1894 UberCzar Takes Throne

I have a proposition I would like reviewed by the “experts” here. I do not profess to be an expert on these matters myself.

This scenario proposes one thing instead of Nicholas II a weak ruler, a superczar comes to the Russian throne in 1894. to get an idea of this man’s qualities imagine the good qualities of every Russian ruler from 1613 to the present rolled into one man. By good I do not mean morally good I mean any quality that couild be construed as a positive in a nationalistic way.

His age upon seizing the throne is 26 but that does not matter as you will see.

As tsarevitch he was engaged in russia’s destiny and took an interest in the navy. Since 1891 mostly under his control the Russian navy has been improvingin all facets – more modern, better trained, more ships etc. the tsarevitch reasons that Russia’s army can survive for now on sheer number but the other aspects of the empire’s might must be improved.
Then he becomes tsar and Russia is overturned. The tsar’s first step is simple: efficiency. Russia’s backwards and agrarian culture must be set forward into the industrial ag e and fast. Railways are a first step and these are improved. Secondly emphasis is placed on factories. More factories does two things, one it makes Russia a more industrial modern nation. Two it increases the numbers of the proletariat. The chance of revolution, ever on the tsar’s mind is increased with the new Russia that is developing. Therefore extremely strict security measures are induced. Because of measures like these Lenin etc are either jailed or shot. If a known Russian Marxist exists outside russia’s frontier the tsar makes a point to have them liquidated. These people were enemies of all Europe so it would not be a big deal for an okhrana assassin to work outside Russia.
The tsar’s second action is related tohis precious navy, still in the beginning of its rehaul. He is bitter about the berlin congress of 1884-1885 and DEMANDS not one but two colonies in Africa. Actually he only demands one and he conquers Liberia to the dismay of Britain but says that it is only fair. He then wants another colony on the other side of Africa, he says that Russia is unfairly put out of the continent. He argues that Russia also got screwed in the previous congress of berlin as well. He manages to convince either Britain and italy or Britain and germany to give land of their colonies on the easter cost to Russia. It is a small colony but the tsar intends it only as a port for his growing navy to work with. He still means to hold on to these colonies so he garrisons them well and s ends a large number of troops to occupy and defend them. Perhaps some islands in the Indian and pacific also fall under the tsar’s control.

Thirdly he opens all military positions of power to all people regardless of birth and because of his military knowledge is able to quickly refine Russian techniques and training of war.

Now we come to the key date of this scenario 1904. you will of course recognize this date as the start of the Japanese war. Russia by this time is 10 years into the tsar’s reign, a nice round number. Let’s see what the empire looks like: well there are of course the African colonies squeezed from Europe. The army by this time has undergone as generation turnover that is, the troops are better trained than ever, although not really better equipped. The navy on the other hand has undergone drastic changes. It is among the best led, best trained, and best equipped navies in the world. The tsar has a plan to revamp the Russian imperial navy by using huge high tech battleships surrounded by fast packs of destroyers. The new navy is scheduled to make its full debut in late 1905-1906, when the Romanov-class battleships will reach completion. Thse are as you have guessed the Russian equivalent of the dreadnought. However the plan was hatched in 1902 and the first of the great warships should be christened by mid-late 1904. opposition to the tsar is at a minimum. Russia is clearly on the way up but just how far has yet to be revealed to Europe.
this alternative history everything begins as it had, the tsar does not back down to the Japanese and on feb. 6 the Japanese launch a surprise attack at port author. It is repelled but here is the thing, although the trans-siberian railroad is still not quite completed (otherwise japan would not have attacked) the Baltic sea fleet is readied and dispatched immediately. Now this is one of the finest fleets in the world and especially because of russia’s new ports in Africa and elsewhere there is no problem for it to reach the other side of the world. It crushes togo’s fleet and very soon after the ts railrod is complete. Soldiers are shipped to the region by the carload and not long after japan sues for peace as they are being overrun and can no longer finance the war. They are a crushed nation and the tsar knows this. He runs them off the continent and then demands japan hand over Formosa for a peace settlement. This leaves Russia with korea and Formosa as part of the empire and they are fully in control of Manchuria.

It is now about 1905. things have been set back a bit due to the war but with the new resources the tsar has turned his eyes to the army and to two squabbling northern nations Sweden and Norway, which are still one and the same at this point. It is high time the army receives the same treatment as the navy and Russia by now, with the new economy and funds pouring in from france and the distant asian lands, is ready to revamp the army. the efficiency part has long been done and the army was reduced some in size with the idea that better officers and soldiers would not leave Russia wanting. Now it is time to adequately equip them and so the tsar sets about on another “five year plan” for the Russian army, to have the greatest army in the world by 1910, bar none.

However the recent events to the north distract him. He has long hatched a plan for Russia to invade Bulgaria, Romania, and the ottoman empire to the south and Sweden to the north so that the Russian frontier would stretch fully across Europe and the Russian tentacles would extend over the continent. He realizes that with Norway seceding half of divide and conquer is already done. This will set back russia’s plans some but to have such an excellent position will be worth it. He decides the best way to come out will be to also set his southern war in action at the same time. He forms a secret treaty with Serbia. Serbia will invade Bulgaria from the east while Russia swoops through Romania and downwards from the north. These small countries pose a problem. So does one other thing the frontier. How will Russia insure a defense against germany who has been wary of the Russians for some time now. Well here is how: they conscript huge numbers of poorly trained troops and have them dig a trenches along Moscow, st Petersburg and the frontier. These guys are poorly trained but with the machine gun etc. the defense is in control. If germany invades they willl hold out long enough for the germans to be swallowed by the victorious crack troops and Russia herself.
However there is one more problem the turks. The third Russian army is therefore deployed to smash through the turkey’s back door. Their only real objective is to reach stalemate and then the bankrupt troubled turks will have peace.
Well the war goes fine although Europe is VERY alarmed. Within a year the northern army has seized Sweden/Norway and the southern army has reached the outskirts of Constantinople. Now peace is arranged, the ottoman empire is reduced to little more than present day turkey. The serbs and Russia control the Balkans and Russia gives some of the territory to Greece (roughly modern day Greece). Russia occupies a strip of land reaching the aegean I am not sure if they have Bucharest and sofia or not – would they have those cities or the serbs.

