The Stupidity of Admiral Essen

Eurofed

Banned
Another case of "the Entente must always win lololool".

Why on earth should Russia, who got massively screwed over by their erstwhile allies, who carved puppet states out of Russian territory, suddenly start to love them again. Russia and Britain were never best friends, so to speak, and France has lost any good will it had with it propping up Finland, the Baltics and Poland.

And why on earth should the Baltic states suddenly start to feel any love for their former overlord. If there were an independent Ukraine or Belarus, it would be obvious that they would end up under Russian influence again in one way or another, but Baltic nationalists were by definition hardcore anti-Russian. Same goes for Finland. Entente Romania has snatched Bessarabia, which Russia considered its own, and snatched Bulgarian territory on top of that.

It's not a given (and somewhat unlikely) that Germany/Italy and Russia stay best friends forever. Therefore Russia can still say that for now they help Germany/Italy to get rid of hubristic, arrogant and treacherous France, recover what they've lost and then liberate the Czechs/Slovaks/whomever. But there is little point in Russia helping the Entente to maintain the status quo, and when they helped Germany (or the other way around) to crush France's Polish puppet, they did exactly that. During the interwar era IOTL, irredentism as a rule triumphed most other issues. And abandoning areas such as FInland, the Baltics or Bessarabia, which most Russians would want to get back ASAP to prop up faraway Czechia, and to help the nations which carved up the Russian Empire seems really ASB to me. And in this scenario, you can either support Bulgaria OR Serbia, not both, since they hate each others gut, and Bulgaria actually has parts of its territory, populated by ethnic Bulgars on top of that, snatched by Romania, another country which should not be on Russia's friend list, so to speak.

I concur. Russia and Germany-Italy may or may not remain friendly after the war, but their alliance of convenience before and during the conflict makes sense for the reasons you quoted.
 
I concur. Russia and Germany-Italy may or may not remain friendly after the war, but their alliance of convenience before and during the conflict makes sense for the reasons you quoted.

The German/Italian - Russian alliance of convenience makes sense indeed, up until the point where Russia shares its nuclear secrets with them, since there is nothing Russia gains from that. By that point Russia had reached all its irredentist goals in Europe and Germany and Italy have destroyed France, for which most Russians would not shed a single tear. After that it becomes a bit implausible IMO, since there is nothing Russia would gain from Britain getting completely hammered into submission.

If I ruled Russia in this scenario, I would do exactly the following:

1) Destroy the French puppets on our doorstep (Baltics, Finland, Romania)

2) Massively prop up and support Bulgaria to appease the pan-Slavs and to gain a reliable Balkans proxy that sides with us once our alliance of convenience with Germany/Italy ends.

3) To further appease the pan-Slavs, demand that Germany leaves rump-Czechoslovakia alone, although I know that Germany would not do that.

4) Try to broker a peace between Germany/Italy and Britain that would leave the latter as a great power, after all it was France who was the driving force behind the post WWI peace treaties.

5) Make sure that most of former Yugoslavia ends up under Bulgarian, not Hungarian rule, i.e. a "new" Yugoslavia gets created, with the Bulgars playing the dominant role, and the Serbs get the same deal as the Croats/Bosniaks/Montenegrins/Macedonians/Slovenes got IOTL.

6) Make sure that rump Romania becomes a Russian, not a German/Italian puppet.

7) Try to cement the good relations with China. China ITTL should be one of the most Russophile places on earth after we helped them to evict the Japanese, who had no reason to behave any better than IOTL.

8) Puppetize Japan.
 
Two problems, so to speak.

In regards to Britain it was (and will be, if not sufficiently curtailed at the negotiation table) Russia's chief rival and competitor in Central Asia (Persia, etc). It's in Russia's best interest to see Britain cut down as much as possible so it'll lose any influence it had in this part of the globe, especially since Germany and Italy are more focused on Africa and the Middle East.

