Russia and the Ottoman Empire on the other side prior to Great War

If they considered France and Russia more dangerous it seems strange fighting a war against Germany. Germany was the up and coming power and if they had not been so stupid as to fight two pointless wars, they would have come out as even stronger than today and with a far larger empire. If Austria-Hungary fell apart, which it might have done without a large European war, the remaining German areas might even have decided to join Germany voluntarily.

Austria-Hungary collapsed after it had fought to tooth and nail in a multi-year long industrial-scale war of attrition on multiple fronts, and when the Emperor Charles could not offer any credible alternative to nationalists and Socialists. As the contemporary observers pointed out before WW1, the collapse of Empire would only lead the smaller nations inside the Dual Monarchy to either Russian on German dominance. Turns out they were right, and even the leaders of Czech nationalists were content to go along with Viennese rule before 1914 in OTL.

edit: This means that without a major war, the Empire would continue to industrialize and modernize. Sure, it would most likely remain the weakest of the Major Powers, but it certainly wouldn't just roll over and die without a WW1-level challenge to its existence as the cliché in these boards goes.
 
Britain had been fighting many wars with France earlier at a time, at at time when France was obviously far stronger than any single German power. To me it seems that this situation had changed drastically after the German unfication and that Germany, at least after around 1900 was the most powerful country in Europe, possibly only surpassed by Britain, which however was a power in decline. An alliance against Germany was able to weaken Germany and incredibly they were even able to convince Russia to join them.
 
Last edited:
Austria-Hungary collapsed after it had fought to tooth and nail in a multi-year long industrial-scale war of attrition on multiple fronts, and when the Emperor Charles could not offer any credible alternative to nationalists and Socialists. As the contemporary observers pointed out before WW1, the collapse of Empire would only lead the smaller nations inside the Dual Monarchy to either Russian on German dominance. Turns out they were right, and even the leaders of Czech nationalists were content to go along with Viennese rule before 1914 in OTL.

edit: This means that without a major war, the Empire would continue to industrialize and modernize. Sure, it would most likely remain the weakest of the Major Powers, but it certainly wouldn't just roll over and die without a WW1-level challenge to its existence as the cliché in these boards goes.

Didn´t many from the minority groups fight against the central powers in the war?
 
Didn´t many from the minority groups fight against the central powers in the war?

Yes, while others swore loyalty and stayed Kaisertreue right up to October 1918. The majority of civilians in the Empire were behind the government until the last war year, when coal and food shortages and the steady trickle of radicalized deserters returning from the frontlines created a situation where defeat begun to seem inevitable, and people begun to look for options for their future. Before that happened the few exiled opposition figures were not the spokesmen of their united oppressed nation that they wanted to be, since they couldn't even agree upon themselves about the future of their homeland:
Kramář wanted the Russians to occupy Bohemia and Moravia and install a Romanov as their new King, Masaryk sought support from the Western Entente powers, and so on. http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/367736/Tomas-Masaryk
 
As far as I understand, some of the great powers, especially Britain, had supported keeping the Ottoman Empire artificially alive for a long time, in order to avoid upsetting the balance of powers. Besides the fact that they had been opponents in the war, what was the reason that Britain and other powers had changed their mind on this now?
 
I haven't read all of the other posts, so please forgive me if this duplicates what others have already written.

Russia could have been a Central Power, if Austria-Hungary and Russia came to an agreement over the Balkans in the 1880s that led to the League of the Three Emperors continuing until 1914.

However, if the League of the Three Emperors has still been in existence the assassination of Franz Ferdinand would not trigger World War One. Russia would not back up the Serbia against the Austria; Germany would not back up Austria against Russia; and finally the German Government would not implement the Schlieffen Plan.

Germany would have needed another reason to invade France, and as no "Russian Steamroller" gave it more time to defeat France the German Army might have devised a war plan that didn't involve invading Belgium, and that might have prevented the British entering the war.

Assuming that the butterflies don't change the size and quality of the belligerents armed forces and economies it's going to be an overwhelming victory for the Central Powers by the end of 1918 (and probably much earlier) or at the very least there would be a compromise peace on favourable terms to them.