Well as you can guess Europe is in an uproar. The tsar says he will hold a conference with the statesman of Europe but this time on his term on his land, in the winter palace in st. Petersburg.

Here is what transpires: the tsar gives Britain the land they conquered in the western ottoman empire. This secures Britain, formerly angry with Russia as a semi-ally. France of course was an ally but that had since degraded into ambivalence. Russia secures france by perhaps offering them access to a port and some spoils from their new conquests. This is done to isolate germany who the tsar realizes is the main enemy to peace and the new status quo. A French-british alliance against Russia would be dangerous because of the army+navy complications but germany and Austria are greatly feared by both. The tsar reasons that is brit/france is left with a choice between Russia and germany as master of Europe they will choose Russia.
The other thing the tsar does is create a treaty. This treaty states that Russia can not take any more territory in Europe…ever. Any territory taken even for defensive purposes must be relinquished to europoe to divide up in congress as they see fit.
Secondly Russia cannot enter into any alliances, except those of a purely defensive nature. That is they cannot enter a war unless it is to defend an ally who is directly attacked.
Thirdly the tsar reasons with the statesman. He says that the great European countries are as prosperous as ever. Russia’s conquests have not changed that. They are merely the result of Russia finally taking an active step in European politics “the sleeping bear has awakened”. Europe has 2 options: war and the destruction of the status quo and uncertain consequences it will bring, or to bask in the prosperity that they currently, yes even now, sit in.
Fourthly the tsar ENCOURAGES an all-europe alliance against Russia should they pre-emptively attack any European nation.

Because of all this the statesman vote to let Russia keep their lands.

========================================================

It is January 1907. the tsar takes a long well-deserved cruise on his yacht the standard, appropriately the largest in the world. He cruises and visits all russia’s new territory and claims; the aegean as well as the norweigen sea. He thikns to himself, Russia is developing in all aspects, industrial and militarily. It is more prosperous than ever before. The Russian people are in a patriotic fervor as they realize the greatness of their nation. There is zero chance of revolution and he has retained his autocratic powers. Who would’ve thought 13 years ago that the great white tsar would be master of Europe in such short time.

=========================================================

Well I am sorry this was so long I did not expect it. What do you think.
Is any one step completely implausible
Would germany have invaded
Would they have won if they did

Comments suggestions questions please.


notes
i know i use 2 spellings of tsar i like the ts one better but sometimes i feel it is necessary to use the cz
i typed this in word so that is why some words are capitalized and some not
 
Here are my problems:

Reform itself can seriously destabilize a polity, and very fast and autocratic reform can cause serious problems. This happened in the Ottoman Empire, leading to the problems of 1875-76, and the loss of most of their European territory. Reform is also extremely expensive, and can lead to huge debt loads, which can also destabilize a regime.

The aggressiveness of your Tsar would have seriously realigned the diplomacy of the period, and would have seen a serious coalition develop that would have prevented or reversed the outcome of your Balkan War. Russia's demands for African territory would have caused a panic in Britain, especially East Africa, which gives them a base for an invasion of India. The minute they went for the Balkans the British and Germans would be in the war, probably Japan too, if Britian did not forcefully prevent Russian acquisition of these colonies in the first place. In this period, Russia was Britains enemy #1, not Germany.

Also, the United States would likely declare war over Liberia.

I would need a map, I'm not sure how the Russians would occupy land bordering the Aegean, but in any case, I'm not sure how you could reduce the Ottomans to present-Turkey invading from Russia - what happened to Iraq and Syria? And don't underestimate how difficult it would be for Russia to hold onto a Balkan Empire.

Anyway, a good Tsar would have recognized Russia's limitations and problems, and instead of draining Russia building a huge and expensive foreign empire would have concentrated on solving Russia's internal problems, which were very great.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Here are my problems:

Reform itself can seriously destabilize a polity, and very fast and autocratic reform can cause serious problems. This happened in the Ottoman Empire, leading to the problems of 1875-76, and the loss of most of their European territory. Reform is also extremely expensive, and can lead to huge debt loads, which can also destabilize a regime.

The aggressiveness of your Tsar would have seriously realigned the diplomacy of the period, and would have seen a serious coalition develop that would have prevented or reversed the outcome of your Balkan War. Russia's demands for African territory would have caused a panic in Britain, especially East Africa, which gives them a base for an invasion of India. The minute they went for the Balkans the British and Germans would be in the war, probably Japan too, if Britian did not forcefully prevent Russian acquisition of these colonies in the first place. In this period, Russia was Britains enemy #1, not Germany.

Also, the United States would likely declare war over Liberia.

I would need a map, I'm not sure how the Russians would occupy land bordering the Aegean, but in any case, I'm not sure how you could reduce the Ottomans to present-Turkey invading from Russia - what happened to Iraq and Syria? And don't underestimate how difficult it would be for Russia to hold onto a Balkan Empire.