In regards to China, I would think they are more friendly with Germany and Italy. IIRC Russia had a longer history of meddling with China and encroaching upon their territory (in Turkestan and Manchuria, mainly), compared to Italy and Germany, and it was the Germans and Italians who helped modernize China and sent expeditionary forces to fight against the Japanese from the very start, whereas Russia only joined later.
That's not to say Russia and China are currently on bad terms, or will be in the near future, merely that their relationship probably isn't quite as good as that with the other Central Powers.

- Kelenas
 

Eurofed

Banned
The German/Italian - Russian alliance of convenience makes sense indeed, up until the point where Russia shares its nuclear secrets with them, since there is nothing Russia gains from that. By that point Russia had reached all its irredentist goals in Europe and Germany and Italy have destroyed France, for which most Russians would not shed a single tear. After that it becomes a bit implausible IMO, since there is nothing Russia would gain from Britain getting completely hammered into submission.

If I ruled Russia in this scenario, I would do exactly the following:

1) Destroy the French puppets on our doorstep (Baltics, Finland, Romania)

2) Massively prop up and support Bulgaria to appease the pan-Slavs and to gain a reliable Balkans proxy that sides with us once our alliance of convenience with Germany/Italy ends.

3) To further appease the pan-Slavs, demand that Germany leaves rump-Czechoslovakia alone, although I know that Germany would not do that.

4) Try to broker a peace between Germany/Italy and Britain that would leave the latter as a great power, after all it was France who was the driving force behind the post WWI peace treaties.

5) Make sure that most of former Yugoslavia ends up under Bulgarian, not Hungarian rule, i.e. a "new" Yugoslavia gets created, with the Bulgars playing the dominant role, and the Serbs get the same deal as the Croats/Bosniaks/Montenegrins/Macedonians/Slovenes got IOTL.

6) Make sure that rump Romania becomes a Russian, not a German/Italian puppet.

7) Try to cement the good relations with China. China ITTL should be one of the most Russophile places on earth after we helped them to evict the Japanese, who had no reason to behave any better than IOTL.

8) Puppetize Japan.

Well, for Russia to share in a CP combined nuclear program makes sense if you realize that TTL Germany-Italy surely have the most advanced nuclear research program on Earth, much more so than Russia. For them it is a means to get something they would otherwise develop on their own substantially later. If anything, the issue is why Germany-Italy accept to share their own program with Russia. Perhaps they try to keep their ally on their good side. About your other points,

#7, if anything, TTL China has much more reason to be Germanophile-Italophile rather than Russophile, since it was Berlin and Rome that came to China's aid in its hour of need, sending their expeditionary corps and supporting the modernization of the Chinese army during the Japanese invasion.

#4 is made unfeasible by Britain's stubborn refusal to accept that it is the defeated party and cannot really expect a peace deal on its own terms. Russia also has interest to not make such a peace deal too lenient, since it would hamper its own long-established expansionistic ambitions in the Middle East.

Russia may or may not ask for #3, #5, and #6, but if it does, Germany and Italy would surely refuse to comply, since it would impinge in areas that Berlin and Rome deem their own turf. This may easily be a way that the wartime alliance between Germany-Italy and Russia breaks down, but it is more likely to happen after the war, when they have not a common enemy in the Entente powers anymore.

All three powers stand to benefit considerably from the defeat of Britain, so it is more likely that a Cold War feud about the division of Eastern Europe (and perhaps the Middle East too) in spheres of influence develops between St. Petersburg and Berlin-Rome after the war.
 
Wow, a quite epic story. I only have a couple of serious objections:

- You may want to pick another city than Kyoto, a well-known cultural treasuretrove, for the target of CP nuclear bombing of Japan. Even OTL USA, that were likely as anti-Japanese as one could get this side of war crimes ("Japanese shall be spoken only in Hell"), eventually turned down Kyoto as a target for their Bombs because of its cultural value. TTL Russians would not hate Japan as fiercely as OTL Americans. Good ATL targets include Yokohama and Kokura.

