Russian Empire vs United States (1914)

[Shadow1080]

I had this a bit of an interesting scenario, what if a conflict broke out between the world's greatest rivals before they were rivals? Let's say instead of WWI breaking out in 1914, you have a conflict somehow breaking out between the Russian Empire and United States for whatever reason. In terms of 1914 manpower, industry, etc. How would the war play out with no allies involved? None of those countries had borders with each other but I suspect the battles would take place in Bering Strait and Pacific Ocean. I know the U.S. was way industrialized country, but is it really possible for the brave American soldiers to invade Siberia, travel through vast, undeveloped, empty, cold tundra to reach St. Petersburg or go though Atlantic to conduct a D-Day style invasion in the Baltics or the Black Sea? Or for the Russians to conquer Alaska, take the West Coast and invade from there while potentially facing an armed population?

 

[The Undead Martyr]

In 1914, with no allies? How the hell are they going to fight, and what for? Russia doesn't have the naval capacity to contest the Pacific, the US doesn't really have the legs to land in Vladivostock even if they had an army worth a damn to do it. And even if they did, well, just ask the OTL interventions in Siberia during the russian civil war how that ended up. Soberia is not a fun place to fight a war in.
Maybe, if the Russians had an ally like France or Japan with the naval power to seriously challenge the US in the pacific, then I could possibly see an attack on Alaska or at least the outlying islands, or altenratlry if Japan joined in the US could consider an attack on Siberia but... basically a stalemate as they yeet angry letters across the Pacific. Not really a war.

 

[JanWellem]

Some naval engagements which the US Navy would most likely win, given the total incompetence of the Russian Navy.

 

[CV(N)-6]

The USN could destroy the Russian Pacific Squadron, but the Russian Army in 1914 is much larger and more competent than the US Army of 1914, so the US couldn't do any sort of land invasion.

 

[Driftless]

In 1916, it was a big stretch for the US to put 10,000 men into Mexico, chasing Pancho Villa, with another 100,000 on the border. The part going into Mexico was most of the US (RA) Cavalry, and the part on the border included big chunks of recently called up National Guard units and very little artillery. Just the logistics of keeping those fellows in basic supplies was a useful learning exercise. The expeditionary air squadron was almost laughable, except those pilots and observers were in grave danger every time they left the ground.

Even after the DOW against Germany, it was months before the US had both sufficient forces and some level of training to fight in Europe, and that was coming in through well developed French ports onto secured ground.

 

[Shadow1080]

In 1914, with no allies? How the hell are they going to fight, and what for? Russia doesn't have the naval capacity to contest the Pacific, the US doesn't really have the legs to land in Vladivostock even if they had an army worth a damn to do it. And even if they did, well, just ask the OTL interventions in Siberia during the russian civil war how that ended up. Soberia is not a fun place to fight a war in.
Maybe, if the Russians had an ally like France or Japan with the naval power to seriously challenge the US in the pacific, then I could possibly see an attack on Alaska or at least the outlying islands, or altenratlry if Japan joined in the US could consider an attack on Siberia but... basically a stalemate as they yeet angry letters across the Pacific. Not really a war.

I made different thread of the same idea, but with allies being allowed to participate.

 

[JPEuralle]

In 1914, with no allies? How the hell are they going to fight, and what for? Russia doesn't have the naval capacity to contest the Pacific, the US doesn't really have the legs to land in Vladivostock even if they had an army worth a damn to do it. And even if they did, well, just ask the OTL interventions in Siberia during the russian civil war how that ended up. Soberia is not a fun place to fight a war in.
Maybe, if the Russians had an ally like France or Japan with the naval power to seriously challenge the US in the pacific, then I could possibly see an attack on Alaska or at least the outlying islands, or altenratlry if Japan joined in the US could consider an attack on Siberia but... basically a stalemate as they yeet angry letters across the Pacific. Not really a war.

The Alaskan Reconquista.

The shambles that such a campaign would be (on all sides) ... truly something to contemplate.

Needless to say, a scenario like the OP's would be a foreign policy coup of the highest order for Japan. "You simply can't trust the Tsar, which is why we need an even freer hand in Manchuria..."

 

[Bad@logic]

Neither side has any competing interests nor any reason to fight. Russia and the US had been from a strategic perspective on good terms ever since the foundation of the USA and enjoyed a generally positive relationship. As recently as 1905 the Americans had been biased towards the Russians against the Japanese. The only sticking point of major note was the Russian treatment of Jews - and that isn't enough to cause a war.

