War of 1914, when is WW1?

The short answer is not nearly as likely.

A longer answer is the performance of Russian armies in the early part of the war was overall satisfactory. Yes there was that major screw up in East Prussia but the German's first counterattack thereafter was rebuffed and in fact German troops only narrowly squeaked out of losing a numbered field army as captive themselves. Meanwhile performance against the KuK Army was very good. Given in this scenario it is France who goes down overall the Tsar and his advisers would likely be seen to have done their job and also given a short war the stresses on Russian society in general would not have time to build up to revolutionary levels. It is entirely possible the Russians would be quite pleased with their part in the war.
"Done their job" is not good enough though. Strikes and unrest in Russia before WW1 were incrasing each year, even without war something would have happened. Now with clearly being the loser something will happen. And on top of the Russian costs of the war you have France, the credit line of the Russian state and industry, all but diappear from Russian investments guaranteeing a long and hard economic crisis, not even mentioning whatever the Germans/Austrians might try to extract from Russia in a peace treaty. A short "world war" could for Russia be just as fatal as a long one.

8201350_orig.png
 
"Done their job" is not good enough though. Strikes and unrest in Russia before WW1 were incrasing each year, even without war something would have happened. Now with clearly being the loser something will happen. And on top of the Russian costs of the war you have France, the credit line of the Russian state and industry, all but diappear from Russian investments guaranteeing a long and hard economic crisis, not even mentioning whatever the Germans/Austrians might try to extract from Russia in a peace treaty. A short "world war" could for Russia be just as fatal as a long one.

I would note your logic chain breaks down in a couple of places, one the French have suffered a defeat on the scale but probably in fact a bit less than that of 1870. The Russians on the other hand are still a dangerous enemy in the field and so are unlikely to face harsh terms. Also the correlation between number of strikes even in Leon Trotsky's figures is not really there is it?

A revolution might happen but my prediction would later and for reasons other than the war. The Russians held their own, the Germans and AH provide a handy external enemy, the French would still have money, maybe not as much as before but probably plenty compared to the situation OTL where far greater exactions on the Russian people were required and the Tsar seems to be doing a reasonable job, the results for Russia in this scenario are more in line with situations like the Crimean War than the 1905 one.
 
I would note your logic chain breaks down in a couple of places, one the French have suffered a defeat on the scale but probably in fact a bit less than that of 1870. The Russians on the other hand are still a dangerous enemy in the field and so are unlikely to face harsh terms. Also the correlation between number of strikes even in Leon Trotsky's figures is not really there is it?

A revolution might happen but my prediction would later and for reasons other than the war. The Russians held their own, the Germans and AH provide a handy external enemy, the French would still have money, maybe not as much as before but probably plenty compared to the situation OTL where far greater exactions on the Russian people were required and the Tsar seems to be doing a reasonable job, the results for Russia in this scenario are more in line with situations like the Crimean War than the 1905 one.
Correlation of strikes with what? It just shows that 1914 would have most likely seen more strikes than the revolutionary year 1905 had it not been for the interruption caused by the war.

The French loans to Russia were for things they deemed necessary for a war, such as double and quadruple tracked railway lines, i'd expect the Germans to force some treaty article down their throat to stop that, they just lost said war after all. They were not exactly investing in Russian slaughterhouses and fishery, those things have not much value in war. The French credit would dry up and Russia due to unrest and strikes would probably be forced to default on the existing ones, this would sour French/Russian relations and the relations with any foreign bank that values its money.

While i'm personally in the " merely a rough ride for Russia" camp it still tips the balance in favor of Germany for quite some time, Imperial Germany has huge advantages that imo should mean they're the first (strong scientists, easily available uranium, large industry, advanced chemistry). A-H too is on the winning side, which means vis a vis Russia they're gaining in power and development not being burdened by finance and large scale unreast and i wouldn't expect them to abandon Germany.
 
Correlation of strikes with what? It just shows that 1914 would have most likely seen more strikes than the revolutionary year 1905 had it not been for the interruption caused by the war.

The French loans to Russia were for things they deemed necessary for a war, such as double and quadruple tracked railway lines, i'd expect the Germans to force some treaty article down their throat to stop that, they just lost said war after all. They were not exactly investing in Russian slaughterhouses and fishery, those things have not much value in war. The French credit would dry up and Russia due to unrest and strikes would probably be forced to default on the existing ones, this would sour French/Russian relations and the relations with any foreign bank that values its money.

While i'm personally in the " merely a rough ride for Russia" camp it still tips the balance in favor of Germany for quite some time, Imperial Germany has huge advantages that imo should mean they're the first (strong scientists, easily available uranium, large industry, advanced chemistry). A-H too is on the winning side, which means vis a vis Russia they're gaining in power and development not being burdened by finance and large scale unreast and i wouldn't expect them to abandon Germany.
I was thinking revolution and rebellion in Russia would be more gradual and slower. Conditions for people keep getting worse and worse in Russia until large scale revolutions and rebellion happens in the 20s or maybe the late 30s at most. Probably caused by an unpopular decision by the Tsar that pushes people to far. With France weaken and the alliance possibly broken, Germany would have Russia one on one army wise. A war like that could come down to quality over quantity. Russia might screw itself due to incompetent leaders and poor management of the military even if they are more modernize. The average German soldier still might be better equipped and trained then Russian ones.
 
Top