[WW1 AH] - Would a Central Powers Russia have risked an OTL collapse?

See above. Basically, put Austria-Hungary with the Etente and Russia with the Central Powers, who are I dunno, the Eurasian Powers here. Russia is not facing the might of both Austria-Hungary and Germany here along with the Ottomans, but instead only Austria-Hungary and maybe the Ottomans if they swap sides to the Etente as well. The British and French are of course also enemies, but they're more of a German concern unless the British send an expeditionary force to the Balkans or to the Caucasus. Maybe the Japanese join in with attacks on the Far East.

Would this Russia have sustained anywhere near the damage it did OTL to bow out of the war, and would that damage in turn be enough to precipitate a fall of the monarchy and a civil war across the country as a whole? Or would this difference of alliance mean that Russia would not have been ground down as badly and instead manage to come out of the war, regardless of defeat or victory against the Etente?
 

RousseauX

Donor
See above. Basically, put Austria-Hungary with the Etente and Russia with the Central Powers, who are I dunno, the Eurasian Powers here. Russia is not facing the might of both Austria-Hungary and Germany here along with the Ottomans, but instead only Austria-Hungary and maybe the Ottomans if they swap sides to the Etente as well. The British and French are of course also enemies, but they're more of a German concern unless the British send an expeditionary force to the Balkans or to the Caucasus. Maybe the Japanese join in with attacks on the Far East.

Would this Russia have sustained anywhere near the damage it did OTL to bow out of the war, and would that damage in turn be enough to precipitate a fall of the monarchy and a civil war across the country as a whole? Or would this difference of alliance mean that Russia would not have been ground down as badly and instead manage to come out of the war, regardless of defeat or victory against the Etente?
No, Russia in this case wouldn't be fighting Germany and Russia did very well against the Austro-Hungarians during the Brusilov offensive

without the massive casualties and big defeats yes, the monarchy survives
 
I have a hard time seeing the pod leading to this, as the Russian-German fight was the main reason the rest of Europe got involved and France was a russian ally, so things have to change a bit prior to WW1. Maybe Russia aligns with Germany and France aligns with AH as a result...Quite different from OTL.

But, Russia slaughter AH, Germany beats France, maybe even fast? Italy would be wise to stay out or join the eurasians, the Ottomans are in trouble if/when AH has had enough.

The monarchy is unlikely to fail when winning
 
With Japan attacking them in the East, and probable assaults from the British in Central Asia they'd be a bit rough. If the Ottomans do indeed swap to Entente then they'd probably suffer pretty badly in the Transcaucasian regions, as the British would almost certainly get involved (and who knows what Romania and Bulgaria do). Depending on how the Western Front goes (maybe the Germans follow earlier planning and cut across the Netherlands as well as a Belgium, giving them an extra enemy, or somehow the Americans get drawn in sooner) one could potentially see an assault on the Crimean.

Basically the answer is that the range of possible outcomes overlaps heavily with OTL though leaning a bit more towards stability, as Russia had a lot of institutional issues that could still bring them down, but they are more insulated.
 

Deleted member 94680

I have a hard time seeing the pod leading to this

Difficult to find one post-1900. Maybe the Reinsurance Treaty never lapses? OTL, once the break between Berlin and St. Petersburg happened, there’s no real way back without a further POD.

Maybe Russia aligns with Germany and France aligns with AH as a result...Quite different from OTL.

I’ve always thought the ‘smart’ move was an Austrian-Russian Alliance, as they both had plenty to gain from it.
 

RousseauX

Donor
With Japan attacking them in the East, and probable assaults from the British in Central Asia they'd be a bit rough. If the Ottomans do indeed swap to Entente then they'd probably suffer pretty badly in the Transcaucasian regions, as the British would almost certainly get involved (and who knows what Romania and Bulgaria do). Depending on how the Western Front goes (maybe the Germans follow earlier planning and cut across the Netherlands as well as a Belgium, giving them an extra enemy, or somehow the Americans get drawn in sooner) one could potentially see an assault on the Crimean.

Basically the answer is that the range of possible outcomes overlaps heavily with OTL though leaning a bit more towards stability, as Russia had a lot of institutional issues that could still bring them down, but they are more insulated.
The Russians did pretty well against the Ottomans OTL, and how many troops can the British deploy into the caucus or Crimea? The russians can mine the area around Sevastopol and plus without an eastern front (the austro-hungarians are much weaker than russia in 1914 so the "southern front" wouldn't take that many russo-german troops) the Germans have millions more troops on the western front. The British can't afford to deploy too much forces on peripheral regions.

