Plausibility Check: A Russian "Schlieffen-Style Plan"?

OK--basically, what I am curious about is this. Let's say that cooler heads somehow prevail in July 1914 after Franz Ferdinand's assassination and thus a general European war does *not* break out that year (I am concerned that having Franz Ferdinand survive this assassination attempt will simply result in World War I breaking out in 1916 or 1917 when the Ausgleich collapses, which would *not* work for this scenario of mine). Since Germany cannot get its war before the Russian Great Military Program is completed in this scenario, World War I is delayed by a long while in this TL. Eventually German-British relations improve once it becomes clear that Germany's power in Europe relative to Russia's is weakening and that Germany has no intention of restarting its naval arms race with Britain (also, Kaiser Wilhelm II gradually becomes less of a buffoon after 1916 or 1917 in this TL). Eventually (possibly in the 1920s or 1930s) a grand alliance of Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Japan is formed. The purpose of this alliance would be to contain a Russia which is gradually becoming more and more powerful.

Now, what I am wondering is this--in the event that World War I will break out in the 1940s or 1950s in this TL (assuming that the development of nuclear weapons occurs somewhat later than in our TL), could Russia be willing to utilize a "Schlieffen-Style Plan" in this TL's World War I? In other words, would Russia (along with France, who would still want to reacquire Alsace-Lorraine) be willing to focus first on Germany and Austria-Hungary in this TL's World War I while "playing defense" in the Caucasus, in the Far East, and, if necessary, in Central Asia? The purpose of this would be for France and Russia to quickly knock Austria-Hungary and Germany out of the war using overwhelming force (and before Britain can make a significant contribution to Germany's and Austria-Hungary's defense). Afterwards, Russia can go on the offensive in the Caucasus, in the Far East, and, if necessary, in Central Asia as well.

Would such a Russian "Schlieffen-Style Plan" in the event of World War I breaking out in the 1940s or 1950s (since I don't think that France and Russia would want to fight so many countries at once earlier than the 1940s or so) be realistic/plausible? After all, in this TL's World War I, Russia and France would be smartest to mostly focus on one or two enemies at a time rather than to go on the offensive everywhere at once and to suffer a bunch of crushing defeats afterwards.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 
Also, the analogy with the German Schlieffen Plan is this: Just like Germany wanted to knock France out of our TL's World War I before Russia could fully mobilize and advance too deep into Germany, Russia wants to knock out both Austria-Hungary and Germany in this TL's (decades-delayed) World War I before Britain can create a large army and send it over to Europe to significantly help its allies Austria-Hungary and Germany in their fight against Russia.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
First problem with this is the improved Anglo-German relations. The British enter the Entente as a means of settling the colonial issues with Russia and France. They also know that they only won the naval race because the Germans shifted spending from their Navy to their Army

Given how successful this policy was, why would they endanger it by seeking warmer ties with Germany?

And what does lessened tensions with Britain really get Germany? In a cooling off of the Entente, wouldn't Germany's interest lay more with Russia? After all, the British are only offering possible help and the Tsar would have a very big army indeed
 

BooNZ

Banned
Also, the analogy with the German Schlieffen Plan is this: Just like Germany wanted to knock France out of our TL's World War I before Russia could fully mobilize and advance too deep into Germany, Russia wants to knock out both Austria-Hungary and Germany in this TL's (decades-delayed) World War I before Britain can create a large army and send it over to Europe to significantly help its allies Austria-Hungary and Germany in their fight against Russia.

The Russian military build up before and projected through to 1917 was designed specifically to do that (i.e. it focused on increased size of its standing army and its equipment thereof. However, based on OTL performance Russia had a long way (decades) to go before it could hold its own, let alone knock-out both Germany and A-H.

It might be argued that A-H alone might be a softer target, but decades is a long time and OTL A-H had a very robust economy and became effective militarily very quickly when working alongside German forces. Assuming A-H still exists in your TL, I expect its economy and military to be quite formidable - again assuming it exists.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
First problem with this is the improved Anglo-German relations. The British enter the Entente as a means of settling the colonial issues with Russia and France. They also know that they only won the naval race because the Germans shifted spending from their Navy to their Army

Given how successful this policy was, why would they endanger it by seeking warmer ties with Germany?

And what does lessened tensions with Britain really get Germany? In a cooling off of the Entente, wouldn't Germany's interest lay more with Russia? After all, the British are only offering possible help and the Tsar would have a very big army indeed

Germany with the world's most powerful army and second largest industry/navy allied with Britain with the world's largest navy and strongest economy. You also have Japan and A-H thrown in as henchmen. Germany can 'share' the high seas and has access to great finance deals - any colonial losses for France can be shared and Germany's gain.

It what way could France and/or Russia effectively compete in a colonial space with an Anglo-German alliance? Where were the potential hot spots for Anglo-German colonial disputes?

