WI: Reinsurance Treaty Renewed?

The Reinsurance Treaty was secretly signed in 1887 between Russia and Germany, declaring that both nations would stay neutral in the event that one or the other fought a war against another great power. The exception being if Germany attacked France, and Russia attacked Austria Hungary. Otto von Bismarck, the German chancellor at the time, was very important in the signing of the treaty. So when he was sacked three years later, in 1890 the treaty was not renewed by Kaiser Wilhelm II. Importantly, the vacuum left by the absence of this treaty allowed France to jump in and sign off on the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1892.

My question is, what happens if Kaiser Wilhelm decides to renew the treaty, and create better relations with Russia?
 
If that happens, German has safe eastern flank, and can spend less on army, and more on navy. That means larger High Seas Fleet, and very nervous UK.
The problem would be Austro-Russian relations declining over time over balkans. At some point Germany would have to break up with either one of them.
 
If that happens, German has safe eastern flank, and can spend less on army, and more on navy. That means larger High Seas Fleet, and very nervous UK.
The problem would be Austro-Russian relations declining over time over balkans. At some point Germany would have to break up with either one of them.

But does it really keep them out of the war, or does it simply allow them to stay out longer? The British and the Russians were having trouble over their spheres of influence in Asia (India, Afghanistan, Persia, ect) but they still formed the Triple Entente with France. Does the renewal of the Reinsurance Treaty mean no Triple Entente?
 
The Reinsurance Treaty was secretly signed in 1887 between Russia and Germany, declaring that both nations would stay neutral in the event that one or the other fought a war against another great power. The exception being if Germany attacked France, and Russia attacked Austria Hungary. Otto von Bismarck, the German chancellor at the time, was very important in the signing of the treaty. So when he was sacked three years later, in 1890 the treaty was not renewed by Kaiser Wilhelm II. Importantly, the vacuum left by the absence of this treaty allowed France to jump in and sign off on the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1892.

My question is, what happens if Kaiser Wilhelm decides to renew the treaty, and create better relations with Russia?

There is one shortcoming in this description: It was not immediately Kaiser Wilhelm II who decided against renewing the RT, but Bismarck's successor in the Reichskanzlei, Leo von Caprivi. His main reason was that Bismarck's treaty system was too complicated and ethically suspect. (The second reason I explain below.) Probably influenced by his military background, caprivi preferred a simple system of allies and enemies instead of the older system of partially contradictory obligations.
Note that he was not a conservative. Caprivi was rather a modernist, in whose time social reforms, progressive income taxation and and end of anti-socialist and anti-Polish laws were enacted.

But does it really keep them out of the war, or does it simply allow them to stay out longer? The British and the Russians were having trouble over their spheres of influence in Asia (India, Afghanistan, Persia, ect) but they still formed the Triple Entente with France. Does the renewal of the Reinsurance Treaty mean no Triple Entente?

Caprivi's second reason was that he was set on a close and friendly relationship with the UK, preferably a formal alliance. The Zanzibar-Heligoland Treaty was intended as a first step. Given the British-Russian rivalry, the non-renewal of the RT was certainly also another step of this pro-British course.
 
Does the renewal of the Reinsurance Treaty mean no Triple Entente?
No. Reinsurance treaty was just non-aggression pact, it did not prohibit or preclude Franco-Russian Entente.
Reinsurance treaty means that Germany acts as arbiter between Austria and Russia regarding Balkans. It also means that Germany gives Russia free hand in Dardanelles.
Such treaty remaining in force drastically reduces chance for eruption of war.
 
If that happens, German has safe eastern flank, and can spend less on army, and more on navy. That means larger High Seas Fleet, and very nervous UK.
The problem would be Austro-Russian relations declining over time over balkans. At some point Germany would have to break up with either one of them.

This is completely dependent on the Zanzibar-Heligoland Treaty. It could be argued that by 1889, Bismarck's era of free-floating semi-alliances were over and that only a radical jump into the arms of either the UK or Russia was a long-term possibility. Caprivi attempted the first option, but Wilhelm II withdraw his confidence in 1894. By then it was too late for a pro-Russian option.