In the far east Japan and Russia might fight again: but the Tsarist army actually did pretty well against the Japanese army in 1905.

Also the wild card is going to be the Afghan-India frontier: there's almost certainly going to be a russian invasion of india ttl, but with poor infrastructure in Afgahnistan you are looking at hundreds of thousands of russians and british/indian troops fighting each other rather than millions.

The military and hence political situation is hence order of magnitudes better in ttl 1914-18 than otl, easier enemies for Russians to fight, less troops needed hence less mobilization and casualties
 
Definitely not. Russia would be under a fraction of the pressure it was OTL here. Austria Hungary would fold quickly in this scenario, leaving Russia only fighting a land struggle against the Ottomans.
 
See above. Basically, put Austria-Hungary with the Etente and Russia with the Central Powers, who are I dunno, the Eurasian Powers here. Russia is not facing the might of both Austria-Hungary and Germany here along with the Ottomans, but instead only Austria-Hungary and maybe the Ottomans if they swap sides to the Etente as well. The British and French are of course also enemies, but they're more of a German concern unless the British send an expeditionary force to the Balkans or to the Caucasus. Maybe the Japanese join in with attacks on the Far East.

Would this Russia have sustained anywhere near the damage it did OTL to bow out of the war, and would that damage in turn be enough to precipitate a fall of the monarchy and a civil war across the country as a whole? Or would this difference of alliance mean that
Russia would not have been ground down as badly and instead manage to come out of the war, regardless of defeat or victory against the Etente?

In particular, this seems more like it would be a scenario stemming from the continuation of the League of Three Emperors. Bismarck was very paranoid about the idea of Germany fighting a two front war against France and Russia simply because he was correct that Germany would lose such a war. To prevent the collapse of the league, you're going to have to find some POD dealing with Wilhelm II. I suggest having him not born with a withered arm or simply just have him not be a complete moron. Being allied with Russia could still lead to some conflict in the Balkans, which would likely be sparked by the Ottoman Empire, which could then set off a great war. It's very likely that the Ottoman Empire would be an Entente power in this scenario. Japan might be a wild card, they could possibly be flipped to the League of Three, thereby making it the League of Four Emperors. All this would not only help prevent a collapse of the Russian monarchy, but the German and Austrian monarchies as well.

This sounds like a timeline with potential.
 
The Russians did pretty well against the Ottomans OTL, and how many troops can the British deploy into the caucus or Crimea? The russians can mine the area around Sevastopol and plus without an eastern front (the austro-hungarians are much weaker than russia in 1914 so the "southern front" wouldn't take that many russo-german troops) the Germans have millions more troops on the western front. The British can't afford to deploy too much forces on peripheral regions.
The Entente sent close to half a million men the Macedonian front OTL, and the roughly half a million British/Indian soldiers in the Mesopotamian front, and the half a million or so Ottoman soldiers from the Mesopotamian front (and possibly a large number of the OTL Gallipoli front, though I'm not certain how many of those were transferred from the Macedonian front). Considering that the Mesopotamian front was eating a good quarter of the Ottoman military, that alone could lead to a major shift in the balance of power, even if all those Indian troops deployed to the Middle East are moved to France instead).
In the far east Japan and Russia might fight again: but the Tsarist army actually did pretty well against the Japanese army in 1905.
Japan is also in a stronger position by this point, and that 'doing well against Japan' still went poorly enough to prompt rioting across Russia OTL.
Also the wild card is going to be the Afghan-India frontier: there's almost certainly going to be a russian invasion of india ttl, but with poor infrastructure in Afgahnistan you are looking at hundreds of thousands of russians and british/indian troops fighting each other rather than millions.
Almost certainly a disaster for both sides, but Britain would be better at shaking off losses.
The military and hence political situation is hence order of magnitudes better in ttl 1914-18 than otl, easier enemies for Russians to fight, less troops needed hence less mobilization and casualties
It's definitely better, but can still easily go poorly enough to result in a revolution. Italy still going Entente for instance (don't know how you'd bribe them over, but it's not impossible) would see millions of extra troops freed up (even just a neutral Italy is a major shift for where Vienna can deploy troops). The US getting dragged in sooner would massively shift the balance. Different military strategies resulting from the varied balance of power could have a massive impact too.

