User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:12:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Days of the Monarchy were over, they would have lasted maybe another decade.
What would be interesting would be the impacts on Germany. Would the treaty of Versailles been as punitive? without the threat of communism, would the Nazis have risen to power? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:12:36 PM EDT
[#2]
They were assholes under the czars, too.
Nothing would have changed, except for the global support they got from communists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:15:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Go further back. What if that dude hadn't shot that other dude.
No WWI. No discontent. No revolution. No Soviet Russia. No dirt poor Germans. No dickhead art student corporal. No Nazis. One bullet changed world history in ridiculously profound ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:20:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Whether it be ancient hordes of knights and their clans, Czars, Communists, or Cleptocrats, Russia has and will always suffer from this reality:
Lack of access to the sea, with no land borders to protect her from invasion, and an expansion-contraction cycle of security apparatus for the periphery, while the interior suffers economically. It's way too big of a territory to have one political entity over it because it can never support itself. Being frozen almost year-round only adds the final nail to that geopolitical coffin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:20:05 PM EDT
[#5]
Wow...
So, a Russia that doesn’t war with itself, and is able to occupy Eastern Europe decades earlier? A Russia with no ideological crutch causing it to look global and support only Leftist causes, often outside of its own regional interests? A Russia successfully able to fight off Communism even as its perverse ideology pervades in Central Europe? I think I’ll take history as we know it. Too many really shitty alternate outcomes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:21:10 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go further back. What if that dude hadn't shot that other dude. No WWI. No discontent. No revolution. No Soviet Russia. No dirt poor Germans. No dickhead art student corporal. No Nazis. One bullet changed world history in ridiculously profound ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:24:32 PM EDT
[#7]
This question is dildos. Go back further
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:26:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whether it be ancient hordes of knights and their clans, Czars, Communists, or Cleptocrats, Russia has and will always suffer from this reality: Lack of access to the sea, with no land borders to protect her from invasion, and an expansion-contraction cycle of security apparatus for the periphery, while the interior suffers economically. It's way too big of a territory to have one political entity over it because it can never support itself. Being frozen almost year-round only adds the final nail to that geopolitical coffin. Odessa is a great port. So is St Petersburg. Then they had Crimea. Russia’s problem is that Russia can’t live beside neighbors it can’t bully. This drives the expansion, and is self-inflicted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:31:08 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What forces this expansion cycle? Odessa is a great port. So is St Petersburg. Then they had Crimea. Russia’s problem is that Russia can’t live beside neighbors it can’t bully. This drives the expansion, and is self-inflicted. Communism in Eastern Europe post WW2 has fuck all to do with spreading an ideological economic system to new comrades, and everything with ensuring that next time the fight with the Germans would occur somewhere other than Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:35:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Russia will always be an angry bag of shit which is envious of the west. Regardless of the superficial label of their governmennt. Putin was a commie thug. Now he is an oligarch thug.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:36:02 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia's problem is that it's near neighbors are German, and after two world wars and a lot of dead people they're pathologically paranoid about the Krauts. Communism in Eastern Europe post WW2 has fuck all to do with spreading an ideological economic system to new comrades, and everything with ensuring that next time the fight with the Germans would occur somewhere other than Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: What forces this expansion cycle? Odessa is a great port. So is St Petersburg. Then they had Crimea. Russia’s problem is that Russia can’t live beside neighbors it can’t bully. This drives the expansion, and is self-inflicted. Communism in Eastern Europe post WW2 has fuck all to do with spreading an ideological economic system to new comrades, and everything with ensuring that next time the fight with the Germans would occur somewhere other than Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:37:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go further back. What if that dude hadn't shot that other dude. No WWI. No discontent. No revolution. No Soviet Russia. No dirt poor Germans. No dickhead art student corporal. No Nazis. One bullet changed world history in ridiculously profound ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:39:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This question is dildos. Go back further 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2018 11:39:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go further back. What if that dude hadn't shot that other dude. No WWI. No discontent. No revolution. No Soviet Russia. No dirt poor Germans. No dickhead art student corporal. No Nazis. No United States to the rescue. No US rebuilding the world. One bullet changed world history in ridiculously profound ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 1:59:57 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia's problem is that it's near neighbors are German, and after two world wars and a lot of dead people they're pathologically paranoid about the Krauts. Communism in Eastern Europe post WW2 has fuck all to do with spreading an ideological economic system to new comrades, and everything with ensuring that next time the fight with the Germans would occur somewhere other than Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: What forces this expansion cycle? Odessa is a great port. So is St Petersburg. Then they had Crimea. Russia’s problem is that Russia can’t live beside neighbors it can’t bully. This drives the expansion, and is self-inflicted. Communism in Eastern Europe post WW2 has fuck all to do with spreading an ideological economic system to new comrades, and everything with ensuring that next time the fight with the Germans would occur somewhere other than Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 9:50:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: War was inevitible, and would have kicked off one way or the other before 1920...Prencip just sped things up a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 10:22:55 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All the great powers in Europe wanted a war, especially Germany. Germany was late to the colonization game and got left with the scraps, and thus less resources. Russia was improving its industry and railroads, so the longer the war was delayed, the worse position Germany was in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: War was inevitible, and would have kicked off one way or the other before 1920...Prencip just sped things up a bit. The Russians were just exercising. