WWI occurs a decade later

[Snowstalker]

Let's assume, for convenience's sake, it starts as something between Austria and Serbia and spirals into a European-wide conflict, with, at the bare minimum, Germany/AH/Turkey on one side and Russia/France on the other. The biggest shifts, IMO:

• Russia has had an extra decade to industrialize, and is probably the most militarily powerful country in continental Europe. This alone could shift the balance of power firmly in favor of the Entente.
• Italy and Britain may or may not have left their respective alliances.
• We're keeping Austria-Hungary alive for the purposes of this discussion, but Franz Josef is probably dead and Franz Ferdinand is attempting to implement reforms.
• The Ottoman Empire (which we're also assuming has stayed whole) has also had an extra decade to industrialize with help from Germany.

 

[Bees]

Hmm.

With Britain wanting to keep balance of things, if Russia is seeming a lot more dangerous, they might decide to favour Germany more than Russia, but that also depends on the state of AH.

 

[usertron2020]

IDK. Considering what Stalin put Russia through to get the USSR industrialized, and the corruption/incompetence of the Czarist regime, I don't see a country that had its head handed to it by Japan in 1905 is going to be the most powerful country in Europe in 1925.

 

[Essam]

Oil from Ottoman Iraq would have had an impact as well, both on their own domestic development, as well as larger geopolitics, alliances, etc.

 

[Byzantion]

Let's assume, for convenience's sake, it starts as something between Austria and Serbia and spirals into a European-wide conflict, with, at the bare minimum, Germany/AH/Turkey on one side and Russia/France on the other. The biggest shifts, IMO:

• Russia has had an extra decade to industrialize, and is probably the most militarily powerful country in continental Europe. This alone could shift the balance of power firmly in favor of the Entente.
• Italy and Britain may or may not have left their respective alliances.
• We're keeping Austria-Hungary alive for the purposes of this discussion, but Franz Josef is probably dead and Franz Ferdinand is attempting to implement reforms.
• The Ottoman Empire (which we're also assuming has stayed whole) has also had an extra decade to industrialize with help from Germany.

to what degree technology and society would develope in the 1910s without the effect of the OTL war ?

 

[LordKalvert]

Russia's military buildup would have decisively tilted the balance of power in favor of Russia by the mid-1920's that England would have lost all ability to influence continental affairs and Germnay never would have dared to challenge them. We should also remember that Franz Ferdinand never would have challenged Russia in the Balkans but would have sought an accord with Russia

The key is speed: Russia's railroads would have allowed her to quickly shift her forces around her vast Empire. Over one sixth of the Russian army was stationed in Turkestan and the Far East but with the double tracking of the Trans Siberean this would no longer be the drawback that it was. Furthermore, the European forces would have been able to concentrate

While Germany may have been able to stay in the race, Austria certainly couldn't given the political contraints of her system. Russia mauled the Austrians badly with the forces she had in 1914 so any increased Russian strength would have been devoted to Germany. This would mean all additional German strength would have been devoted to the East

Romania's position would count for as much, if not more, than Italy. She was fast leaving the Austro-German orbit and drifting to the Franco-Russian. WIth the death of King Carol in 1914, that process would have accelerated. If she had completely moved to the Russian side, any additional Austrian forces would have been effectively lost

The Ottomans are not likely to play an important role beyond their blockading of the Straits- which is important only in a long war.

 

[LordKalvert]

IDK. Considering what Stalin put Russia through to get the USSR industrialized, and the corruption/incompetence of the Czarist regime, I don't see a country that had its head handed to it by Japan in 1905 is going to be the most powerful country in Europe in 1925.

Because you totally misread the Japanese War, the situation Stalin inherited and the relative power of Russia, Germany and Austria.

The Japanese didn't crush Russia's army- it was still a very potent force far from its main line of supplies but likely would have been able to handle anything Japan could throw at it when the war ended. This is the reason Russia escaped with such lenient terms.

Second, Stalin had inherited a country that had been destroyed by World War I and the Civil War. It was far more economically backward compared to Germany than the Empire had been in 1914. Finally, the loss of vast territory (Finland, the Baltics and Poland) greatly diminshed Soviet power

To say that the Tsarist regime was more incompetent than the destructive means of the Bolshevik's defies imagination.

 

[LordKalvert]

Hmm.

