If Russia kept fighting in WW1?
- Thread starter Lee-Sensei
- Start date
To answer your question, no. The British would never allow Russia free access into the Mediterranean. Too much conflict of interests with their own.
As for whether Russia could keep fighting WWI under Lenin, that's also a no. Lenin promised both the Russian people and the Germans who sent him back to raise a revolution that he would get Russia out of the war. Not that he could not just renege on his promise to Kaiser Billy, but continuing the fight would very much lead to the Bolsheviks handling a revolt from their own support base. The people were sick of fighting, and the famines that came with it. Coupled with Operation Faustschlag, the Red Army was just too flattened to refuse a peace at this point, even at the cost of loads of land.
As for whether Russia could keep fighting WWI under Lenin, that's also a no. Lenin promised both the Russian people and the Germans who sent him back to raise a revolution that he would get Russia out of the war. Not that he could not just renege on his promise to Kaiser Billy, but continuing the fight would very much lead to the Bolsheviks handling a revolt from their own support base. The people were sick of fighting, and the famines that came with it. Coupled with Operation Faustschlag, the Red Army was just too flattened to refuse a peace at this point, even at the cost of loads of land.
So they'll break their word to the Russians? That could create a lot of problems later. Would that even be possible? A Russia that stays in the war probably contributed more than any country besides France. A survival of Tsarist Russia could be an interesting TL. I wonder how they'd handle that Bohemian Corporal. Would they try to appease him like the French and British? Or try to take a firm hand against expansion like the Italians. It could be an interesting TL.
I know. I was curious about their sincerity.
Couldn't the Russians simply threaten to declare war on England if they didn't hand over Constantinople? If Russia did well enough in the war to survive until the end they would have to be taken seriously militarily. While they couldn't do much to England itself they could invade British India.
So they'll break their word to the Russians? That could create a lot of problems later. Would that even be possible? A Russia that stays in the war probably contributed more than any country besides France. A survival of Tsarist Russia could be an interesting TL. I wonder how they'd handle that Bohemian Corporal. Would they try to appease him like the French and British? Or try to take a firm hand against expansion like the Italians. It could be an interesting TL.
I know. I was curious about their sincerity.
There would be no Hitler without a Soviet Union to cause massive fear of Communism and corresponding radicalism from the right. Hitler's rise to power was fairly unlikely even in OTL, it won't happen when you change something this important. Most likely Germany just ends up being dominated by a more standard conservative-military clique.
Any Tsarist regime that does survive will likely be very weak and on the brink of collapse, so I don't imagine they'll be doing much of anything for the foreseeable future.
Uh, theoretically? But a Russia that just got ravaged by WW1 would be in absolutely no position to do so, and it'd make itself very unpopular by threatening to declare war on its allies. Not to mention that planning to start a second war is the quickest way for the Tsarist regime to fall to revolution anyway if they somehow avoided it until now.
1) There's a very good chance Hitler gets into power without communism.
2) It depends on what Tsar is ruling and how good he is. If Tsar Nicholas were more like Peter the Great, I'd have a hard time seeing him being overthrown.
Last edited:
Really ? why would france and russia not just walk in and say no when he repudiates the VT ?
Why didn't France OTL? Besides. We aren't talking about when he breaks the Versailles Treaty. Just when he gets into power.
No need to declare war on England, instead they could just plan to seize Constantinople anyway — or at least march their armies through as much Turkish territory as possible. I doubt England will declare war on Russia in such circumstances, and Turkey is hardly in a position to resist.
So they'll break their word to the Russians? That could create a lot of problems later. Would that even be possible? A Russia that stays in the war probably contributed more than any country besides France. A survival of Tsarist Russia could be an interesting TL. I wonder how they'd handle that Bohemian Corporal. Would they try to appease him like the French and British? Or try to take a firm hand against expansion like the Italians. It could be an interesting TL.
I know. I was curious about their sincerity.
I don't recall Britain promising to hand over Constantinople to the Russians. The French would not mind all that much, though. After all, the Russians didn't have conflicting interests in Africa like the British had. But...
^Like he said. If Russia simply moves in before the British could, there's not really anything the latter could do to dispute.
Problem is, Russia is in the shitter with the political instability caused by the war, with the overthrow of the Tsar and then the provisional government after it. Hard to see them holding on to their own land against the CPs, let alone take Constantinople.
I don't remember the British making that promise either. Assuming the British and French capture the city most likely they'd have given it to the Greeks who considered it their natural capitol and unlike the Russians, the Greeks are friends with Britain.
Russia probably wouldn't have objected too much since it wouldn't be directly in the hands of the British or French and if Constantinople falls they'll have plenty of work grabbing up eastern Turkey. They can always work hard at levering Greece and the UK apart later.
If Russia takes the city by themselves they'll likely just keep it directly.
I don't think so. His rise to power was fairly unlikely even in real life. Some random failed Austrian artist becomes the leader of the most powerful nation in Europe? That was never a particularly likely prospect. A change as radical as avoiding the Russian Revolution and the existence of the USSR to scare the European right to death will likely get rid of him.
Of course. But he wasn't. And if you're going to change who the Tsar is, World War 1 as we know it would not have happened as too many things would change with a PoD like that.
I think by 1914 the British hadn't promised the straights to Russia, but they had also given up on trying to keep them out should the Ottomans be at war with them. For that matter, Britain and France had by this point reversed their course on propping up the Turks, even by the Crimean War there was talk amongst British politicians of having 'backed the wrong horse'.
If Russia stays on until the war's conclusion, then yea, I think they'd get Constantinople under a very different Treaty of Sevres. They might get Greater Armenia too, as a puppet state and a way of making up the genocide (which all sides and some prominent Turks all reviled) to them. Greece would likely end up keeping her own gains under Sevres, with the Russian army acting as a heavy deterrent to Atatürk and his brilliant victories that led to Lausanne.
If Russia stays on until the war's conclusion, then yea, I think they'd get Constantinople under a very different Treaty of Sevres. They might get Greater Armenia too, as a puppet state and a way of making up the genocide (which all sides and some prominent Turks all reviled) to them. Greece would likely end up keeping her own gains under Sevres, with the Russian army acting as a heavy deterrent to Atatürk and his brilliant victories that led to Lausanne.
Driftless
Donor
What keeps the Russians in the war? A more successful Kerensky offensive, or???? IF the Russians stay in the war till 1918 - even as a damaged player, that changes the situation on the Western front as well. The Germans would need to keep (a lot) more men in the East than OTL. There might not be a 1918 Spring offensive (or at least as big) by the Germans on the Western Front. OTL didn't the Germans move 50 divisions to the Western Front? There are so many butterflies here.... Perhaps the Germans collapse without that Spring offensive? If the Germans beleive themselves to be defeated, rather than "stabbed in the back", that kind of nobbles one of the cornerstones of Hitler's rise.
They did reoccupy the Rhur earlier (23/25) but nobody (GB/USA) would back them and they backed down, with a Russian army as well I don't think they back down. (or at least have one ore friend later that is willing to do it again later)
That's a very interesting POD in itself — a continuing French-Russian Alliance while the Anglo-French one breaks down.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
With the AEF, ITTL the Entente could have crossed the Rhine. Corporal Hitler agrees that Germany lost the war. He retires as high ranking non commissioned officer.