A very different large-scale Middle Eastern war in the 1940s

[futurist]

OK--here is this scenario of mine (with a long TL beforehand :

-1866: Dmitry Karakozov successfully assassinates Tsar Alexander II of Russia. Thus, Alexander III becomes Tsar of Russia 15 years earlier than he did in our TL.

-1867: Tsar Alexander III sells Alaska to the United States of America. In addition to this, during this time, Tsar Alexander III becomes fascinated by the industrialization which is occurring in countries such as the U.S. and Britain and decides to actively encourage rapid industrialization (railroad building, factory building, et cetera) in Russia as well. Thus, in this TL, Russia industrializes somewhat faster than it did in our TL.

-1868: Tsar Alexander III's eldest son, Nicholas, is born. Due to the butterfly effort, this TL's Nicholas is different from our TL's Nicholas (II). Indeed, this TL's Nicholas (II) is thankfully less of a dunce that our TL's Nicholas (II) was.

-1877: Russia and its Slavic allies go to war against the Ottoman Empire, as was the case in real life.

-1878: Russia and its Slavic allies with the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. The post-war peace deal looks exactly the same way that it did in real life.

-1879: Tsar Alexander III decides to build two double-track Trans-Siberian Railways as a part of his program to try rapidly industrializing Russia (well, once he and Russia will actually be able to afford it).

-1882: The Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy is signed.

-1888: Wilhelm II becomes Kaiser of Germany.

-1894: The Franco-Russian alliance is signed. Several months later, Tsar Alexander III of Russia dies at age 49. His son Nicholas II becomes the new Tsar of Russia. Shortly afterwards, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia marries some European princess who doesn't have the hemophilia gene.

-1903: Russia's two double-track Trans-Siberian railways are finally completed.

-1904: War between Russia and Japan is successfully avoided due to skillful diplomacy. Russia and Japan reach some sort of compromise in regards to their influence in China and Korea. Meanwhile, the Entente Cordiale is signed between Britain and France.

-1905: Russian Tsar Nicholas II decides to make the Russian military more merit-based (thus allowing commoners to rise to high positions in the Russian military).
He also orders his generals to look at various wars over the previous 50 years in order to allow them to do a better job of shaping Russia's military strategy for the future.

-1907: The Anglo-Russian Entente is signed.

-1914: An assassination attempt on Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary fails. Meanwhile, Ireland descends into massive trouble and unrest.

-1915: The Anglo-Russian Entente fails to be renewed, but Britain's and Russia's close ties to France still bind these two countries together.

-1916: Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary dies at age 86. Afterwards, due to its fear(s) of the anti-Hungarian plans of new Emperor Franz Ferdinand, Hungary secedes from Austria-Hungary and requests Russian assistance. Russia agrees to military intervene on Hungary's side in this war, thus activating the European alliance system and sparking World War I in this TL. At the start of this TL's World War I, Germany utilizes the Schlieffen Plan and invades Belgium and France before having its advance halted at the Marne. meanwhile, Russia makes total mincemeat of the Austrian Army and links up to its Hungarian allies. In addition to this, Russia defeats the German Army in East Prussia and forces the Germans to retreat to the Vistula River. Meanwhile, in Budapest, Russo-Hungarian forces decisively defeat German-Austrian forces. Afterwards, Russia and its Hungarian and Serbian allies race towards Vienna. However, the Russians and their Hungarian and Serbian allies logistically overextend themselves and are halted by the Germans and Austrians near the outskirts of Vienna. However, this defense of Vienna is costly to the Germans; indeed, the German troops which were moved from eastern Germany to the Vienna area weakened Germany's position on its own eastern territory and thus helped allow Russia to advance from the Vistula River to the Oder and Eastern Neisse Rivers.

-1917: Russia and its Serbian and Hungarian allies successfully capture southern Austria, including the city of Trieste, thus creating a land route between them and Italy. Shortly afterwards, Italy enters World War I on the side of the Triple Entente and attacks Austria in the north. Meanwhile, Germany and Austria make a desperate attempt to recapture Budapest and, in spite of some initial military successes, ultimately fail in achieving this goal of theirs. Afterwards, Russia and its Hungarian and Serbian stage a decoy attack on Vienna while having Russia launch its main attack in Silesia. The Germans and Austrians take the bait and their unpreparedness allows Russia to successfully capture Silesia and to advance into Czechia afterwards, capturing Prague. Meanwhile, a Franco-British attack on the Western Front fails to break through the German trenches.

-1918: Russia launches an invasion of Germany through Czechia and also successfully crosses the Oder River. Desperate, Germany quickly withdraws its troops from Vienna and successfully defends both Saxony and Berlin from these Russian invasions. However, this German withdrawal from Vienna allows Russia and its Hungarian and Serbian allies to successfully besiege and eventually capture Vienna and thus to knock Austria out of the war. Feeling the heat, Germany announces a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean shortly afterwards. As a result of this decision, the U.S. declares war on Germany shortly afterwards. Meanwhile on the Western Front, a Franco-British offensive successfully breaks through the German lines as a result of German sending some of the troops from the Western Front to protect itself against the Russian forces on the Eastern Front. Shortly afterwards, realizing that the war is lost, Germany sues for peace.