With Britain wanting to keep balance of things, if Russia is seeming a lot more dangerous, they might decide to favour Germany more than Russia, but that also depends on the state of AH.

Maybe but what role can Britain play? If the Russian railways are finished, the short war scenario becomes very likely at least in the minds of the German diplomatic corps. In that case, Britain can do nothing- Russia would be in Berlin before the Germans could be in Paris and the Germans are going to be caught between the Russian hammer and the French anvil

If anything, Germany would be desirous of an accord with Russia sacrificing Austria's Balkan pretensions if necessary to stand on good terms with the Tsar

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The British either stay benevolently neutral to Germany or actively fight in the war due to fears of Russian domination of Europe. The naval race would be over, the Irish issue settled, and Russia getting big and scary. By 1915 the Anglo-Russian accord would be over and not renewed, so a Anglo-German understanding becomes increasingly possible. If Britain is on Germany's side, Japan is going to snap up French colonies in Asia and probably fight Russia again in Korea. There would be an Ottoman front in the Caucasus, probably an Iranian front, and of course Anglo-French fighting, while Germany stays on the defensive in the West, while desperately fighting in the East to defend themselves and a collapsing A-H. Italy probably fights France if Britain is fighting France otherwise it stays neutral unless Britain is fighting Germany for some reason (probably not happening ITTL). Romania is fighting A-H, so is Serbia, while Russia swamps A-H and tries to do that to Germany. Very bloody war but if Germany as access to imports they do much better and are probably the most technically advanced power in Europe, so can counter Russian numbers with more and better aircraft, motorized troops, light machine guns, etc.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Maybe but what role can Britain play? If the Russian railways are finished, the short war scenario becomes very likely at least in the minds of the German diplomatic corps. In that case, Britain can do nothing- Russia would be in Berlin before the Germans could be in Paris and the Germans are going to be caught between the Russian hammer and the French anvil

If anything, Germany would be desirous of an accord with Russia sacrificing Austria's Balkan pretensions if necessary to stand on good terms with the Tsar

You don't really have a good read on the situation; even in the best scenario Russia would take a month to fully mobilize. Britain can get the BEF into Prussia within a month easy and Germany can defend in the East and West very easily for a month with A-H and the Ottomans in the war. France is not going to just rush Germany either and going through Belgium would be very costly and bring the Dutch into the war on their side, plus it would guarantee British entry into the war against France. If anything french entry would ensure a British invasion and blockade of France that would collapse her economy quickly, while Germany had hold easily in Alsace, while fighting with the majority of its forces in the East, which would initially outnumbers the Russians on the border areas until that first month is up.

 

[FellowNerd]

Russia's military buildup would have decisively tilted the balance of power in favor of Russia by the mid-1920's that England would have lost all ability to influence continental affairs and Germnay never would have dared to challenge them. We should also remember that Franz Ferdinand never would have challenged Russia in the Balkans but would have sought an accord with Russia

The key is speed: Russia's railroads would have allowed her to quickly shift her forces around her vast Empire. Over one sixth of the Russian army was stationed in Turkestan and the Far East but with the double tracking of the Trans Siberean this would no longer be the drawback that it was. Furthermore, the European forces would have been able to concentrate

While Germany may have been able to stay in the race, Austria certainly couldn't given the political contraints of her system. Russia mauled the Austrians badly with the forces she had in 1914 so any increased Russian strength would have been devoted to Germany. This would mean all additional German strength would have been devoted to the East

Romania's position would count for as much, if not more, than Italy. She was fast leaving the Austro-German orbit and drifting to the Franco-Russian. WIth the death of King Carol in 1914, that process would have accelerated. If she had completely moved to the Russian side, any additional Austrian forces would have been effectively lost

The Ottomans are not likely to play an important role beyond their blockading of the Straits- which is important only in a long war.

My understanding is the reason Russia Mauled Austria so badly is because Austria sent most of its reserves toward Serbia instead of Russia and so was undermanned for the Russian attack

 

[Deleted member 1487]

My understanding is the reason Russia Mauled Austria so badly is because Austria sent most of its reserves toward Serbia instead of Russia and so was undermanned for the Russian attack

Not just that, A-H delayed mobilization for days after they knew Russia would DoW then, so got at it late, then mobilized for defense in Galicia until Conrad changed his mind and ordered and attack, so troops then had to leave their positions and march hundreds of miles to the border and then march into Russia to invade. All this while the forces necessary to pull it off were transferring from the Serbian front. A-H was a mess IOTL in 1914 and by 1924 it would have much less bad leadership because the incompetent Conrad would be retired by 1915.