Anyway, a good Tsar would have recognized Russia's limitations and problems, and instead of draining Russia building a huge and expensive foreign empire would have concentrated on solving Russia's internal problems, which were very great.

remember that most of the balkans are in the hands of the serbs.

iraq and syria went to the british. i anticipate the russians could've taken most of that territory before being deadlocked.

you are right about the british relations, i could not think of a way to repair them except to give them ottoman territroy. imo russia needs a stake in africa and if it is on the east it would have to be taken from the british.

are you sure that europe would go to war over the balkans, esp. if russia was only occupying a strip of land connecting them to the aegean. that would "seal off the frontier" and give them another port.

are you sure the US would declare war over liberia, i thought they had abandoned it by then. if not russia's navy would crush them.

i also anticipate the british-german resentment would be speeded up because of russia's build up. but maybe it would work the opposite way. anyway i think that by 1905 england would be quite against germany, esp. if the tsar was masterful with diplomacy.

now the reforms. what reforms would be so bad? nothing is really too extreme. however you are right about the expense, i was hoping that by introducing more efficient methods the tsar could've cut it down some. also that their conquests would help pay some of it. i think the people in some ways wanted reform and change even if it didn't really help them personally.
 
I don't see any Anglo-Franco Entente possible in this ATL if there is an existing Russo-Franco Entente. The French will be as pleased as peaches about this new Tsar, they may not even bother trying to seduce the British. What this most likely creates would be an Anglo-German Alliance, since the British would admit that the growth of the German High Seas Fleet is justified in relation to the Russian Imperial Fleet.

Get the British to give the Russians any territory in Africa? The Tsar would have an easier time taking communion from the Pope or try squeezing oil out of beets. Fat chance - and Britain can tell the Tsar where to go.
 
David S Poepoe said:
I don't see any Anglo-Franco Entente possible in this ATL if there is an existing Russo-Franco Entente. The French will be as pleased as peaches about this new Tsar, they may not even bother trying to seduce the British. What this most likely creates would be an Anglo-German Alliance, since the British would admit that the growth of the German High Seas Fleet is justified in relation to the Russian Imperial Fleet.

Get the British to give the Russians any territory in Africa? The Tsar would have an easier time taking communion from the Pope or try squeezing oil out of beets. Fat chance - and Britain can tell the Tsar where to go.

you don't think that by 1905 anglo-german relations are where they were in say 1908. germany's buildup may be more feared because of the proximity. on the other hand russia would probably get more press, although that is debateable. also i am assuming that russia's diplomacy would be far superior to germany's saber rattling and might present a more innocent front.

are you sure that the russians could not get a small colony divided between germany and britain or italy and britain - the russians were screwed in 2 congresses and i think they could demand a small colony.
 
I'm not sure I would consider the possibility of transforming Russia with that kind of speed and force plausible, but then, they had Peter the Great and he's certainly not plausible either. So there's precedent there. The technology to build up Russian naval strength and create all those factories and railroads has to come from somewhere, though. Is France the source? Is Germany? The thing is, Germany would be only too ready to sell their know-how, but at some point the source would dry up in view of the threat the new Russia posed. France, on the other hand, was quite reluctant to share technology at the time. They thought themselves (with some justification, though not much) leaders in science and technology, and had no intention of giving potential competitors a leg up.

Building a Balkan Empire would require the assent of Austria-Hungary, which would mean giving them something. Would the Czar give up his Serbian friends in exchange for a free hand farther East? I can't really see anything that would prevent Austria from becoming an implacable enemy. Britain might be wooed away from supporting turkey if the offer is right, but if the Russians already took African territory from them, I do not expect Whitehall to see the light of reason. The Royal Navy's Mediterranean Squadron in the Black Sea would very likely bugger up any Russian war plans, to say the least.

Also, I'm not sure why Russia would want African colonies. African territory by and large was notoriously expensive to run (which is why so many territories were either handed over to chartered companies to squeeze till the pips squeak, or woefully neglected). The Russians, without a significant naval and maritime presence in the region, would pay an even higher entry cost. Also, Russia had all the colonies she needed - most of Central Asia to begin with - and a natural line of expansion into Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet and, at long last, China. To get the Baltic Fleet into the China Sea would not need Russian colonies, just French support.

A big problem I see is the public relations disaster that assassinations of exiles in Europe will mean. The Russians already had a reputation as a tyrannical, oppressive regime with few moral restraints. The Okhrana was odious, the Siberian camps were widely considered an abomination and the court system a travesty of justice. These were comparatively enlightened times with little idea of what the Soviet authorities would later do. If the Russian secret service started killing people in France or Britain, that could create a truly nasty incident. If innocent bystanders are killed, it could become a casus belli. Remember, the British tended to be rather prickly about these things. The abduction of a British citizen (a native woman, not a white Englishwoman) for (undisputed) debts led to the Gallinas River raid and the destruction of several slave baracoons belonging to a Portuguese cititzen. Imagine how far they could go fifty years further into their imperial conceits if British citizens die in a shootout with Okhranamen in High Holborn!