But I simply cannot see the German personnel for a pro-Russian course in 1890. Wilhelm II was nominally pro-British, and on the military side, leading generals like Alfred von Waldersee even advocated a preemptive war against Russia. Liberals and socialists disliked the Tsarist system for obvious reasons, Catholics disliked them for the treatment of the Polish clergy, while the arch-conservative agrarians disliked the fact that Russian grain exports undercut the profits from their own latifundia.
 
This is completely dependent on the Zanzibar-Heligoland Treaty. It could be argued that by 1889, Bismarck's era of free-floating semi-alliances were over and that only a radical jump into the arms of either the UK or Russia was a long-term possibility. Caprivi attempted the first option, but Wilhelm II withdraw his confidence in 1894. By then it was too late for a pro-Russian option.

But I simply cannot see the German personnel for a pro-Russian course in 1890. Wilhelm II was nominally pro-British, and on the military side, leading generals like Alfred von Waldersee even advocated a preemptive war against Russia. Liberals and socialists disliked the Tsarist system for obvious reasons, Catholics disliked them for the treatment of the Polish clergy, while the arch-conservative agrarians disliked the fact that Russian grain exports undercut the profits from their own latifundia.
Its very interesting, and most likely accurate assessment of why Germany did what it did, but how exactly is that related to my quoted text, which describes consequences of German decision to renew treaty, not cause behind it?
I explained what would happen if Reinsurance treaty was renewed. UK would definitely not like Germany being friendly with Russia, so whatever reasoning Germany used when deciding to renew it, would most likely mean she decided to ally with Russia, not with UK.
Russia had no particular problems with Germany, other that in the end, Germany backed Austria in Balkans. Its was Germany that decided to not renew Reinsurance treaty... bad decision, since in the end she failed to ally with UK.
 
One big issue with the treaty was that it called into question Germany's dedication to its alliance with Austria-Hungary. At a time when alliances were increasingly expected to be firm and lasting, renewing it would have sent a signal to Vienna and the world that Berlin wasn't all that committed. Of course that's not a bad thing in retrospect, but it would have repercussions down the road (potential for an Austro-French rapprochement?) and it would be unpopular.
 
Its very interesting, and most likely accurate assessment of why Germany did what it did, but how exactly is that related to my quoted text, which describes consequences of German decision to renew treaty, not cause behind it?
I explained what would happen if Reinsurance treaty was renewed. UK would definitely not like Germany being friendly with Russia, so whatever reasoning Germany used when deciding to renew it, would most likely mean she decided to ally with Russia, not with UK.
Russia had no particular problems with Germany, other that in the end, Germany backed Austria in Balkans. Its was Germany that decided to not renew Reinsurance treaty... bad decision, since in the end she failed to ally with UK.

I think it is necessary to state that a renewal of the RT would mean a open refusal to seek closer relations with the UK or with Austria-Hungary. That would be massively unpopular.

I think the consequences you describe would not necessarily happen.
Why? Because the only person who could override that popular opinion of Tsarist Russia would be Kaiser Wilhelm II. If he was strongly pro-Russian, he would not appoint Caprivi. It is not sure, but quite probable that the H-Z T would not materialize as in OTL. But with Heligoland in British hands, even the most foolhardy German admiral would not think of building the High Sea Fleet.

In short, we cannot simply start with a miraculously renewed RT. Things have to change earlier to allow for that, and they will have other consequences as well.
 
It is not easy to keep alive the RT, even if it had been the mainstay of Bismarck's foreign policy since the beginning of his rule when Prussia was the only European country to show friendship to Russia during the repression of the polish insurrection of 1863.
One major issue is AH: Bismarck tried at least twice to set up the Three Emperors League, but all of his efforts were for nothing since the rivalry in the Balkans was too strong for Russia and AH to be happy as allies.
Another issue was mainly internal: Russian grain imports were abhorred by Prussian Junkers, since we're in direct competition with their own grain production. In the end Bismarck was forced to increase tariffs on Russian grain. Another blow to the RT.