Then there's the fact that it clearly wasn't just a matter of casualties. France and Germany both suffered close to the same total military losses as Russia, both from smaller population bases, and did not see civil wars erupt. As long as the Entente hold out long enough, and the Russian people see their soldiers being thrown away to die for too few victories, a revolution is plausible. In fact, moving the battle front away from the Russian heartland might well make a rebellion more likely. The more abstract the causes of war is in the eyes of the people the fewer losses they're likely to be willing to absorb.

Again, I'm not saying it's certain, but just as OTL a 1914 or 1915 Entente victory isn't impossible, so to in this scenario a Russian collapse is still quite possible.
 
Germany walks all over France and Britain, Russia walks over Austria and then turns south to Constantinople. Japan is a distant sideshow that can threaten nothing of importance

Seriously, the Russians maul Conrad in 1914 with only 4 of their 12 armies. What is he going to do against the 29 divisions the Russians sent against the Germans?

The Germans make it all the way to the Marne by the first week in September. How do the British and French push them back if the Germans have an additional 15 divisions?

Once the Ottomans and the Austrians are beaten, the Russians would have more than enough time to deal with the Japanese
 
The Germans make it all the way to the Marne by the first week in September. How do the British and French push them back if the Germans have an additional 15 divisions?

More importantly how do the German units in contact avoid starving if they have an extra 15 divisions to their rear? The issue with the Schlieffen plan was never manpower so much as road space. Now you've just added some 200-300k men and 90-100k animals to the traffic jam.
 
Really depends on the POD. The Russian army without the lessons learned in 1905 would be one that even Austria-Hungary could have beaten up it was so riddled with inefficiency and poor planning. Their supply system, as bad as it was in 1914, was even worse in that period. The nation still would have had the underlying faults that lead to revolution in 1905.

However, assuming the Russia has all the experience leading up to 1914 historically then they could probably flatten the Austrians before stalling on the defences in the Carpathians for a time, but could probably break out into the Hungarian plain by 1915. If the Turks are fighting them they end up flattening the Turks too, but that probably means the Turks are swinging their full weight at Russia.

In this case, there is much less chance for a revolution to topple the monarchy though.

If there is a way to keep Russia on side it would be Friedrich living past 1888, he might have seen the sense in keeping Russia on side rather than erratically shifting foreign policy on a whim. However, if A-H is against Germany even Wilhelm might have seen the wisdom in courting Russia as a counterweight to France and Britain.
 
Really depends on the POD. The Russian army without the lessons learned in 1905 would be one that even Austria-Hungary could have beaten up it was so riddled with inefficiency and poor planning. Their supply system, as bad as it was in 1914, was even worse in that period. The nation still would have had the underlying faults that lead to revolution in 1905.

However, assuming the Russia has all the experience leading up to 1914 historically then they could probably flatten the Austrians before stalling on the defences in the Carpathians for a time, but could probably break out into the Hungarian plain by 1915. If the Turks are fighting them they end up flattening the Turks too, but that probably means the Turks are swinging their full weight at Russia.

In this case, there is much less chance for a revolution to topple the monarchy though.

If there is a way to keep Russia on side it would be Friedrich living past 1888, he might have seen the sense in keeping Russia on side rather than erratically shifting foreign policy on a whim. However, if A-H is against Germany even Wilhelm might have seen the wisdom in courting Russia as a counterweight to France and Britain.

While I think that most probably there would be less chance of revolution, since a lot of factors went into the mix at least one of the changes sustaining the Tsar would be the retention of more reliable troops near the centres of power.

Everything else I would question as if they were allies then it is likely the French funding that went into building up what there was of Russia infrastructure would instead flow to the Dual-Monarchy. Organisational and doctrinal problems would remain (officers' uniforms, artillery deployed too far forwards etc) but the Imperial and Royal Army would enjoy a lot more in the way of equipment saturation and of course better resupply once the long learning curve that a Great Power European war would entail set in. For it would most likely be a long war, everyone still had to walk or ride on the army's little ponies to get to battle and all their ammunition needed to come by wagon once they advanced beyond their railheads. In addition no one had the kind of instant radio communication with headquarters near the front that was necessary to co-ordinate even divisional sized battles let alone multi-corps and army sized ones with the kind of reaction times we see in World War 2.

Austrians, Hungarians certainly and some of the subordinate minorities at least some of the time did in fact prove reasonably tough defensive soldiers. The Turks, assuming they are involved, most certainly proved so. The idea that the Russians have but to march....hum we've heard that tune elsewhere.

