NationStates Jolt Archive

What if Russia was on the side of the central powers in WWI?

I believe this would have changed the entire outcome of the war (Obviously) and with there help the Central powers would have won.

First Off Von Moltke (Younger) wouldnt have pulled men from the west to help at Tannenburg. This would have added a bit more punch to the schleiffen plan. It still wouldnt have worked totally. Since the Germans and Austrians didnt have to fight Russia those troops would have been free to hold the west.

I was wondering what you all thought would happen.

The central power would have lost anyway.

1.CP armies would have been called to the southern border of the Russian central Asia territories, to prevent a British invasion from India.
2.Also, Japan would have attacked the Russians in the Siberian Pacific coast, thus calling for more troops.
3.The war would have been long enough to deprive the Central Powers of their natural resources, so they would have lost anyway.

added:
BTW, I cannot imagine how would WW1 have started with Russia sided with Austria. It began as a Russo-Austrian conflict over the Balkans and the jugoslav issue.

1) There wouldn't have been a war at all at all.
2) There wouldn't have been a war at all at all.

Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire wouldn't have argued over Serbia and what to do over the assination of the Prince, and Germany wouldn't have had the need to press the issue, an issue that there wasn't.

If Russia allied with the Central Powers, then the Ottomans would've been with the Allies.

Allies win in the end due to the fact that Germany couldn't break the blockade of the North Sea that was imposed by Jellicoe's Grand Fleet.

1) There wouldn't have been a war at all at all.
Wishful thinking. Something would have happened to spark things off. But it might not have been WWI at all.

Why did you post this again? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517799)

EDIT - oh, I see, it must have been a double post and IDF bumped this one back from obscurity instead of the other.

Allies would still have won, and due to Hindenburg not being able to annihilate the whole Russian army with 2 platoons of boy scouts and a combine harvester, he'd have never got the popular following which led to his presidency, and hence the Weimar Republic might have done a bit better, really.

For Russia to be on their side, Serbia would have to be on their side as well, which makes the whole thing a hell of a lot more complicated.

If Russia is on the Central Powers' side:

Either they have to stop the Black Hand from assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand, thereby averting that corner of the war, or they fail, and the Central Powers don't trust them and they are marginalized and even ridiculed. But it does change this: Germany only has to fight a one-front war.

With Germany less distracted by the Russians, they take more territory more quickly, and the French are considered the defeated party in World War I, not the Germans. Alsace-Lorraine stays in Germany, and the French are saddled with war guilt. The Americans could theoretically bail them out, but with Congress wanting to stay out of Europe, it never happens. Britain's a bit easier on them, demanding nothing in terms of repayment, but the Germans are brutal to the French, and the Kaiser's a hero.

So what does that mean? France decides to mobilize for revenge, and heroes such as Napoleon are hailed as visionaries. France and Italy form an alliance once the Third Republic is dissolved after the start of the Great Depression and a fascist regime takes over. The scapegoats are Germans and liberals, who are demonized and tossed into prisons. Military service becomes compulsory, and plans for war with Germany are made.

What they don't count on is that the Germans are led by the Kaiser's son, who helps to mobilize the Germans economically and militarily as a dominant force in Europe. The war-weary British want no part of this, so it appears to be the French and Italians against the Germans.

Meanwhile, the House of Romanov in Russia still stands, though much of the country is being run by warlords; Lenin never managed the coup that took over Russia and died a broken man. Former Leninite Joseph Stalin attempts a coup in his native Georgia, but he is run out and tries the same thing in Russia. He fails miserably and the Tsars execute him. Arch-rival Leon Trotsky flees the country.

In 1935, Austrian-born artist and political writer Adolf Hitler is shot and killed outside his home by what is later revealed to be agents of Wilhelm III's government. Historically, the death is insignificant, though it does represent the power that the German government holds.

War begins in 1939, with French forces invading Alsace-Lorraine and Italian forces invading from the south. Since the concept of "blitzkrieg" is not invented, a long, drawn-out battle in the trenches begins on the German borders. The Germans are the first to develop serious air power, destroy many Italian and French strongholds, and gain a surrender from the Italians. The war with Italy ends in an armistice, and Mussolini is hanged by his own people. Chaos ensues in Italy while Germany continues its onslaught against France, conquering about half of the country.

