WI: Russia doesn't commit to the defence of Serbia

On the 23rd of July when Serbian Regent Crown Prince Alexander requested Russian support against the ultimatium they were refused. On the 24th/25th Russian Agriculture Minister Alexander Krivoshein convinces the Russian Council of Ministers to forgoe partial mobilisation. The Council of Ministers collectively convince Nicholas II that Russia cannot afford war. Instead, in event of Austria-Hungary or Germany making a move defensive preparations are made, but the conclusion is that Russia will not defend Serbia. On the 28th when Austria-Hungary declares war Russia condems Austria-Hungary publicly but does not mobilise.

What are the possible implication of this?

One scenario is that Serbia concedes even more because they know Russia won't support them, this has the same impact on Wilhelm as it did OTL but even stronger. The SPD will protest much more against Austria in Germany and while the warhawks have control of the government without Russia attacking they lack a scapegoat or rallying cause. This could mean that Austria Hungary is pressured to come to peace quickly.

Edit: I tried looking for other threads on this, but couldn't find them, if you know of any be sure to share them.
 
Generally, Bulgaria is considered a far better favorite for Russia in the Balkans than Serbia would be, because they are not contested by the Austro-Hungarian empire, have access to the straits, and are a nation far more inclined to cooperation with Russia than is Serbia.
 
Russia had already burned its bridges with Bulgeria by not supporting it in the 2nd Balkan war. It would have taken years to repair relations. In 1914 the only ally Russia had in the the Balkans was Serbia. That meant that Russia was either going to have to unconditionally support Serbia or be forced to abandon the region entirely.

I think that this was the fears of the Russian foreign minister in 1914 who stated that not backing Serbia would destroy Russia's entire foreign policy as well as its prestige and credibility as a Great Power.
 
Last edited:
The Russians were still smarting from having been burned in the deal in which they acquiesced to Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in '08.
 
Russia had already burned its bridges with Bulgeria by not supporting it in the 2nd Balkan war. It would have taken years to repair relations. In 1914 the only ally Russia had in the the Balkans was Serbia. That meant that Russia was either going to have to unconditionally support Serbia or be forced to abandon the region entirely.

I think that this was the fears of the Russian foreign minister in 1914 who stated that not backing Serbia would destroy Russia's entire foreign policy as well as its prestige and credibility as a Great Power.

For whatever reason the minister of the navy, army and argiculture are able to convince the foreign minister that Russia will have time in the future to regain its status. All of the ministers were of the position that war was not good for Russia, so they just need to believe that Germany won't back down, or that Serbia won't significantly help AH/Germany.

The Russians were still smarting from having been burned in the deal in which they acquiesced to Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in '08.

Right, so let's say they give up Serbia too? Will AH try and annex it?
 
Russia had already burned its bridges with Bulgeria by not supporting it in the 2nd Balkan war. It would have taken years to repair relations. In 1914 the only ally Russia had in the the Balkans was Serbia. That meant that Russia was either going to have to unconditionally support Serbia or be forced to abandon the region entirely.

I think that this was the fears of the Russian foreign minister in 1914 who stated that not backing Serbia would destroy Russia's entire foreign policy as well as its prestige and credibility as a Great Power.

Abandoning this region entirely would be a smartest thing imaginable because starting from the mid-XVIII Russia was messing in that region without any profit for itself and without a clearly defined realistic goal.

If everything is done with a proper PR ("Russia can't support a nation implicated in a regicide"), very little is lost in "prestige". BTW, Nicholas' grandfather, Alexander II, went to the war with the Ottomans "as a matter of honor/prestige" making himself a laughingstock of Europe and spoiling relations with pretty much everybody while gaining practically nothing. When the "idiot's wish" came true and the Balkan states had been created, they immediately started fighting each other with a complete disregard to the interests (real or imaginable) of their "benefactor".

An argument that Serbia was the only ally in the region is (while factually correct) meaningless: what is the use of such an ally? Its economic value for Russia was zero (or close to zero). It clearly could not defend itself against any more or less serious opponent. Its value as a naval base on Adriatic was zero because Russian Empire did not have any naval presence beyond the Black Sea (and its Black Sea fleet was on the first stages of modernization). And, while being of a zero value in pretty much any meaningful area, it was bellicose well beyond its true capacities. And, let's face it, assassination in Sarajevo was a clear provocation which Russia with its history of the regicide and political terrorism should not condone.

Status of the Great Power relied on the number of divisions and economic power much more than on an unconditional support of the insignificant client states. Russia would remain a Great Power and the WWI would be avoided.
 
Last edited:
The Russians were still smarting from having been burned in the deal in which they acquiesced to Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in '08.