- Sorry, it defies any believability that ITTL Greece would manage to withstand the assault of the Italian army and "give it a bloody nose". ITTL the Italian military is of much, much better quality than OTL, similar to the German one, and is throwing the bulk of its whole weight on the Greek front, without major distractions in Africa or elsewhere. They managed to defeat the French Army and break through the Alps, which had defensive works similar to the Maginot Line. The Greek Army was of rather poorer quality than the French one and there were no special defenses on the Epirus mountains. Surely the Italians would break through more or less as swiftly as OTL Wehrmacht did.

I'll fix Kyoto. I only chose it because it was a nice big city far away from the sites of the invasion, after all.

As for Greece, I suppose it was a bit of a stretch. You'll have to remember, though, that Greece starts in southern Albania ITTL, holding the passes over the Epirus mountains. Overconfidence can always make an initial assault fail, and the Italians are likely to be overconfident. Add to that the fact that Greek terrain favors the defender, that wintertime is setting in, and that different butterflies might as well have created a defense line in the Epirus mountains... well, that makes the situation more difficult. And they only beat the French defenses in the Alps because of their landing in unfortified Nice which allowed them to make an attack on both sides of the fortresses in the southern part of the front. Much of the French Alpine defenses held until the German-Italian meeting north of Marseilles cut them off.

But I'll adjust Greece. I suppose that I should set the total amount of time back somewhat, and adjust the breakthrough area to the Korinth Isthmus. Because that really is a bottleneck in the traditional definition of the word.

As for Russia, I agree with Eurofed and Mulder here. TTL Russia is not going to let pan-Slavic interests get in the way of their ambitions. Austria-Hungary is gone, so they don't really have a reason to hate Germany and Italy anymore. There are some issues on the Balkans, but as far as TTL Russia is concerned, they can be solved by diplomacy (only after the war it becomes apparent that no, they can't). Britain acted aggressively towards them and didn't want to give them what they wanted after they were defeated, so they got their deserved fate. The Slovak half of Czechoslovakia might become an issue, but that won't be enough to really disturb CP-Russian relations until the war is over.
 

abc123

Banned
Two problems, so to speak.

In regards to Britain it was (and will be, if not sufficiently curtailed at the negotiation table) Russia's chief rival and competitor in Central Asia (Persia, etc). It's in Russia's best interest to see Britain cut down as much as possible so it'll lose any influence it had in this part of the globe, especially since Germany and Italy are more focused on Africa and the Middle East.

In regards to China, I would think they are more friendly with Germany and Italy. IIRC Russia had a longer history of meddling with China and encroaching upon their territory (in Turkestan and Manchuria, mainly), compared to Italy and Germany, and it was the Germans and Italians who helped modernize China and sent expeditionary forces to fight against the Japanese from the very start, whereas Russia only joined later.
That's not to say Russia and China are currently on bad terms, or will be in the near future, merely that their relationship probably isn't quite as good as that with the other Central Powers.

- Kelenas

I agree about that part about Britain. Weaker Britain= stronger Russia.
Goals of Russia IMHO:

1) Finland ( make them a puppet- no need for annexation )

2) Poland ( make them a puppet- also no need for annexation )

3) Romania ( give Moldavia to them to get them on russian side )

4) Bulgaria ( support them against Serbia and Turkey if they let Straits to Russia )

5) Greece ( support them against Turkey if they allow a naval base in Crete, also promise to them establishment of Pontus Republic if they behave, maybe even Cyprus later )

6) Serbia ( support them in annexing of Montenegro, so that they can get a exit on sea )

7) Croatia ( support fair deal between Croatia and Serbia about sharing Bosnia )

8) leave Czechs to Germany

9) support independence of Slovakia

10) make Iran a puppet ( force them to get a base in Indian ocean for Russian Navy )

11) crush Turkey ( force them to allow a free Kurdistan, that will keep them busy )

12) make Afghanistan a puppet

13) make Mongolia a puppet

14) make a Sinkiang a puppet

15) make Manchuria a puppet
( in general, do evreything to weaken China as much as possible- hina is strategic threat to Russia, allow Japan to attack and conquer as much China as they want/can, that will keep them both busy, give weapons to the warlords... )
 

Eurofed

Banned
But I'll adjust Greece. I suppose that I should set the total amount of time back somewhat, and adjust the breakthrough area to the Korinth Isthmus. Because that really is a bottleneck in the traditional definition of the word.

