Surviving Imperial Russia War Goals For WW1 and Likelihood

In the event that Russia manages to survive the First World War that is OTL, or a visibly and situationally similar one, and manages to survive the aftermath of the war long enough to stay on its feet (instead of collapsing in the aftermath), what are the gains that are made by Russia? Specifically, I'm thinking of a few areas.

  • Polish Prussia & Silesia: I don't imagine that Russia had any plans for a sea corridor to Danzig, or taking Prussia. Instead, would it claim majority Polish regions in Prussia and Silesia in order to weaken its western foe by a little bit? The latter could weaken them just enough to merit no further demands.
  • Galicia & Lodomeria: Cislenthian Austria east of the German Confederation seems like the most likely concession, give its relatively recent annexation and the Polish/Ukrainian nations residing there. In this scenario, I'm assuming that Austria-Hungary survives in some form and Russia doesn't press for claims over the Carpathians; if this fails to happen and the Double Monarchy collapses, would Russia press for territory across the mountain range or would they support puppet regimes in the region?
  • Constantinople: What would happen here? I believe that I remember Britain and France promising Russia possession of Constantinople if they were successful during WW1, but I am unsure to the extent of any such gains promised. Would a Constantinople possession imply mere Russian possession of the city and a buffer zone? Possession of the city and (eastern) Thrace? Mere possession of the immediate Mamaran littoral? Or would it have implied Russian aims for possession of a region in Anatolia proper which could be defended in depth to the same degree that Thrace could and possessed a sizable hinterland.
  • Armenia: Here, I would presume that Armenia would be expanded, but would any other subdivisions be created? A small Pontic region surrounding Trebizon? Would borders more closely resemble Wilsonian Armenia, or would they be more aligned with Soviet claims on Turkey? How far south would Russian claims reach? All the way to Lake Van? Or would they be generally be more littoral and expanding westward?
  • Any other general region that I missed; I'm not sure of any other immediate territorial objectives that Russia would have desired save for any potential colonial gains (which would likely be traded for contiguous gains closer to home). Perhaps Serbia would be expanded (definitely if Austria-Hungary is collapsing), but would any of the regions listed instead go to a client state that would be Russian-aligned?
 
This scenario needs much shorter WW1. Probably should end on 1916 or earlier.

  • Polish Prussia & Silesia: I don't imagine that Russia had any plans for a sea corridor to Danzig, or taking Prussia. Instead, would it claim majority Polish regions in Prussia and Silesia in order to weaken its western foe by a little bit? The latter could weaken them just enough to merit no further demands.
I think that these were goals of Russia. And if I remember right, it wanted parts of Prussia and Danzig. Just wondering how big problem Polish minority could create?
  • Galicia & Lodomeria: Cislenthian Austria east of the German Confederation seems like the most likely concession, give its relatively recent annexation and the Polish/Ukrainian nations residing there. In this scenario, I'm assuming that Austria-Hungary survives in some form and Russia doesn't press for claims over the Carpathians; if this fails to happen and the Double Monarchy collapses, would Russia press for territory across the mountain range or would they support puppet regimes in the region?
Galicia is very possible. In OTL Russia was very succesful on 1914.
  • Constantinople: What would happen here? I believe that I remember Britain and France promising Russia possession of Constantinople if they were successful during WW1, but I am unsure to the extent of any such gains promised. Would a Constantinople possession imply mere Russian possession of the city and a buffer zone? Possession of the city and (eastern) Thrace? Mere possession of the immediate Mamaran littoral? Or would it have implied Russian aims for possession of a region in Anatolia proper which could be defended in depth to the same degree that Thrace could and possessed a sizable hinterland.
I am bit unsure could Russia take or claim these.
  • Armenia: Here, I would presume that Armenia would be expanded, but would any other subdivisions be created? A small Pontic region surrounding Trebizon? Would borders more closely resemble Wilsonian Armenia, or would they be more aligned with Soviet claims on Turkey? How far south would Russian claims reach? All the way to Lake Van? Or would they be generally be more littoral and expanding westward?
Annexation of Turkish Armenia is possible. And Nicholas II wanted create Christian nation to Pontic region. Very possible.
  • Any other general region that I missed; I'm not sure of any other immediate territorial objectives that Russia would have desired save for any potential colonial gains (which would likely be traded for contiguous gains closer to home). Perhaps Serbia would be expanded (definitely if Austria-Hungary is collapsing), but would any of the regions listed instead go to a client state that would be Russian-aligned?
I don't think that Russia could gain any more than what has now mentioned.
 
