Without hindsight, was the Russian decision in 1914 to go to war the right one?

[stevep]

What I'm intrigued by is the willingness of Russian soldiers to succumb to defeatism after the US had already entered World War I. There were also some mutinies elsewhere in 1917, such as in France, but nowhere near Russia's levels. Interestingly enough, by Anatoly Karlin's own criteria, this might mean that World War I Russia was a loser country, starting a war that it was unable to fight to the finish even though it was perfectly capable of doing this after the US had already entered the war.

I think the key thing was that morale was so badly destroyed.

Also a US dow in 1917 is a lot less important than one today. For one thing even without the much less information about the world and most Russian soldiers being poorly educated it would mean virtually nothing to them. There were already plenty of nations fighting the CPs so another one most would know virtually nothing about would mean little.

Furthermore even if they had had a decent knowledge of the 1917 US would it had much effect. Yes its a massive economic power but its a military minnow. The army is small and poorly equipped and, especially with their insistence in only fighting under a solely US army it was going to be over a year before US forces of any size would be engaged on the western front while they have no real way of reaching the eastern front and helping the Russians in a war that increasingly the population just wants ended.

 

[History Learner]

if Russia hadn't litterally destroyed their country no their civilization with communism they would have been the great power of the 20th century and it would have been a sustainable power. They could very well be the power that would have dominated the west instead of the united states as in our time line.

The Russian Empire in its 1914 borders easily would've had 500 to 600 million people, for one example of this.

What I'm intrigued by is the willingness of Russian soldiers to succumb to defeatism after the US had already entered World War I. There were also some mutinies elsewhere in 1917, such as in France, but nowhere near Russia's levels. Interestingly enough, by Anatoly Karlin's own criteria, this might mean that World War I Russia was a loser country, starting a war that it was unable to fight to the finish even though it was perfectly capable of doing this after the US had already entered the war.

The railway network had broke down and the food situation had collapsed.

 

[WolfBear]

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.

Yep. Depending, of course, on which territories it would have kept and acquired, but Yeah, roughly in that ballpark. 280 million Russians, 20 million Belarusians, 100 million Ukrainians, 100 million Central Asians, and 50-100 million others (also depending on just how much immigration it would have gotten). What do you think about the immigration question, BTW? Just how much immigration would Russia have attracted in this scenario? In a 1915 book by Arnold Toynbee, he predicted that Indian coolies will eventually move north in large numbers to Russia for work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000336738&view=1up&seq=368&skin=2021&q1=oxus

Any chance of the railway network being good enough to prevent the food situation from collapsing if Russia has an extra 2-3 years of peace?

 

[History Learner]

Yep. Depending, of course, on which territories it would have kept and acquired, but Yeah, roughly in that ballpark. 280 million Russians, 20 million Belarusians, 100 million Ukrainians, 100 million Central Asians, and 50-100 million others (also depending on just how much immigration it would have gotten). What do you think about the immigration question, BTW? Just how much immigration would Russia have attracted in this scenario? In a 1915 book by Arnold Toynbee, he predicted that Indian coolies will eventually move north in large numbers to Russia for work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000336738&view=1up&seq=368&skin=2021&q1=oxus

Any chance of the railway network being good enough to prevent the food situation from collapsing if Russia has an extra 2-3 years of peace?

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.

 

[WolfBear]

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.

Interestingly enough, though, if they would have actually been willing to fight a long war, then they could have perhaps gotten Britain as an ally or at least a friendly neutral in the long(er)-run.

 

[History Learner]

Interestingly enough, though, if they would have actually been willing to fight a long war, then they could have perhaps gotten Britain as an ally or at least a friendly neutral in the long(er)-run.

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 slipped back into true neutrality as a balancing act in response. Germany, meanwhile, would've gave up on the Schlieffen Plan in favor of an East first outlook, given the 1913 conscription laws seemed to indicate France was at it's end.

 

[WolfBear]

They didn't after 1945,

Um ... NATO? Britain and West Germany were both members of it.

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 slipped back into true neutrality as a balancing act in response. Germany, meanwhile, would've gave up on the Schlieffen Plan in favor of an East first outlook, given the 1913 conscription laws seemed to indicate France was at it's end.

Yep, that sounds about right. Though what if the Franco-Russians (primarily the Russians) will eventually be too strong for Germany and Austria-Hungary to permanently hold them off by themselves? Then would Britain actually be willing to commit?

 

[History Learner]

Um ... NATO? Britain and West Germany were both members of it.

I thought you meant Russia and the UK, if Russia fought to the end.

Yep, that sounds about right. Though what if the Franco-Russians (primarily the Russians) will eventually be too strong for Germany and Austria-Hungary to permanently hold them off by themselves? Then would Britain actually be willing to commit?

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 Italy and the Ottomans in response.