Yeah, a temporarily successful Greek defense in the Korinth Isthmus makes much more sense than in the Epirus mountains. :)
 
Another case of "the Entente must always win lololool".

Why on earth should Russia, who got massively screwed over by their erstwhile allies, who carved puppet states out of Russian territory, suddenly start to love them again. Russia and Britain were never best friends, so to speak, and France has lost any good will it had with it propping up Finland, the Baltics and Poland.

And why on earth should the Baltic states suddenly start to feel any love for their former overlord. If there were an independent Ukraine or Belarus, it would be obvious that they would end up under Russian influence again in one way or another, but Baltic nationalists were by definition hardcore anti-Russian. Same goes for Finland. Entente Romania has snatched Bessarabia, which Russia considered its own, and snatched Bulgarian territory on top of that.

It's not a given (and somewhat unlikely) that Germany/Italy and Russia stay best friends forever. Therefore Russia can still say that for now they help Germany/Italy to get rid of hubristic, arrogant and treacherous France, recover what they've lost and then liberate the Czechs/Slovaks/whomever. But there is little point in Russia helping the Entente to maintain the status quo, and when they helped Germany (or the other way around) to crush France's Polish puppet, they did exactly that. During the interwar era IOTL, irredentism as a rule triumphed most other issues. And abandoning areas such as FInland, the Baltics or Bessarabia, which most Russians would want to get back ASAP to prop up faraway Czechia, and to help the nations which carved up the Russian Empire seems really ASB to me. And in this scenario, you can either support Bulgaria OR Serbia, not both, since they hate each others gut, and Bulgaria actually has parts of its territory, populated by ethnic Bulgars on top of that, snatched by Romania, another country which should not be on Russia's friend list, so to speak.

What are you going on about now ..I simply asked a legitimate question that needs to be answered and your off on some CP rant that has absolutely no basis in fact and absolutely no place in a rational discussion.

In any case you have not answered any of the legitimate questions put..so they still stand and stand a major stumbling block..

as to the Entente carving parts out of Russia...please...That was imposed by the Central powers not the Entente Western allies or did I mis - read something.... They simply inherited that political baggage when they defeated the Central powers themselves, after Imperial Russia had made their own separate peace. the Baltics, Finland and Poland where the CP's doing not the Entente...its not like the Russians were in any position to reimpose their rule in the aftermath in any case were they. Bessarabia to Romania...Romania is not The Anglo-French Entente allies...They are Romania. They themselves were overrun after being essentially coerced/influenced to enter as a Russian ally ( The king would have preferred to enter as a German all, but I'm digressing) I think the point is made.

We are to believe that the CP harbour all this revanchist angst with respect to their loss for 20 years and what the Russians say lets be great buds and throw their own cultural kin to the wolves all for the sake of a few small states that they have no common ethnic bond and which in TTL they probably dominate politically and economically as well in any case (NO soviet ideological divide driving the wall between them even higher). Instead its more likely that there are politicians on both sides of the border of a like-minded political orientation thought the Baltic politicians will also be coloured by their nationalism, but economic realities are likely to come more to the fore in this round and be given more credence.

