Neutral Russia during WW 1

[La Rouge Beret]

I received a copy of The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to War in 1914 by Christopher Clark for Christmas and, there was a passage in the book that spoke about how Tsar Alexander III wanted to remain neutral from the web of European alliances. If Russia remains outside of either Alliance blocs and continues supplying raw materials to Imperial Germany.

How does this impact the almost inevitable Great War? Would the Germans with their greater numbers crush the French or, would the absence of Russia necessitate that Britain has to have a larger standing army that can intervene on the continent, thus leaving us with a grinding attrition battle again?

 

[Catspoke]

In the absence of Russian alliance the French would have to adjust their policies to avoid German entanglements in places like Morroco, but if they picked such a fight, the Germans could afford to be patient for a few days, maybe the French would violate Belgian neutrality first. An extra few corps means the Germans win the Marne, and the race to the sea goes better for Germany, this wins the war eventually, assuming the British are the same as OTL, I suppose the British could double the BEF, taking away this advantage though. Double seems doable.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

In the absence of Russian alliance the French would have to adjust their policies to avoid German entanglements in places like Morroco, but if they picked such a fight, the Germans could afford to be patient for a few days, maybe the French would violate Belgian neutrality first. An extra few corps means the Germans win the Marne, and the race to the sea goes better for Germany, this wins the war eventually, assuming the British are the same as OTL, I suppose the British could double the BEF, taking away this advantage though. Double seems doable.

I like that scenario in that Germany does slightly better due to her logistics and manpower advantage leading her to gain an advantageous position during the race to the sea. While I think this leads to the Brits doubling the BEF, which leads us into a battle of attrition. This is where I'm really interested as in the OTL the Americans overwhelmingly supply the Entente powers, and here the Russians can supply raw materials & foodstuffs to the Central Powers. With Russia as they share a land border with the Central Powers prevents those items from being interdicted by the Entente powers.

Is a neutral Russia supplying raw materials and foodstuffs enough of an edge for Imperial Germany to win? I haven't formed an opinion on that yet.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

If Russia is neutral, then presumably the events that drove Europe to the Great War are severely different. July 1914 if Russia doesn't support Serbia = no conflict between great powers.

So what is the diplomatic set-up in this ATL Europe. Why are France & Germany at war? Why is Britain supporting France?

 

[West]

This is the russian empire before world war 1.

this is a country that has access to the baltic sea, the black sea, the caspian sea, owns the aral, and has pacific access. It is one of the largest countries on earth, with a level of resources that few can match. I know russian's complain about the lack of a warm water port but honestly they had a pretty good set up.

Now lets look at modern russia

Their access to the baltic sea is limited to a small fraction of their former capability, access to both the black and caspian seas is strunk, their major bread baskets is gone. Realistically the best move for Russia in light of this was to stay out of european affairs as much as possible and build up what they had because honestly what they had was more then enough to make them a super power if not a great one.

 

[glpoisson]

The French would not have gone to war with Germany again (1870) without the alliance with Russia. Even with British support the manpower numbers favored Germany to such an extent that France very likely gets crushed and loses more territory and/or colonies in the aftermath. France counted on Russia to tie up significant German forces which would enable it to hold off the ones which did attack and launch its own Plan 17 attack.

On the other hand, Germany had maxed out its logistical capabilities within the Schlieffen plan and had no capacity to throw more divisions into the initial thrust through Belgium and France. One supporting piece of documentation for the previous statement is linked here Logistical study. The author is an attendee of the USMC staff college.

Politically, France would never have come into the WW1 equation without its alliance with Russia. The casus belli, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, may have lead to a war between Russia, if she supports Serbia, and Germany/Austria-Hungary with no French or British participation. Likely Serbia gets occupied in this scenario while Russia sits idle due to the Tsar not wishing to aid a regicidal nation no matter how much Slavic brotherhood he, or his ministers, felt. Much rhetoric passes between Berlin, Vienna and St Petersberg but ultimately no war.

A war may have occurred but not the colossal catastrophe we know as WW1 without an alliance of nations to counter Germany/Austria-Hungary as none of the other three European powers had the manpower and resources to do so individually. Based on the OP Russia, which came close to having a chance to survive and maybe win such a war, would have had friendly relations with Imperial Germany and thus no interest in going to war.

 

[Rufus]

As others have said, without the Russian alliance France would have never entered the war, certainly not for the sake of Serbia. They would need another ally to tie up German forces during a hypothetical conflict. The only country that comes to mind is Austria-Hungary, though you would most likely need a pre 1900 pod for this.

Hm, let’s see: France, Britain, A-H and Bulgaria vs Germany, Italy, Romania and Serbia maybe? With Russia as a neutral. Sounds pretty interesting, actually. Though my money would be on Germany and its allies; I can’t see Austria lasting long against the Germans.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Yeah I was toying with AH joining the Entente as well, working out how the initial campaign unfolds for each power is the trick.

 

[glpoisson]

One of Otto von Bismark's tenets in European diplomacy was not to be on the 'small' side of any grouping of the five great powers (Germany, AH, France, Britain and Russia). If you make Russia neutral that leaves four powers. OTL, AH and Germany allied in 1879 with various iterations of the Dreikaiserbund, a lose alliance which brought in Russia, occurring both before and after this. Any scenario which has AH in the Entente would probably have to come after Prussia defeats AH in 1866 with Prussia levying much harsher terms in the peace treaty concluded. One of the reasons for the moderate peace terms between AH and Prussia came from von Bismark convincing the Prussian king not to embitter them and create a future enemy. The king, now Kaiser, got his way in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war victory.

Without Germany and AH having an alliance, Britain probably does not become entangled in European politics and remains neutral. France would not chase a British alliance if it had one with AH so your WW1 would have France and AH against Germany and maybe Italy with Britain and Russia neutral. The spark for this smaller WW could come from the Balkans, if Germany still pursues the Berlin to Baghdad railway and closer relations with the Ottomans, from one of the little wars in that area in the early 1910s.

Britain and France did not have a military alliance before WW1, only an entente over colonial matters and various secret consultations between Army high commands. Britain would likely have closer relations to Germany but not an alliance. France/AH versus Germany/Italy (Italy and AH did not like each other) without the British naval blockade would bring a German victory due to it having access to the resources of Russia and the worlds second biggest merchant navy to bring supplies purchased from the neutral USA.