-1919: The Treaty of Versailles is signed. In this treaty, Russia acquires Galicia, Posen, the Polish Corridor, the Memelland, southern East Prussia, and Russian puppet states in both Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Meanwhile, Russia's Serbian ally acquires all or almost all of the South Slav-majority areas in the Balkans. Since the Ottoman Empire was neutral in this TL's World War I (due to the fact that the Ottomans saw Russia kick Germany's and Austria's butts at the start of this war and didn't want to have thing to happen to them), it obviously does not lose any territory after the end of World War I in this TL. In addition to all of this, Russia eagerly loots a lot of industrial equipment and machinery in the parts of Germany and Austria-Hungary which were under Russian occupation at the end of World War I (in legal terms, this Russian looting of industrial equipment eventually becomes viewed as a part of Russia's World War I reparations from Germany). In turn, this strengthens Russia's industrial might even more in this TL. Also, severe restrictions are placed on the size of Germany's military by the Treaty of Versailles. In addition to this, France reacquires Alsace-Lorraine while France and Britain split Germany's colonies between them. Finally, Italy acquires the Italian-majority areas of Austria as well as ethnic German-majority South Tyrol.

-The 1920s: Russia begins a policy of agitation in relation to the Armenian, Kurdish, and Arab subjects of the Ottoman Empire, hoping to get some or all of these Ottoman subjects to rebel against Ottoman rule.
In addition to this, Russia also uses its World War I reparations from Germany to help fund an extremely lavish military spending spree which results in a much more powerful Russian army and air force and, to a lesser degree/extent, navy. Also, Russia begins building a lot of strategic railroads near its southern borders at this point in time (in preparation for a potential future war). Finally, the Ottoman Empire (under the Young Turks) also industrializes and modernizes to some extent starting from the 1910s, with this process accelerating in the 1920s and beyond.

-The 1930s: Russia continues and escalates this policy of agitation in relation to the Ottoman Empire, infuriating both Britain and the United States of America.

-1941: Russia's policy of agitation finally pays off when a large-scale Arab rebellion in the Ottoman Empire breaks out (for the record, the Ottomans did not dare provoke any of these minority groups due to their fear of a Russian invasion of the Ottoman Empire). Russia gives the Ottoman Empire an ultimatum to withdraw from all of the Arab-majority areas of the Ottoman Empire and to allow one or more independent Arab states to be set up there. When the Ottoman Empire refuses to agree to this Russian ultimatum, Russia invades both the Ottoman Empire and Persia (both for Persia's oil and to use Persia as a gateway to the Ottoman Empire for Russian forces). In response to this, and due to their accurate fear that Russia wants to control both the Straits and the Middle East's oil reserves, both Britain and the U.S. declare war on Russia. In response to this declaration of war, Russia sends a decoy force to invade Afghanistan in order to divert British and American attention from both Persia and the Ottoman Empire. Also, it is worth noting that, in this war, Russia wants to conquer both Persia and the entire Ottoman Empire extremely quickly and to entrench itself there while hoping that Britain and the U.S. would eventually bleed themselves to exhaustion and agree to both end the war and to support a pro-Russian (post-war) peace settlement.

Anyway, how exactly would this war turn out? Any thoughts on this? Also, any questions about this TL and scenario of mine?

[lordroel]

Jun 23, 2016 18:03:15 GMT futurist said:

-1894: The Franco-Russian alliance is signed. Several months later, Tsar Alexander III of Russia dies at age 49. His son Nicholas II becomes the new Tsar of Russia. Shortly afterwards, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia marries some European princess who doesn't have the hemophilia gene.

Could this be the same person who you have started a thread over.

[futurist]

Jun 23, 2016 18:08:50 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 23, 2016 18:03:15 GMT futurist said:

-1894: The Franco-Russian alliance is signed. Several months later, Tsar Alexander III of Russia dies at age 49. His son Nicholas II becomes the new Tsar of Russia. Shortly afterwards, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia marries some European princess who doesn't have the hemophilia gene.

Could this be the same person who you have started a thread over.

Nope.

[lordroel]

Jun 23, 2016 18:11:16 GMT futurist said:

Jun 23, 2016 18:08:50 GMT lordroel said:

Could this be the same person who you have started a thread over.

Nope.

Is she a German princes most likely.

[futurist]

Jun 23, 2016 18:12:05 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 23, 2016 18:11:16 GMT futurist said:

Nope.

Is she a German princes most likely.

It shouldn't really matter that much as long as she doesn't have the hemophilia gene, isn't susceptible to charlatans such as Rasputin, and doesn't try interfering in the affairs of state.

[stevep]

Well points of concern.

a) OTL Alexander III reacted strongly to his father's murder, becoming very reactionary. You need to have him do a 180 turn here.

b) With a much more powerful Russia I'm not sure whether relations between Germany and Britain get that bad, especially if Germany is too busy boosting its army against Russia to threaten Britain at sea.

c) Even if it did then Britain might not be drawn into this war, at least on the Russian side, as its pretty clear that Russia is the primary aggressor. I could see it being drawn in later if things are getting too grim for Germany. Another reason why its unlikely to be drawn in early is if its still trying to sort out the mess in Ireland. Without Britain in the entente camp there is no reason for Germany to go to USW.

d) Similarly, with Russia that much more powerful and especially developing its military and transport links I doubt Germany would risk a Schlieffen operation as it would commit the vast majority of its forces away from the main threat. I suspect its more likely it would sit on the defensive in the west, relying on the short and highly fortified border with France while it commits its main efforts against Russia.

e) Even if Germany does go to USW and its finding the war going against it its unlikely to have the resources for a USW campaign. Even if it tries its not going to have the time to antagonise the US before this much shorter war ends.

f) Given the political situation I can't see the US coming out of isolationism enough to worry about Russian aggression against the Ottoman empire, in the unlikely event it isn't carved up prior to this point. As such your likely to see Russia going up against a European alliance seeking to prevent its further expansion, which also probably includes Japan as all those powers would be likely to be seriously concerned by Russia by this stage. France might stay neutral but its unlikely to continue to support Russia under those circumstances. Germany would probably seek to rearm covertly while ensuring as high quality an army as possible. It might still be vulerable to an early attack but Russia might have too much on its plate already.

