WWI without Russia

First of all, it should be understood that politically, World War I without an Eastern Front would make zero sense whatsoever. :p Never would've gotten to the West at all without Russia's and Germany's actions. (Mostly Russia's. :3)

Which about sums it up. :goodjob:

Basically, without Russia there wouldn´t be a WW I. (Serbia mobilizes:--- Austria mobilizes: ---Russia... oh wait, Russia isn´t there... end of story.)
 
In an effort to better understand the rough balance of power, I would like to ask the knowledgeable crowd occasionally present here, how the lack of an eastern front most likely would have effected the war.

Would it have probably have no significant effect at all,
or would it have probably prolonged the war resulting in a final peace treaty of more even terms,
or could it have given Germany the necessary additional strength to actually break through?

Or something totally different?

Blow away folks!

1. Gavrilo Princip assassinates Archduke Franz Ferdinand
2. Austria-Hungary invades Serbia
3. War is over

edit: xpost
 
Reread my original post and I would like to amend something. I don't think more men and resources would have made it more possible than it already was for Germany to win the war in the West, not that it was out-and-out impossible.
 
Except that this is a WW1 with a neutral Russia, not WW2. The british blockade would not starve Germany in this scenario. And if France was knocked out then Germany could transfer troops to the Middle East and start killing the British Empire...
Except that the British Empire controlled the seas and could supply its forces in the Middle East far quicker than the Germans could transfer troops there. Assuming the Ottomans even let them.
 
Germany doesn't have to starve to the point of famine (as the Entente pushed it towards in 1918 even after the war was over), only to the point of a material embargo causing a collapse in their economy.
 
I agree with all of these "The war wouldn't happen in the first place" posts. So, here's a different question. What if Germany never invaded Belgium? Would Britain then get itself involved? After all, they were pretty much the only major European power that supported a unified Germany. Less troops means a smaller chance for France to fight them into a stalemate, and therefore could see a repeat of 1870.

Also, do note that not only there would not be a Lusitania to get America into the war, but it was mostly Germany and Britain giving propaganda to America, not France. If the Germans still gave the same campaign, and no opposition campaign to it, maybe it could be like 1812 in which the population does want a war, on the side of the Central Powers.
 
What if Germany never invaded Belgium? Would Britain then get itself involved?
Almost certainly. There might be some more political opposition, but I doubt it would have a real chance of staying out, just for a lack of an excuse. While they had no military agreement, they were in the Franco-Riussian camp and opposed to Germany growing in strength

Less troops means a smaller chance for France to fight them into a stalemate, and therefore could see a repeat of 1870.
It also changes the entire strategies, with the Germans pushing directly across the border, the French would likely be better positioned to stop them.
 
If France collapses, who's supposed to sign the peace treaty with Germany? It'd be as bad as 1870, when the Prussians won the war in five weeks and then couldn't find anybody to sign a treaty for seven months afterwards.

Britain? :dunno:

I mean, if France collapsed, and Russia wasn't in the war, I doubt they'd continue.
 
...or would they? They certainly did in 1941. Not that that proves anything. It's a counterfactual anyway, so all we're running on is educated guesses and personal opinions.
I agree with all of these "The war wouldn't happen in the first place" posts. So, here's a different question. What if Germany never invaded Belgium? Would Britain then get itself involved? After all, they were pretty much the only major European power that supported a unified Germany. Less troops means a smaller chance for France to fight them into a stalemate, and therefore could see a repeat of 1870.
Firstly, the Germans went into Belgium because the French were going to go into Belgium, and the Germans needed a flank guard. The so-called "Schlieffen plan" is nonsense - a political memo designed to get the Reichstag to vote for an increase in the size of the German army, and not reflective of actual war policy whatsoever, under either Schlieffen or the younger Moltke. So if you want to get the Germans to stay out of Belgium, you shall have to totally alter French deployments as well. Remember, the French issued mobilization orders sending elements of the Fifth Army to the Belgian border before Germany even mobilized, let alone declared war on either Belgium or France. The advantage of using neutral Belgium to overlap the German flanks and their fortress system in Alsace-Lorraine was deemed too important to lose by Joffre and the rest of GQG.

