What if Kaiser Wilhelm & ministers kept up the Reinsurance Treaty?

What if Kaiser Wilhelm & ministers kept up the Reinsurance Treaty?

  • a) Russia never makes an alliance with France

    Votes: 12 31.6%
  • b) Russia drops the German treaty and makes an alliance with France by 1914, motivated by economics

    Votes: 13 34.2%
  • c) Russia receives less foreign investment, especially in Polish railways

    Votes: 8 21.1%
  • d) Austria-Hungary never asserts itself in Balkans nor annexes Bosnia

    Votes: 8 21.1%
  • e) Germany has a larger than OTL navy

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • f) Germany never attacks France

    Votes: 6 15.8%
  • g) Germany has a 1-front war with France eventually

    Votes: 17 44.7%

  • Total voters
    38

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Russo-German reinsurance treaty was a secret unacknowledged arrangement, right? However, was it a complete secret or an “open secret” that Austria & other 3rd countries had some awareness of?



Then multiple choice



a) Russia never makes an alliance with France

b) Russia drops the German treaty and makes an alliance with France by 1914, motivated by economics

c) Russia receives less foreign investment, especially in Polish railways

d) Austria-Hungary never asserts itself in Balkans nor annexes Bosnia

e) Germany has a larger than OTL navy

f) Germany never attacks France

g) Germany has a 1-front war with France eventually
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Russo-German reinsurance treaty was a secret unacknowledged arrangement, right? However, was it a complete secret or an “open secret” that Austria & other 3rd countries had some awareness of?
As long as it was 'active' : yes, it was kept secret. ...
Until Otto von Bismarck let it be made public in 1896. This was part of his campaign of a grundging, out-of-date-old-man against Wilhelm II.

For your question : it falls too short.
First : Please keep in mind, that it was in the first place kind of a stop-gap-measure of Otto von Bismarck after the Bulgarian Crisis of 1885/86 that lead the break-up of the League of Three Emperors. He was in desperate need of something to keep the Russians at his side and draw them away from France, that at this time already started to make ... 'overtures' to the russian nobility. And it wasn't very popular with the leading political class in Prussia/Germany at that time - the 'Junkers' as there was kind of a tariffs-war between them and Russia on grain-exports of the latter.

Second : Please keep also in mind the circumstances that lead to the non-proliferation of the Reinsurance treaty which were quite mixed.
-The then chancellor Leo von Caprivi was an opponent to german colonial expansion and friend of detention with Britain. Almost his first foreign policy actions was the - aleady prepared by Bismarck - signing of the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty, meant as a sign to Britain that Germany accepts Britains superiority in colonial questions.
-On the other hand - despite the non-proliferation - he ended the grain-tariff-war in favor of Russia. Big part of the general opposition to him by the 'Junkers' for the rest of his life. Beside the more social domestic policy he tried in union with the Kaiser at that time.
-As being unfond of war, contrary to the german military (Alfred von Waldersee), that favored preventive wars against Russia as well as France already at that time, he himself would have been happy to prolong it. But as he gave the Foreign ministry the lead, they ultimatly ... persuaded him and Wilhelm II, that 'leaning' to Britain' as well as pursue a "middle-europe" policy with 'guiding' A-H would be preferable.
So it was Leo von Caprivi
- with the Kaiser against the military keeping the treaty with Russia for military (anti-war) reasons
- with the Kaiser and the SPD against the 'conservatives' about social policy
- with the Kaiser (and the industry) against the Junkers in trade policy
- against the Kaiser and the industry for letting colonies
- against the Kaiser about 'fleet-policy' (already a feature, when he was Chief of the Navy)


and your choices :
none of these as they stand there
as each of them would need a very different set of PoD(s) in the first place as well as afterwards, not talking of further needed butterflys. (As I tried to indicate with my above comments.)
 

Deleted member 94680

With the Russo-German Alliance maintained, would the investment that OTL was French be replaced by Marks from Berlin? There was a lot of German capital that OTL was invested in China, Africa and the Ottoman Empire that could have been used to 'keep Russia sweet'.

