WWI Germany chooses Russia over AH

From the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian War to the beginning of the First World War, the primary aims of Germany's foreign policy was to achieve German dominance in Europe and abroad, to challenge or at least impress Britain, and to isolate Germany's ancestral enemy, France.

Originally Otto von Bismarck had hoped to unite the three right-wing monarchies of Europe (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia) against Republican France but tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia regarding the Balkans soon broke this up. In OTL Germany decided to side with Austria-Hungary in this split, be it over shared Germanic heritage, contempt for the Slavs, or for German ambitions in the East.

But what if Germany had taken Russia's side in this split? What if grudges from the Franco-Prussian war and centuries of Austro-Prussian rivalry had taken precedence over German suspicion of the Russian bear? I will go so far as to assume that Austria-Hungary, isolate by this move, would have sought alliance with another country spurned by Germany: France. I will also assume that Romania and Greece would have quickly fallen into Germany's camp as a result of this. And as for Turkey, I suspect Russian ambitions in the Caucasus region, as well as resentments over loss of territory in 1878 would drive Turkey into Austria-Hungary's camp and thus away from Germany's.

How might Europe have been shaped by this change? Would the First World War have begun in Sarajevo in 1914 or earlier? What do you think?
 
the primary aims of Germany's foreign policy was to achieve German dominance in Europe and abroad

I doubt that Bismarck had this goal. I think he truly meant it that Germany was "saturated". And he was diplomat enough to know that dominance in Europe was unachievable.

Originally Otto von Bismarck had hoped to unite the three right-wing monarchies of Europe (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia) against Republican France but tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia regarding the Balkans soon broke this up.

Here I doubt that France being a republic had much to do with it. If the French had reinstated the monarchy, that wouldn't have changed Bismarck's politics. He had to isolate France since France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, even if France turns monarchist, conservative and protestant that wouldn't change this.

But what if Germany had taken Russia's side in this split? What if grudges from the Franco-Prussian war and centuries of Austro-Prussian rivalry had taken precedence over German suspicion of the Russian bear? I will go so far as to assume that Austria-Hungary, isolate by this move, would have sought alliance with another country spurned by Germany: France. I will also assume that Romania and Greece would have quickly fallen into Germany's camp as a result of this. And as for Turkey, I suspect Russian ambitions in the Caucasus region, as well as resentments over loss of territory in 1878 would drive Turkey into Austria-Hungary's camp and thus away from Germany's.

How might Europe have been shaped by this change? Would the First World War have begun in Sarajevo in 1914 or earlier? What do you think?

Any enemy of AH instantly finds a couple of friends: Romania, Serbia, Montenegro and Italy. To go further down the Balkans, it depends on when you have a war to start and hence on how much territory the Ottomans still hold.

Now hte outline of the alliance system will shape the war. France has to attack fast to link up with AH, because isolated the Austrians will fall pretty quickly with their only non-hostile neighbours being the Swiss and Liechtenstein. Military tech and territory favour the Germans holding the line, thus AH will fall. Then the French will face attacks all along their borders, including Russian troops. Given OTL, I don't see how they'll stand this. Britain may change that equation insofar as Italy won't join a war against Britain. But they cannot blockade Germany-Russia and cannot prevent the fall of AH.

Now the main problem I see with this alliance system is that with time passing by, the Germans will realize that they become the junior partner. With German investment in Russia that may actually be earlier than IOTL. That won't fit well with them. My guess is that at least around 1900 the Germans try to break the established alliance system and distance themselves from Russia.
 
Some very interesting points!

When I mentioned uniting the monarchies against Republican France I was not insinuating that France's style of government was the source of poor relations between France and Germany. Certainly you are correct in saying their differences go far deeper than that. I was simply pointing out that similar styles of government between Germany, AH, and Russia lent to Bismarck's strategy of trying to unite the three.

I suspect that the alliance system would eventually work out to this:

The Entente: France, Austria-Hungary, Britain, Turkey
The Triple Alliance: Germany, Russia, and Italy (with Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, and Greece all joining this faction).

I am uncertain as to how Bulgaria would act in such a conflict, being rivals with both Turkey and Serbia.

Certainly you make a good point in suggesting that Germany will be suspicious of Russian dominance in the East and an alliance between the two countries is bound to end badly. I am willing to assume, however, that it could last as far as the First World War, especially with Russia being humbled in the Russo-Japanese war.

Another thing supporting this alliance system would be the great rivalry between Britain and Russia stoked by the Great Game and the Crimean War. I think ITL we'll see not German officers leading Turkish troops, but British ones.
 
Last edited:
Now hte outline of the alliance system will shape the war. France has to attack fast to link up with AH, because isolated the Austrians will fall pretty quickly with their only non-hostile neighbours being the Swiss and Liechtenstein. Military tech and territory favour the Germans holding the line, thus AH will fall. Then the French will face attacks all along their borders, including Russian troops. Given OTL, I don't see how they'll stand this. Britain may change that equation insofar as Italy won't join a war against Britain. But they cannot blockade Germany-Russia and cannot prevent the fall of AH.