At the same time, Japan attacks Pearl harbor on 7 December 1941, instigating that theater of the war. Without having to fight the Germans at the same time, the Americans focus all efforts on defeating the Japanese, culminating in a summer of 1944 mainland invasion. Around January of 1945, at the cost of 400,000 American lives, the capital is overtaken, and Japan surrenders to the U.S., which begins the rebuilding process in Japan, mainly to have a colony in Asia.

The big things that never happen are: There's no Soviet Union, no Red China (without Soviet support, Chiang Kai-shek's forces take China and Mao doesn't think to go to Taiwan,) no Korean War, and the U.S. gives implicit support to Ho Chi Minh's government in Vietnam as a purely nationalist government. The U.S. doesn't seek containment of communism; it merely seeks to further its economic prowess, thereby supporting some brutal regimes that it deems friendly.

Also, Germany dominates most of Europe, the Ottoman Empire falls much later, and the greater threat of Islamic terrorism comes about after about 40 years of relative calm.

Just a note, there is no way in hell Russia would've sided with the Central Powers. Had Bismark not been forced out by Wilhelm, then it would be different, but forcing Bismark out meant the Secret Reassurance treaty wasn't renewed and thus Russia was no longer with Germany.

WTF how many times is this same thread going to be retyped, there are at least three others by the same person of the same fucking subject!

...Who are these "central powers" supposed to be, anyway? I was taught about the Allies and the Axis Powers, not this.

Is somebody in academia trying to put a happier face on WWII? Or is this just coming from the semi-closeted-fans-of-Hitler brigade?

...Who are these "central powers" supposed to be, anyway? I was taught about the Allies and the Axis Powers, not this.

Is somebody in academia trying to put a happier face on WWII? Or is this just coming from the semi-closeted-fans-of-Hitler brigade? Didn't you get the memo? There was too much confusion over the fascist Axis and Bush's "Axis of Evil", so the first one had to be renamed.

Didn't you get the memo? There was too much confusion over the fascist Axis and Bush's "Axis of Evil", so the first one had to be renamed.

Oh, so it is coming from the semi-closeted-fans-of-Hitler brigade, then. Thanks for clearing that up.

...Who are these "central powers" supposed to be, anyway? I was taught about the Allies and the Axis Powers, not this.

Is somebody in academia trying to put a happier face on WWII? Or is this just coming from the semi-closeted-fans-of-Hitler brigade?

Well, considering that this thread is about World War One, don't imagine either putting a happier face on WWII, or Hitler is the operative issue there.

Well, considering that this thread is about World War One, don't imagine either putting a happier face on WWII, or Hitler is the operative issue there.

Yeah, well you got me there.

Serves me right for posting with my hands full of sandwich.

Oh, so it is coming from the semi-closeted-fans-of-Hitler brigade, then. Thanks for clearing that up.

Someone needs Hooked on Phonics.

http://www.ala.org/ala/ert/HOPImage.jpg

What if America was on the side of the Central Powers?

I like where this is going.*rubs chin*

If Russia is on the Central Powers' side:

War begins in 1939, with French forces invading Alsace-Lorraine and Italian forces invading from the south. Since the concept of "blitzkrieg" is not invented, a long, drawn-out battle in the trenches begins on the German borders. The Germans are the first to develop serious air power, destroy many Italian and French strongholds, and gain a surrender from the Italians. The war with Italy ends in an armistice, and Mussolini is hanged by his own people. Chaos ensues in Italy while Germany continues its onslaught against France, conquering about half of the country.