Or was German fear of the 'Slavic Horde' too much for German investors to allow investment in Russia, leaving a German-allied Russia without the money they needed - breeding resentment for the future?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
If the choice to 'go-with-Russia' would have been made as part of the "New Course" after Caprivi became chancellor :
definitly the first of your choices, german investors would take the frenchs positions. Not only to 'keep Russia sweet' but also to make an awfull lot of money, even easier to obtain than in China, Africa or the Ottoman Empire.

Where could fears better be placed propagandistically :
The heirs of the Vikings (Kiev Rus) ?
or
The 'yellow menace' ?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
It'll also depend on what the Russians want.
railways
locomotives
mining industry of their own
steel mills of their own
mechanical engineering indusrty of their own

In short :The complete set of a developed heavy industry. They didn't want 'just' to buy the toys (guns, battleships, etc.), they wanted to be able to build this stuff on their own.

In political terms :
control of the Bosporus and access to the mediterrainian
control of the whole Caucasus
control of Persia with access to the Indian Ocean
oh, and
having some say on the balkans slavic nations
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

...snip...
In short :The complete set of a developed heavy industry. They didn't want 'just' to buy the toys (guns, battleships, etc.), they wanted to be able to build this stuff on their own.

Provided that Russia is politically aligned and the Russian government allows attractive returns on the German investments, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work.

In political terms :
control of the Bosporus and access to the mediterrainian
control of the whole Caucasus
control of Persia with access to the Indian Ocean
oh, and
having some say on the balkans slavic nations

All of this doesn't conflict with German Interests and in fact a strong, stable, German-financed Russia could even be presented as a German success story. German access to the Med on the back of Russian merchant traffic? Interesting butterflies could result.

Doesn't all bode well for Austria-Hungary in the long term, though...
 
Provided that Russia is politically aligned and the Russian government allows attractive returns on the German investments, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work.

All of this doesn't conflict with German Interests and in fact a strong, stable, German-financed Russia could even be presented as a German success story. German access to the Med on the back of Russian merchant traffic? Interesting butterflies could result.

Doesn't all bode well for Austria-Hungary in the long term, though...

I dont think it counts as a success for Germany to turn Russia 2 generations earlier than IOTL into a Superpower just to fuck with Great Britain in the Med-Sea, Near East and Far East, regions Germany doesnt care about.
 
IIRC Clark mentions that even before the treaty's cancellation the Germans already had doubts about whether the treaty was more than just symbolic in nature. Without a real effort on the German side and the French charm and money offensive still going on as IOTL, the Reassurance Treaty might just live a little longer until the French would win Russia over.
 

Deleted member 94680

I dont think it counts as a success for Germany to turn Russia 2 generations earlier than IOTL into a Superpower just to fuck with Great Britain in the Med-Sea, Near East and Far East, regions Germany doesnt care about.

Well, it would be a Great Power rather than a Superpower as the international dynamic would be different. The Superpowers only came about in the aftermath of WWII with just the two Nuclear-armed nations left (as it were) above the others. With no WWI, the 'Concert of Nations' of Great Powers should last far longer. Anyway, this Russia would be allied to Germany and - as you pointed out - orientated towards regions Germany "doesn't care about", so where's the harm to Berlin? In fact, this Russia could be presented as the 'European Bulwark' of Christianity, keeping the yellow hordes far, far away from Prusisa
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I wonder if the Germans could and would fully substitute for OTL's French loans. With a larger population and territory of their own, the Germans needed more capital to invest in their own development and had projects they could devote their financial resources too.

This is a contrast to France, with a smaller population and more protected small industry, leaving fewer places for the *more* advanced French banking system to invest in within French ruled territories.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I voted b) and d).

I think that Russia was trending towards France because of its financial largesse, fear of German potential and desire to progress against Austria-Hungary, which France could support scot-free but that a Germany allied to Austria-Hungary or trying to play even-handed could not. However, the longer the German-Russian tie is strung out, the more cautious Austria-Hungary will be. The pre-unification Russo-Prussian relationship was positive, as was the 3 Emperor's League, but even as early as 1875, Russia's warning to Germany to not go after France again in the "War in Sight" crisis was a bad sign for the long-term. And things went further downhill with the Russian outrage at Germany blossomed over Berlin's failure to back what St. Petersburg thought it was entitled to.
 
Top