This scenario needs much shorter WW1. Probably should end on 1916 or earlier.

Most definitely. Although, a Russia that takes a few more steps in the leadup of the war may be able to hold off longer (at least the social elements), but might butterfly the war as we recognize it. (the Ottomans may not join a war against a stronger Russia, for example).

I think that these were goals of Russia. And if I remember right, it wanted parts of Prussia and Danzig. Just wondering how big problem Polish minority could create?

It would be a rather large problem, especially as this is the most industrialized region of Russia (I think). Depending on how weak the state is in the aftermath of the war, they may be able to push for autonomy like Finland. Either way, the weaker that Germany is, the better off Russia is. And if the Poles are autonomous, I have a feeling that they'll have as many of the newly German areas dumped in with them to deal with.

Galicia is very possible. In OTL Russia was very succesful on 1914.

It was the Carpathians that bogged them down OTL before the offenses in 1915, if I recall. Agree that this is the first piece taken. Although, if they didn't want to upset the status quo, they wouldn't push farther. A complete collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire into nation-states is the last thing Russia would want to happen. (A strong, large Hungary they could deal with, but would, again, mean not going across the Carpathians).

I am bit unsure could Russia take or claim these.

I think it was prize promised, in the end. Given the choice between everything else here, I think the Russians would take Constantinople every time. The very creation of the international zone in the immediate aftermath smacks of the region being supposed to go to Russia, and so the plans already existed but, at the last second, the Russians pulled out and the rest of the Entente realized that they might as well reduce the Ottomans as much as possible (if only to protect their claims in Arabia).

Annexation of Turkish Armenia is possible. And Nicholas II wanted create Christian nation to Pontic region. Very possible.

Likely the case here. Perhaps the same would be be done inland as well, by creating a Syriac Christian nation in the southeast? (I think there were populations around Lake Van at one point). However, I'm not sure to what extent that Russia was planning to claim. I don't think they intended to claim all of Armenia as Wilson lined out (that wouldn't occur, anyways).
 
The one thing that the UK would not allow is for Russia to control Constantinople and the Straits. This has been British policy since forever. Armenia yes, maybe something on the Black Sea but Constantinople no way...participation as part of an international force at the most.
 
The one thing that the UK would not allow is for Russia to control Constantinople and the Straits. This has been British policy since forever. Armenia yes, maybe something on the Black Sea but Constantinople no way...participation as part of an international force at the most.

I need to find the source (No time tonight, will try tomorrow), but I believe that was what was promised. Germany was so rapidly becoming a threat that the UK would rather risk the Russians actually accomplishing that goal instead of risking them bowing out of the war and letting Germany turn west.
 
Russia did believe the Straits were promised, but unless Russians actually took them during the war, it is highly unlikely they would be ceded to them as any exclusive possession. More likely the Straits would be put under some international jurisdiction, Russian included with various rights and privileges.
So in victorious WWI Russia scenario it is more likely they'd get some or all of the following:Galicia, Turkish Armenia and more Poland. Incidentally, all of it would bring a lot of nationalistic trouble to Imperial government in the next 10 years and more if the Empire survives that long.
 
  • Polish Prussia & Silesia: I don't imagine that Russia had any plans for a sea corridor to Danzig, or taking Prussia. Instead, would it claim majority Polish regions in Prussia and Silesia in order to weaken its western foe by a little bit? The latter could weaken them just enough to merit no further demands.
Sorting the border out a little bit by annexing Galicia seems the most likely option - even more unruly Poles to govern is the last thing postwar Russia wants!

  • Galicia & Lodomeria: Cislenthian Austria east of the German Confederation seems like the most likely concession, give its relatively recent annexation and the Polish/Ukrainian nations residing there. In this scenario, I'm assuming that Austria-Hungary survives in some form and Russia doesn't press for claims over the Carpathians; if this fails to happen and the Double Monarchy collapses, would Russia press for territory across the mountain range or would they support puppet regimes in the region?
Galicia and Transcarpathian Ruthenia are key objectives here, beyond that the objective would be to create independent Slavic states (a new kingdom for Czechs and another for Slovaks) that would by default seek friendship of Russia.