I think with the technology available its going to be difficult for any power to win an early victory in a WWI equivalent. Also, no matter how forward looking this Alexander III & Nicholas II are I doubt they can get this sort of overwhelming force against Germany and Austria by ~1916 given Russia's technological backwardness and social weaknesses. Especially since your assuming about 50-70 years of almost unquallified good leadership and success, which is very rare in history.

As such I can see Russia being markedly more powerful with good leadership but that would have implications on other powers.

[futurist]

Jun 23, 2016 20:02:02 GMT stevep said:

Well points of concern.

a) OTL Alexander III reacted strongly to his father's murder, becoming very reactionary. You need to have him do a 180 turn here.

b) With a much more powerful Russia I'm not sure whether relations between Germany and Britain get that bad, especially if Germany is too busy boosting its army against Russia to threaten Britain at sea.

c) Even if it did then Britain might not be drawn into this war, at least on the Russian side, as its pretty clear that Russia is the primary aggressor. I could see it being drawn in later if things are getting too grim for Germany. Another reason why its unlikely to be drawn in early is if its still trying to sort out the mess in Ireland. Without Britain in the entente camp there is no reason for Germany to go to USW.

d) Similarly, with Russia that much more powerful and especially developing its military and transport links I doubt Germany would risk a Schlieffen operation as it would commit the vast majority of its forces away from the main threat. I suspect its more likely it would sit on the defensive in the west, relying on the short and highly fortified border with France while it commits its main efforts against Russia.

e) Even if Germany does go to USW and its finding the war going against it its unlikely to have the resources for a USW campaign. Even if it tries its not going to have the time to antagonise the US before this much shorter war ends.

f) Given the political situation I can't see the US coming out of isolationism enough to worry about Russian aggression against the Ottoman empire,


G. in the unlikely event it isn't carved up prior to this point.


H. As such your likely to see Russia going up against a European alliance seeking to prevent its further expansion, which also probably includes Japan as all those powers would be likely to be seriously concerned by Russia by this stage.


I. France might stay neutral but its unlikely to continue to support Russia under those circumstances.


J. Germany would probably seek to rearm covertly while ensuring as high quality an army as possible. It might still be vulerable to an early attack but Russia might have too much on its plate already.

K. I think with the technology available its going to be difficult for any power to win an early victory in a WWI equivalent.

L. Also, no matter how forward looking this Alexander III & Nicholas II are I doubt they can get this sort of overwhelming force against Germany and Austria by ~1916 given Russia's technological backwardness and social weaknesses.

M. Especially since your assuming about 50-70 years of almost unquallified good leadership and success, which is very rare in history.

N. As such I can see Russia being markedly more powerful with good leadership but that would have implications on other powers.

A. Actually, there appears to be absolutely no contradiction between being the reactionary autocrat that Alexander III was and being pro-large-scale industrialization. Indeed, in real life, Alexander III promoted the pro-industrialization Sergei Witte to a very high position in the Russian government. Plus, looking several decades forward, Joseph Stalin was certainly a pro-large-scale industrialization autocrat who ruled Russia.

B. The thing is, though, that a lot of Russia's military and industrial improvements probably aren't going to be that much of a concern to Germany before the start of World War I in this scenario. Indeed, improvements in the selection of Russian generals probably isn't going to worry Germany too much since Germany didn't know about the quality of Russian generals in early 1914 in real life. Likewise, not everyone understood back in the late 1800s or early 1900s that increased industrialization helps build strong, robust militaries. After all, not everyone paid attention to the U.S. Civil War back then!

Indeed, in this scenario, Russia is going to make changes that will certainly help it fight future wars and prevent revolutions at home (after all, having more railroads mean that mood food will be delivered to the cities, et cetera). However, the importance and magnitude of at least some of these changes probably aren't going to be apparent to everyone before World War I actually breaks out in this scenario.

In turn, this means that Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm II will probably still be able to (unsuccessfully) try challenging Britain for naval supremacy. Plus, Kaiser Wilhelm II is certainly still going to be a buffoon in this scenario, so ...

C. Actually, whether Russia is the aggressor in this war is debatable. After all, had Austria allowed Hungary to peacefully secede, there would have been absolutely no reason for Russia to militarily intervene.

Plus, even with the mess in Ireland, Britain will still be able to both blockade Germany and to send some of its own troops and some of its colonial troops to fight Germany in Europe.

D. The thing is, though, that Russia is purposely going to avoid being overly provocative to Germany in this scenario. After all, the absolute last thing that Russia wants in this scenario is to freak Germany out while Germany and Russia are still at peace with each other! Indeed, a lot of Russia's railroad building in this scenario is going to be more defensive than offensive considering that a lot of these railroads are going to be located deep inside of Russia (near Moscow, near Petrograd, near the Volga River, et cetera) rather than near the German-Russian border. Frankly, in terms of offensive railroad construction, the pace of offensive railroad construction in Russia in this scenario is going to occur at about the same pace at it did in real life. Thus, by 1916, a lot/most, but not all, of Russia's strategic railroads near the German-Russian border are going to be already completed, which in turn is very likely going to give Germany a narrow window of opportunity to implement its Schlieffen Plan.