Even then they won the initial battles until Russian numbers and a few bad decisions cost A-H the frontier engagements.

 

[Deckhand]

Let's assume, for convenience's sake, it starts as something between Austria and Serbia and spirals into a European-wide conflict, with, at the bare minimum, Germany/AH/Turkey on one side and Russia/France on the other. The biggest shifts, IMO:

• Russia has had an extra decade to industrialize, and is probably the most militarily powerful country in continental Europe. This alone could shift the balance of power firmly in favor of the Entente.
• Italy and Britain may or may not have left their respective alliances.
• We're keeping Austria-Hungary alive for the purposes of this discussion, but Franz Josef is probably dead and Franz Ferdinand is attempting to implement reforms.
• The Ottoman Empire (which we're also assuming has stayed whole) has also had an extra decade to industrialize with help from Germany.

Some pretty handwavy stuff about the Ottomans there. Barring the Great War, they are going the way of China. Concessions and Cessions galore. Great Power conference to resolve the Armenia problem perhaps?

 

[LordKalvert]

My understanding is the reason Russia Mauled Austria so badly is because Austria sent most of its reserves toward Serbia instead of Russia and so was undermanned for the Russian attack

The Austrians sent very little to the Serbian frontier and most of what they did send arrived in Galicia on time anyway. Austria was mauled by the Russians throughout the war because of the generally superior training, equipment and morale of the Russians. The gap is growing more and more towards Russia's side and there's little in the Austrian war plans to indicate any realistic ability to turn it around.

That Austria spent one-third as much on its Army as Russia did had a lot to do with the problems Austria had

 

[LordKalvert]

You don't really have a good read on the situation; even in the best scenario Russia would take a month to fully mobilize. Britain can get the BEF into Prussia within a month easy and Germany can defend in the East and West very easily for a month with A-H and the Ottomans in the war. France is not going to just rush Germany either and going through Belgium would be very costly and bring the Dutch into the war on their side, plus it would guarantee British entry into the war against France. If anything french entry would ensure a British invasion and blockade of France that would collapse her economy quickly, while Germany had hold easily in Alsace, while fighting with the majority of its forces in the East, which would initially outnumbers the Russians on the border areas until that first month is up.

Oh what a fantasy. By 1917, Russia would have been able to mobilize an army equal to the entire German one in Poland in 17 days. The Germans would have taken twelve and the notion that the Brits could land in East Prussia by then is rather fanciful.

Not to mention that the Germans had no interest in fighting a life and death struggle for English interests, do you really think that the six British divisions are going to tilt any European war?

The Russians will have 90 divisions in Poland with more on the way, France 80+ and you really think anyone is caring about Britain's six?

The French would have no need to attack through Belgium. It offers them nothing nor is there any reason to expect the Dutch to intervene if the French were so stupid anyway

The twenty, albeit poorly trained and equipped, Romanian divisions are going to be far more important than Britain's.

IOTL, Belgium was more important to the outcome of the August-September campaign than Britain.

 

[Shiva]

This actually ties into the thread about Queen Victoria living to be a 100. The Grandmother of Europe had the ear of the German Emperor, and connections to virtually every single monarchy on the continent.

Old Vicky could have been doing quite a bit behind the scenes to keep a lid on things. So incidents like the Archduke assassination could have been kept as a local war and a dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire between Germany, Russia, and a rump Hungary run either by a distant Hapsburg relation or even one of Victoria's youngest children.

The Russian Monarchy either continues to power on despite the nations problems, or there was a period of political instability that convinced Nicholas to at least TRY to enact reforms that served as a stopgap.

But with Victoria's death, there isn't anyone around to bang heads together and get people talking instead of shooting when the next big incident happens.

And what incident would that be? Why Serbian Nationalists/Communists launching a revolution to get out of Russian domination, and celebrate things by assassinating the new Russian Czar, Alexei I. (ok, so they only injured him a little, but his hemophilia did him in).