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 10:27:38 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you’re trying to explain away 500 years of Russia being Russia... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 10:32:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Right, Germany. It was the Germans. Heck, I mean, they declared war, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 10:36:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia... combining the very worst aspects of Western and Eastern culture since 1547. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: So, you’re trying to explain away 500 years of Russia being Russia... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 10:37:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. August 1, 1914. Germany Declares War on Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Right, Germany. It was the Germans. Heck, I mean, they declared war, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 10:38:08 PM EDT
[#22]
If the Reds had not won then the huge industrialization of Russia would not have happened in such a compressed time frame.
Russia would have remained an undeveloped agrarian country for decades to come. It was the Commies that ripped, at great cost in life, Russia into the 20th Century. The Germans and Soviets would not have had a secret pact in 1922, and the Germans would have been unable to do all their secret testing and training in the Soviet Union between 1922 and 1933. None of the concepts for armored warfare would have been developed the way they were, and all the German officers who later commanded Panzer Divisions would not have been able to train in the Soviet Union. Perhaps most importantly, military grade radios capable of surviving inside armored vehicles would not have been able to be tested and refined as they were by the Germans in the Soviet Union. This was incredibly important to Blitzkrieg......It would have cost the German military a great deal and they would have had to continue working secretly with Sweden, but were very limited in what they could do. Without the industrialization of the Communists the Russians would not have been able to fend the Japanese off in the 1930s so easily, if at all. There might have been a repeat of 1904/05 and things might have been very different with Japanese expansion. will add more in a minute |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 10:45:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Muslim countries fight for their religion.
Most countries fight for their expansion or preservation. Russia is a drunk asshole that wants to fight for any or no reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 10:51:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Muslim countries fight for their religion. Most countries fight for their expansion or preservation. Russia is a drunk asshole that wants to fight for any or no reason. Colonial days than the Russians were. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 10:54:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go further back. What if that dude hadn't shot that other dude. No WWI. No discontent. No revolution. No Soviet Russia. No dirt poor Germans. No dickhead art student corporal. No Nazis. One bullet changed world history in ridiculously profound ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:02:25 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
What if the 1917 revolution would have failed? What would be possible world status if the Romanovs had remained in power and Russia had never been the asshole of the east for the last 100 years? Staying on the question at hand, if the 1917 revolution had failed, another would have happened. There were several uprisings before that, and the war was going really badly for Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:03:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And that would really suck for us because none of our parents would have met. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:04:14 PM EDT
[#28]
If the Reds had lost the Civil War then Russia would not have emerged as a great power in 1945 and
would never have been a threat to the US. The huge Soviet war machine would have never existed. If Russia had not turned Communist than Hitler would not have turned away so quickly from England in 1941. He would have finished what he had started. The Royal Navy, not yet learning the abilities of aircraft against Capital ships (Prince of Wales and Repulse) would have been lured out during the invasion of England and sunk in the channel. The invasion, and losses of Crete would not have yet happened and so you would have seen mass use of paratroopers on England followed up by invasion from the sea. England would have been flattened and Churchill and the King would have moved to Canada. On the flip side, the great purges of the Russian officers would not have happened in the 1930s which eliminated the best and brightest. The idea of maneuver warfare (Deep Battle) would not have been lost the way it was to the Russians due to the purges. They just would not have had the industrialization to make such use of it. If the Commies had not come into power the US would have played a major roll in rebuilding Russia in the post World War I years. Huge investments would likely have been made by US industry. Ties between the US and Russia, following the US intervention in Russia with the AEF fighting against the Reds in 1918/1919, would likely have been very good. Remington would not have faced financial ruin due to the Russians not paying for arms supplied during the war. There likely would have been huge sales of American agriculture equipment to Russia. All the sacrifices of the US 339th Infantry (Polar Bears) and other US Army and Naval Units would not be forgotten and there would be a proper US military cemetery in Russia for our war dead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:09:35 PM EDT