Russian diplomacy was quite amazing: annexation of B-H was agreed upon as a condition for A-H's neutrality in the Russian-Ottoman war of 1877-78. So why the fuss in 1908? Why would Russia care or start paying attention to what makes Serbia (or whoever else on the Balkans) unhappy?
 
After 1905, the public opinion of local middle-class notables at zemstvas and Duma representatives was no longer totally irrevelant. And as Panslavist Balkan politics were popular among many segments of Russian society, the regime representatives felt that they could ill afford to make yet another sudden u-turn in Russian foreign policy after yet another foreign challenge.
 
If Russia does not make this sort of pledge to Serbia then IMHO WWI as we know it does not happen. I'm not going to discuss would they let the Serbs hang out to dry or not, just accept the proposition it happens. Serbia can either give in to the A-H demands or go to war. Even if Germany does not declare war on Serbia with A-H but merely supports in other ways, Serbia alone is not going to win against A-H even given how shambolic the A-H military is. If Russia does not declare war on A-H and Germany, then France may be supportive of the Serbs but is not getting directly involved, and for the British this is another bit of fighting in the Balkans, ho-hum move on to the next item in the Times. This is now, more or less, the third Balkan War in 10 years, and if nobody in the Alliance System is playing on Serbia's side who cares.

France wants to get at Germany, but declaring war on A-H and Germany because of Serbia is not the way to do it. If Russia has already thrown Serbia under the bus, if France declares war it is very likely the Russians won't do likewise. France does not want to be facing Germany (and A-H) alone and if France starts the dance the UK is likely to stay out - what happens with Belgium if France is the one to go to war may be quite different.

Just like the Kaiser's blank check to A-H, the Russian guarantee to Serbia is a necessary precondition for things to start as they did.
 
. . . Russia would remain a Great Power and the WWI would be avoided.
. . . then IMHO WWI as we know it does not happen. . .
Probably no Great Depression, no World War II, no Holocaust, probably a pretty different cold war and a lower trajectory one.

All is goodness and light!

except . . .

different problems arise



Of course the robots who might very well drive unemployment to 20% or higher probably won't look like humans. And most of it will be yesterday's technology becoming cheaper, such as self-driving trucks, warehouse forklifts, etc.

Yes, the good utopia turns dark and that makes a story.

-------------------------------


And at this point, we probably should include a Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) quote to the effect, Wars and storms are best to read of, but peace and calms are almost always better to live through and actually experience!
 
After 1905, the public opinion of local middle-class notables at zemstvas and Duma representatives was no longer totally irrevelant. And as Panslavist Balkan politics were popular among many segments of Russian society, the regime representatives felt that they could ill afford to make yet another sudden u-turn in Russian foreign policy after yet another foreign challenge.

Oh please! The same argument of the public opinion had been used to get Russia into the war of 1877/78. Well before that war was over, the public opinion turned 180 degrees and happily engaged in criticism of the regime. Exactly the same happened during WWI. Strictly speaking, pretty much the same happened during the RJW.

If Nicky possessed the brain and willpower of his father he would easily ignore the "public opinion" (and what's more important, pressure from the "Montenegrian Gang" at court). The overly-enthusiastic individuals could be allowed to go to fight for the Serbian interests as the volunteers (as experience of the last Russian-Ottoman War demonstrated, the numbers were not impressive) or to run some charitable foundations: this would let the steam out. Duma was an advisory, not a responsible body so its members could freely keep blabbing safely in a knowledge that responsibility will not be their.

As for the Russian foreign policy, Sturmer, who was Russian Foreign Minister in 1916, could not clearly formulate Russian goals in WWI beyond "we wanted the Straits". His predecessor(s) were not much more clear on the subject. There was not even a clear idea what to do in the case of success: after Galicia was occupied Russian military and civilian administration had to improvise).
 
Russian diplomacy was quite amazing: annexation of B-H was agreed upon as a condition for A-H's neutrality in the Russian-Ottoman war of 1877-78. So why the fuss in 1908? Why would Russia care or start paying attention to what makes Serbia (or whoever else on the Balkans) unhappy?
The 1877-8 agreement was for Russia to agree to Austrian administration of those Ottoman territories (which at that time were still contiguous with the Ottoman Empire) in exchange for Austrian neutrality in that war. In 1908, the Russians proposed to support outright annexation by Austria in exchange for Austrian support of a Russian initiative regarding the free passage off Russian warships through the Straits. Austria took the territories but left Russia dangling in the breeze on the subject of the Straits, much to the humiliation and loss of prestige of the Russians.
 
For whatever reason the minister of the navy, army and argiculture are able to convince the foreign minister that Russia will have time in the future to regain its status. All of the ministers were of the position that war was not good for Russia, so they just need to believe that Germany won't back down, or that Serbia won't significantly help AH/Germany.