  • Constantinople: What would happen here? I believe that I remember Britain and France promising Russia possession of Constantinople if they were successful during WW1, but I am unsure to the extent of any such gains promised. Would a Constantinople possession imply mere Russian possession of the city and a buffer zone? Possession of the city and (eastern) Thrace? Mere possession of the immediate Mamaran littoral? Or would it have implied Russian aims for possession of a region in Anatolia proper which could be defended in depth to the same degree that Thrace could and possessed a sizable hinterland.
The Straits and 'Tsargrad' are something Russia will definitively want to control, one way or another. Naval bases from the Dodecanese would also be an option.

  • Armenia: Here, I would presume that Armenia would be expanded, but would any other subdivisions be created? A small Pontic region surrounding Trebizon? Would borders more closely resemble Wilsonian Armenia, or would they be more aligned with Soviet claims on Turkey? How far south would Russian claims reach? All the way to Lake Van? Or would they be generally be more littoral and expanding westward?
Despite their propaganda, Russian imperial authorities actually disliked the idea of annexing new Armenian territories. Creating a new Armenian buffer state to Anatolia is something they'd be much more inclined to do.

  • Any other general region that I missed; I'm not sure of any other immediate territorial objectives that Russia would have desired save for any potential colonial gains (which would likely be traded for contiguous gains closer to home). Perhaps Serbia would be expanded (definitely if Austria-Hungary is collapsing), but would any of the regions listed instead go to a client state that would be Russian-aligned?
Northern Iraq and central Persia were areas where Russia expressed interest as well - pushing the border southwards towards the Indian Ocean was always in their interest, as Kurds and Azeris were both viewed as more or less compliant colonial subject groups.
 
I need to find the source (no time tonight, will try tomorrow), but I believe that was what was promised.
The British might have agreed to it during the war but unless the Russians were able to land or march troops in and take control of it I really can't see them keeping that promise. Best guess they get paid off elsewhere and/or reminded of the large amounts of money that they owe.
 

Deleted member 94680

The British might have agreed to it during the war but unless the Russians were able to land or march troops in and take control of it I really can't see them keeping that promise. Best guess they get paid off elsewhere and/or reminded of the large amounts of money that they owe.

The Sykes-Picot(-Sazonov) Agreement assigned "Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia" to Russia in the case of defeat of the Ottoman Empire. By formalising it in a Treaty, provided the Russian Empire survived the War, they're getting what they signed up for. If they don't hand it over to the Russians, unless a new agreement is signed, they're opening themselves up to a Declaration of War from the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement?wprov=sfsi1
 
What-if successful actions by Imperial Russia (or early ATL Soviet Union) against the Ottomans and Persia during WW1 led to the alternate Sykes-Picot agreement also assigning them Armenia as well as Kurdish and (Iranian) Azerbaijani areas (along with possibly even a small Assyrian state from areas where they formed the majority)?
 

Deleted member 94680

What-if successful actions by Imperial Russia (or early ATL Soviet Union) against the Ottomans and Persia during WW1 led to the alternate Sykes-Picot agreement also assigning them Armenia as well as Kurdish and (Iranian) Azerbaijani areas (along with possibly even a small Assyrian state from areas where they formed the majority)?

Well, first off an early ATL Soviet Union wouldn't get anything, it would be opposed to the WAllies - any territory they gained would have to be gained by force of arms. Other than that, it's possible I suppose but the British and French would be weary of "giving" the Russians 'too much'.
 
Well, first off an early ATL Soviet Union wouldn't get anything, it would be opposed to the WAllies - any territory they gained would have to be gained by force of arms. Other than that, it's possible I suppose but the British and French would be weary of "giving" the Russians 'too much'.

Understand with the ATL Soviet Union, though it is not like the British and French in an ATL Sykes-Picot agreement would be giving the Russians (whether Imperial or otherwise) direct access to the Mediterranean with the assigned Armenian, Assyrian, Kurdish and Azeri territories.

800px-Sykes-Picot.svg.png
 

Deleted member 94680

Understand with the ATL Soviet Union, though it is not like the British and French in an ATL Sykes-Picot agreement would be giving the Russians (whether Imperial or otherwise) direct access to the Mediterranean with the assigned Armenian, Assyrian, Kurdish and Azeri territories.

Sykes-Picot also allocated Istanbul and the Turkish Straits to Russia, so in this ATL S-P they don't get that? Otherwise that's their Mediterranean access, right there. Gaining "Nova Roma" had been a long standing ambition of Russia, why wouldn't they push for that in this ATL?
 
