France, though.

Interestingly enough, though, Pyotr Durnovo dreamed (in his famous February 1914 memorandum) of a Franco-German-Russian-Japanese alliance against Britain as late as early 1914. Of course, the key challenge would be reconciling France and Germany.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Austria could hardly afford to be antagonistic to a Russo-German alliance as there would be no hope of any power saving them from quick destruction.
If Germany sponsors Pan-German agitators inside of Austria-Hungary, though, Austria-Hungary might have a hell of a time trying to avoid angering Germany. After all, if even a crackdown on Pan-German agitators can result in a war with Germany and Russia, Austria-Hungary is totally screwed! :(
 
Peter III of Russia was friendly with the Prussians and lukewarm with the Austirnas. It could form an alliance. But Peter was a bit of a nutjob, prone to bouts of insanity like Henry VI of England, and his internal policies were either erratic (keep changing) or more rarely a disaster (he made up his mind on something worse than doing nothing). If he was a competent administrator (good not even great) and was not insane, he could have left an impact on Russia's future foreign policy instead of being deposed by his wife.

It is important to note, Peter III created an alliance with Prussia that lasted until the 1812 Invasion of Russia. Regarding, Austria Peter's relationship was not good as they did not look kindly upon his exit from the Seven Years' War. I would argue that Peter was in no way a nutjob but rather that depiction is only the result of Catherine I's vilification of Peter III. If you look at comtemporary sources from Peter's reign he was described kindly, in fact there is even an account of the Russian nobles offering to build him a statue of solid gold out of gratitude. The negative descriptions of Peter only appeared after the coup. Additionally, there is no evidence of insanity. In fact, even Catherine did not claim he was insane rather she claimed he was childlike, belligerent, and a drunkard. On his domestic policy, there is absolutely no evidence of erratic internal policy. His policies were consistent attempts to reform Russia along more Western European lines. As to his policies being disastrous, there is little to support such a claim. Again, Peter's policies at one time earned him so much respect from the nobility that they offered to make him a statue. The most questionable policy of his was redesigning the Russian army uniform to be more like the Prussian uniform, but that can hardly be called a disaster. Ultimately, Peter was not overthrown as the result of a massive and heavily supported palace coup but rather by just two regiments of the royal guard which he had harshly disciplined.

On Peter's foreign policy, his policy was quite clear. He first exited the Seven Years' War not because he liked Prussia, but because it as obvious that Britain would come out of the war massively ahead and Prussia was already so battered that it essentially was neutralized. By exiting when and how he did Peter made friends with the victorious Britain and endeared Prussia to Russia. As a result, Peter was able to proceed unhindered with his plans to attack Denmark-Norway over the issue of his claim to Schleswig. Not only would conquering Schleswig reunite his ancestral duchy but it would also give Peter a strong strategic position in the Baltic and strengthen Russian influence in Germany. From these initial plans it seems that Peter had a more northern focused foreign policy, however, it can be certain he did not have plans for the south (Ottoman Empire) due to his early deposing.

Does anyone forget that Peter III liked Prussia (pre-Germany) and was willing to make dipomating concessions to court them?

When Peter exited he Seven Years' War did give the Prussia's a generous peace. However, from there on out he had no concessions to the Prussians. The conditions that came with their alliance if anything favored Russia.

Yes--in fact, up to the point of stabbing Russia in the back!

Peter never stabbed Russia in the back. The territory which Russia was supposed to get out of a victory in the Seven Years' War was not significant nor was it strategic. Peter traded potentially owning Courland for being a friend of the most powerful nation in Europe, Britain, and having Prussia's support in the Schleswig Crisis.
 
Top