Incidentally, if the RT had not died earlier Russia would not have been too keen to embrace France, notwithstanding the obvious truth that French loans were necessary to fuel the Russian development.

I would think that if Bismarck comes to the decision to sell Austria down the river and to privilege relations with Russia (and also manages to break the Junkers influence in the Prussian parliament) he would be making the right decision. Which does not mean that Wilhelm II would not try and change this policy (and if he does, he succeeds: Bismarck is well beyond his prime by this time).
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The Reinsurance Treaty was secretly signed in 1887 between Russia and Germany, declaring that both nations would stay neutral in the event that one or the other fought a war against another great power. The exception being if Germany attacked France, and Russia attacked Austria Hungary. Otto von Bismarck, the German chancellor at the time, was very important in the signing of the treaty. So when he was sacked three years later, in 1890 the treaty was not renewed by Kaiser Wilhelm II. Importantly, the vacuum left by the absence of this treaty allowed France to jump in and sign off on the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1892.

My question is, what happens if Kaiser Wilhelm decides to renew the treaty, and create better relations with Russia?
The Franco-Russian alliance would probably be delayed in this TL. However, given France's and Russia's overlapping interests (France wanted A-L back from Germany whereas Russia was competing with Germany's ally A-H for the Balkans; plus, Russia needed foreign loans to modernize and France had a lot of money to loan) as well as the fact that a German-Russian alliance wasn't going to come into fruition, I suspect that an eventual Franco-Russian alliance is still more likely than not to occur.

There is one shortcoming in this description: It was not immediately Kaiser Wilhelm II who decided against renewing the RT, but Bismarck's successor in the Reichskanzlei, Leo von Caprivi. His main reason was that Bismarck's treaty system was too complicated and ethically suspect. (The second reason I explain below.) Probably influenced by his military background, caprivi preferred a simple system of allies and enemies instead of the older system of partially contradictory obligations.

Note that he was not a conservative. Caprivi was rather a modernist, in whose time social reforms, progressive income taxation and and end of anti-socialist and anti-Polish laws were enacted.

To be honest, I'm surprised that Bismarck was able to play various powers off each other as long as he did. Indeed, if I was a Russian diplomat, I would have probably seen straight through his act!

Caprivi's second reason was that he was set on a close and friendly relationship with the UK, preferably a formal alliance. The Zanzibar-Heligoland Treaty was intended as a first step. Given the British-Russian rivalry, the non-renewal of the RT was certainly also another step of this pro-British course.

It's actually quite interesting that, in spite of their later navy rivalry, German Kaiser Wilhelm II and his administration initially wanted an alliance with Britain. Indeed, in the end, they lost both Russia and Britain.

It is not easy to keep alive the RT, even if it had been the mainstay of Bismarck's foreign policy since the beginning of his rule when Prussia was the only European country to show friendship to Russia during the repression of the polish insurrection of 1863.
One major issue is AH: Bismarck tried at least twice to set up the Three Emperors League, but all of his efforts were for nothing since the rivalry in the Balkans was too strong for Russia and AH to be happy as allies.
Another issue was mainly internal: Russian grain imports were abhorred by Prussian Junkers, since we're in direct competition with their own grain production. In the end Bismarck was forced to increase tariffs on Russian grain. Another blow to the RT.

Incidentally, if the RT had not died earlier Russia would not have been too keen to embrace France, notwithstanding the obvious truth that French loans were necessary to fuel the Russian development.

I would think that if Bismarck comes to the decision to sell Austria down the river and to privilege relations with Russia (and also manages to break the Junkers influence in the Prussian parliament) he would be making the right decision. Which does not mean that Wilhelm II would not try and change this policy (and if he does, he succeeds: Bismarck is well beyond his prime by this time).