Then again the Russian issues are very different. The best railroads were in Poland pointing at the Germans and it may be in this TL these are elsewhere and not simply absent because of the reduction in French financing but considering the best trade routes are through Germany and thence westwards I would expect the same kind of bias, albeit driven by commercial rather than military consideration to continue. This means that the Russians are going to be limited in how many extra troops they can hurl at the Austrian-Hungarians at any time and again they need to find troops for Central Asia and the Far East, small apparent numbers but a lot more intensive logistical support for those numbers. Still as I suggested above this may well mean fewer troops at the front at any given time increasing the ratio of reliable troops available for domestic security.

Win/lose is hard to estimate precisely but in general I think I would fall on the lesser odds of revolution side of things.
 
More importantly how do the German units in contact avoid starving if they have an extra 15 divisions to their rear? The issue with the Schlieffen plan was never manpower so much as road space. Now you've just added some 200-300k men and 90-100k animals to the traffic jam.

Even more importantly: Without the Russians pouring into Galicia and Poland to threaten the German rear, why are the Germans in such a rush? They can actually pause for a couple of days and regroup if they want
 
Even more importantly: Without the Russians pouring into Galicia and Poland to threaten the German rear, why are the Germans in such a rush? They can actually pause for a couple of days and regroup if they want

That sounds more likely. Germany outweighs France and while some had an inkling of quite how bad a Great Power war of attrition could get most were happy to delude themselves would crack first.

Then again would there have been the pressure on anyone to go to war in the first place? Thinking about the Germans are not getting (in their intel briefing as erroneous as those proved OTL) left behind by Russian re-armament the Habsburgs can find a credit line to spend on appeasing goodies for their populace from the French and the Serbs are maniacs as given to murdering their own royals as often as anyone else's which for Russians not so worried by Germany might not be so important an ally. Assuming we try and anti-butterfly the triggers as much as possible that is.
 
That sounds more likely. Germany outweighs France and while some had an inkling of quite how bad a Great Power war of attrition could get most were happy to delude themselves would crack first.

Then again would there have been the pressure on anyone to go to war in the first place? Thinking about the Germans are not getting (in their intel briefing as erroneous as those proved OTL) left behind by Russian re-armament the Habsburgs can find a credit line to spend on appeasing goodies for their populace from the French and the Serbs are maniacs as given to murdering their own royals as often as anyone else's which for Russians not so worried by Germany might not be so important an ally. Assuming we try and anti-butterfly the triggers as much as possible that is.


Germany and Russia can swat any plausible coalition against them. I doubt if anyone would bother fighting them. It just seems the easier thing to do is to keep your head down and hope they don't come for you and that they'll have a falling out later. The falling out is why Russo-German alliances tend to fail. Either one side gets too much or they then fear the other one
 
Germany and Russia can swat any plausible coalition against them. I doubt if anyone would bother fighting them. It just seems the easier thing to do is to keep your head down and hope they don't come for you and that they'll have a falling out later. The falling out is why Russo-German alliances tend to fail. Either one side gets too much or they then fear the other one

I think anyone tougher than Netherlands-Belgium or Serbia-Romania would actually prove rather a tough chew. All of the Great Powers were in fact fairly tough, it was why they were called Great Powers.
 
Then there's the fact that it clearly wasn't just a matter of casualties. France and Germany both suffered close to the same total military losses as Russia, both from smaller population bases, and did not see civil wars erupt. As long as the Entente hold out long enough, and the Russian people see their soldiers being thrown away to die for too few victories, a revolution is plausible. In fact, moving the battle front away from the Russian heartland might well make a rebellion more likely. The more abstract the causes of war is in the eyes of the people the fewer losses they're likely to be willing to absorb.
Where are the Russians even seeing these casualties ITL? Austria-Hungary has no chance of surviving even a year against Germany and Russia, and sideshow fronts against the Ottomans and in Asia are not going to soak up tons of casualties.
 
Where are the Russians even seeing these casualties ITL? Austria-Hungary has no chance of surviving even a year against Germany and Russia, and sideshow fronts against the Ottomans and in Asia are not going to soak up tons of casualties.
More like a month - Munich to Vienna is absolutely indefensible, not with the available quantity and quality of troops, there's even the possibility of large mutinies by the German and Slavic speakers in the A-H army.
 
Top