Again, the Western Slavs were the pet project of the Tsars, under any White regime that follows and especially one that has the Tsar as the Executive authority even in a constitutional function is not throwing that away without a damn good political reason and the author simply has not provided anything that is even remotely credible as yet to explain it, which is all that was asked. so as stated this nothing but unsubstantiated drivel. the author is perfectly free to persist without credible explanation, but don't cry foul when someone points out when something is just plain WRONG and thoroughly misreads the attitudes and politics of the time period.

And while the fact that the Russians left their allies in a lurch to make a separate peace and save their skins is going to wrankle considerably with the Entente allies re-investing in the Russians is still the best option for the French. At some point the French will be throwing their money into Russian industry and infrastructure to help their former allies because their still the best bet to contain any German and Italian revanchism. they did afterall demand considerable reparations, there were no doubt many in Russia this time around that thought..."if only they had stuck it out" but of course we all know how that turns out. Undoubtably, though it brought down at least one post war Russian government This time around and probably tainted another successive one, before the situation stabilized. Only with ensuing War with Poland that restored some measure of prestige for the White Russian regime have they restored themselves as credible political force in the east capable of acting as a credible protector for their cultural kin in the Western and South Slav successor regimes of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires.

Under no circumstances are they pissing that away for gains that are already essentially theirs in all but name anyways. the Soviet regime because of ideology had to conquer these regions to control them, because they diverged on too many fundamental points. A "White Russian regime"...NOT SO MUCH.

btw..if the Entente powers had wanted to Screw over their Russian ally as you had implied with the earlier comment about carving out puppet states.... They would have made peace with Sweden based on the Status quo. It was afterall Russian actions that brought them into the war and they are out of the picture at that point so the remaining Entente allies really have no axe to grind with them. Making them an independent republic makes sure that neither party benefits immediately and offers the Russians the opportunity to exert their influence postwar if they choose. Something they wouldn't have been able to do if the personal union had persisted. I don't think the Finns want to be in anyone's camp at this point but they have potential enemies all around in the immediate term.

Also, where are all these French puppets on the Russian border. Its not like the French are in a position to project their influence long term. As the White regime gains stability in the aftermath The French would have relinquished that region back to the Russian sphere of influence. Even they know they can't play European policeman forever, and they honestly must realize they don't have the resources nor the desire to do so forever. Germany and Italy however...An entirely different story and they need watching closely in the aftermath.
 
Last edited:
What are you going on about now ..I simply asked a legitimate question that needs to be answered and your off on some CP rant that has absolutely no basis in fact and absolutely no place in a rational discussion.

In any case you have not answered any of the legitimate questions put..so they still stand and stand a major stumbling block..

as to the Entente carving parts out of Russia...please...That was imposed by the Central powers not the Entente Western allies or did I mis - read something.... They simply inherited that political baggage when they defeated the Central powers themselves, after Imperial Russia had made their own separate peace. the Baltics, Finland and Poland where the CP's doing not the Entente...its not like the Russians were in any position to reimpose their rule in the aftermath in any case were they. Bessarabia to Romania...Romania is not The Anglo-French Entente allies...They are Romania. They themselves were overrun after being essentially coerced/influenced to enter as a Russian ally ( The king would have preferred to enter as a German all, but I'm digressing) I think the point is made.

We are to believe that the CP harbour all this revanchist angst with respect to their loss for 20 years and what the Russians say lets be great buds and throw their own cultural kin to the wolves all for the sake of a few small states that they have no common ethnic bond and which in TTL they probably dominate politically and economically as well in any case (NO soviet ideological divide driving the wall between them even higher). Instead its more likely that there are politicians on both sides of the border of a like-minded political orientation thought the Baltic politicians will also be coloured by their nationalism, but economic realities are likely to come more to the fore in this round and be given more credence.

Again, the Western Slavs were the pet project of the Tsars, under any White regime that follows and especially one that has the Tsar as the Executive authority even in a constitutional function is not throwing that away without a damn good political reason and the author simply has not provided anything that is even remotely credible as yet to explain it, which is all that was asked. so as stated this nothing but unsubstantiated drivel. the author is perfectly free to persist without credible explanation, but don't cry foul when someone points out when something is just plain WRONG and thoroughly misreads the attitudes and politics of the time period.