If Wilhelm gets a personality change in 1888, could he manage to break the Junkers' influence in the Prussian Parliament as well as to throw Austria-Hungary under the bus in favor of a full alliance with Russia?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think it is necessary to state that a renewal of the RT would mean a open refusal to seek closer relations with the UK or with Austria-Hungary. That would be massively unpopular.

I think the consequences you describe would not necessarily happen.
Why? Because the only person who could override that popular opinion of Tsarist Russia would be Kaiser Wilhelm II. If he was strongly pro-Russian, he would not appoint Caprivi. It is not sure, but quite probable that the H-Z T would not materialize as in OTL. But with Heligoland in British hands, even the most foolhardy German admiral would not think of building the High Sea Fleet.

In short, we cannot simply start with a miraculously renewed RT. Things have to change earlier to allow for that, and they will have other consequences as well.
Who were the main pro-Russian politicians in Germany during this time? Indeed, I wonder who the Chancellor of a Russophile Wilhelm would have been.
 

RousseauX

Donor
But does it really keep them out of the war, or does it simply allow them to stay out longer? The British and the Russians were having trouble over their spheres of influence in Asia (India, Afghanistan, Persia, ect) but they still formed the Triple Entente with France. Does the renewal of the Reinsurance Treaty mean no Triple Entente?
Probably not: the reason why Britain formed the entente cordial with France wasn't to counter Germany: it was to peel France away from Russia

In this scenario it's not out of the question for the UK to appease Germany: the big threat in the late 1800s wasn't a German navy (even in the 1910s the extent to which the HSF was alienating UK has being greatly overstated), the UK feared a Russia march into Afghanistan and India
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
The German situation here is described, but the Russian is not. While it was possible to to renew the reinsurance treaty in 1890 once, it would have only delayed the Franco-Russian Entente. In Russia the coming politicians including the Czar favoured France over Germany. Because of that it wasn't possible to make a long lasting alliance with Russia, despite several attempts.

An alliance with Britain didn't occur as well. In 1890+ the idea wasn't very tasty for Germany. They simply had no big issues they needed Britain. And they feared to be misused as the "Festlandsdegen" (continental sabre) from Britain, fighting their wars for very little money. Later the British threatened Germany in 1898 to blockade their coasts, which lead to the Naval Laws. BTW, Britain never regarded the HSF as a thread, at least not internally. The admirals only used it as justification for more money. The Germans did only want a fleet strong enough to deter Britain from a war.

Because of this Britain didn't really have issues with Germany, except the German economic strength. That, however, wasn't the main reason to ally with France and Russia, but indeed the contrary. It was the problems France and Russia could do for Britain to ally with them. These alliance wasn't really stable and would likely haven't lasted long, as the problems still existed. Another two years of peace would likely have completely different alliances.
 
The German situation here is described, but the Russian is not. While it was possible to to renew the reinsurance treaty in 1890 once, it would have only delayed the Franco-Russian Entente. In Russia the coming politicians including the Czar favoured France over Germany. Because of that it wasn't possible to make a long lasting alliance with Russia, despite several attempts.
This was apparent from the reinsurance treaty having an exception if Germany attacked France.
 
The reinsurance treaty would not solve Germany's essential problem- under no circumstances could Germany allow for an Austrian defeat. If the Russians are in Vienna Germany is caught beteen the russians and the French which is hopeless. It doesn't matter how the Russians get there
 

RousseauX

Donor
The reinsurance treaty would not solve Germany's essential problem- under no circumstances could Germany allow for an Austrian defeat. If the Russians are in Vienna Germany is caught beteen the russians and the French which is hopeless. It doesn't matter how the Russians get there
which is why the Germans during the reinsurance period was simultaneously guaranteeing austria vs a russian attack and russia vs an austrian attack
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The German situation here is described, but the Russian is not. While it was possible to to renew the reinsurance treaty in 1890 once, it would have only delayed the Franco-Russian Entente. In Russia the coming politicians including the Czar favoured France over Germany. Because of that it wasn't possible to make a long lasting alliance with Russia, despite several attempts.

What about if Germany offers Russia assistance in partitioning Austria-Hungary, though?
 
Top