The Germans lost the naval race because the British were better ship-builders (built ships more quickly, with bigger guns and cheaper), had more shipbuilding capacity and had a far stronger finances. That coupled with the fact Germany was a continental power and had to maintain the strongest (although not the most expensive) army in the world, simultaneously.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Germany with the world's most powerful army and second largest industry/navy allied with Britain with the world's largest navy and strongest economy. You also have Japan and A-H thrown in as henchmen. Germany can 'share' the high seas and has access to great finance deals - any colonial losses for France can be shared and Germany's gain.

It what way could France and/or Russia effectively compete in a colonial space with an Anglo-German alliance? Where were the potential hot spots for Anglo-German colonial disputes?

The Germans lost the naval race because the British were better ship-builders (built ships more quickly, with bigger guns and cheaper), had more shipbuilding capacity and had a far stronger finances. That coupled with the fact Germany was a continental power and had to maintain the strongest (although not the most expensive) army in the world, simultaneously.

Looking at it from a German point of view-

The Russians would have this rather large army on their Eastern border-one much bigger than their own and fairly well equipped. The French would also have this large army on the Western Frontier

Given that mobilization for all the armies involved would be over by m-15, there would be no time for the British to do much to help the Germans. Germany would be stuck defending British interests without any help whatsoever



Now look at things from the British point of view- The Entente settles all disputes between the British and the Franco-Russians. This spares the British from a Franco-Russian naval race (one which is much harder for the British to deal with than a German race) and secures their possessions. No need to station large numbers of troops in India. The British are terrified after the completion of the Orenburg-Tashkent railroad

That the Germans drop out of the Naval Race around 1912 is gravy. But what brings that about? The pressure from France and Russia.

If the Entente achieves all this, what is gained by switching alliances? There are reasons that the British reject a German alliance in 1901 and pursue the Entente instead. Nothing would change that by 1917
 
Germany with the world's most powerful army and second largest industry/navy allied with Britain with the world's largest navy and strongest economy. You also have Japan and A-H thrown in as henchmen. Germany can 'share' the high seas and has access to great finance deals - any colonial losses for France can be shared and Germany's gain.

It what way could France and/or Russia effectively compete in a colonial space with an Anglo-German alliance? Where were the potential hot spots for Anglo-German colonial disputes?

The Germans lost the naval race because the British were better ship-builders (built ships more quickly, with bigger guns and cheaper), had more shipbuilding capacity and had a far stronger finances. That coupled with the fact Germany was a continental power and had to maintain the strongest (although not the most expensive) army in the world, simultaneously.
This is unrealistic. Just claiming that an alliance between Britain and Germany was desirable because they both had the biggest of something different is meaningless.
The reason that Britain and Germany didn't enter into an alliance is because they couldn't fulfill the basic purpose of an alliance. To gain strength from the asistance of an ally.
Germany's army was for defense of its borders against its immediate neighbors. It's navy was largely designed for the same purpose. The Germans spent years guarding against a naval attack from Britain that Britain simply had no need to do whereas Britain's navy could blockade Europe by blockading the North sea or needed to sail long distances and project its power around the world.
And Britain's army could hardly extend the German armies power unless the German army had reached the Atlantic through Belgium or France. If there were no hot spots of dispute between Germany and Britain there were no hot spots of mutual assistance/benefit either.
Nor was Britain in the business of sharing colonial benefits, as the French well knew. Which is why they decided to join in the attack on Galipoli, and why the the British didn't care when Abdullah chose to capture Damascus, earmarked for France.
 
Not plausible

It really depends on what you mean by a Schlieffen Style plan but its really got two components, one is high mobility resulting in concentric attacks on the enemy the other is the purpose of the movement is to achieve a strategically decisive result as a consequence of a single operation.

In that is peculiarly German both on the emphasis on speed and on the need to achieve decisive results fast. And its extremely risky.


Only Germany perceives the need to win big fast and overall its
counterproductive for Russia with more space time and resources to front load its army to achieve that. They are better off keeping a smaller army ( which is still about the same size of its opponents) and having a much larger pool of reserves available in a month or so.

The 1914 situation is a result of a promise to the French as a result of knowing the general intention of Schlieffen. That sort of thing is probable but its really only a spoiling offensive designed to interrupt the Germans rather than achieve decisive results in its own right.
 
Isn't the Eastern Front too large in territory for a Schlieffen Style plan to be conducted which was one reason the Germans decided that only a "France first" plan was doable in the west?

Does it work going the other way as well?
 
First problem with this is the improved Anglo-German relations. The British enter the Entente as a means of settling the colonial issues with Russia and France. They also know that they only won the naval race because the Germans shifted spending from their Navy to their Army

Yes; correct!

Given how successful this policy was, why would they endanger it by seeking warmer ties with Germany?

For balance-of-power reasons, of course.

And what does lessened tensions with Britain really get Germany? In a cooling off of the Entente, wouldn't Germany's interest lay more with Russia? After all, the British are only offering possible help and the Tsar would have a very big army indeed

The thing is, though, that having Germany ally with Russia means throwing its (ethnic German) Habsburg Allies under the bus, and I am unsure that Germany would actually want to do that. Plus, having Germany ally with Russia would mean that Germany would become Russia's bitch in the long(er)-run, something which I don't think that Germany would actually want.
 
