Russian Empire vs British Empire, early 1900s.

Eurofed

Banned
I predict a really short war for France then, given it's facing off against Britain, Germany and Italy.

Very much so, given that in all likelihood Belgium would give free passage to the Germans at British prompting and Italy would join from the start, tying up a substantial portion of the French army on the Alps front (and we would send our spare divisions on the Lorraine front, as per standing Triple Alliance protocols).

I wonder where the British would use the bulk of their forces, besides Afghanistan and Persia, if any, and whether in such a war Germany would pick a Russia-first or a France-first strategy.
 
Last edited:
Possibly still in Transvaal. If they go to war, Britain sails around and pokes at Russia, Russia struggles to invade India, and the whole thing ends messily in a peace treaty a few years later.

But when in the early 1900s? If the Entente has been signed (officially a colonial agreement, yes-but unofficially, possibly something more binding), then an Anglo-French war is somewhat less likely (it's likely that the prospect of both powers being engaged in the Russo Japanese War due to their allies is why they chose to sign it.) Especially as Germany has been mouthing off about its battlefleet-viz, its potential uses against British colonies/as a diplomatic weapon against Britain. Note how the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and British agreements with the USA, and even the Entente, allowed Britain to return capital ships to the Home Islands for a potential German face off. Eliminating future allies against that wouldn't be Britain's top priority. Before the Entente, now, that's another matter entirely.
 
I think your best bet is an 'intermediary', say Anglo-Russian wrangling over Persia, at least that way Russia has a better chance, with a window to act against Tehran before the Brits can send adequate land forces. Navally, we all know how its going to end...
 
Well, on the one hand this is the Russian army that got shitcanned by Imperial Japan, on the other hand this is the British army that performed lousily against the Boers.

.....

I say that the ultimate winners are the Indian Independence movement, Germany, and the United States of America.
 
The most likely way to cause this is to have the Dogger Bank incident escalate. Germany likely intervenes, leading to France joining in on the Russian side. I actually made a thread of the exact topic shortly before Alex revived this thread.
 
Well, on the one hand this is the Russian army that got shitcanned by Imperial Japan, on the other hand this is the British army that performed lousily against the Boers.

.....

I say that the ultimate winners are the Indian Independence movement, Germany, and the United States of America.

Depending on when it is, at least the British army would have enough veterans of the Boer War (e.g. a young, competent Sir John French, numerous skilled marksmen who know how to use camoflage, Baden Powell...) to have an impact. Still wouldn't trust them to perform miracles, due to the general old fashionedness of the pre Haldane Reforms British Army (no General Staff), and their general lack of numbers and experience compared to the Russian Empire. Both sides fumble around, throw a few blows, spend more than a few million pounds, and stop fighting. Indian independence, depending on how long it lasts, may gain ground-but not that much unless Britain is really stretched. (The Indian National Congress at this point still didn't actually want it, after all.)

Funny-upon entry to WWI, the only two European armies involved to have any modern combat experience (as opposed to the Ottomans and Italians, who turned up later) were the Russians and the British. Both didn't do well in their pre WWI wars. And both often (especially the Russians, although this does turn up in the anti Haig threads quite a lot) get criticised as being a bunch of archaic Victorian incompetents. Which doesn't completely work out when you look at their actual 1914 armies (with their relatively plain uniforms, in the Russian case I heard they on paper had the most machine guns/batallion of any great power as well as some of the best aircraft, and the British had actual fire and movement tactics for the infantry), but this is getting off track.
 
Depending on when it is, at least the British army would have enough veterans of the Boer War (e.g. a young, competent Sir John French, numerous skilled marksmen who know how to use camoflage, Baden Powell...) to have an impact. Still wouldn't trust them to perform miracles, due to the general old fashionedness of the pre Haldane Reforms British Army (no General Staff), and their general lack of numbers and experience compared to the Russian Empire. Both sides fumble around, throw a few blows, spend more than a few million pounds, and stop fighting. Indian independence, depending on how long it lasts, may gain ground-but not that much unless Britain is really stretched. (The Indian National Congress at this point still didn't actually want it, after all.)

Funny-upon entry to WWI, the only two European armies involved to have any modern combat experience (as opposed to the Ottomans and Italians, who turned up later) were the Russians and the British. Both didn't do well in their pre WWI wars. And both often (especially the Russians, although this does turn up in the anti Haig threads quite a lot) get criticised as being a bunch of archaic Victorian incompetents. Which doesn't completely work out when you look at their actual 1914 armies (with their relatively plain uniforms, in the Russian case I heard they on paper had the most machine guns/batallion of any great power as well as some of the best aircraft, and the British had actual fire and movement tactics for the infantry), but this is getting off track.

On the other hand the Russian Army in the Russo-Japanese war, while at the tail end of its logistics would have a (relatively) better logistical position to fight the British on land with in this case. And what took years to work properly against a paltry, small army of Boers will have much more to do against the sheer masses of Russian armies.

The statement, however, refers to the reality that about the only place Russia and Britain would fight on land would be in the Afghanistan region and any war near there will have dramatic impacts on British prestige in the Raj. Even if badly-led Russian formations defeat worse-led British ones in engagements that speak well toward neither empire, a defeat in the Raj's borders is still a defeat in the Raj's borders.

Hardly. The sentiment of the Mutiny had long since passed by then, and the most significant anti-British agitation during this period would have been the protests surrounding the 1905 Partition of Bengal. Given both powers wouldn't have been able to hit each other in any significant way bar perhaps crossing Persia, such a conflict is less likely to have the impact on Indian separatism as the First World War did.

Depends on where Britain and Russia fight, though, no?
 
Do you guys think any of the Tzars would be stupid enough to try and attempt a 'invasion' of Britian?
 
Top