Right, so let's say they give up Serbia too? Will AH try and annex it?
Well, clearly they did try in '14; if not to annex than certainly to destroy as a focus for Serbian expansionism.
 
So Russia spins/doesn't spin their abandonment of the slavic brethern as worthwhile, AH shambolicly annexes Serbia, embarassing itself when doing so. For all France apparently wanted to go to war with Russia as mentioned in this thread they certainly weren't for it in the negotiations, they told Serbia and Russia not to go to war over Serbia, as did the UK (less surprisingly). It doesn't seem that any of the allies actually wanted the war quite yet. Maybe a case of never the perfect moment or cold feet.

The naval buildup continues, as does the general military build up, when does it end? Can it end without a war? Either a Russian revolution happens or is delayed, what about the French or German communists? Maybe Communism finds its birthplace in AH when it collapses?

Can there be another spark to start the war, maybe some colonial kerfuffle or will the sarcifice of Serbia be enough to signal that no Great Power wants war? Could a war start between a collapsing AH and Italy and that end up spiraling out of control?
 
The reality is that for all of the talk of the revolution coming from the proletariat, none of the countries in Western or Central Europe that had an industrial proletariat were going to have a communist revolution from a standing start. It took the chaos of/following WWI with the loss of legitimacy of existing governments that allowed for the revolutions in Russia, and the various communist uprisings in Germany and Hungary. A lot of people feel that the situation in Europe was not stable but metastable, and something was going to give sooner or later. Between internal revolutions or collapses (think Russia or Ottomans), another Balkan War expanding, or some colonial spat (Agadir gone bad) lots of potential. The players on either side are not set in stone and neither would be the outcome - and what things look like when the dust clears depends on all that.
 
The 1877-8 agreement was for Russia to agree to Austrian administration of those Ottoman territories (which at that time were still contiguous with the Ottoman Empire) in exchange for Austrian neutrality in that war.

Not quite correct. In pre-war agreement Russia conceed to the Austrian annexation of these territories. In the Treaty of San Stefano it declared that the area will be jointly occupied by the Austrian and Russian troops. Then by Treaty of Berlin (which forced Russia to concede on many earlier items) Austria got the right of occupation and administration. In other words, in Berlin A-H got less than Russia initially agreed upon. This issue was addressed in the Three Emperors' League treaty of 1881, where both Germany and Russia endorsed Austria's right to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Only in 1897, under Nicholas II, the Russian Imperial government had managed, again, to withdraw its support for Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Which, of course, spoiled the relations with A-H over the issue absolutely irrelevant for Russian empire: Austro-Serbian quarrel regarding Sanjak was not Russian business even when pro-Russian dynasty was installed in Serbia ("pro-Russian" amounted to keeping Russia hostage to the Serbian interests).

In 1908, the Russians proposed to support outright annexation by Austria in exchange for Austrian support of a Russian initiative regarding the free passage off Russian warships through the Straits. Austria took the territories but left Russia dangling in the breeze on the subject of the Straits, much to the humiliation and loss of prestige of the Russians.

This was much more complicated with many other interests involved and the main opposition to the Straits issue coming from Britain (probably as a part of the traditional paranoia: Britain was against sailing of the Russian warships through the Straits even when Russia did not have any fleet on the Black Sea).
However, the whole issue of the Straits was bogus: Russian Black Sea fleet circa 1909 was pretty much obsolete and incapable of playing any role on the Med. Construction of the 1st Russian dreadnoughts started only in 1909 and 4 of them had been completed only in 1914 (construction of the improved version started in 1911 and the first 3 ships of that series on the Black Sea had been completed in 1915). Anyway, conversation was about passage of the single ships. NOT letting warships of other nations into the Black Sea was much more in the Russian interests.

Hence similarities between foreign policies of Alexander II and Nicholas II: both managed to spoil relations with the traditional allies, both managed to get into the absolutely unnecessary conflicts and confrontations and both got into the trouble over the "prestige" issues which had nothing to do with the Russian interests.
 
So Russia spins/doesn't spin their abandonment of the slavic brethern

Taking into an account that the said "slavic brethern" were at each other throats (or will be soon enough) some of them are going to be "abandoned" by definition. Anyway, the whole notion of Slavophilia was quite moronic and already cost Russia a lot (war of 1877/78) while producing nothing but spoiled international relations, huge human losses and ballooning state debt.

as worthwhile, AH shambolicly annexes Serbia, embarassing itself when doing so.

And having a lot of troubles on the newly annexed territory with no obvious profit.

The naval buildup continues, as does the general military build up, when does it end? Can it end without a war?