I would, therefore, not assume that things would go that smoothly. I could very well see Russian success at the end of it - Germany would not likely invade unless the diplomacy was really badly handled, though if it did - especially without having to fight France and Britain at the same time - the Russian reforms would have to have been tremendously effective to stop the Hun. Wilhelm II actually liked the Russians (and the British) and would not have started a war unless he felt himself forced to. Incidentally, pushing around Austria-Hungary could qualify. The British, on the other hand, could well find themselves locked into a cold war against the brutish, thuggish, greedy, aggressive, threatening Russians. Britannia championing liberty against the monstrous tyranny of the Autocracy etc. etc. - this could make opposing Russia at every step an election-winning issue. The Empire was past its military prime at the time, but I doubt anyone in his right mind would go to all-out war. Thus, lots of nasty little actions. Britain supporting Japan in Korea. Britain supporting China in the Amur basin. Britain supporting Turey in the Black Sea. Britain supporting Perisia in the Caucasus. Russia supporting the Afghans on the Khyber. Russia funding and equipping the Boers. Humiliating British defeats on land. Humiliating Russian retreats from the sea. Let's hope cooler heads prevail, otherwise we get WWI with a change of cast, and Germans in Moscow - or Russians in Berlin - by 1916 :)
 
The British would have never given African colonies to Russia. Great Britain would never allow Russia to destroy the balance of power in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Britain would never allow Russia to control the straits or gain direct acces to the Meditaranean Sea. Austria-Hungary would nebver tolerate Russian or Serbian domination in the balkans and would declare war immediately. Germany would see this as the perfect opportunity to defeat Russia without having to face France as well. France may give diplomatic support to Russia but I doubt it would join Russia 's insane war of conquest again half of Europe.

This scenario basically pits Russia and Serbia against Germany, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Ottoman Empire. Denmark and Greece would likely join as well, as they would not tolerate Russian domination of the Balkans or Scandinavia. Russia would have no chance to win in this war. Brtain would destroy the Russian navy, Germany would invade Poland and the baltics while Russia's armies were elsewhere. Austria-Hungary and the other balkan states would crush Serbia with ease. Russia's "magical" conquests is Scandinavia and the Balkans would be ended. The Russian Empire would be forced to grant independance to various states and the cede territory to the nations they invaded.
 
carlton_bach said:
I'm not sure I would consider the possibility of transforming Russia with that kind of speed and force plausible, but then, they had Peter the Great and he's certainly not plausible either. So there's precedent there. The technology to build up Russian naval strength and create all those factories and railroads has to come from somewhere, though. Is France the source? Is Germany? The thing is, Germany would be only too ready to sell their know-how, but at some point the source would dry up in view of the threat the new Russia posed. France, on the other hand, was quite reluctant to share technology at the time. They thought themselves (with some justification, though not much) leaders in science and technology, and had no intention of giving potential competitors a leg up.

Building a Balkan Empire would require the assent of Austria-Hungary, which would mean giving them something. Would the Czar give up his Serbian friends in exchange for a free hand farther East? I can't really see anything that would prevent Austria from becoming an implacable enemy. Britain might be wooed away from supporting turkey if the offer is right, but if the Russians already took African territory from them, I do not expect Whitehall to see the light of reason. The Royal Navy's Mediterranean Squadron in the Black Sea would very likely bugger up any Russian war plans, to say the least.

Also, I'm not sure why Russia would want African colonies. African territory by and large was notoriously expensive to run (which is why so many territories were either handed over to chartered companies to squeeze till the pips squeak, or woefully neglected). The Russians, without a significant naval and maritime presence in the region, would pay an even higher entry cost. Also, Russia had all the colonies she needed - most of Central Asia to begin with - and a natural line of expansion into Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet and, at long last, China. To get the Baltic Fleet into the China Sea would not need Russian colonies, just French support.

A big problem I see is the public relations disaster that assassinations of exiles in Europe will mean. The Russians already had a reputation as a tyrannical, oppressive regime with few moral restraints. The Okhrana was odious, the Siberian camps were widely considered an abomination and the court system a travesty of justice. These were comparatively enlightened times with little idea of what the Soviet authorities would later do. If the Russian secret service started killing people in France or Britain, that could create a truly nasty incident. If innocent bystanders are killed, it could become a casus belli. Remember, the British tended to be rather prickly about these things. The abduction of a British citizen (a native woman, not a white Englishwoman) for (undisputed) debts led to the Gallinas River raid and the destruction of several slave baracoons belonging to a Portuguese cititzen. Imagine how far they could go fifty years further into their imperial conceits if British citizens die in a shootout with Okhranamen in High Holborn!

I would, therefore, not assume that things would go that smoothly. I could very well see Russian success at the end of it - Germany would not likely invade unless the diplomacy was really badly handled, though if it did - especially without having to fight France and Britain at the same time - the Russian reforms would have to have been tremendously effective to stop the Hun. Wilhelm II actually liked the Russians (and the British) and would not have started a war unless he felt himself forced to. Incidentally, pushing around Austria-Hungary could qualify. The British, on the other hand, could well find themselves locked into a cold war against the brutish, thuggish, greedy, aggressive, threatening Russians. Britannia championing liberty against the monstrous tyranny of the Autocracy etc. etc. - this could make opposing Russia at every step an election-winning issue. The Empire was past its military prime at the time, but I doubt anyone in his right mind would go to all-out war. Thus, lots of nasty little actions. Britain supporting Japan in Korea. Britain supporting China in the Amur basin. Britain supporting Turey in the Black Sea. Britain supporting Perisia in the Caucasus. Russia supporting the Afghans on the Khyber. Russia funding and equipping the Boers. Humiliating British defeats on land. Humiliating Russian retreats from the sea. Let's hope cooler heads prevail, otherwise we get WWI with a change of cast, and Germans in Moscow - or Russians in Berlin - by 1916 :)

about speed of transformation - think about russia from 1920-1945 or so. after a gruesome world war, civil war and another world war they emerged as the eastern hemisphere's dominant power. think about what could be done in relative peace - by 1914 at least i think russia could be a dominant european power, although yes my scenario is a bit hasty.