Now, assuming this impossible war happens, ultimately nothing happens anyway. Both sides are continental powers who aren't massively reliant on international trade - in theory the United States is easier to blockade than Russia, but it is still so difficult and US industry is so much more capable that it is meaningless. Neither can project power and invade each other. The Russian navy might do somewhat better at the naval war in the medium term since it has a cruiser force under construction unlike the Americans, and ultimately commerce raiding would be the main war tool - but they're so small they're just pinpricks and the Americans will respond with a crushing over-match anyway. Eventually everybody realizes what a useless idea the whole thing is and a status quo ante bellum peace is signed.

Some naval engagements which the US Navy would most likely win, given the total incompetence of the Russian Navy.

This is either generalization or inaccurate reliance on the Russo-Japanese War. The Russian navy in 1914 was reasonably combat effective in the Baltic and the Black Sea and proved quietly competent, winning several naval battles against the Germans and succeeding in effectively turning the Black Sea into a Russian lake. It had its problems in regards to internal schisms and some bad general strategic ideas such as almost provoking Sweden into a war, but on a tactical scale it was effective. More important is that neither side is geared to project power the long distances required to reach the other, and if they did, Russian naval geography is very forbidding to the attack - the Dardenelles are probably closed, and the Baltic is smothered with Russian coastal fortifications and minefields. Siberia is irrelevant and hard to attack where it matters, ie. Vladivostok. Ultimately neither side can touch each other where it matters and inflict any real harm.

 

[JPEuralle]

Neither side has any competing interests nor any reason to fight. Russia and the US had been from a strategic perspective on good terms ever since the foundation of the USS and enjoyed a generally positive relationship. As recently as 1905 the Americans had been biased towards the Russians against the Japanese. The only sticking point of major note was the Russian treatment of Jews - and that isn't enough to cause a war.

Now, assuming this impossible war happens, ultimately nothing happens anyway. Both sides are continental powers who aren't massively reliant on international trade - in theory the United States is easier to blockade than the US, but it is still so difficult and US industry is so much more capable that it is meaningless. Neither can project power and invade each other. The Russian navy might do somewhat better at the naval war in the medium term since it has a cruiser force under construction unlike the Americans, and ultimately commerce raiding would be the main war tool - but they're so small they're just pinpricks and the Americans will respond with a crushing over-match anyway. Eventually everybody realizes what a useless idea the whole thing is and a status quo ante bellum peace is signed.


This is either generalization or inaccurate reliance on the Russo-Japanese War. The Russian navy in 1914 was reasonably combat effective in the Baltic and the Black Sea and proved quietly competent, winning several naval battles against the Germans and succeeding in effectively turning the Black Sea into a Russian lake. It had its problems in regards to internal schisms and some bad general strategic ideas such as almost provoking Sweden into a war, but on a tactical scale it was effective. More important is that neither side is geared to project power the long distances required to reach the other, and if they did, Russian naval geography is very forbidding to the attack - the Dardenelles are probably closed, and the Baltic is smothered with Russian coastal fortifications and minefields. Siberia is irrelevant and hard to attack where it matters, ie. Vladivostok. Ultimately neither side can touch each other where it matters and inflict any real harm.

Interestingly enough, the U.S. was if anything biased against the Russians during the Russo-Japanese War. Many prominent papers' editorials were full of anti-Russian perspective, and tons of editorial cartoons played up the image of the underdog Japanese taking on the mighty Russian bear. From a New York Times edit in April 1905: "As Japan represents Occidental ideas in Asia, so Russia represents Oriental ideas in Europe."

 

[Magnum]

The two had disputes over various Arctic islands, particularly Wrangel Island.

The US probably occupies Kamchatka (which is nigh-impossible to reach by land in any kind of strength due to a total absence of roads) and calls it a day

 

[Shadow1080]

The two had disputes over various Arctic islands, particularly Wrangel Island.

The US probably occupies Kamchatka (which is nigh-impossible to reach by land in any kind of strength due to a total absence of roads) and calls it a day

Occupying small part of a country full of volcanoes. Great achievement.

 

[Bad@logic]

Interestingly enough, the U.S. was if anything biased against the Russians during the Russo-Japanese War. Many prominent papers' editorials were full of anti-Russian perspective, and tons of editorial cartoons played up the image of the underdog Japanese taking on the mighty Russian bear. From a New York Times edit in April 1905: "As Japan represents Occidental ideas in Asia, so Russia represents Oriental ideas in Europe."