The Cold War saw military buildup for decades without a war and the process is seemingly continues even now. So the answer is "yes".

Either a Russian revolution happens or is delayed, what about the French or German communists? Maybe Communism finds its birthplace in AH when it collapses?

It was already answered: Russian revolution would not happen without WWI. Chances of the communist revolutions in France and Germany without disasters like WWI (and even with them) close to zero because the basic premise of that bearded idiot's theory: growing pauperization of proletariat with a growing industrialization proved to be wrong (as pretty much everything else he wrote). Leaving aside the developed countries, even in Russian Empire the trend was opposite: before WWI a qualified industrial worker (or railroad worker) had been getting a higher salary than an average officer.
 
The easiest way I think for Russia to stay out is for Nicky to decide that the Serbian Government was directly involved in the assassination. He could convince himself there was no way it could be pulled off without the Serbian Government knowing about it and he didn't want a bad precedent being set where by an heir apparent to a throne is assassinated and the government behind it gets away with it because he doesn't want his son murdered by government backed revolutionaries and he gives that as a reason.

With that said Serbia is screwed but the world is most likely a better place. No WWI, no Russian Revolution, no Lenin, no Stalin, no Hitler. With that, it is hard to see how it could not be better.
 
If Russia does not make this sort of pledge to Serbia then IMHO WWI as we know it does not happen. I'm not going to discuss would they let the Serbs hang out to dry or not, just accept the proposition it happens. Serbia can either give in to the A-H demands or go to war. Even if Germany does not declare war on Serbia with A-H but merely supports in other ways, Serbia alone is not going to win against A-H even given how shambolic the A-H military is. If Russia does not declare war on A-H and Germany, then France may be supportive of the Serbs but is not getting directly involved, and for the British this is another bit of fighting in the Balkans, ho-hum move on to the next item in the Times. This is now, more or less, the third Balkan War in 10 years, and if nobody in the Alliance System is playing on Serbia's side who cares.

France wants to get at Germany, but declaring war on A-H and Germany because of Serbia is not the way to do it. If Russia has already thrown Serbia under the bus, if France declares war it is very likely the Russians won't do likewise. France does not want to be facing Germany (and A-H) alone and if France starts the dance the UK is likely to stay out - what happens with Belgium if France is the one to go to war may be quite different.

Just like the Kaiser's blank check to A-H, the Russian guarantee to Serbia is a necessary precondition for things to start as they did.

Serbia will absolutely not go to war without Russian support. Historically, it actually seems that the Serbians were prepared to capitulate to the Austrian demands. This is evidenced by Pasic's telegram on July 25th where Pasic said Serbia would be "conciliatory on all points" and give Austria "full satisfaction. This view was confirmed by a telegram sent from Crackenthorpe to Grey that same day. It was only the Russian reply that completely changed the stance of the Serbian government.
 
Last edited:
Oh please! The same argument of the public opinion had been used to get Russia into the war of 1877/78. Well before that war was over, the public opinion turned 180 degrees and happily engaged in criticism of the regime. Exactly the same happened during WWI. Strictly speaking, pretty much the same happened during the RJW.

If Nicky possessed the brain and willpower of his father he would easily ignore the "public opinion" (and what's more important, pressure from the "Montenegrian Gang" at court). The overly-enthusiastic individuals could be allowed to go to fight for the Serbian interests as the volunteers (as experience of the last Russian-Ottoman War demonstrated, the numbers were not impressive) or to run some charitable foundations: this would let the steam out. Duma was an advisory, not a responsible body so its members could freely keep blabbing safely in a knowledge that responsibility will not be their.

As for the Russian foreign policy, Sturmer, who was Russian Foreign Minister in 1916, could not clearly formulate Russian goals in WWI beyond "we wanted the Straits". His predecessor(s) were not much more clear on the subject. There was not even a clear idea what to do in the case of success: after Galicia was occupied Russian military and civilian administration had to improvise).

"The regime representatives felt" does not mean that this was a real problem, just that the people in power felt like they had to take it into account, like I said. The outcome of Russo-Japanese war had really shaken the ruling elite, and they were scrambling to regain their perceived prestige at home and abroad. This included the Czar himself, although he couldn't help but return to his ways of constantly picking up new court favourites and setting too capable or prominent ministers to sidelines.
And since Choristers’ Bridge was a mess that produced individuals like Izvolsky, Hartwig or Bezobrazov and gave them leeway to plot their own little schemes (often working against one another or at least against the official wishes of Petrorad!) that affected the Empire as a whole, the way Russia started the deathride of Romanovs would seem almost tragicomical if one could disregard the appalling human suffering it brought about.
 
Top