And while the fact that the Russians left their allies in a lurch to make a separate peace and save their skins is going to wrankle considerably with the Entente allies re-investing in the Russians is still the best option for the French. At some point the French will be throwing their money into Russian industry and infrastructure to help their former allies because their still the best bet to contain any German and Italian revanchism. they did afterall demand considerable reparations, there were no doubt many in Russia this time around that thought..."if only they had stuck it out" but of course we all know how that turns out. Undoubtably, though it brought down at least one post war Russian government This time around and probably tainted another successive one, before the situation stabilized. Only with ensuing War with Poland that restored some measure of prestige for the White Russian regime have they restored themselves as credible political force in the east capable of acting as a credible protector for their cultural kin in the Western and South Slav successor regimes of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires.

Under no circumstances are they pissing that away for gains that are already essentially theirs in all but name anyways. the Soviet regime because of ideology had to conquer these regions to control them, because they diverged on too many fundamental points. A "White Russian regime"...NOT SO MUCH.

btw..if the Entente powers had wanted to Screw over their Russian ally as you had implied with the earlier comment about carving out puppet states.... They would have made peace with Sweden based on the Status quo. It was afterall Russian actions that brought them into the war and they are out of the picture at that point so the remaining Entente allies really have no axe to grind with them. Making them an independent republic makes sure that neither party benefits immediately and offers the Russians the opportunity to exert their influence postwar if they choose. Something they wouldn't have been able to do if the personal union had persisted. I don't think the Finns want to be in anyone's camp at this point but they have potential enemies all around in the immediate term.

Also, where are all these French puppets on the Russian border. Its not like the French are in a position to project their influence long term. As the White regime gains stability in the aftermath The French would have relinquished that region back to the Russian sphere of influence. Even they know they can't play European policeman forever, and they honestly must realize they don't have the resources nor the desire to do so forever. Germany and Italy however...An entirely different story and they need watching closely in the aftermath.

Entente apologism FTW. Why on earth should RUssia simply relinquish its own goals, take no offense at backstabbing Romania, who was allied to it, for Christ's sake, leave Finland and the Baltics alone, who, if independent, won't simply "return" to the Russian sphere, since those people who will run those states, if they are anything like their OTL counterparts, will be 100% anti-Russian.

And what does Russia have to fear from Germany (and especially ITaly). It is France whom they want to destroy. Everything else does not count. France and its puppets. And about the West Slav thing, Russia gladly helped Germany to smash aggressive Poland, which, once the Entente had propped it up, did its best to try to kick Russia in the nuts.

Foreign policy can and will change, if the previous orientation has shown itself to be disasterous. What has the alliance with France and Britain brought for Russia? Massive territorial losses, massive devastation, millions of young men sacrificed for nothing but Britain and France snatching German and Italian colonies, about which Russia does not give a damn, and to make Italian/German territory French, again which does not benefit Russia at all. And then the Entente propped up said puppet states, instead of allowing them to collapse, and did not force Romania to relinquish Bessarabia, which it could easily have (after all, there still was a Romanian-Hungarian border to draw, and it could have easily ended up somewhat more in favor of the latter). If that's not stabbing your ally in the back, I don't know what it is.

Your scenario may not be ASB, but to me it is very unlikely.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Entente apologism FTW. Why on earth should RUssia simply relinquish its own goals, take no offense at backstabbing Romania, who was allied to it, for Christ's sake, leave Finland and the Baltics alone, who, if independent, won't simply "return" to the Russian sphere, since those people who will run those states, if they are anything like their OTL counterparts, will be 100% anti-Russian.

And what does Russia have to fear from Germany (and especially Italy). It is France whom they want to destroy. Everything else does not count. France and its puppets. And about the West Slav thing, Russia gladly helped Germany to smash aggressive Poland, which, once the Entente had propped it up, did its best to try to kick Russia in the nuts.