[#29]
Doctor Who could've killed off the daleks right at their origin but the brainwashed, weak-willed pussy was afraid of committing genocide. It's usually a liberal with a screwed up moral compass that screws things up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:13:20 PM EDT
[#30]
I don't think the Romanovs could have stayed in power, Tsar Nicholas II made some huge mistakes when he
took command of the Army, and in doing so bore the blame for the military defeats. He was forever tarnished by this. It was a serious error on his part. While he was a reformer to a degree, the living conditions of the peasant class in Russia in 1917-1919 was incredibly bad. American soldiers' accounts of life in Russia in 1918/1919 was exceedingly bleak. American POWs shipped to Moscow painted an exceedingly dire picture of starvation on the streets and the lack of food. Nicholas didn't have it in him to lift the people out of such poverty. The Communists did it through a herculean effort which cost the lives of millions. It is likely the only way Russia could have been lifted out of it would have been through US aid, support and industrialization. You would have needed people like Henry Ford (a Nazi sympathizer but he knew factories and manufacturing) and other forward thinking men of the time to make huge investments and an exchange of technology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:22:49 PM EDT
[#31]
It's possible Rasputin was trying to convince the Czar to sue for a separate peace in 1916.
Imagine Russia out of the war in 1916, no Bolsheviks and most likely a German victory on the western front. No Hitler no Stalin if the mad monk lived. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:22:50 PM EDT
[#32]
There were two Russian revolutions in 1917.
A better question is what if Nicholas II had a pair of balls and executed communists like his father, instead of light jail sentences or exile? No Lenin grooming himself in Switzerland, no Trotsky acting like a playboy in NYC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:25:38 PM EDT
[#33]
More than likely, Finland would have not declared independence at all in the manner they did. They would have
likely regained their autonomous stature, lost in 1901, and perhaps been given independence. If given independence they would have likely maintained good relations with Russia. If they had declared their independence in the same manner as they did, without Stalin's purges, the Russian military, when Russia moved to reclaim the Grand Duchy of Finland, a rightful part of Russia since 1809, the Russians would have likely been successful, depending upon the time period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:28:23 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's possible Rasputin was trying to convince the Czar to sue for a separate peace in 1916. Imagine Russia out of the war in 1916, no Bolsheviks and most likely a German victory on the western front. No Hitler no Stalin if the mad monk lived. units waving the Red Banner. There were Bolsheviks in Finland. There had been a mutiny by the Russian Navy in 1905. The disease was in Europe, but it was the Germans who weaponized it...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:37:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What forces this expansion cycle? Odessa is a great port. So is St Petersburg. Then they had Crimea. Russia’s problem is that Russia can’t live beside neighbors it can’t bully. This drives the expansion, and is self-inflicted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whether it be ancient hordes of knights and their clans, Czars, Communists, or Cleptocrats, Russia has and will always suffer from this reality: Lack of access to the sea, with no land borders to protect her from invasion, and an expansion-contraction cycle of security apparatus for the periphery, while the interior suffers economically. It's way too big of a territory to have one political entity over it because it can never support itself. Being frozen almost year-round only adds the final nail to that geopolitical coffin. Odessa is a great port. So is St Petersburg. Then they had Crimea. Russia’s problem is that Russia can’t live beside neighbors it can’t bully. This drives the expansion, and is self-inflicted. Mongols Tatars Persians Turks Swedes French Japanese Germans When any of the above skirmishes over border regions, they then have to take the economic capital and spend it on security in those regions. Odessa, Sainkt Petersburg, and Krim are all great, as long as they don't get any ambitions past: Turks (Odessa/Krim) Finns/Estonians/Swedes/Danes/Dutch/Brits (Sainkt Petersburg) Japs (Vladivostok) They are effectively land-locked, and the critical pan-Eurasian trade routes largely bypass them with sea traffic into actual useful ports that don't come with all the baggage of negotiating with Russians. You ever negotiate with a Russian? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:40:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's possible Rasputin was trying to convince the Czar to sue for a separate peace in 1916. Imagine Russia out of the war in 1916, no Bolsheviks and most likely a German victory on the western front. No Hitler no Stalin if the mad monk lived. Verdun might well have fallen. The French Army might have broken a year earlier than it did. The entire war in the West could have been changed dramatically. It would have had a huge impact on the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy as well. It would have placed the Italians in a very bad spot. Even if the French had been defeated and the British had to bravely run away as they did in 1940, I doubt the Germans would have had the capacity to follow them. The Royal Navy was still unchallenged. The English might have sued for peace or they might have continued strangling the Germans by sinking all shipping bound for Germany. The map of Europe would have looked dramatically different, especially in the East. Also, one thing most don't think about, the great ideas of maneuver warfare might not have taken root. While the Western Front was a stalemate of trenches, there were great sweeping battles on the Eastern Front during World War I. It was the fighting in the East which taught the lessons which led to both the German Blitzkrieg and the Russian Deep Battle concepts. This type of thinking was totally lost on the French because it was not their experience during the war. The French learned a different lesson from World War I, due to what the Western Front was like.....so its possible the concept of Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle might not have taken root at all if the war had ended in 1916 with Russia......think about that.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:42:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You ever negotiate with a Russian?  