Looking at it from a German point of view-

The Russians would have this rather large army on their Eastern border-one much bigger than their own and fairly well equipped. The French would also have this large army on the Western Frontier

Given that mobilization for all the armies involved would be over by m-15, there would be no time for the British to do much to help the Germans. Germany would be stuck defending British interests without any help whatsoever

The thing is, though, that British help can end up being extremely vital and important for Germany in a long war, as France discovered in 1916-1918 in our TL. Indeed, you are assuming that one side would quickly be victorious after mobilization is concluded, but the problem with that is that it would probably take much more time than that for the Franco-Russian alliance to defeat Germany and its allies in a war even ]b\without any[/b] British help.

Now look at things from the British point of view- The Entente settles all disputes between the British and the Franco-Russians. This spares the British from a Franco-Russian naval race (one which is much harder for the British to deal with than a German race) and secures their possessions. No need to station large numbers of troops in India. The British are terrified after the completion of the Orenburg-Tashkent railroad

That the Germans drop out of the Naval Race around 1912 is gravy. But what brings that about? The pressure from France and Russia.

If the Entente achieves all this, what is gained by switching alliances? There are reasons that the British reject a German alliance in 1901 and pursue the Entente instead. Nothing would change that by 1917

Here's a question, though--what exactly does Russia have to gain by continuing to be friendly with Britain after 1917 or so? After all, if Russia is as strong as it thinks it is, then it can easily steamroll Britain and Germany in any war. Thus, and considering that Russia and Britain were already rivals for decades before 1907 or so, why exactly should Russia continue to be friendly towards Britain when preparing for a war with Britain, Germany, and their allies is probably going to be much more beneficial and advantageous to Russia's interests?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
The thing is, though, that British help can end up being extremely vital and important for Germany in a long war, as France discovered in 1916-1918 in our TL. Indeed, you are assuming that one side would quickly be victorious after mobilization is concluded, but the problem with that is that it would probably take much more time than that for the Franco-Russian alliance to defeat Germany and its allies in a war even ]b\without any[/b] British help.

May be true but the Germans are thinking short war. The Germans also show no interest in being Britain's sword on the continent. There's really no common ground between the two Empires-

Britain wants to be on good terms with Russia because Russia poses a threat that Britain can't contain long term. Germany is an unreliable partner and the British at least, are convinced that the Hapsburg Empire will not survive Franz Joseph


Here's a question, though--what exactly does Russia have to gain by continuing to be friendly with Britain after 1917 or so? After all, if Russia is as strong as it thinks it is, then it can easily steamroll Britain and Germany in any war. Thus, and considering that Russia and Britain were already rivals for decades before 1907 or so, why exactly should Russia continue to be friendly towards Britain when preparing for a war with Britain, Germany, and their allies is probably going to be much more beneficial and advantageous to Russia's interests?

Sure Britain and Russia loathe each other- but they are bound together by their mutual interest to preserve France. For that, they settled their Asian quarrels and they will stick to that policy for a long time

Russian-British relations are a bit more complex. The liberals are being a bit naive about the situation in Persia- there the conflict between the Shah and his people has made the agreements obsolete.

The Tories are much more sympathetic to the Russian position
 

BooNZ

Banned
This is unrealistic. Just claiming that an alliance between Britain and Germany was desirable because they both had the biggest of something different is meaningless.
The reason that Britain and Germany didn't enter into an alliance is because they couldn't fulfill the basic purpose of an alliance. To gain strength from the asistance of an ally.
Germany's army was for defense of its borders against its immediate neighbors. It's navy was largely designed for the same purpose. The Germans spent years guarding against a naval attack from Britain that Britain simply had no need to do whereas Britain's navy could blockade Europe by blockading the North sea or needed to sail long distances and project its power around the world.
And Britain's army could hardly extend the German armies power unless the German army had reached the Atlantic through Belgium or France. If there were no hot spots of dispute between Germany and Britain there were no hot spots of mutual assistance/benefit either.
Nor was Britain in the business of sharing colonial benefits, as the French well knew. Which is why they decided to join in the attack on Galipoli, and why the the British didn't care when Abdullah chose to capture Damascus, earmarked for France.

Yeah the British aligning itself with the Entente worked out swell!

The Germans did not need the British Army to keep the Russians and the French in check on the continent. Similarly the British did not need the German assistance in ruling the waves. Notwithstanding the above, the combination would have provided an effective deterrent against any number of belligerent third parties.

I confess my post was a lazy response to another suggesting the benefits of the Entente to Britain were indispensable and a German alignment with Britain unworkable. OTL, in exchange for avoiding some inconvenient border tension, Britain aligned itself with two belligerent continental powers and jumped into a war that saw its rapid decline as a world power.

The key area of synergy between Germany and Britain was that both were in favour of the status quo on continental Europe, whereas France was looking for the return of A-L and Russian was actively seeking to undermine both the Ottoman and A-H Empires among other schemes...
 
Top