As for why exactly Germany is still going to implement the Schlieffen Plan in this scenario, well:

1. Because it believes that it still can successfully do this.
2. Because it fears that the alternative to this is for it to lose a long war of attrition against Russia, France, and Italy (as in, even if Britain remains neutral throughout this entire war).

Thus, when Germany invades Belgium in this scenario, Britain probably enters World War I on the Franco-Russian side in this scenario in spite of any reservations and/or misgivings that it might have about Russia's behavior in Hungary.

E. If the U.S. has a more "trigger-happy" President than Woodrow Wilson at the time that USW is declared in this scenario (something that is certainly very possible with a PoD of 1866--half a century earlier!), though, then it might very well not take as much German USW as it did in real life to bring the U.S. into World War I in this scenario.

F. One word: Oil.

Indeed, I suspect that the U.S.'s reaction to any Russian attempt to establish Russian puppet states in the oil-rich Middle East is going to be just as hostile as the U.S.'s reaction to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was in real life.

G. I extremely strongly doubt that the Ottoman Empire will get completely carved up by the start of the 1940s in this scenario for balance-of-power reasons, though.

H. Who exactly other than Britain and Japan are going to fight against Russia in the 1940s in this scenario, though? After all, neither France nor Italy have any grudges against Russia while Germany wouldn't be led by the Nazis in this scenario and would certainly be afraid of more Russian looting of German industrial equipment in the event that it will piss off Russia by violating the Treaty of Versailles and especially by going to war with Russia again.

I. Frankly, chances are that France tries acting as a mediator in this conflict considering that in spite of its pro-Russia tilt (due to its fear of Germany), France will certainly have good relations with both Russia and the Anglo-Americans.

J. Unlikely due to Germany's fear of renewed Russian looting of German industrial equipment, in my honest opinion. Plus, no Nazis in power in Germany certainly helps with this.

K. The thing is, though, that Russia's performance in World War I in this scenario certainly isn't as impressive as the Soviet Union's performance in World War II was in real life.

L. You might be forgetting the fact that Germany is committing half of its military to fighting against Britain and France on the Western Front in World War I in this scenario, though.

Plus, again, the Soviet Union performed better in World War II in real life than the Russian Empire performed in World War I in real life. Indeed, unlike the Russian Empire in World War I in this scenario, in World War II in real life, the Soviet Union certainly didn't have a large-scale Western Front to relieve the German pressure on it until mid-1944!

M. The thing is, though, that both Alexander III and Nicholas II are going to strongly rely on pro-autocracy technocrats during these 70+ years. Indeed, think of someone such as Sergei Witte, but multiplied by 10, 20, 30, or 50.

N. Can you please elaborate on this part, Steve?

[futurist]

Also, for the record, perhaps Russia will abolish its Pale of Settlement and its anti-Semitic discrimination sometime between 1918 and 1941 in this scenario. After all, having such anti-Semitic policies in place is certainly going to make Russia look bad in the eyes of many Westerners--an image that Russia might very well not want to keep after a certain point in time! Indeed, I would think that a sufficient smart Russian leadership (even an anti-Semitic one) would realize that some/many Jews can provide significant help, assistance, and benefit to Russia if Russia will actually begin treating them fairly and giving them full legal equality.

[stevep]

  futurist

A. Actually, there appears to be absolutely no contradiction between being the reactionary autocrat that Alexander III was and being pro-large-scale industrialization. Indeed, in real life, Alexander III promoted the pro-industrialization Sergei Witte to a very high position in the Russian government. Plus, looking several decades forward, Joseph Stalin was certainly a pro-large-scale industrialization autocrat who ruled Russia.

  Reactionary autocrats can suppiort industrial expansions but by their nature such operations are often rather inefficient.  My point, which I may have expressed poorly, is less with a desire to industrize than with the fact than they will have problems getting a well-trained and motivated army and work-force.  For instance Stalin's Red Army wasn't exactly impressive in the Winter War or the 1941 campaign despite in both cases having vastly superior forces numerically.

B. The thing is, though, that a lot of Russia's military and industrial improvements probably aren't going to be that much of a concern to Germany before the start of World War I in this scenario. Indeed, improvements in the selection of Russian generals probably isn't going to worry Germany too much since Germany didn't know about the quality of Russian generals in early 1914 in real life. Likewise, not everyone understood back in the late 1800s or early 1900s that increased industrialization helps build strong, robust militaries. After all, not everyone paid attention to the U.S. Civil War back then!

Indeed, in this scenario, Russia is going to make changes that will certainly help it fight future wars and prevent revolutions at home (after all, having more railroads mean that mood food will be delivered to the cities, et cetera). However, the importance and magnitude of at least some of these changes probably aren't going to be apparent to everyone before World War I actually breaks out in this scenario.

In turn, this means that Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm II will probably still be able to (unsuccessfully) try challenging Britain for naval supremacy. Plus, Kaiser Wilhelm II is certainly still going to be a buffoon in this scenario, so ...