Anyone who has ever negotiated or done business with the Russians are rolling at this comment in agreement..........LOL........... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:44:00 PM EDT
[#38]
More of a what-if is if the whites had won.
WW1 was inevitable. The tsar regime collapsing was just a matter of time as well. He had massive domestic issues before you add in the war. Now, the tsar and his family is executed, a civil war erupts just like it did, except the communists aren't able to seize power. There was a time when Russia looked to the US system for their future and let's just say it happened. No red menace for Hitler to harangue about, not that it would have stopped him. Living space and all that. However, no purges. The Russians would likely have not ignored the military buildup on its border, or German rearmament, or been as "friendly" as they were to them. No division of Poland, perhaps they would have actually guaranteed Poland along with England and France. Then there's the long term effects. Cold war? Nuclear weapons? Ww2 as we know it would have been vastly different |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2018 11:47:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go further back. What if that dude hadn't shot that other dude. No WWI. No discontent. No revolution. No Soviet Russia. No dirt poor Germans. No dickhead art student corporal. No Nazis. One bullet changed world history in ridiculously profound ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2018 2:23:54 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When they focus on the interior, their borders look weak to hordes of: Mongols Tatars Persians Turks Swedes French Japanese Germans When any of the above skirmishes over border regions, they then have to take the economic capital and spend it on security in those regions. Odessa, Sainkt Petersburg, and Krim are all great, as long as they don't get any ambitions past: Turks (Odessa/Krim) Finns/Estonians/Swedes/Danes/Dutch/Brits (Sainkt Petersburg) Japs (Vladivostok) They are effectively land-locked, and the critical pan-Eurasian trade routes largely bypass them with sea traffic into actual useful ports that don't come with all the baggage of negotiating with Russians. You ever negotiate with a Russian? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Whether it be ancient hordes of knights and their clans, Czars, Communists, or Cleptocrats, Russia has and will always suffer from this reality: Lack of access to the sea, with no land borders to protect her from invasion, and an expansion-contraction cycle of security apparatus for the periphery, while the interior suffers economically. It's way too big of a territory to have one political entity over it because it can never support itself. Being frozen almost year-round only adds the final nail to that geopolitical coffin. Odessa is a great port. So is St Petersburg. Then they had Crimea. Russia’s problem is that Russia can’t live beside neighbors it can’t bully. This drives the expansion, and is self-inflicted. Mongols Tatars Persians Turks Swedes French Japanese Germans When any of the above skirmishes over border regions, they then have to take the economic capital and spend it on security in those regions. Odessa, Sainkt Petersburg, and Krim are all great, as long as they don't get any ambitions past: Turks (Odessa/Krim) Finns/Estonians/Swedes/Danes/Dutch/Brits (Sainkt Petersburg) Japs (Vladivostok) They are effectively land-locked, and the critical pan-Eurasian trade routes largely bypass them with sea traffic into actual useful ports that don't come with all the baggage of negotiating with Russians. You ever negotiate with a Russian? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2018 2:25:38 AM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2018 6:48:38 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2018 7:20:43 AM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2018 7:36:09 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia would have found another reason to pick a fight with Austria over Serbia. It was itching for a fight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Go further back. What if that dude hadn't shot that other dude. No WWI. No discontent. No revolution. No Soviet Russia. No dirt poor Germans. No dickhead art student corporal. No Nazis. One bullet changed world history in ridiculously profound ways. Maybe a war not on the scale of WW1, but almost certainly Crimean War level in scale. Add in the new technology mixed with the Napoleonic tactics of the early years of WW1, and you're easily looking at a few million dead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2018 1:54:10 PM EDT
[#45]
Been thinking more about the Armenian Question leading towards an alternate beginning to WW1...