 

[History Learner]

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.

 

[ATP]

Interestingly enough, though, if they would have actually been willing to fight a long war, then they could have perhaps gotten Britain as an ally or at least a friendly neutral in the long(er)-run.

Of course Strong Russia mean England supporting Germany.Which would end in draw,unless USA join.

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 slipped back into true neutrality as a balancing act in response. Germany, meanwhile, would've gave up on the Schlieffen Plan in favor of an East first outlook, given the 1913 conscription laws seemed to indicate France was at it's end.

During WW1 we had Russia,which could become strong - thus,England must oppose them after,let say,1920.
During WW2 we had soviets who murdered Russia,and economically were nothing - just like kgbstan now - but,unless kgbstan,they could send wave after wave of cannon fodder.
So,England must oppose them to not get genocided.

 

[WolfBear]

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 Italy and the Ottomans in response.

Gotcha.

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.

How exactly is a Russo-German realignment going to be squared with the Franco-Russian alliance and, for that matter, with Germany's emerging economic and financial interests in the Ottoman Empire such as the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway?

 

[History Learner]

How exactly is a Russo-German realignment going to be squared with the Franco-Russian alliance and, for that matter, with Germany's emerging economic and financial interests in the Ottoman Empire such as the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway?

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.

 

[WolfBear]

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.

The crucial question is, of course, whether Germany can actually offer Russia enough to compensate for the loss of French loans. I would also expect the French loans that would have otherwise continued to go to Russia to go into the Ottoman Empire or perhaps even Italy in this TL.

 

[History Learner]

The crucial question is, of course, whether Germany can actually offer Russia enough to compensate for the loss of French loans. I would also expect the French loans that would have otherwise continued to go to Russia to go into the Ottoman Empire or perhaps even Italy in this TL.

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

 

[WolfBear]

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

Source?

 

[History Learner]

Source?

Also, this article by Davis Kedrosky:

 

[WolfBear]

@History Learner Somewhat off-topic, but I've got a question for you: If Russia avoids (or escapes) Bolshevism (Communism) in 1917 and Japan subsequently still decides to sodomize China in the 1930s and beyond, what are the odds that Russia would eventually militarily intervene in China in order to expel the Japanese from there and possibly from Korea as well? A Russia that is led by the Socialist Revolutionaries is likely to be quite anti-imperialist and anti-racist, after all, and is thus likely not going to look very kindly towards Japanese attempts to subjugate China. Might there eventually be significant calls for intervention similar to what there previously were in the late 1870s in regards to Bulgaria, ultimately culminating in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 in that specific case? In other words, this would be viewed as a humanitarian mission on Russia's part but also as a way of significantly weakening a huge regional rival.

Would directly militarily intervening be a smarter strategy on Russia's part or simply arming the Chinese? Because I don't think that the Chinese by themselves have what it takes to defeat Japan at this point in time.

Interestingly enough, this could mean that even without both Nazism and Bolshevism, Russia could still experience a huge bloodbath in a Second Great War, just in Asia rather than in Europe. Though I wonder if a non-Nazi right-wing authoritarian German regime could view this as a good moment to forcibly revise the German-Polish border in its favor. What do you think?

 

[History Learner]

@History Learner Somewhat off-topic, but I've got a question for you: If Russia avoids (or escapes) Bolshevism (Communism) in 1917 and Japan subsequently still decides to sodomize China in the 1930s and beyond, what are the odds that Russia would eventually militarily intervene in China in order to expel the Japanese from there and possibly from Korea as well? A Russia that is led by the Socialist Revolutionaries is likely to be quite anti-imperialist and anti-racist, after all, and is thus likely not going to look very kindly towards Japanese attempts to subjugate China. Might there eventually be significant calls for intervention similar to what there previously were in the late 1870s in regards to Bulgaria, ultimately culminating in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 in that specific case? In other words, this would be viewed as a humanitarian mission on Russia's part but also as a way of significantly weakening a huge regional rival.

Would directly militarily intervening be a smarter strategy on Russia's part or simply arming the Chinese? Because I don't think that the Chinese by themselves have what it takes to defeat Japan at this point in time.

Interestingly enough, this could mean that even without both Nazism and Bolshevism, Russia could still experience a huge bloodbath in a Second Great War, just in Asia rather than in Europe. Though I wonder if a non-Nazi right-wing authoritarian German regime could view this as a good moment to forcibly revise the German-Polish border in its favor. What do you think?

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.

 

[WolfBear]

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.

Is having Russia go for Korea also realistic? I mean for all of Korea, in order to vassalize it rather than outright annex it?

 

[History Learner]

Is having Russia go for Korea also realistic? I mean for all of Korea, in order to vassalize it rather than outright annex it?

Yes, definitely. Kurils and all of Sakhalin too.