  By ~1980 most powers and most especially imperal Germany did recognise the importance of industrial power.  They were alo concerned OTL about the French funded Russian railways OTL.  It s doubtful that Russia can keep the massive level of industrial expansion you seem to be referring tocompletely secret, let alone the social changes that would be required.  [Without which no matter how well the Russian industrial base has expanded its will still be an army of largely illerate troops led by aristocratic officers who are selected more for social status and connections than professionalism.]

C. Actually, whether Russia is the aggressor in this war is debatable. After all, had Austria allowed Hungary to peacefully secede, there would have been absolutely no reason for Russia to militarily intervene.

  You have half an empire, with a large measure of self-rule, secede because the Magyars who make less than half the kingdom of Hungary's population respond to a call by a small aristocratic minority to prevent power being spread beyond that small elite, including to the Magyar as well as Slavic peasants.  Also even now it is politically pretty much impossible to interfer in the internal affairs of another nation unless the rulers are committing mass slaughter and even then other powers have a vested interest in supporting intervention.  In this case its a naked grab for power to attack a long standing state which isn't particuarly brutally run and is now actually trying to devolve power.

Plus, even with the mess in Ireland, Britain will still be able to both blockade Germany and to send some of its own troops and some of its colonial troops to fight Germany in Europe.

  Depends on how big the mess in Ireland is, how many other issues of social reform and conservative opposition to the same are occurring.  Also it requires that the rest of the world [or at least Europe] is ignoring massive changes inside Russia.

D. The thing is, though, that Russia is purposely going to avoid being overly provocative to Germany in this scenario. After all, the absolute last thing that Russia wants in this scenario is to freak Germany out while Germany and Russia are still at peace with each other! Indeed, a lot of Russia's railroad building in this scenario is going to be more defensive than offensive considering that a lot of these railroads are going to be located deep inside of Russia (near Moscow, near Petrograd, near the Volga River, et cetera) rather than near the German-Russian border. Frankly, in terms of offensive railroad construction, the pace of offensive railroad construction in Russia in this scenario is going to occur at about the same pace at it did in real life. Thus, by 1916, a lot/most, but not all, of Russia's strategic railroads near the German-Russian border are going to be already completed, which in turn is very likely going to give Germany a narrow window of opportunity to implement its Schlieffen Plan.

    Its still going to be very difficult to keep secret the massive amount of industrial development and expanded railways your having happening.

As for why exactly Germany is still going to implement the Schlieffen Plan in this scenario, well:

1. Because it believes that it still can successfully do this.
2. Because it fears that the alternative to this is for it to lose a long war of attrition against Russia, France, and Italy (as in, even if Britain remains neutral throughout this entire war).

Thus, when Germany invades Belgium in this scenario, Britain probably enters World War I on the Franco-Russian side in this scenario in spite of any reservations and/or misgivings that it might have about Russia's behavior in Hungary.

  If the war starts with massive Russian attacks on Austria then Germany doesn't have the time to implement a Schlieffen Plan becuase it must immediately commit most of its forces to helping Austria and and its own border with Russia.  As history shows Germany can easily hold the western front against French attack, especially if that is a markedly shorter front [because no invasion of Belgium and border fortifications/terrain] and against France alone.

E. If the U.S. has a more "trigger-happy" President than Woodrow Wilson at the time that USW is declared in this scenario (something that is certainly very possible with a PoD of 1866--half a century earlier!), though, then it might very well not take as much German USW as it did in real life to bring the U.S. into World War I in this scenario.

  Possibly but it could an an even more isolationist one.  Also given you have a very short war you have little time for Germany to develop a sizeable U-boat arm, given your assuming the OTL primacy initially given to the surface fleet and then the repeated attrocities that prompt a US dow.

F. One word: Oil.

Indeed, I suspect that the U.S.'s reaction to any Russian attempt to establish Russian puppet states in the oil-rich Middle East is going to be just as hostile as the U.S.'s reaction to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was in real life.

  You do realise how much of the world's oil supply was in the US in this time period.  They didn't start any real interest in the ME until the aftermath of WWII forced them to take a great power role and even then it was more a case of denying other influence in the region. 

G. I extremely strongly doubt that the Ottoman Empire will get completely carved up by the start of the 1940s in this scenario for balance-of-power reasons, though.

  Given that the balance of power has been pretty much destroyed in your 1916 conflict and that the main enemy of the Ottomans is this same mega-Russia either its likely to be carved up, possibly with some tit-bits to France to keep them from being hostile or this hasn't happened because a coalition of powers, which would have to include France, are barring Russian expansion in this direction.

H. Who exactly other than Britain and Japan are going to fight against Russia in the 1940s in this scenario, though? After all, neither France nor Italy have any grudges against Russia while Germany wouldn't be led by the Nazis in this scenario and would certainly be afraid of more Russian looting of German industrial equipment in the event that it will piss off Russia by violating the Treaty of Versailles and especially by going to war with Russia again.

  Its not a question of grudges but of national interests.  What Palmestone say about Britain is true of all great powers if properly lead.  "I.e. there are no perment allies, only permanent interests.

I. Frankly, chances are that France tries acting as a mediator in this conflict considering that in spite of its pro-Russia tilt (due to its fear of Germany), France will certainly have good relations with both Russia and the Anglo-Americans.

  Frankly by this period France will be fearing Russia a hell of a lot more than the defeated and battered Germany,

J. Unlikely due to Germany's fear of renewed Russian looting of German industrial equipment, in my honest opinion. Plus, no Nazis in power in Germany certainly helps with this.