Which shows the public opinion side of things, but the actual actions of the US government during negotiations between the Russians and Japanese demonstrates that the US government was friendly in actual policy terms to the Russians.

 

[JPEuralle]

Which shows the public opinion side of things, but the actual actions of the US government during negotiations between the Russians and Japanese demonstrates that the US government was friendly in actual policy terms to the Russians.

Might be a bit pedantic, but I think the U.S. position at Portsmouth was more a result of Teddy's evolution during the war from being unabashedly pro-Japanese to sensing a threat from Japan's success than any sort of latent pro-Russian feeling. Teddy was pro-Japan at the outset, although I suppose you could argue that this was just to align himself with where U.S. public opinion was at the time. To argue that the U.S. posture at Portsmouth was anything other than an attempt to restrain Japanese ambitions seems a bit off.

 

[Bad@logic]

Might be a bit pedantic, but I think the U.S. position at Portsmouth was more a result of Teddy's evolution during the war from being unabashedly pro-Japanese to sensing a threat from Japan's success than any sort of latent pro-Russian feeling. Teddy was pro-Japan at the outset, although I suppose you could argue that this was just to align himself with where U.S. public opinion was at the time. To argue that the U.S. posture at Portsmouth was anything other than an attempt to restrain Japanese ambitions seems a bit off.

No, it just is that the US relationship with Russia was power politics that people are less used to today. The US never was very admiring of Russia itself, but from the foundation of the United States until the Bolshevik Revolution - arguably, with the exception of the First Red Scare, until the later 1940s - the United States and Russia were generally on friendly terms and shared common strategic interests. The Russo-Japanese war is a perfect example of this - the Americans as pointed out, did not find Tsarist Russia very admirable, but in the end they helped out the Russians to get at the Japanese - just like for decades before the Americans had been on friendly terms with the Russians to oppose the intolerable hegemony of British sea power, or decades later they would be united together against German expansionism. Which is the problem inherent in any US-Russian war until the actual Cold War - the US and Russia are so far apart that they have no real conflicts of interest or tensions, but they have plenty of nations between them which they both do have conflicts of interest with, and this historically drove friendly relations and some degree of cooperation. Finding a reason for war between the two is extremely difficult.

 

[Snowstalker]

Where are they even going to fight other than the North Pacific?

 

[Craig]

Let's say the impetus for the war was Russian rejection of the Treaty of Portsmouth, blaming the United States for the embarrassment of coming off second-best to Japan. Those in Russia stoking this anger decide to play the Alaska Card, saying that the US stole Alaska from the Tsar and demanding its return.

Could the Russians mount an invasion of Alaska?
Could the US defend Alaska?
Might the Russians attempt any combat operations against Hawaii or the West Coast?

 

[Bad@logic]

Let's say the impetus for the war was Russian rejection of the Treaty of Portsmouth, blaming the United States for the embarrassment of coming off second-best to Japan. Those in Russia stoking this anger decide to play the Alaska Card, saying that the US stole Alaska from the Tsar and demanding its return.

Could the Russians mount an invasion of Alaska?
Could the US defend Alaska?
Might the Russians attempt any combat operations against Hawaii or the West Coast?

Why would the Russians be angry at the nation which had just pulled their chestnuts from the fire and de-facto supported their side in getting a lenient peace treaty, much less contemplate war when their navy just was completely obliterated, they have a revolution going on at home - and if they reject the peace treaty with Japan, still at war with Japan to boot? This board has some addled suggestions sometime, but frankly this takes the cake.

 

[Craig]

Why would the Russians be angry at the nation which had just pulled their chestnuts from the fire and de-facto supported their side in getting a lenient peace treaty, much less contemplate war when their navy just was completely obliterated, they have a revolution going on at home - and if they reject the peace treaty with Japan, still at war with Japan to boot? This board has some addled suggestions sometime, but frankly this takes the cake.

I didn't say it was a GOOD reason, but people can be irrational, doncha know.
Perhaps this would be better as an ASB TL.

 

[Bad@logic]

I didn't say it was a GOOD reason, but people can be irrational, doncha know.
Perhaps this would be better as an ASB TL.

There's a difference between being irrational and having more drugs coursing through your system than an LSD lab, because that's what the Russian doing such a course of action would require. The historical record shows that the Russians were eager to avoid a fight with other nations like the British, not that they sought to bellicosely expand the war.