you say that wilhelm liked the russians. however the german military aristocracy greatly feared the russians. they might coax an invasion from wilhelm while russia was overextended.

re: russia's vs. britain's navy should they go to war - remember that russia's navy is nearly on a level with britain's by this time. i also don't know if britain would go to war without allies. i can't see an alliance with germany happening but that is what was proposed earlier. that would spell defeat for russia unless france interneved in which case it would be WW1 of course.

i was thinking that maybe austria could be appeased by russia telling them that the serbs wants were sated at least for now. of course that would not be true and the serbs would still want to include bosnia etc. probably more than ever, so that probably wouldn't work.

i will think more about these and the other issues you brought up and reply back soon.

edit - i forgot to include the disastrous purges which took place between 1920 and 1945 too.
 
Last edited:

Grey Wolf

Donor
czarist said:
are you sure that the russians could not get a small colony divided between germany and britain or italy and britain - the russians were screwed in 2 congresses and i think they could demand a small colony.

IIRC Russia had some claim on some Red Sea Islands at one time as coaling stops or what-not, so I don't think it unfeasible that Russia if it REALLY WANTED TO could get a protectorate over one of the Somali sultanates, perhaps at the expense of Italy

Grey Wolf
 
HunterX said:
The British would have never given African colonies to Russia. Great Britain would never allow Russia to destroy the balance of power in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Britain would never allow Russia to control the straits or gain direct acces to the Meditaranean Sea. Austria-Hungary would nebver tolerate Russian or Serbian domination in the balkans and would declare war immediately. Germany would see this as the perfect opportunity to defeat Russia without having to face France as well. France may give diplomatic support to Russia but I doubt it would join Russia 's insane war of conquest again half of Europe.

This scenario basically pits Russia and Serbia against Germany, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Ottoman Empire. Denmark and Greece would likely join as well, as they would not tolerate Russian domination of the Balkans or Scandinavia. Russia would have no chance to win in this war. Brtain would destroy the Russian navy, Germany would invade Poland and the baltics while Russia's armies were elsewhere. Austria-Hungary and the other balkan states would crush Serbia with ease. Russia's "magical" conquests is Scandinavia and the Balkans would be ended. The Russian Empire would be forced to grant independance to various states and the cede territory to the nations they invaded.

well here is my first question - WHY is russia + serbia domination in the balkans so bad, especially if russia can keep serbia from going after bosnia and herzegovinia. why were bulgaria, romania and the ottoman empire so important there - it's austria's problem but i think a treaty of some sort could be arranged. i do not see why britain would care except for jealousy - perhaps russia could give them access to a port??

then there is the african problem. was there any chance of some sort of alliance w/ britain - even just a naval alliance. if not why couldn't russia get a foothold in east africa - the rest of europe must've been jealous at all of gb's holdings there. maybe they would agree even that russia should have one of their colonies instead of just a small carving of one. nevertheless this is probably not of great importance.

so that conceivably scratches two countries off your list austria and gb. japan is defeated so there goes another one. greece gets territory from russia so cross another one off. the dowager empress resided in denmark i do not think they would go to war with russia. of the excess countries that leaves germany as i mentioned. maybe austria would join them, but they are not a huge factor.

to me it appears russia would have to do 2 things to avoid war 1)appease britain 2)isolate germany
i don't think those are impossible in fact i think my original scenario was a good starting point there. if during the russian invasion they promised GB ALL territroy they conquered west of such and such parellel it might be enough to keep them out. so the question again is, would germany invade?
 
well in thinking about this a little more i think there is one major thing that must be done to avoid war with europe.

i think that handing britain ottoman territory will be enough to keep them out. i fail to see how that would not be enough.

the major factor is austria. austria will be angry that the russians and serbs dominate the balkans and will probably want to go to war over it. germany will enter this war because it will be an excuse to deal with the russian menace. so the big question becomes - how does russia keep austria out of the war?

well carlton has an extreme proposition that russia betrays serbia and hands them over to austria. this would in all honesty be great for russia, it would leave them on pretty good relations with austria, britain, france and probably even germany. they would still be in possession of all their territories. perhaps a truly cynical brilliant despotic tsar would do just that??? for me it's too extreme, what do you think?

what else could russia do to neutralize austria, could my proposition work - they would as serbia's big brother, do all they can to keep them out of austria and tell austria as much. i'm afraid that's not terribly feasible though.

here's another question for you all - i notice that the conquest of sweden/norway is being glossed over. w hy is this?? was my tsar correct that the conquest of the balkans would overshadow it and leave him in control of scandinavia.

finally about political assassinations. i think that these would be quite discreet and professional - no bystanders would likely be killed. here's the thing, the government would probably know who is behind it. the newspapers would speculate. but while the governments mig ht look down on the assassina tions, the marxists were considered a menace to their control as well. so i'm certain they would let it go by. i don't think a few assassinations at random intervals would get the citizens up in arms, it would just be something fun for them to talk about.
 
The British would have ZERO interest in the Ottoman territory you are offering. They already economically dominate it, now they have to spend lots of money defending marginal territory full of hostile people. In exchange, they have to allow Russia the ability to threaten India, which is the entire purpose of the existance of the British Empire. The ONE overriding, all-important goal of British policy in the 19th c was to prevent Russia from threatening India - this means NO ACCESS to the Mediterranean. So, in exchange for some desert territory, you want them to give up their economic dominance of the Ottoman Empire, allow the entire British Empire to be in the military reach of Russia, and permanently upset the balance of power in Europe in favor of their worst enemies?