  I'm not assuming that it would need Nazis to have Germany concerned about new Russian attacks or desiring revenge and the chance to regain territory and security.  Germany may feel too cowered to resist Russia but if there is a coalition built up to oppose Russian dominance of the continent it could also feel that's its best, or last change to change things.  In fact in this situation its highly unlikely a Nazi party would come to power.  However the Germans would look to see how they could get out from under Russian domination.

K. The thing is, though, that Russia's performance in World War I in this scenario certainly isn't as impressive as the Soviet Union's performance in World War II was in real life.

  In WWII the Soviet performance wasn't exactly great until after 18 months of disaster.  After that it depends on what source you read as to whether the Soviets really started producing markedly better forces or simply overwhelmed the weakening Germans by weight of numbers and massive firepower.  Plus in WWII the Soviets had a huge advantage in Hitler and the Nazis.  While L&H made a lot of mistakes when they came to power in imperial Germany this took a couple of years and their problems then were more a question of hubris.

L. You might be forgetting the fact that Germany is committing half of its military to fighting against Britain and France on the Western Front in World War I in this scenario, though.

Plus, again, the Soviet Union performed better in World War II in real life than the Russian Empire performed in World War I in real life. Indeed, unlike the Russian Empire in World War I in this scenario, in World War II in real life, the Soviet Union certainly didn't have a large-scale Western Front to relieve the German pressure on it until mid-1944!

  Which leaves about 40% more of its army to the eastern front than it did OTL when something like 80-90% were in the west. 

M. The thing is, though, that both Alexander III and Nicholas II are going to strongly rely on pro-autocracy technocrats during these 70+ years. Indeed, think of someone such as Sergei Witte, but multiplied by 10, 20, 30, or 50.

  As I say I think the problem is getting the social changes that is needed to make full use of the additional industry and technology you are assuming for Russia while its still under autocratic rule.

N. Can you please elaborate on this part, Steve?

  Basically that nations will respond to the changes in the world.  If not significantly before Russia smashed Germany and Austria then afterwards in response to the total destruction of the balance of power.  This is the one thing that might just bring America into an anti-Russia bloc before fighting starts.

  As you yourself says in point E above there's 50 years before the 1916 shock and longer before the latter war starts.  You seem to be assuming no changes occur outside Russia other than a few favourable to your scenario.


Read more: alternate-timelines.proboards.com/thread/690/different-large-scale-middle-eastern#ixzz4CcVGovrZ

  Did you mean to link to somewhere else as this goes to this same page?

[futurist]

Jun 25, 2016 20:06:05 GMT stevep said:

  futurist

A. Actually, there appears to be absolutely no contradiction between being the reactionary autocrat that Alexander III was and being pro-large-scale industrialization. Indeed, in real life, Alexander III promoted the pro-industrialization Sergei Witte to a very high position in the Russian government. Plus, looking several decades forward, Joseph Stalin was certainly a pro-large-scale industrialization autocrat who ruled Russia.

  Reactionary autocrats can suppiort industrial expansions but by their nature such operations are often rather inefficient.  My point, which I may have expressed poorly, is less with a desire to industrize than with the fact than they will have problems getting a well-trained and motivated army and work-force.  For instance Stalin's Red Army wasn't exactly impressive in the Winter War or the 1941 campaign despite in both cases having vastly superior forces numerically.

Stalin also purged the officer corps in the Red Army in the late 1930s in our TL. Indeed, had Stalin not done this, I suspect that the Red Army would have performed better--indeed, perhaps much better--in both the Winter War and in the 1941 campaign.

Also, frankly, I extremely strongly doubt that Russian Tsar Nicholas II in this TL would be stupid enough to purge the officer corps in the Russian Army--especially in a way that is irreversible.

B. The thing is, though, that a lot of Russia's military and industrial improvements probably aren't going to be that much of a concern to Germany before the start of World War I in this scenario. Indeed, improvements in the selection of Russian generals probably isn't going to worry Germany too much since Germany didn't know about the quality of Russian generals in early 1914 in real life. Likewise, not everyone understood back in the late 1800s or early 1900s that increased industrialization helps build strong, robust militaries. After all, not everyone paid attention to the U.S. Civil War back then!

Indeed, in this scenario, Russia is going to make changes that will certainly help it fight future wars and prevent revolutions at home (after all, having more railroads mean that mood food will be delivered to the cities, et cetera). However, the importance and magnitude of at least some of these changes probably aren't going to be apparent to everyone before World War I actually breaks out in this scenario.

In turn, this means that Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm II will probably still be able to (unsuccessfully) try challenging Britain for naval supremacy. Plus, Kaiser Wilhelm II is certainly still going to be a buffoon in this scenario, so ...

  By ~1980 most powers and most especially imperal Germany did recognise the importance of industrial power.

By 1980 or by 1890?

They were alo concerned OTL about the French funded Russian railways OTL.

Modern railways certainly aren't enough if you have a crappy and poorly-led army, though.

It s doubtful that Russia can keep the massive level of industrial expansion you seem to be referring to completely secret,

Completely secret? No, of course not! However, it can probably limit other countries' perceptions of the threat that Russia poses by limiting the current size of its army; indeed, that way, just like the U.S., Russia can appear to be relatively non-threatening but still be able to build an extremely massive and powerful army very quickly.

let alone the social changes that would be required.

Social chances such as what, exactly?

