The "expiration date" of a German Russia-first strategy?

BooNZ

Banned
Out of curiosity, though--what exactly, if anything, do you think Russia could have done in order to avoid collapsing in the middle of World War I?

(a) Avoid war altogether (abandon Serbia), or
(b) Strategic withdrawl (abandon France)

Well, I think that even without a German invasion of Belgium, Britain might be sufficiently angry at Germany due to the previous Anglo-German naval arms race and thus still enter World War I on the Franco-Russian side at some point during World War I. However, if there is no large-scale German naval expansion in the pre-World War I years and Germany does not invade Belgium, then I strongly think that Britain would remain neutral throughout all of World War I. :) Plus, in this TL, Germany would have a lot more money which it can spend on improving its army, and later, its air force as well. :)

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

I think slightly better Anglo-German relations would both reduce the likelihood of Germany going through Belgium, and the chances of Britain declaring on Germany in any case. There are also theories that Russia would have been less belligerent without Britain aligned against Germany
 
(a) Avoid war altogether (abandon Serbia), or
(b) Strategic withdrawl (abandon France)

Abandon France in exactly what sense, though?

I think slightly better Anglo-German relations would both reduce the likelihood of Germany going through Belgium, and the chances of Britain declaring on Germany in any case. There are also theories that Russia would have been less belligerent without Britain aligned against Germany

OK. Also, though, do you think that Germany could have still sparked a war in 1914 if it would have wanted to in this TL? After all, with British (and thus U.S.) neutrality throughout all of World War I, 1914 would have probably (still) been a very good time for Germany to spark a general European war. :)
 

BooNZ

Banned
Abandon France in exactly what sense, though?

The understanding between France and Russia was that they were both to launch offensives against Germany simultaneously - the theory being to prevent Germany using internal rail network to maintain the initiative. If Russian retreats, Germany can focus on France.

OK. Also, though, do you think that Germany could have still sparked a war in 1914 if it would have wanted to in this TL? After all, with British (and thus U.S.) neutrality throughout all of World War I, 1914 would have probably (still) been a very good time for Germany to spark a general European war. :)

Sparked in what way? By backing its ally against state sponsored terrorism? I think A-H would still be out for blood, but Germany, Russia and France would be less enthusiastic for war. Most likely scenario would be Serbia instructed by Russia to back down - per 1908
 

LordKalvert

Banned
In WW1 a Russia first strategy is a bad move on their part; the reason Russia ended up doing so poorly was they attacked Germany in places that were very unfavorable to them. Had they gotten to defend behind their fortress line deep in their own turf the Germans would be the ones doing a lot worse. Like IOTL after the Great Retreat of 1915 when the Germans hit the Dvina line they were stopped cold and slaughtered trying to break it. It was only after the 1917 revolution collapsed army morale that the Riga offensive was possible and largely succeeded because the Russians ran away and lacked reserves because the army was just going home rather than staying and fighting. Even the Kerensky offensive despite its successes was badly undermined by the army largely refusing to continue fighting, ultimately causing it to fail. The Russians fighting on the defensive on their home turf are a TOUGH enemy and a fresh Russian force with time to mobilize and pick where it wanted to fight was not going to be easy pickings in 1914-17.

So IMHO a Russia first strategy was already obsolete in 1914. Probably the last time it was remotely viable was in 1912 when the Russians were still recovering from the Russo-Japanese war and their rail construction plans weren't as advanced.

OTL strategy against France could have worked with minor changes on the part of Germany, such as not tying the 2nd army to the flank of the 1st army during the move into France from Belgium; at Mons then the 2nd army would then have come across the flank of the BEF, cutting off their retreat and destroying them, while then giving them a chance to savage the French 5th army before it could slip away. With the BEF gone and the French 5th worse off than IOTL there is no Miracle of the Marne and the Schlieffen/Moltke Plan works at maiming France long enough to shore up the Eastern Front and then giving Germany a guaranteed success to 'Race to the Sea' and encircle Paris with their later reserves. It was operational mistakes early in the wheel through France that caused them to end up fighting the historical campaign and failing.

Agreed. Would like to add though- The German army makes rapid progress after the Russo-Japanese War. It is by far the power that best applies the lessons of that war.

Some of the more important lessons that the Germans learn-

The need for machine guns

Trench mortars which would prove so very important. Germany had none until around 1910

The need for modern uniforms

The need for heavy artillery

Open order for combat

In short, its hard to say if there ever really is a big opportunity for the Germans to ever go East- unless you want to talk about around 1900 when British neutrality could be expected (or better). But in tha case, French artillery is light years ahead of the Germans

And while the Germans get a shot at winning in the West OTL, they come very close to losing it all in 1914 as well
 

LordKalvert

Banned
As far as I know, in spite of Germany's lower population growth rate relative to Russia, Germany actually industrialized at a much faster rate than Russia did in the years and decades before the start of World War I. Indeed, I can back this up with data if you are interested. :)


This is probably true- Russian industrialization turns into a very heavy recession around 1898 at least in heavy industry. It lasts until about 1903, then turns south again during the chaos of 1905. Its not until 1908 that solid growth returns but its very high after that

The record for light industry is much better but its also very tricky to gauge. Most light industry in Russia was in the villages and how much is industrialization and how much is replacement is impossible to know from the data
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Very good points! :) If Germany would have had a less buffoonish Kaiser who did not significantly build up Germany's navy, then when exactly is the earliest realistic point in time when Germany could have successfully established an alliance with both Britain and Japan (an alliance which would be targeted against France and especially against Russia, obviously)?

Any thoughts on these two questions of mine, Wiking? After all, I am trying to figure out the best long-term political and military strategies for me if I would have purely hypothetically been Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany ever since 1888. :)

The Germans first start their Fleet in 1898 at least the big push. Its actually a response to a serious of actions by the British where the Germans think the British treat them very badly.

A short list- British backing intervention in the Armenian affair- horrified the Germans and drove them to the Russians

Failure to contain Greece in the Greco-Ottoman War 1897

Manipulation of the Congo Treaty

Failure to help Italy in Abyssinia particularly the Zeilya affair

The Jameson raid and the Kruger telegram

Britain's truly bizarre behavior during the Sino-Japanese War. First proposing intervention, then opposing the same basic plan after Russia proposed it.

The Germans simply felt that the British would take them for granted

And dialing back the Naval program means conceding the sea to the Franco-Russians
 
Top