You don't understand why Austria-Hungary wouldn't want Serbia and Russia to control the Balkans? Because then they would be 80% surrounded by enemies, and Serbia wants a very large portion of the Hapsburg Empire, and Russia has no ability to check their ambitions. Bosnia and a large part of Hungary have Serbian majorities or large minorities, all rabidly coveted by Serbia.

Huge and rapid reform always destabilizes the polity in which this is occurring. When you make large changes, existing power groups are threatened and do everything they can to resist. There were giant changes in Russia after 1920 AFTER A REVOLUTION and the destruction of the existing order, the deaths of tens of millions of people, which had set Russia behind by decades, an upheaval from which they never recovered.

Even France would blanch at this level of aggressiveness. What you are proposing would result in a war pitting Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, and probably Greece vs. Russia and Serbia. Russia would be crushed, stripped of Poland, Ukraine, the Crimea, and the Caucasus. A revolution would casue the fall of the regime and Russia would fall into anarchy and civil war.

A better Russia is certainly possible, but it would have to come from a long-term well-thought-out program of internal reform that would allow Russia to develop in a more stable manner.
 
The British would have ZERO interest in the Ottoman territory you are offering. They already economically dominate it, now they have to spend lots of money defending marginal territory full of hostile people. In exchange, they have to allow Russia the ability to threaten India, which is the entire purpose of the existance of the British Empire. The ONE overriding, all-important goal of British policy in the 19th c was to prevent Russia from threatening India - this means NO ACCESS to the Mediterranean. So, in exchange for some desert territory, you want them to give up their economic dominance of the Ottoman Empire, allow the entire British Empire to be in the military reach of Russia, and permanently upset the balance of power in Europe in favor of their worst enemies?

You don't understand why Austria-Hungary wouldn't want Serbia and Russia to control the Balkans? Because then they would be 80% surrounded by enemies, and Serbia wants a very large portion of the Hapsburg Empire, and Russia has no ability to check their ambitions. Bosnia and a large part of Hungary have Serbian majorities or large minorities, all rabidly coveted by Serbia.

Huge and rapid reform always destabilizes the polity in which this is occurring. When you make large changes, existing power groups are threatened and do everything they can to resist. There were giant changes in Russia after 1920 AFTER A REVOLUTION and the destruction of the existing order, the deaths of tens of millions of people, which had set Russia behind by decades, an upheaval from which they never recovered.

Even France would blanch at this level of aggressiveness. What you are proposing would result in a war pitting Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, and probably Greece vs. Russia and Serbia. Russia would be crushed, stripped of Poland, Ukraine, the Crimea, and the Caucasus. A revolution would casue the fall of the regime and Russia would fall into anarchy and civil war.

A better Russia is certainly possible, but it would have to come from a long-term well-thought-out program of internal reform that would allow Russia to develop in a more stable manner.

excuse me how is the existing power base so threatened - that base consists of nobles & other officals. the nobles power positions will be replaced however these sort of changes have happened before and stabilization can occur w/in 10 years easily. for a better example of rapid reform check nazi germany...however this is not even close to that level. we are simply talking about cutting out some excess fat and modernizing the country which is going to harm far less than it helps....

yes i don't know what i was thinking abt serbisa+russia in the balkans being non-threatening so i corrected that in my next post.

PLEASE tell me how mediterranean=india threatened. the ottoman empire AND persia still remain in the way, britain controls the suez (whether officially or not)...

now of course i don't know the value of iraq since we're talking pre-oil age, you might be correct that it wouldn't have much value. but we are talking about hueg amounts of land just being handed over for NOTHING and if britain is SO worried about india you would think they would want to fortify it in any way..it would also fortify egypt AND give them lots of access to the mediterranean. i think you are seriously wrong that GB would not take up that HUGE amount of land without a second thought...can we get an arbiter in here please.....in fact maybe half would go to GB and half to germany/france who knows.

once again the key countries here are GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN. i am certain that there is some way to appease at least one of them.

once again do you really believe that because russia is in control of a part of the BALKANS and SCANDINAVIA that INDIA is threatened??? what?? esp. when in effect GB would be sealing off that route by possession of iraq and arabia...and if you are referring to a route thru the suez well THEY CONTROL THAT TOO. i mean i'm sorry man but you're going to have to explain where you're coming from here because you've got me lost.
 
czarist said:
you don't think that by 1905 anglo-german relations are where they were in say 1908. germany's buildup may be more feared because of the proximity. on the other hand russia would probably get more press, although that is debateable. also i am assuming that russia's diplomacy would be far superior to germany's saber rattling and might present a more innocent front.

are you sure that the russians could not get a small colony divided between germany and britain or italy and britain - the russians were screwed in 2 congresses and i think they could demand a small colony.

Russian got screwed at the Berlin Congress 1878 since it tried to destablize the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean with the Treaty of San Stefano. They tried to pull a fast one and got caught. Regarding the Berlin Conference of 1884, I don't know if they had any aspirations in Africa, but I don't see the Austrians making a big deal about being left out. St. Petersburg can make all the demands it wants, the British aren't really going to listen.