[Without which no matter how well the Russian industrial base has expanded its will still be an army of largely illerate troops led by aristocratic officers who are selected more for social status and connections than professionalism.]

I have already stated here that, in the early 20th century, Russian Tsar Nicholas II implements reforms in the Russian Army which makes promotions in the Russian Army merit-based rather than based on social class; plus, Nicholas can also fire generals whom he perceives as being incompetent--something which he certainly isn't afraid to do in this TL--and then replace them by qualified and extremely talented military men who were born commoners.

C. Actually, whether Russia is the aggressor in this war is debatable. After all, had Austria allowed Hungary to peacefully secede, there would have been absolutely no reason for Russia to militarily intervene.

  You have half an empire, with a large measure of self-rule, secede because the Magyars who make less than half the kingdom of Hungary's population respond to a call by a small aristocratic minority to prevent power being spread beyond that small elite, including to the Magyar as well as Slavic peasants.  Also even now it is politically pretty much impossible to interfer in the internal affairs of another nation unless the rulers are committing mass slaughter and even then other powers have a vested interest in supporting intervention.  In this case its a naked grab for power to attack a long standing state which isn't particuarly brutally run and is now actually trying to devolve power.

I've got a question--did Hungary actually have a legal right to secede from Austria-Hungary? After all, I certainly know that the SSRs of the USSR had a right to secede from the USSR in our TL.

Plus, even with the mess in Ireland, Britain will still be able to both blockade Germany and to send some of its own troops and some of its colonial troops to fight Germany in Europe.

  Depends on how big the mess in Ireland is, how many other issues of social reform and conservative opposition to the same are occurring.  Also it requires that the rest of the world [or at least Europe] is ignoring massive changes inside Russia.

OK.

Also, though, out of curiosity--exactly how big do you think that the mess in Ireland will be in this TL? Any thoughts on this?

D. The thing is, though, that Russia is purposely going to avoid being overly provocative to Germany in this scenario. After all, the absolute last thing that Russia wants in this scenario is to freak Germany out while Germany and Russia are still at peace with each other! Indeed, a lot of Russia's railroad building in this scenario is going to be more defensive than offensive considering that a lot of these railroads are going to be located deep inside of Russia (near Moscow, near Petrograd, near the Volga River, et cetera) rather than near the German-Russian border. Frankly, in terms of offensive railroad construction, the pace of offensive railroad construction in Russia in this scenario is going to occur at about the same pace at it did in real life. Thus, by 1916, a lot/most, but not all, of Russia's strategic railroads near the German-Russian border are going to be already completed, which in turn is very likely going to give Germany a narrow window of opportunity to implement its Schlieffen Plan.

    Its still going to be very difficult to keep secret the massive amount of industrial development and expanded railways your having happening.

How much did Imperial Germany worry about massive industrial development and massive railway construction in the U.S., though?

As for why exactly Germany is still going to implement the Schlieffen Plan in this scenario, well:

1. Because it believes that it still can successfully do this.
2. Because it fears that the alternative to this is for it to lose a long war of attrition against Russia, France, and Italy (as in, even if Britain remains neutral throughout this entire war).

Thus, when Germany invades Belgium in this scenario, Britain probably enters World War I on the Franco-Russian side in this scenario in spite of any reservations and/or misgivings that it might have about Russia's behavior in Hungary.

  If the war starts with massive Russian attacks on Austria then Germany doesn't have the time to implement a Schlieffen Plan becuase it must immediately commit most of its forces to helping Austria and and its own border with Russia.

Actually, as long as Vienna doesn't fall, Germany can allow Russia to make significant inroads into Austria only to liberate these Austrian territories after France falls (well, that's the expectation, anyway!).

As history shows Germany can easily hold the western front against French attack, especially if that is a markedly shorter front [because no invasion of Belgium and border fortifications/terrain] and against France alone.

Yes; correct! However, as far as I know, Germany's leaders didn't believe that they could actually win a long war of attrition against both France and Russia--hence the need for Germany to use the Schlieffen Plan.

E. If the U.S. has a more "trigger-happy" President than Woodrow Wilson at the time that USW is declared in this scenario (something that is certainly very possible with a PoD of 1866--half a century earlier!), though, then it might very well not take as much German USW as it did in real life to bring the U.S. into World War I in this scenario.

  Possibly but it could an an even more isolationist one.  Also given you have a very short war you have little time for Germany to develop a sizeable U-boat arm, given your assuming the OTL primacy initially given to the surface fleet and then the repeated attrocities that prompt a US dow.

Out of curiosity--didn't Imperial Germany also initially give primary to the surface fleet in our TL?

F. One word: Oil.

Indeed, I suspect that the U.S.'s reaction to any Russian attempt to establish Russian puppet states in the oil-rich Middle East is going to be just as hostile as the U.S.'s reaction to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was in real life.

  You do realise how much of the world's oil supply was in the US in this time period.

The U.S. is certainly capable of looking ahead, though.

They didn't start any real interest in the ME until the aftermath of WWII forced them to take a great power role and even then it was more a case of denying other influence in the region.