 

[LordKalvert]

The British either stay benevolently neutral to Germany or actively fight in the war due to fears of Russian domination of Europe. The naval race would be over, the Irish issue settled, and Russia getting big and scary. By 1915 the Anglo-Russian accord would be over and not renewed, so a Anglo-German understanding becomes increasingly possible. If Britain is on Germany's side, Japan is going to snap up French colonies in Asia and probably fight Russia again in Korea. There would be an Ottoman front in the Caucasus, probably an Iranian front, and of course Anglo-French fighting, while Germany stays on the defensive in the West, while desperately fighting in the East to defend themselves and a collapsing A-H. Italy probably fights France if Britain is fighting France otherwise it stays neutral unless Britain is fighting Germany for some reason (probably not happening ITTL). Romania is fighting A-H, so is Serbia, while Russia swamps A-H and tries to do that to Germany. Very bloody war but if Germany as access to imports they do much better and are probably the most technically advanced power in Europe, so can counter Russian numbers with more and better aircraft, motorized troops, light machine guns, etc.

First, by 1917 Russia wouldn't care if Britain stayed neutral and wouldn't be that afraid of her hostility. If she could crush Germany in the opening round the war is won.

Second, why would the Germans make a pact with Britain? She had little to offer them and would have been viewed as truly undependable if they were switching sides. Why risk war with Russia with a "friend" like that. All the reasons that Germany had for not making the concessions that Britain sought in 1901 remain and Britain would be unlikely to make any grand concessions.

And the Navy race would be far from over. Britain may have preponderance over Germany but the Russian Navy would once again be a factor in European politics. In 1917, Russia would have 11 Battlecruisers and Dreadnaughts all of the latest type while many of the British ones would be becoming obsolete.

By themselves, nothing. Added to Germany? Considerable and Britain would want to keep the Entente by making concessions to Russia rather than risk a Russian-German Alliance which would doom the Empire

 

[snerfuplz]

You could prevent the July Crisis by Austria Hungry invading Serbia quickly after the assination and occupying Belgrade while promising the Hungarians there will be no annexations.

Still the inner turmoil of Austria is not going away and I would see a break up happening soon as Hungry will object to real reforms that would limit its power. I would imagine Britain drifiting into the German camp due to Asian tensions with Russia and if Russia becomes too strong that would be even more dangerous. Of course Russia could fall on its face during reforms so there is that

 

[Cook]

Considering what Stalin put Russia through to get the USSR industrialized, and the corruption/incompetence of the Czarist regime...

The persistent myth of Tsarist government corruption and incompetence; in the seven years prior to 1914, Russia recorded not only the most rapid industrial and economic growth of all of Europe, but also Russia’s greatest rate of growth for the entire twentieth century. Prior to 1914, Russia was the world's leading exporter of wheat, a position that it never regained; the money generated by those exports, along with massive foreign loans, principally from France, was the driving force of the rapid growth in Russian industry and infrastructure.

On the 2nd January 1905, a large crowd of peaceful demonstrators led by orthodox clergymen marched through the streets of St. Petersburg towards the Winter Palace to present the Tsar with a petition. They never got there; the crowd was fired on by panicked members of the imperial guard before they even got close to the palace, killing and wounding nearly a thousand members of the crowd. Following this massacre, which became known as ‘Bloody Sunday’, a government commission was established to investigate the events that caused the massacre. The commission, which was chaired by finance minister, (and future Prime Minister) Vladimir Kokovtsov, found that the crowd had been protesting hunger wages (i.e. wages too low to cover the living costs of a family), 12 hour days, lack of worker’s compensation for injuries and lack of old-age pensions. Kokovstov responded by introducing a series of sweeping reforms in the following years: shorter working hours, higher wages, state mandated accident, injury and health insurance, paid maternity leave and aged pensions. These reforms meant that Russian workers, from 1912 until the outbreak of the war, had the most labour rights of any work force in the world. All of these rights were lost very quickly thereafter, the shorter working hours with the onset of war; the rest of the labour rights, along with all civil rights, went with Lenin’s coup, most never to be regained.

Kokovstov estimated in 1905 that Russia needed twenty years of peace in which to solidify the reforms and for its industrial capacity to fully mature, after which the spectre of revolution would have been banished and Russia would be secure, from enemies both within and without; by his estimate, Russia was only half way through that reform period when war broke out.

 

[snerfuplz]

The problem I see with Russia as well is that the stronger it got (and France) the more likely Germany would declare war