One of the reasons that the British really became friendly with the Anglo-Russian Entente is that Russia had been removed as a serious threat by the Russo-Japanese War. The British were primarily worried about the possibility of a combined Franco-Russian Fleet. The vast rebuilding of this SuperTsar creates a situation where:

1. Russian naval construction is presenting itself as a direct threat to Britain.
2. The possibility that the Russian and French navies together would be greater than the Royal Navy (ie the Two Power Standard).
3. A strong Russia negates any reason for France to seek out any entente with Britain.
4. Britain, which traditionally remains aloof from Continental alliances, now faces a prospect that it must make a decision of wether it would rather eventually see a Europe dominated by the Triple Alliance or the Dual Entente.
5. Germany, which appears now to be just as much as saber rattler as Russia, has every justification for building a High Seas Fleet, since it can be directly threatened by France in the North Sea and Russia in the Baltic.
6. Russian warships will have access to French ports and may be expected to reinforce the French navy in the event of a war.
7. There are no such things as 'an innocent front' when it comes to maritime power in the late 19th and early 20th century.

I guess it would be necessary to figure out which way the Russians would lean during the Fashoda Crisis of 1898.
 
IIRC Imperial Russia mounted two expeditions early on in the great game to secure bases from which India could be threatned. Both ended in complete annihilation of the Russian forces at the hands of natives. After this the tsar resorted to diplomacy to try and get hold of these bases from which to threaten India (not he never did). To a modern day observor the Russian threat in Central Asia was a small one that should have been easily discounted.

Despite this, British foreign polciy in the 19th century was dominated by preventing Russia from getting to India. They invaded Afghanistan twice and even Tibet (where matchlock muskets were new technology) in their quest to prevent the Russian Bear from gaining even a toehold in Central Asia (a toehold that seemed unlikely anway).

Now you see why they might be opposed to the idea of Russia getting a foothold in the Mediterranean. The thought process would be:

Mediterranean=occupation/closing Suez Canal=cutting of communication to India=prevents India from being reinforced=massive Russian campaign to take over India.
 
David S Poepoe said:
Russian got screwed at the Berlin Congress 1878 since it tried to destablize the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean with the Treaty of San Stefano. They tried to pull a fast one and got caught. Regarding the Berlin Conference of 1884, I don't know if they had any aspirations in Africa, but I don't see the Austrians making a big deal about being left out. St. Petersburg can make all the demands it wants, the British aren't really going to listen.

One of the reasons that the British really became friendly with the Anglo-Russian Entente is that Russia had been removed as a serious threat by the Russo-Japanese War. The British were primarily worried about the possibility of a combined Franco-Russian Fleet. The vast rebuilding of this SuperTsar creates a situation where:

1. Russian naval construction is presenting itself as a direct threat to Britain.
2. The possibility that the Russian and French navies together would be greater than the Royal Navy (ie the Two Power Standard).
3. A strong Russia negates any reason for France to seek out any entente with Britain.
4. Britain, which traditionally remains aloof from Continental alliances, now faces a prospect that it must make a decision of wether it would rather eventually see a Europe dominated by the Triple Alliance or the Dual Entente.
5. Germany, which appears now to be just as much as saber rattler as Russia, has every justification for building a High Seas Fleet, since it can be directly threatened by France in the North Sea and Russia in the Baltic.
6. Russian warships will have access to French ports and may be expected to reinforce the French navy in the event of a war.
7. There are no such things as 'an innocent front' when it comes to maritime power in the late 19th and early 20th century.

I guess it would be necessary to figure out which way the Russians would lean during the Fashoda Crisis of 1898.

1. true
2. true
3. i think that might be overstatement. britains vast colonial holdings & navy would be a supervaluable asset
4. true but that about a third option - the triple entente where britain joins france and russia
5. true, but they had a much more brutal style of diplomacy than anyone could recommend. we're assuming that russia's would be better although the fact that they're the ones launching strikes into europe would probably negate that...
6. true
7. true but it could be innocent to a select few countries, tho i dont know if britain could possibly be one of them

ppl say britain's greatest fear was russia invading india. in this scenario they would also fear their navy. would it be at all possible for the russians to alleviate these fears by including GB into their scheme. if not, germany. and if not, how could they knock ONE of these countries out of the war, in any way. i think that is the key to this scenario working.

edit: i forgot to talk about the fashoda crisis. because of russia's alliance with france i fail to see how they could back britain. at most they could act as mediator. i do not see much gained from that event altho i do not know anything about it.

also if britain must make that choice don't you honestly believe they would choose the dual alliance. maybe my mind is too warped because of the actual events but i just do NOT see a british alliance with germany.
 
Last edited:
thearcticfalcon said:
IIRC Imperial Russia mounted two expeditions early on in the great game to secure bases from which India could be threatned. Both ended in complete annihilation of the Russian forces at the hands of natives. After this the tsar resorted to diplomacy to try and get hold of these bases from which to threaten India (not he never did). To a modern day observor the Russian threat in Central Asia was a small one that should have been easily discounted.

Despite this, British foreign polciy in the 19th century was dominated by preventing Russia from getting to India. They invaded Afghanistan twice and even Tibet (where matchlock muskets were new technology) in their quest to prevent the Russian Bear from gaining even a toehold in Central Asia (a toehold that seemed unlikely anway).