It really comes down to a question if France, Britain, Austria-Hungary, and lesser extent Germany would be cool with Russia expanding its influence in the Black Sea and Caucuses at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Britain didn't really care about the Caucuses. They had already accepted Russian hegemony well south of Tehran with the 1907 Anglo-Russo agreement. But the Brits were more apprehensive of Russian influence in the Black Sea down to the the Bosphorus marked and out to the Dardanelles. The British support of Greece send Bulgaria during the Balkan Wars shows this. France had no real interests in the Caucuses, aside from concern about the Ottoman treatment of Armenians as well as other Christians in the Ottoman Empire, as seen in the 1856 Treaty of Paris. France also had told Russia that France would not get involved in a war between Russia and Austria-Hungary, essentially showing that France did not have a unconditional view of Triple Entente. However, the fact that France didn't show this support to Russia might have been indicative of the French's feelings towards their own military readiness compared to Germany. France was still bitter about losing Alsace-Lorraine 40 building years earlier, so that would have been a reason to go to war with Germany, if the Germans intervened to help A-H. Any Russian gains in the Black Sea and Caucuses would have been immediate concern to Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary even supported the Ottomans during the First Balkan War because of their worries about the rise of Nationalism from their Slavic populations and Russia's self appointed title of defender of all things Slav. I can easily see Austria-Hungary allying with the Ottomans again if Russia were to launch a ground war to gain the Armenian areas of Anatolia. The German-AH alliance would have almost certainly pulled Germany into the fight to support Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary regularly got their dicks smashed when fighting the Russians until mid-1915 when Germany started running the show for the empire's military. The other Central Power - Italy (Lol) - would have probably stayed on the sidelines until promised something by one of the great powers. I guess Russia could have promised the same things the Allies promised Italy in 1915 on the condition that Austria-Hungary was defeated. I don't really see the Brits entering the war to support Russia without a German invasion of Belgium. Britain wasn't really sold on the prospect of war in 1914 until the German ultimatum to Belgium. The real question is does France commit to helping Russia in a conflict against the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary (along with German support)? The staggering amount of Russian casualties mixed in with the Germans very savvy use of stirring internal unrest within Russia almost assures that the House of the Romanovs falls during a war. Would George V have stood idly and watched his cousin be overthrown as the result of a war? I think that a post-Romanov state without the influence of Communism could have taken shape many different ways, but unless there is a strong nation-state on its western borders, then Russia gonna Russia. The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth did this and I think Jozef Pilsudski's proposed Intermarium would have accomplished that as well, but without Austria-Hungary and Germany being defeated that would have never even been possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2018 6:40:21 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Been thinking more about the Armenian Question leading towards an alternate beginning to WW1... It really comes down to a question if France, Britain, Austria-Hungary, and lesser extent Germany would be cool with Russia expanding its influence in the Black Sea and Caucuses at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Britain didn't really care about the Caucuses. They had already accepted Russian hegemony well south of Tehran with the 1907 Anglo-Russo agreement. But the Brits were more apprehensive of Russian influence in the Black Sea down to the the Bosphorus marked and out to the Dardanelles. The British support of Greece send Bulgaria during the Balkan Wars shows this. France had no real interests in the Caucuses, aside from concern about the Ottoman treatment of Armenians as well as other Christians in the Ottoman Empire, as seen in the 1856 Treaty of Paris. France also had told Russia that France would not get involved in a war between Russia and Austria-Hungary, essentially showing that France did not have a unconditional view of Triple Entente. However, the fact that France didn't show this support to Russia might have been indicative of the French's feelings towards their own military readiness compared to Germany. France was still bitter about losing Alsace-Lorraine 40 building years earlier, so that would have been a reason to go to war with Germany, if the Germans intervened to help A-H. Any Russian gains in the Black Sea and Caucuses would have been immediate concern to Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary even supported the Ottomans during the First Balkan War because of their worries about the rise of Nationalism from their Slavic populations and Russia's self appointed title of defender of all things Slav. I can easily see Austria-Hungary allying with the Ottomans again if Russia were to launch a ground war to