Germany will be able to concentrate its entire army on the Western Front. I think this would be enough for Germany to defeat France by the end of 1914. I know that if France had survived the first blows they would have been defeated in 1915 before substantial British Empire reinforcements arrived because the German Army would have been too strong. If by a miracle the French held out into 1916 the German Army would not have formed any new divisions after the end of 1915. Instead they use the manpower to keep its existing formations up to strength and increase industrial production. The British blockade is irrelevant because the Germans get the food and raw materials they need from Russia. With more factory workers and more raw materials the Germans could have built up a bigger air force and navy. In the case of the navy this would have included completing the battleships Sachsen and Württemberg, some of the Mackenzen class battle cruisers and more U-boats.

Austria-Hungary benefits even more than Germany. No Eastern Front (and the huge losses their army suffered there) meant they could concentrate on Serbia and Italy. A smaller war would have put less strain on their economy, which with more labour could produce more arms. Amongst other things they could have built 4 Erstaz Monarch class battleships.

Russia might avoid the 1917 revolutions or they would at least be delayed. Not having to fight Austria-Hungary and Germany releases an enormous amount of resources that would be used to attack the Ottoman Empire with overwhelming force. In common with Austria-Hungary and Germany the Russians would build up a smaller army than they did in the real world because they did not need one and they would also use the manpower released to expand their navy and air force. They would have to fight a holding action in the Far East against Japan if that nation honoured its treaty with the British.

In common with the real world the Italians would bide their time. However, they would declare war against the Entente Powers because they thought the Central Powers were going to win the war and because they had been promised Savoy, Nice, Corsica and Tunisia from France, Malta from Britain and part of the Ottoman Empire if the Central Powers won. In the real world the Italian Army grew from 24 infantry divisions to nearly 70, but in common with Austria, Germany and Russia it is likely that they would form fewer new army divisions and instead expand their air force and navy. For example they might be able to complete the 4 Francesco Caracciolo class battleships by the end of 1918.

It looks rather grim for Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire.

The British would still seize the battleships that were fitting out and IIRC the Ottoman Empire entered the war because Admiral Souchon took the Ottoman Fleet to bombard Sevastopol. It would have been better for the Ottomans (at least in the short term) if they had joined the Central Powers ITTL because they would have been on the winning side and they would have got Cyprus, Kuwait, Egypt and the Sudan back. However, ITTL Admiral Souchon is ordered to take his ships to Trieste to join forces with the Austrian-Navy and the Ottoman Empire decides to declare war on the Central Powers. Not having to fight the British means the Ottomans can concentrate their army on the Caucasian Front, but as the Russians will concentrate their army there too the Ottoman Empire is doomed.

For the British Empire not having to fight the Ottomans means no Dardanelles Campaign, the disasters in Iraq, no invasion of Palestine from Egypt and possibly no Salonika Front. This makes the forces employed available to other fronts. The obvious place to put them is the Western Front, where they would be needed to help the French fight the stronger German Army. However, they might be sent to the Caucasus Front to help the Ottoman Army, but the reinforced Russian Army is so strong that the presence of the British Empire troops make no difference.

The Austro-Hungarian and Italian Navies had a combined strength of 5 dreadnoughts in August 1914, plus the German Goeben, which rose to 10 plus the Goeben by the end of 1915. Assuming that there were no losses this total could have been increased to 18 dreadnoughts and one battlecruiser by the end of 1918 if having smaller armies enabled them to build more warships. This effectively cuts the Mediterranean in two for the Entente, which means their merchant shipping will have to go around the Cape of Good Hope, which reduces their sea transport capability without the Central Powers having to fire a shot.

The stronger naval threat from the Central Powers means that the British have to strengthen the Royal Navy and their merchant marine. However, to do this they will have to reduce the production of munitions for the British Army. This would not be a problem because by the end of 1915 the Germans would have defeated France and Belgium, the Austrians would have defeated Serbia and the Russians would have defeated the Ottoman Empire. They would have been in a worse strategic position than the ones they were in for most of the Napoleonic Wars or even 1940.

The only thing that I think could prevent a Central Powers victory would be for America to join the war earlier. Having the Russian Empire as a member of the Central Powers instead of the Entente makes this plausible because it makes the war, "A fight for democracy," 2½ years earlier. However, the combined economies of Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia are so strong (the first two have the factories and Russia has the raw materials) that the Central Powers still have a good chance of winning a long war, especially if they have occupied France and Belgium before the Americans enter the war.
 
Last edited:
I know the OP is about Russia and the Ottomans switching sides, but in the scenario laid out- Russia backs Bulgaria rather than Serbia- what we get is a situation where a point of conflict is removed between Russia and the Central Powers. Is there a compelling reason to actually ally with them?