If anything, the blitzkrieg would be more developed in this situation. Heinz Guderian certainly did not join the military because of Hitler or the Nazis - he was a member of the old Prussian military aristochracy - one of the very groups Hitler tried to stifle because he viewed them as a threat to his power. If the Second Reich had endured, Guderian would probably be more happy - his family would be well-off because Germany's economy hadn't been crippled in the Weimar years, and he wouldn't have had to put up with Nazis. And being more happy, he would be just as likely to work on armored strategy- the Second Reich was far less popular with its neighbors than the Weimar Republic, so he'd have a practical as well as interlectual reason. And, above all, the Guderian family came from the Vistula region of Prussia, the region that Hitler went to war with Poland in order to retake. If Germany had won the Great War, Poland wouldn't have gotten any of Prussia. In fact, Poland probably wouldn't have existed. Which do you think is more dangerous: a military genious who is at home, living a comfortable life, in a condusive military system, in a country that could soon be at war, or, a military genious who has been displaced from his home, in a bankrupt nation with no military, which, when it does get a military, is run by leaders who neither trust nor respect him? And given that the latter was able to roll from one side of France to the other in under a month, I'd shudder to think what the former could have done.

What if America was on the side of the Central Powers?

I like where this is going.*rubs chin*

Alone, neither the German or American Navies could defeat the Grand Fleet. If you combine them, then Jellicoe, Beatty, and both the Grand Fleet and BCF would be on the bottom of the North Sea or Atlantic Ocean.

The Germans had superior ships, armor, shells, and training. Had Scheer not been a complete fuck-up at Jutland, he might've pulled off a victory. After all, Hipper destroyed Beatty.

I don't think this could have ever happened. But...

If Russia was with the Central Powers, the Allies would just take a harder beating until America entered the war, at which point the Russians would probably pull out due to trouble at home, demoralizing the Germans even further, and leading to their defeat. After all, while the Russian army had large numbers, the Germans gave them a massive beating on the Eastern front due to superior technology. Who's to say the Allies couldn't do the same?

1) There wouldn't have been a war at all at all.
2) There wouldn't have been a war at all at all.

Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire wouldn't have argued over Serbia and what to do over the assination of the Prince, and Germany wouldn't have had the need to press the issue, an issue that there wasn't.

there still would have been some kind of war except the assination of archduke Ferdinand wouldn't have caused it

European nationalism, Militarism and the alliance system was still going on

there still would have been some kind of war except the assination of archduke Ferdinand wouldn't have caused it

European nationalism, Militarism and the alliance system was still going on

Yep, a war was innevitable. There would've been a different spark.

European nationalism, Militarism and the alliance system was still going on
But it would have been a very different alliance system. Much of the German Military's aggression came from the situation of being encircled and having to fight on two fronts.

If that pressure hadn't been there, maybe the establishment would have been able to keep the damage Wilhelm II could do to a minimum.

Though I guess Britain would still have been paranoid, and Germany would still have wanted a "place in the sun".

Alone, neither the German or American Navies could defeat the Grand Fleet. If you combine them, then Jellicoe, Beatty, and both the Grand Fleet and BCF would be on the bottom of the North Sea or Atlantic Ocean.

The Germans had superior ships, armor, shells, and training. Had Scheer not been a complete fuck-up at Jutland, he might've pulled off a victory. After all, Hipper destroyed Beatty.

No offense, I know British navy fans take this kind of stuff personaly, but there's no way in hell the US Navy couldn't take on the grand fleet.

For one thing, the following US battleships were part of the grand fleet; if America were against Britain, not only would they be taken out, they would fight against it:

Dekaware
Florida
Wyoming
Arkansas
New York
Texas

If that's not enough, those were the oldest active US battleships. The others in commision were:

Nevada
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Mississippi

Of those, the following, along with a few other battleships commissioned after WWI into the 20's defeated the Japanese fleet in Suriago Strait 20 years later in WWII, with refits in armor, radar, and AA guns only:

Pennsylvania
Mississippi

Also included in their number was the USS "after WWII I survived 2 atomic bombs a guided missile and a shelling from the Iowa" Nevada.

I rest my case.

there still would have been some kind of war except the assination of archduke Ferdinand wouldn't have caused it

European nationalism, Militarism and the alliance system was still going on
Fine Germany attacks France, just for the hell of it, probably wanting some French territory.
Wishful thinking. Something would have happened to spark things off. But it might not have been WWI at all.
Ok fine, Germany wanting it's 'EU' aspirations.