If the Ottomans choose the French and Austrian side than slicing through Serbia to support AH might not be too hard.
 
If the Ottomans choose the French and Austrian side than slicing through Serbia to support AH might not be too hard.

The outcome of the Balkan conflict will probably depend on two things: 1) which side Bulgaria decides to take and 2) whether or not Britain and France launch an expeditionary force to assist their Balkan allies as they did in OTL. It would be interesting certainly to see the Anglo-French landing in Salonica not as liberators but as conquerors.

My own thoughts on Bulgaria at the moment are that they are seeking to get territory either from Serbia (Macedonia) or Turkey (Thrace, Constantinople, etc.). In OTL the Entente failure at the Dardanelles convinced the Bulgarians that Turkey was not a ripe target but collapsing Serbia was. Seeing as Turkey's only immediate threat in TTL is the remote Caucasus front, I think the Bulgarians will side with the Turks on this one again and go after Serbia. An AH breakthrough in Serbia would tip the Bulgarians into the camp of the Entente. The question is whether or not AH can achieve such a breakthrough and the answer to that question depends on the war plans of Germany and Russia.

If Germany opts for the Schlieffen plan again (entirely a possibility, considering how densely fortified the Franco-German frontier was at the time), AH may get a bit of a respite early on that could give them time to perhaps grind into Serbia. But without German support, AH is likely to receive a brutal thrashing in Galicia at the hands of the Russians.

And then there's the question of Italy. Would the collapse of AH and the prospect of seizing Trieste and Dalmatia be enough to tempt the Italians into the Russo-German camp? Or would fear of Anglo-French fleets be enough to keep them neutral?
 
Last edited:
Salazaro you incorrectly describe the standing geopolitical zeitguiest of Germany during the times. Bismark never had the idea for domination of Europe and elsewhere. It was more Willhelm who sought these kind of ideas "Germany Over All" (or whatever that phrase was), his doing of that was what broke the balence of power in Europe and what directly led to the Entente.

Secondly, German-Austrian tensions are hardly likely to break the alliences and common aims of the two nations, even if Germany renews the Russo-German allience.

Thirdly millitary assurances are not the same as pacts of friendship, there are good reasons why a generally 'weak' Russia, doesn't want to be ganged up on in another Crimera, there are good reasons that Germany a new fledgling nation doesn't want to be pissed upon and ground down, and Austria-Hungary needs stability and allies to prevent itself blowing apart.

Therefore the central powers including Russia are more an assurrance of peace to allow domestic issues to be sorted out and a general power bloc standing, than any form of ideological, cultural or economic union.



All that said, if you have the Russo-German allience renewed, there is no Great War over the Serbian issues...it's as frank as that.


This OP sounds borderline ASB in predicting the Great War based on this POD, as a POD for the Russo-German allience, fine, but its not leading to WWI in a form like we witnessed in our TL.
 
Salazaro you incorrectly describe the standing geopolitical zeitguiest of Germany during the times. Bismark never had the idea for domination of Europe and elsewhere. It was more Willhelm who sought these kind of ideas "Germany Over All" (or whatever that phrase was), his doing of that was what broke the balence of power in Europe and what directly led to the Entente.

Secondly, German-Austrian tensions are hardly likely to break the alliences and common aims of the two nations, even if Germany renews the Russo-German allience.

Thirdly millitary assurances are not the same as pacts of friendship, there are good reasons why a generally 'weak' Russia, doesn't want to be ganged up on in another Crimera, there are good reasons that Germany a new fledgling nation doesn't want to be pissed upon and ground down, and Austria-Hungary needs stability and allies to prevent itself blowing apart.

Therefore the central powers including Russia are more an assurrance of peace to allow domestic issues to be sorted out and a general power bloc standing, than any form of ideological, cultural or economic union.



All that said, if you have the Russo-German allience renewed, there is no Great War over the Serbian issues...it's as frank as that.


This OP sounds borderline ASB in predicting the Great War based on this POD, as a POD for the Russo-German allience, fine, but its not leading to WWI in a form like we witnessed in our TL.

You make good points in all of this. It would be very foolish of AH to start a war over Serbia with Germany and Russia engaged in military agreements and Russia acting as Serbia's patron. Still, a Russo-German alliance would create tensions with AH because of conflicting Hapsburg and Serbian aspirations in the Balkans. But I doubt that Europe will escape a Great War at some point. The Alliance System and the militarism of Wilhelm II will make this virtually unavoidable. Genmotty, what do you think would prompt this war in the event of a continuing Russo-German alliance? How would the political situation develop in the early 20th century, do you think?
 

Thanos6

Banned
I always thought German dominance was Bismarck's goal; he just had a more realistic view of when and how to do it, and was willing to play a very long game.
 
If the Ottomans choose the French and Austrian side than slicing through Serbia to support AH might not be too hard.

True.

On the other side, supplying a great power against Germany and Russia through Balkan (and Hungarian) infrastructure will be a nightmare. That may buy them some more days, and it's possible that AH holds out retreating South, but the overall picture still holds IMHO: AH will effectively be out of the war rather soon.
 
Top