Search results

A good contact of mine sent me a copy of The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark and an article by a T.G. Otte for the The Historical Journal from its March, 2013 edition titled "DÉTENTE 1914: SIR WILLIAM TYRRELL'S SECRET MISSION TO GERMANY". Both have, so far, confirmed exactly my presumptions...

Precisely, yes; all of those societies had a larger middle class than Russia. As for France, got the date wrong; meant 1917, my bad.

1920s Russia would be, relative to the USSR, much more developed and Japan less so. Democracy didn't prevent the French issues of 1916, the German Revolutionary attempts, the unrest in the UK, etc. Basically, it always comes down to economics; Democracy in of itself doesn't put bread on the...

Imperial Russia would also be more developed than the USSR and wouldn't have the German Army rampaging in its industrial base. Revolutionary unrest in the UK from 1911 to 1914 was as bad as Russia and 1919 looked like 1917 in many respects. Germany and France both had similar issues...

Probably a million to two million, total. The IJA isn't the same in the 1920s as it would be by the 1940s, while the Imperial Russian Army is vastly more powerful than relative to the Soviets. I don't foresee an invasion of Taiwan and anything with China is hard to predict. No more than any of...

Possibly, depending on their naval expansion. Possibly? They basically did historically for a time as the USSR, and here the demographic and economic edge is greater.

Yes, definitely. Kurils and all of Sakhalin too.

The Imperial Russian naval expansions being planned in the early 1910s suggest a rematch was on the horizon, possibly as early as the 1920s. With the Great Kanto Earthquake and Russian modernization complete? I'd hate to be the Japanese when the Russian Army comes calling.

Also, this article by Davis Kedrosky:

Russian industrialization was hitting the point it no longer needed French loans.

Probably abandoned in the first case and sacrificed in the latter half, if necessary. The UK, after all, was able to abandon the Great Game and at least temporarily end the antagonism with Russia to contain Germany.

Personally I feel like a revival of the Three Emperor's League was possible, given the personal outlook of the personalities involved and the changing strategic outlook. In that case, it would've been the aforementioned vs an expanded Entente, formally adding Italy and the Ottomans to its ranks.

I thought you meant Russia and the UK, if Russia fought to the end. Yes, this is classic British strategy. Alternatively, of course, one of the other likely flashpoints of the 1910s could result in a Russo-German realignment, keeping Britain on the side of the French, while trying to pry off...

They didn't after 1945, and most indications by 1914 seemed to suggest the British would not renew the Anglo-Russian agreements in 1916. The growth in Russian power was becoming obvious to the British political elite; had World War I not occurred when it did, the British probably would've...

I don't know about immigrant labor and as for the railways, certainly. The explosion in railway construction was a major factor in concern for the Central Powers, given it basically meant they wouldn't have time going forward before Russian mobilization became a factor.

The Russian Empire in its 1914 borders easily would've had 500 to 600 million people, for one example of this. The railway network had broke down and the food situation had collapsed.

Exactly this, as the course of action ultimately proved Stolypin prophetic in his desire for 20 more years of peace. What would've been the ultimate fate of Russia, had she not went down this abyss?