Now you see why they might be opposed to the idea of Russia getting a foothold in the Mediterranean. The thought process would be:

Mediterranean=occupation/closing Suez Canal=cutting of communication to India=prevents India from being reinforced=massive Russian campaign to take over India.

that is interesting. i had no idea GB was so paranoid about the russians in that regard. do you think there is any way that the tsar could've calmed them.

just as another hypothetical though i do not mean to derail the thread, if the russians did somehow gain a foothold and attacked who would have been involved??? surely all europe would rush to GBs side. i don't see russia winning that war. if they did, do you think india would become part of the empire or a colony?

one last thing am i correct that this paranoia is exactly why britain would gobble up the captured ottoman lands. although that still might not be enough to keep russia on the mediterranean, unless the tsar could convince the brits that his intentions were good and i think giving someone huge amounts of land that russian soldiers died for and can be used to help DEFEND against the very thing they are so afraid of goes a long way as a token of goodwill dont you?
 
Last edited:
czarist said:
edit: i forgot to talk about the fashoda crisis. because of russia's alliance with france i fail to see how they could back britain. at most they could act as mediator. i do not see much gained from that event altho i do not know anything about it.

also if britain must make that choice don't you honestly believe they would choose the dual alliance. maybe my mind is too warped because of the actual events but i just do NOT see a british alliance with germany.

Your scenario doesn't hold any water, or any bit of reality, if you ignore (which you have) the fact that Germany would respond differently to a Russian undergoing the changes you are suggesting. The Germans may entirely devote themselves to developing their Army if Russia carries out massive army reforms and begins building railways that aid in mobilization.
 
I already mentioned that Britain already held a dominant commercial position in the Ottoman Empire. Physically occupying the territory gives them nothing extra, just a large expanse of territory that it now has to pay to defend. In addition, you have more or less destroyed the Ottoman Empire - it will now be incapable of making payments on its huge foreign debt, most of which is held by Britain. Further, Italy, France, and Germany will be incensed at Britain getting all the spoils, plus, Russia will have acquired the most valuable parts of the empire, replacing Britain's economic dominance there.

In your scenario, Russia now has access to the Med and bases in East Africa.

Let's examine Britain's strategic requirements. The Germans are going to build a large navy to defend against Russia. Britain needs a navy that can defend against the Germans, or the potential combination of France & Russia. Russia can also base a large fleet in East Africa, and even an army there. From there they are in a position to project power into India. In addition, the Russians, with access to the Med, are in a position to threated the Suez Canal. So, the entire British Empire is now threatened by a Russia that has proved to be territorially ravenous and has a huge navy. If you think that being handed virtually worthless Ottoman deserts is going to make that all OK I urge you to read a bit about 19th c British foreign policy. This is, hands down, the worst conceivable nightmare scenario for Britain.

Historically, Britain tried until a very late date to secure an alliance with Germany - I believe it was around 1903 that they gave up. Germany and Britain were very friendly until Germany began building a large and threatening battle fleet. You are having the nation that Britain has feared for over half a century not only build a huge navy but also demand colonies, dismember the Ottoman Empire which Britain is committed to defend, and acquire the means to threaten the survival of Britain.

As for the value of Syria and Iraq, there is nobody on this board who knows more about this than do I; 19th c Ottoman history is my specialty. It's value is miniscule, especially compared to India. Britain already had control over all the resources there that they wanted, and possessing them would have no strategic value, given their position in Egypt, Cyrus, Kuwait, and Aden. You have seen in current events what a nightmare Iraq is to occupy - would you like to add Arabia and the Holy Cities to that? And Lebanon? Zionist pressures? And Britain doesn't just get to have these territories for free; they have to fight for them, and the Ottomans showed they were a hard nut to crack in WWI. The cost would greatly, greatly outweigh the benefit.

BTW, Tsar is the proper spelling. Czar is an older version that has come to mean a person who holds great power or an autocrat (Drug Czar), wheras Tsar specifically refers to the Russian Emperor and is a more accurate transliteration of the Russian pronunciation.
 
In the interest of not being totally negative, I would suggest that this would work much better if Russia did not go after African colonies, made sure to sign an agreement with Britain limiting the number of ships it would build, and not attempting to gain Mediterranean access or Istanbul.

I am surprised that you don't think reform would cause problems. Why is Russia inefficient? Corruption, right? Well, making things efficient means a whole lot of people are going to lose their gravy trains. Most of these are government officials and nobles. Also, where do the workers come from for the new factories? They come from agriculture. Stalin caused mass-starvation when he instituted his plans for rapid industrialization. Almost all of Russia's trade is it's agricultural surplus - and it's manufactured products are going to have a hard time competing with Westen products. Many factories are going to fail in the process. Japan industrialized quickly, but had some serious advantages; one was a highly concentrated population, and another was ethnic homogeneity. Russia is a sprawling empire with a very large number of ethnicities, many of which are very hostile to Russian rule; you are proposing to add scores more, several of which are the most unmanageable possible.

If Russia concentrates on internal development rather than territorial acquisition (and what does it need MORE territory for? It already controls 1/6th of the planet and had only just begun to exploit its resources!), and makes sure the Trans-Siberian RR is completed earlier, Japan can be dealt with.

The problem in the Russo-Japanese War was not so much the quality of Russian ships as the huge distance they had to travel; and this in turn was not only an issue of bases. There would still be a need to get to the Pacific quickly - there is no time for refits and rest, and there are still no bases between the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Japan, so the fleet will arrive in the same state as historical. Also, I don't see how Russia would come up with turbines and all big-gun ships this early; it was largely the experience of the Russo-Japanese War that led to the adoption of all-big-gun in any case.

As a minor historical note, the Treaty of Berlin was signed in 1878, not 1884.

Don't get me wrong, although I like the Ottoman Empire I also really like Tsarist Russia, and I find stronger Russian Tsar scenarios very interesting. Don't overestimate the Tsar's powers, though; he still had to deal with the nobility and the Duma.
 
Top