Secondly, the British would go into war on France's side even if the French violated Belgian neutrality first, not the Germans. Ed Grey had that asinine idea of the "balance of power", where the British were supposed to prevent any one European country from getting "strong enough to challenge them" - whatever either of those things meant. The British had conceived of Germany as the greater danger, so no matter whether Germany violated Belgian neutrality or not, they were committed to aiding the French. The British Army had conducted - in direct contravention of Asquith's orders - staff talks with the French military for nearly a decade, on the premise that the UK and France would be fighting together against Germany. The only real block to this was political: many Liberal politicians did not want to get involved in a continental war in August 1914. However, for military purposes this was irrelevant, because Andrew Bonar Law, sniffing an opportunity to do precisely what the Home Rule Crisis was designed to do - put him, and the rest of the Tories, in power - was willing to form a coalition with Asquith for the purposes of pushing the war through the Commons. So Britain was going in any way you sliced it.
 
...or would they? They certainly did in 1941. Not that that proves anything. It's a counterfactual anyway, so all we're running on is educated guesses and personal opinions.

Yes, but really, if they were to continue, what could they do? The only thing I could think of is antagonize Germany through blockades.
 
As good an idea as any. Continue to support strikes against the German periphery via naval maneuvers, perhaps? Capture Germany's colonies, which were not effectively occupied until 1916 (save East Africa, a whole other chestnut) in OTL?
 
I agree with all of these "The war wouldn't happen in the first place" posts. So, here's a different question. What if Germany never invaded Belgium? Would Britain then get itself involved? After all, they were pretty much the only major European power that supported a unified Germany. Less troops means a smaller chance for France to fight them into a stalemate, and therefore could see a repeat of 1870.

Yes the 1904 Entente basically committed the UK to side with France in the event of a continental war. There were even joint command meetings held to co-ordinate British invovlement on French soil well before the war.
Belgium was basically an excuse to push war past a sceptical Parliament. Remember the UK had no right to go to war to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London (it only guaranteed perpetual Belgian neutrality).
 
Well, one of my professors just shepherded me to yet another historical epiphany so I am SLIGHTLY LESS OF A ZUBERFAG THAN BEFORE (actually not a Zuberfag at all) but that doesn't really change anything I've put in this thread. Just, uh, letting everybody know?
Remember the UK had no right to go to war to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London (it only guaranteed perpetual Belgian neutrality).
Well, intervention was permitted - but only after a five-power agreement to do so. Or four-power, I forget if Russia was involved in the guarantee.
 
As good an idea as any. Continue to support strikes against the German periphery via naval maneuvers, perhaps? Capture Germany's colonies, which were not effectively occupied until 1916 (save East Africa, a whole other chestnut) in OTL?

Hmm... I forgot about colonies. :D I was thinking about Europe only.

But even then, would capturing colonies really have that big an impact on Germany? I mean, a big enough impact to get a peace treaty out of them?
 
Unknown. The whole point of Germany's plan for the colonies, strategically, was to draw Allied resources away from the Western Front - which, by the way, totally failed in OTL, but whatever. With the Western Front presumably closed by German victory, it's unclear what value the Germans would then attach to them. I doubt they'd materially help the Brits much, but in this Verdun-less world, the Brits might be able to get away with something like an uti possidetis peace, trading the colonial acquisitions for improved German position on the Continent. Or something. I doubt the Germans would be too keen on that, to be honest. :dunno:
 
I don't know, I mean, if they give up a couple, pretty much useless colonies, they get peace with the only power in Europe that could actually take them on at this point.
 
But Britain can't take them on on land. And it's not clear what effect the blockade will have without Russia physically in the war and a Western Front drain on German resources. Especially the Russian bit.
 
How would the war have started if Russia was not in it? I could see a war as this though;

A-H declares war on Serbia.

Germany declares war on Russia.

(Would France/Britain get involved in this scenario if it were just a war between these 4 nations?)
 
(Would France/Britain get involved in this scenario if it were just a war between these 4 nations?)
That's...uh...how it worked. In real life. Except Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary, then Germany declared war on Russia. Otherwise the whole "Germany declares war on Russia" thing makes no sense.
 
Yes, because France and Britain had already thrown in with Russia and neither wanted a more powerful Germany. And German victory would result in a severly compromised strategic situation for France by removing the threat of a two front war.

All of the major powers had their commitments made well before the war began. Something significant needs to be changed for any one not to participate.

EDIT: Dachs, I assume he means that Germany doesn't declare war on, and invade, France.
 
Back
Top Bottom