Sykes-Picot also allocated Istanbul and the Turkish Straits to Russia, so in this ATL S-P they don't get that? Otherwise that's their Mediterranean access, right there. Gaining "Nova Roma" had been a long standing ambition of Russia, why wouldn't they push for that in this ATL?

They still get Constantinople and the Turkish Straits, just meant that short of somehow pushing further to gain Cilicia and Alexandretta from Ottomans, the Russians would not get contiguous access to the Mediterranean from being assigned East Anatolia and parts of Upper Mesopotamia.
 
Sykes Picot is an agreement between Britain and France, not including Russia directly as signed. There are separate notes with Russia and the exchange of notes in 15 is bilateral. What it is not is a treaty between the Entente members. Italy for example has interests as do Greece and Romania and Serbia and the Arabs and Zionists. And most of it depends on the state of the Front at the end of the war whenever that may be.

Apart from Alsace Lorraine I suspect very little change in european borders between major powers. Annexing more Poles into the Russian Empire is not obviously a good idea ( Ruthenians though) Russia gains more through weakening Austria Hungary and Turkey which means aggrandisement of the Balkan States and reaching an agreed position with its partners.

After Late 15 there is a chance of the Split of the Ottoman Empire happening but I cant see the UK ( or France) moving further than places already occupied at the time of cease fire unless the Ottomans collapse. But the collapse could be spectacular in the south less so in Armenia or European Turkey.

One factor, the UK Russian Agreement was contingent on the occupier taking on Ottoman Debt.
 

Deleted member 94680

Sykes Picot is an agreement between Britain and France, not including Russia directly as signed. There are separate notes with Russia and the exchange of notes in 15 is bilateral. What it is not is a treaty between the Entente members. Italy for example has interests as do Greece and Romania and Serbia and the Arabs and Zionists. And most of it depends on the state of the Front at the end of the war whenever that may be.

...

One factor, the UK Russian Agreement was contingent on the occupier taking on Ottoman Debt.

Point taken that it doesn't directly involve Russia as signed, but in the preamble of the Note between Sir Edward Grey and Paul Cambon dated 16 May 1916 it states "such as they result from recent discussions in London and Petrograd on the subject."
Further, Point 3 of the Note says "That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the sheriff of Mecca."
Finally in the conclusion, Grey states "I have further the honor to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, His Majesty's government are proposing to the Russian government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your excellency's government on the 26th April last."

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Sykes–Picot_Agreement

Hardly nothing to do with Russia, is it? Also these agreements are made well before the end of the War and fairly specific in regards to who gets what. Granted, a sudden end-of-War advance by one of the Powers may result in a renegotiation, but the agreement was there before the end battlefield result was known.

I don't know the content of the Note of "26th April last" (1915) between France and Russia, does anyone have a link?
 
I certainly involves Russia but its really more of a conversation than a final agreement and three way at that. Greys note of 12th gives serious reservations over Constantinople which the internal Russian communications gloss over. In Particular Grey references Greece. The Russians clearly want European Turkey. The British clearly have reservations and everyone wants everyone else to guarantee their own sphere. Sykes Picot is merely be basis ( along with McMahon Hussein and half a dozen other treaties) for the eventual arrangements.

Its Diplomacy. You can expect an attempt at a general carve up, resisted by the Turks and nobody wanting to fight a street battle in Constantinople, except the Greeks.


Russia's diplomatic problem is the parts of European Turkey it wants are also wanted by other Balkan states and it wants good relations with them and to extend its sphere of influence, and its Sazanov who wants both, he is a bit of a diplomatic fantasist, which gets him fired in summer 16.

What happens depends on Dates.

1914 - no Ottomans just about any Entente win scenario is obvious way before they Entered the war.

1915 - Notwithstanding any agreement a successful Gallipoli puts British troops in Constantinople and European Turkey, and bsent a political collapse of AH I am not sure how anyone wins in 1915. But Italy is in the war ( and the Dodecanese) with their own ambitions.

1916 - early Its just possible that the Big Push works better.

1916 - later, Greece ( and Romania ) are formally in the war and have their own interests.

The biggest block to Russian ambitions though is the Greek Population of Thrace and the City. with its support you may be able to hold them, without and barring expulsion of the natives its a massive problem.
 
The only way the Russian Empire is going to survive a WW1 that is substantially the same as OTL is if the Provisional Government ducks out before the October Revolution. In which case they ain't going to be invited to Versailles and they won't be getting terribly much of anything.
 
Top