The thing is, though, that the U.S.'s attitude towards Saudi Arabia appears to have changed very rapidly after large amounts of oil were discovered there:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Early_history_.28recognition.29

"However, as World War II progressed, the United States began to believe that Saudi oil was of strategic importance. As a result, in the interest of national security, the U.S. began to push for greater control over the CASOC concession. On 16 February 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States", thereby making possible the extension of the Lend-Lease program to the kingdom. Later that year, the president approved the creation of the state-owned Petroleum Reserves Corporation, with the intent that it purchase all the stock of CASOC and thus gain control of Saudi oil reserves in the region. However, the plan was met by opposition, and ultimately failed. Roosevelt continued to court the government, however—on 14 February 1945, he met with King Ibn Saud aboard the USS Quincy, discussing topics such as the countries' security relationship and the creation of a Jewish country in the Mandate of Palestine."

G. I extremely strongly doubt that the Ottoman Empire will get completely carved up by the start of the 1940s in this scenario for balance-of-power reasons, though.

  Given that the balance of power has been pretty much destroyed in your 1916 conflict and that the main enemy of the Ottomans is this same mega-Russia either its likely to be carved up, possibly with some tit-bits to France to keep them from being hostile or this hasn't happened because a coalition of powers, which would have to include France, are barring Russian expansion in this direction.

Good points, I suppose.

H. Who exactly other than Britain and Japan are going to fight against Russia in the 1940s in this scenario, though? After all, neither France nor Italy have any grudges against Russia while Germany wouldn't be led by the Nazis in this scenario and would certainly be afraid of more Russian looting of German industrial equipment in the event that it will piss off Russia by violating the Treaty of Versailles and especially by going to war with Russia again.

  Its not a question of grudges but of national interests.  What Palmestone say about Britain is true of all great powers if properly lead.  "I.e. there are no perment allies, only permanent interests.

OK.

I. Frankly, chances are that France tries acting as a mediator in this conflict considering that in spite of its pro-Russia tilt (due to its fear of Germany), France will certainly have good relations with both Russia and the Anglo-Americans.

  Frankly by this period France will be fearing Russia a hell of a lot more than the defeated and battered Germany,

Wouldn't there have been a very real risk that a loss of Russian protection for France will result in Germany eventually starting a new war with France in order to try reacquiring Alsace-Lorraine and in order to try acquiring iron ore-rich Briey and Longwy, though?

J. Unlikely due to Germany's fear of renewed Russian looting of German industrial equipment, in my honest opinion. Plus, no Nazis in power in Germany certainly helps with this.

  I'm not assuming that it would need Nazis to have Germany concerned about new Russian attacks or desiring revenge and the chance to regain territory and security.  Germany may feel too cowered to resist Russia but if there is a coalition built up to oppose Russian dominance of the continent it could also feel that's its best, or last change to change things.

Agreed with all of this.

In fact in this situation its highly unlikely a Nazi party would come to power.  However the Germans would look to see how they could get out from under Russian domination.

Agreed with all of this.

K. The thing is, though, that Russia's performance in World War I in this scenario certainly isn't as impressive as the Soviet Union's performance in World War II was in real life.

  In WWII the Soviet performance wasn't exactly great until after 18 months of disaster.  After that it depends on what source you read as to whether the Soviets really started producing markedly better forces or simply overwhelmed the weakening Germans by weight of numbers and massive firepower.  Plus in WWII the Soviets had a huge advantage in Hitler and the Nazis.  While L&H made a lot of mistakes when they came to power in imperial Germany this took a couple of years and their problems then were more a question of hubris.

Wouldn't you say that advancing all of the way from Stalingrad to Berlin and the Elbe (true, with the help of Western Lend-Lease equipment) in less than 2.5 years is extremely impressive, though?

L. You might be forgetting the fact that Germany is committing half of its military to fighting against Britain and France on the Western Front in World War I in this scenario, though.

Plus, again, the Soviet Union performed better in World War II in real life than the Russian Empire performed in World War I in real life. Indeed, unlike the Russian Empire in World War I in this scenario, in World War II in real life, the Soviet Union certainly didn't have a large-scale Western Front to relieve the German pressure on it until mid-1944!

  Which leaves about 40% more of its army to the eastern front than it did OTL when something like 80-90% were in the west. 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_the_Masurian_Lakes

"By February 1915, thirty-six percent of the German field army was in the east.[4]"

M. The thing is, though, that both Alexander III and Nicholas II are going to strongly rely on pro-autocracy technocrats during these 70+ years. Indeed, think of someone such as Sergei Witte, but multiplied by 10, 20, 30, or 50.

  As I say I think the problem is getting the social changes that is needed to make full use of the additional industry and technology you are assuming for Russia while its still under autocratic rule.

How exactly do you propose to have Russia (realistically) achieve this social change, though?

N. Can you please elaborate on this part, Steve?

  Basically that nations will respond to the changes in the world.  If not significantly before Russia smashed Germany and Austria then afterwards in response to the total destruction of the balance of power.  This is the one thing that might just bring America into an anti-Russia bloc before fighting starts.

OK.

  As you yourself says in point E above there's 50 years before the 1916 shock and longer before the latter war starts.  You seem to be assuming no changes occur outside Russia other than a few favourable to your scenario.

Yes; correct!

Read more: alternate-timelines.proboards.com/thread/690/different-large-scale-middle-eastern#ixzz4CcVGovrZ

  Did you mean to link to somewhere else as this goes to this same page?

Do I actually have any links in my previous post here, though? Indeed, did you merely (somehow) copy this link by mistake/by accident?

Completely responded now.

[futurist]

Also, for the record, if you want an autocracy (or a "relative/limited" autocracy) which industrialized extremely rapidly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in our TL, you can go take a look at Imperial Germany.