I don't mean to be contrary, I'm just wondering if perhaps this might be a better excuse for Russia to (at least initially) sit out a war that revolves around Germany and France over [some issue.] Which could be interesting on its own.
 
I would believe that even if Russia only came to an agreement with Germany, but not with Austria-Hungary (that is, Germany breaks its alliance with Austria-Hungary and makes an alliance with Russia and Serbia), they would still have very good odds. Of course this would mean that Germany would have a southern front instead of an eastern one, but obviously this would be a much better deal for both Russia and Germany than the alliances they did in OTL (I really do not understand why they chosed the allies they did). In such a scenario, Germany would probably first be defensive against France while they, together with Russia (and Serbia) crushed Austria-Hungary (which I assume would not take long). After this they could consentrate on France and the Ottoman Empire. In such a war it would also be less likely that Germany would need to start an unrestricted submarine warfare, as they could trade with Russia.
 
I would believe that even if Russia only came to an agreement with Germany, but not with Austria-Hungary (that is, Germany breaks its alliance with Austria-Hungary and makes an alliance with Russia and Serbia), they would still have very good odds. Of course this would mean that Germany would have a southern front instead of an eastern one, but obviously this would be a much better deal for both Russia and Germany than the alliances they did in OTL (I really do not understand why they chosed the allies they did). In such a scenario, Germany would probably first be defensive against France while they, together with Russia (and Serbia) crushed Austria-Hungary (which I assume would not take long). After this they could consentrate on France and the Ottoman Empire. In such a war it would also be less likely that Germany would need to start an unrestricted submarine warfare, as they could trade with Russia.
I read that Bismarck chose Austria over Russia, because Austria was German and he felt it would be easier to control. Russia chose France, because Austria was an enemy of the smaller slavic nations of the Balkans.
 
Last edited:
I read that Bismarck cuose Austria over Russia, because Austria was German and he felt it would be easier to control. Russia chose France, because Austria was an enemy of the smaller slavic nations of the Balkans.

The German countries had been fighting each other and been allied with non-German countries a lot of times, even during Bismarcks own time, when Prussia had fought a war against Austria in 1866. When it comes to the Slavic nations on the Balkan, Austria-Hungary was in fact allied with Bulgaria, because Bulgaria was an enemy of Serbia. Russia had to choose either Serbia or Bulgaria and chose Serbia, but I assume that if they had chosen Bulgaria instead, they might have been able to ally with both Germany and Austria-Hungary. This would probably have been the best strategy, but even if Austria-Hungary had been allied with Britain and France (plus the Ottoman Empire), this would still have been a better deal for both Germany and Russia. I don´t believe the fact that Austria was an German country was rreally that important. Of course this was the age of nationalism, but after all the Prussians had chosen the Kleindeutsche solution to unificiation, which to me seems to indicate a certain pragmatism. Still it would of course have been best to have both Russia and AH as allies.
 
The German countries had been fighting each other and been allied with non-German countries a lot of times, even during Bismarcks own time, when Prussia had fought a war against Austria in 1866. When it comes to the Slavic nations on the Balkan, Austria-Hungary was in fact allied with Bulgaria, because Bulgaria was an enemy of Serbia. Russia had to choose either Serbia or Bulgaria and chose Serbia, but I assume that if they had chosen Bulgaria instead, they might have been able to ally with both Germany and Austria-Hungary. This would probably have been the best strategy, but even if Austria-Hungary had been allied with Britain and France (plus the Ottoman Empire), this would still have been a better deal for both Germany and Russia. I don´t believe the fact that Austria was an German country was really that important. Of course this was the age of nationalism, but after all the Prussians had chosen the Kleindeutsche solution to unification, which to me seems to indicate a certain pragmatism. Still it would of course have been best to have both Russia and AH as allies.

Russia chose her major allies based on the benefits they could offer. France brought in vital loans for Russian industrialization and modernization plans. Britain was brought in after France and Britain had reconciled their colonial rivalries in Africa, and Britain had expressed her willingness to allow Russians to seize the Turkish Straits in exchange of a formal alliance and end for the Great Game in Central Asia. Britain did this because it seemed less costly to pursue a naval arms race with Germany than prop up the Indian Army to defend the Raj against the perceived threat of a Russian invasion. Russia had to be appeased because she seemed stronger than Germany. Do note that this assessment and agreement was done before the Russo-Japanese War.