gain the Armenian areas of Anatolia. The German-AH alliance would have almost certainly pulled Germany into the fight to support Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary regularly got their dicks smashed when fighting the Russians until mid-1915 when Germany started running the show for the empire's military. The other Central Power - Italy (Lol) - would have probably stayed on the sidelines until promised something by one of the great powers. I guess Russia could have promised the same things the Allies promised Italy in 1915 on the condition that Austria-Hungary was defeated. I don't really see the Brits entering the war to support Russia without a German invasion of Belgium. Britain wasn't really sold on the prospect of war in 1914 until the German ultimatum to Belgium. The real question is does France commit to helping Russia in a conflict against the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary (along with German support)? The staggering amount of Russian casualties mixed in with the Germans very savvy use of stirring internal unrest within Russia almost assures that the House of the Romanovs falls during a war. Would George V have stood idly and watched his cousin be overthrown as the result of a war? I think that a post-Romanov state without the influence of Communism could have taken shape many different ways, but unless there is a strong nation-state on its western borders, then Russia gonna Russia. The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth did this and I think Jozef Pilsudski's proposed Intermarium would have accomplished that as well, but without Austria-Hungary and Germany being defeated that would have never even been possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2018 6:51:59 AM EDT
[#47]
Russia completely missed the Renaissance and they got left behind. They have never recovered.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2018 1:04:20 AM EDT
[#48]
@axl
Click To View Spoiler Quote Historymalligator: Go further back. What if that dude hadn't shot that other dude.
No WWI. No discontent. No revolution. No Soviet Russia. No dirt poor Germans. No dickhead art student corporal. No Nazis. One bullet changed world history in ridiculously profound ways. Quote Historymalligator: Go further back. What if that dude hadn't shot that other dude.
No WWI. No discontent. No revolution. No Soviet Russia. No dirt poor Germans. No dickhead art student corporal. No Nazis. One bullet changed world history in ridiculously profound ways. Click To View Spoiler Going into some Russian history; Sweden fought to keep the Russian people economically crippled by forcing their sea trade to go only though the ports it controlled on the Baltic, and as a result it ended up losing Finland. Before there was even a Suez Canal, Britain strove to keep Russia hemmed into the Black Sea. Britain did this because it feared Russia might interfere with Britain's effective monopoly on it's slave continent - India. This ridiculous behavior was rooted in the love of money. The Ottoman Empire was kept in power for far longer than it should have been, and if the European powers organized with Russia, it could have been brought down to a rump state in central Anatolia. Eastern Europe, and the minority populations of Anatolia suffered for this lack of action. The modern European countries should have learned their lessons from the Crusades, they should have been interested in restoring fellow Christian people to freedom, but they couldn't be bothered. Yes, Russia still would have been a country full of jerk conquerors. If Joseph Stalin couldn't control Yugoslavia, Tsarist Russia isn't going to control the Balkans either (well not for long). @Gunwritr Click To View Spoiler @HeckThomas Click To View Spoiler @LRRPF52 Click To View Spoiler Bedouin2W: The more I read about it, I think the Armenian Question would have caused a major conflict around the mid-1910's or early 1920's if Gavrilo Princip's .380 didn't kick things off first.
Maybe a war not on the scale of WW1, but almost certainly Crimean War level in scale. Add in the new technology mixed with the Napoleonic tactics of the early years of WW1, and you're easily looking at a few million dead. . . . Would George V have stood idly and watched his cousin be overthrown as the result of a war? . . . I think that a post-Romanov state without the influence of Communism could have taken shape many different ways, but unless there is a strong nation-state on its western borders, then Russia gonna Russia. The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth did this and I think Jozef Pilsudski's proposed Intermarium would have accomplished that as well, but without Austria-Hungary and Germany being defeated that would have never even been possible. Click To View Spoiler SaurusX: Russia completely missed the Renaissance and they got left behind. They have never recovered. Click To View Spoiler |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2018 2:37:54 AM EDT
[#49]
The Romanovs were out in March 1917, over 7 months before the October coup d’etat of the Bolsheviks.
Tsar Nicholas was a dull-witted, inept, rigid autocrat who believed the Romanov dynasty was ordained by God. He would never been allowed as even a figure head and no family member wanted to succeed him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2018 3:43:56 AM EDT
[#50]
best thread in a long time!
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