Foreign policy can and will change, if the previous orientation has shown itself to be disasterous. What has the alliance with France and Britain brought for Russia? Massive territorial losses, massive devastation, millions of young men sacrificed for nothing but Britain and France snatching German and Italian colonies, about which Russia does not give a damn, and to make Italian/German territory French, again which does not benefit Russia at all. And then the Entente propped up said puppet states, instead of allowing them to collapse, and did not force Romania to relinquish Bessarabia, which it could easily have (after all, there still was a Romanian-Hungarian border to draw, and it could have easily ended up somewhat more in favor of the latter). If that's not stabbing your ally in the back, I don't know what it is.

Your scenario may not be ASB, but to me it is very unlikely.

Again, I concur. Patronage of West and South Slavs cannot be the be-all and end-all for Russia. There were rather sizable spells of the Victorian Age when Pan-Slavism was not a significant or important component of Russian foreign policy, generally speaking and moreso in comparison to expansion in Central Asia or the Far East.

Alliance with the Entente was a relatively recent policy in comparison to their Great Game rivalry with Britain, which had lasted almost the whole span of the 19th century and, for a post-WWI surviving Tsarist Russia, not really a rewarding or successful one. Nor is the Entente-centric *Versailles status quo something that they would have any real motivation to prop up, quite the contrary. In all likelihood, interwar Russia curses the day it decided to join the Entente. An alliance of convenience with Germany-Italy promises them the recovery of their old territories AND the fulfilling of their long-cherished ambitions in Central Asia and the Far East. If this means they have to throw Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia to the CP wolves, so be it. Pan-Slavism always was a means to an end for the Tsars.

Besides, who says that Russia necessarily has to pick Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia as their main Slav clients, and so set themselves on a pre-*WWII collision course with the CP ? They can pick Bulgaria instead as their main Slav (would-be) proxies, which allows them to strike a most gainful alliance of convenience with Berlin and Rome instead, at least for the duration of the war.

ITTL they have been able to re-establish a rather nifty empire with a relatively painless war with Britain and Japan, in comparison to the rather more costly and bloody war with Germany-Italy that a second alliance with the Entente would have entailed.
 
Last edited:

abc123

Banned
Again, I concur. Patronage of West and South Slavs cannot be the be-all and end-all for Russia. There were rather sizable spells of the Victorian Age when Pan-Slavism was not a significant or important component of Russian foreign policy, generally speaking and moreso in comparison to expansion in Central Asia or the Far East.

Alliance with the Entente was a relatively recent policy in comparison to their Great Game rivalry with Britain, which had lasted almost the whole span of the 19th century and, for a post-WWI surviving Tsarist Russia, not really a rewarding or successful one. Nor is the Entente-centric *Versailles status quo something that they would have any real motivation to prop up, quite the contrary. In all likelihood, interwar Russia curses the day it decided to join the Entente. An alliance of convenience with Germany-Italy promises them the recovery of their old territories AND the fulfilling of their long-cherished ambitions in Central Asia and the Far East. If this means they have to throw Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia to the CP wolves, so be it. Pan-Slavism always was a means to an end for the Tsars.

Besides, who says that that Russia necessarily has to pick Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia as their main Slav clients, and so set themselves on a pre-*WWII collision course with the CP ? They can pick Bulgaria instead as their main Slav (would-be) proxies, which allows them to strike a most gainful alliance of convenience with Berlin and Rome instead, at least for the duration of the war.

ITTL they have been able to re-establish a rather nifty empire with a relatively painless war with Britain and Japan, in comparison to the rather more costly and bloody war with Germany-Italy that a second alliance with the Entente would have entailed.


Frankly, I don't see any valid reason for any post-war confrontation of Russia vs. Germany-Italy.
If evreyone keeps his end of the deal, no problems.
 
Top