Russia wanted money, the Straits and peaceful borders, and Germany couldn't offer her as much as the Entente could, especially after the Austro-Russian relations had gone sour.
 
The tendency here is to see the now Entente aligned Ottomans as still being constrained by the same factors as the Central Power aligned Ottomans ignoring the fact that if there was a clear association between the powers then Britain's capital resources would have flowed to the Ottomans as they did Russia in OTL.

Russia's strategic dilemma is magnified compared to OTL as the while it can promote threat to the British Empire at more points than Germany conversely those same points are vulnerable to the British Empire. By and large though the actions in Asia would not be the conflicts of the kind of massive armies seen in Europe due to logistic constraints.

Certainly as has been pointed out a Russian alliance would have made sense for the Germans but a German alliance offered rather less for the Russians. On the other hand Russia is much stronger less open to intimidation that Austria-Hungary. Russia allied with the Central Powers may well simply chose not to fight.

Of course in that circumstance then the Ottomans allied with the Entente may choose not to fight.

That outcome would have huge advantages for both powers over OTL.
 
The tendency here is to see the now Entente aligned Ottomans as still being constrained by the same factors as the Central Power aligned Ottomans ignoring the fact that if there was a clear association between the powers then Britain's capital resources would have flowed to the Ottomans as they did Russia in OTL.

Russia's strategic dilemma is magnified compared to OTL as the while it can promote threat to the British Empire at more points than Germany conversely those same points are vulnerable to the British Empire. By and large though the actions in Asia would not be the conflicts of the kind of massive armies seen in Europe due to logistic constraints.

Certainly as has been pointed out a Russian alliance would have made sense for the Germans but a German alliance offered rather less for the Russians. On the other hand Russia is much stronger less open to intimidation that Austria-Hungary. Russia allied with the Central Powers may well simply chose not to fight.

Of course in that circumstance then the Ottomans allied with the Entente may choose not to fight.

That outcome would have huge advantages for both powers over OTL.

Economic help from Britain might explain Russias choice of alliance. However, I definitely disagree that an alliance with Germany would not have been a huge advantage to Russia. If it had not been for the economic help, it would clearly have been better for Russia to be allied with Germany, as they could consentrate on the Ottoman Empire (plus Austria Hungary if they allied with France and Britain).
 
Economic help from Britain might explain Russias choice of alliance. However, I definitely disagree that an alliance with Germany would not have been a huge advantage to Russia. If it had not been for the economic help, it would clearly have been better for Russia to be allied with Germany, as they could consentrate on the Ottoman Empire (plus Austria Hungary if they allied with France and Britain).

Central Asia and Far East, we see dispersal of effort again. The Russians are not being paranoid when they explain they need a larger than average army to defend their frontiers as they are vulnerable to attack at a wide range of disparate points.
 
It would have been wiser for Russia to concentrate on Balkan and Constantinople than on Central Asia. Capturing Constantinople would have been far more important than taking Afganistan, which would have been difficult to control anyway.
 
It would have been wiser for Russia to concentrate on Balkan and Constantinople than on Central Asia. Capturing Constantinople would have been far more important than taking Afganistan, which would have been difficult to control anyway.

The Russians would not, I suspect have a choice. The big constraints to operations in the Balkans is the lack of roads. Meanwhile the Russians would need to deploy forces to cover their own points of vulnerability. Worse in attacking Constantinople they send their land armies into range of ships operating in the Sea of Marmara at just the point when their supply lines are stretched to their longest.

If taking Constantinople were easy the city would be Greek today.

Meanwhile threats elsewhere would have to be dealt with to some extent but if the Russians choose to yield up places like Vladivostok then the Japanese would have been happy. That still would not help the Russians bring to bear significantly overwhelming force against the Ottomans who could expect to be reinforced by British and likely French troops.

The physical geography of the Ottoman Empire made it far more vulnerable to attack by ocean capable powers and yet even so it took the best part of three years to bring it down. That is a luxury of time that Russia under economic blockade won't have.

The big enemy once it got involved was always recognised by the Central powers as Britain. The greatest threat Russia can pose to the British Empire is against its oil supplies in Persia. However logistic constraints will apply to both sides there with the British having the advantage of supply by sea and being on the defensive most likely.
 
Top