Did it make more sense for Imperial Germany to ally with Austria-Hungary or Russia?

Post by WolfBear
Did it make more sense for Imperial Germany to ally with Austria-Hungary or to ally with Russia (if it had to choose, that is)?
-You get to be the dominant partner in this alliance.
-You get to strip Russia of a lot of territories if you and A-H will win a war against Russia.
-Even if you and A-H will lose a war against Russia, Germany would still win in the long(er)-run since it would be able to annex Austria if Austria-Hungary will break up.
-Austria-Hungary is much weaker militarily than Russia is.
-The odds of victory in a major war if you ally with Austria-Hungary rather than Russia goes way down.
-You get to annex the Austrian part of Austria-Hungary (minus Galicia, that is) if you and Russia will defeat Austria in a war.
-The odds of victory in a major war with Russia as an ally are much higher than with Austria-Hungary as an ally.
-You are the junior--rather than senior--partner in an alliance with Russia.
-You don't have the opportunity to strip Russia of large amounts of its own territory.
Anyway, which of these two options would you choose, and why exactly?

It depends on what my aims are:

The major cause of World War I was Germany’s determination to become a
superpower, this required crippling Russia and France.

If German was to ally with Russia, this would keep the status quo in place.

Rob

2018-01-23 01:49:08 UTC

Post by SolomonW

The major cause of World War I was Germany’s determination to become a
superpower, this required crippling Russia and France.
If German was to ally with Russia, this would keep the status quo in place.

I agree with the gist of SolomonW's comments. It depends on their aims.

Russia is more valuable as an ally and dangerous as an enemy. German-Russian harmony means no *general* war on the continent.

If preferring an alliance with Russia, Germany though needs to be willing to pay the price for Russian friendship. That price may rise over time. Russia may start by wanting an alliance and a free hand in the Balkans. But after that they might want Germany to let its exports undercut German farmers. After that they could want loans on better terms than the French were giving them. Eventually they could want dissolution of the Austrian empire. The inevitable result of that last one is an increase in Catholic political power in Germany.

The Horny Goat

2018-01-23 03:33:32 UTC

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:49:08 -0800 (PST), Rob

Post by Rob
Russia is more valuable as an ally and dangerous as an enemy. German-Russian harmony means no *general* war on the continent.
If preferring an alliance with Russia, Germany though needs to be willing to pay the price for Russian friendship. That price may rise over time. Russia may start by wanting an alliance and a free hand in the Balkans. But after that they might want Germany to let its exports undercut German farmers. After that they could want loans on better terms than the French were giving them. Eventually they could want dissolution of the Austrian empire. The inevitable result of that last one is an increase in Catholic political power in Germany.

I agree - certainly there is no general war in 1914 if the Archduke is
murdered and Germany and Russia are allies.

On the other hand if Russia and Germany are allies, A-H probably ISN'T
an ally of Germany and if A-H and France are allied you probably
wouldn't get a general war as France doesn't have a frontier with
Austria and thus provide direct support at least as long as France
and Italy are members of opposing alliances.

(If Germany, Italy and Russia are allies A-H almost certainly is
quickly crushed even if Britain and France are allied against Germany
- though I cannot conceive of Germany not first attacking A-H in
preference to attacking France through Belgium - the whole point of
the Schlieffen plan was that Germany hoped to crush France before
Russia was fully mobilize - which would not be a factor here)

Alex Milman

2018-01-23 04:13:39 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:49:08 -0800 (PST), Rob

Why? The "conflict of interests" was at least 90% imaginable.

Post by The Horny Goat
and if A-H and France are allied you probably
wouldn't get a general war as France doesn't have a frontier with
Austria and thus provide direct support at least as long as France
and Italy are members of opposing alliances.

AFAIK, France did not have a common border with Russia either. :-)

The Horny Goat

2018-01-23 06:29:12 UTC

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:13:39 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman

AFAIK, France did not have a common border with Russia either. :-)

True - but then Russia didn't make it through to 11/11/1918 either.

Alex Milman

2018-01-23 16:43:30 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:13:39 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman

AFAIK, France did not have a common border with Russia either. :-)

True - but then Russia didn't make it through to 11/11/1918 either.

Still, it was fighting for 4 years.

WolfBear

2018-02-11 00:24:08 UTC

Post by Rob

Post by SolomonW

I agree with the gist of SolomonW's comments. It depends on their aims.
Russia is more valuable as an ally and dangerous as an enemy. German-Russian harmony means no *general* war on the continent.
If preferring an alliance with Russia, Germany though needs to be willing to pay the price for Russian friendship. That price may rise over time. Russia may start by wanting an alliance and a free hand in the Balkans. But after that they might want Germany to let its exports undercut German farmers. After that they could want loans on better terms than the French were giving them. Eventually they could want dissolution of the Austrian empire. The inevitable result of that last one is an increase in Catholic political power in Germany.

Yes, all of this appears to be absolutely correct. Now, the two crucial questions are these:

1. Does a German-Russian partition of Austria-Hungary trigger a general European war?

2. What would the aftermath of a German-Russian partition of Austria-Hungary look like? After all, both Germany and Russia might be interested in Czechia and both Germany and Italy might be interested in South Tyrol and Trieste.

Alex Milman

2018-02-11 02:01:10 UTC

Post by Rob

Post by SolomonW

Russian "interests" in the Balkans never were clearly formulated but they were not in a contradiction with non-existing German interests. As for the "free hand", Bismark was quite happy to agree to that prior to the war of 1877 - 78 (surprisingly, contrary to the official Russian policy that made such interests subject to the "European accord"): the more Russia would be involved on the Balkans the less would be chances of it interfere where it mattered to Germany.

Post by Rob
But after that they might want Germany to let its exports undercut German farmers.

"Might"? There _was_ a "custom war" over this issue in OTL but it did not result in the spoiled relations. BTW, as I understand, the "hurt side" were not as much the German farmers as the Prussian estate owners (the main grain producers).

So, not such a big problem.

Post by Rob
After that they could want loans on better terms than the French were giving them.

IIRC, the French loans came into the picture as the only available option at that time. So Germany would just to offer the loans before French did. The relevant question is: could it? France was financial superpower but I don't know if the same applied to Germany.

Post by Rob
Eventually they could want dissolution of the Austrian empire.

What could they want "eventually" is anybody's guess but it did not look as a realistic demand in OTL.

Post by Rob
The inevitable result of that last one is an increase in Catholic political power in Germany.

Taking into an account unrealistic nature of such a demand, this danger could be safely ignored. :-)

Post by Rob
Yes, all of this appears to be absolutely correct.

Actually, none of it appears to be "correct" or realistic. :-)

Post by Rob
1. Does a German-Russian partition of Austria-Hungary trigger a general European war?

Partition of A-H would be EXTREMELY unlikely unless proposed by Germany and why would Germany propose it?

But, ignoring almost complete improbability of such a thing, "general European war" between whom and whom? Russian-German alliance would produce a _land_ military force much superior to any realistic combination of the potential opponents. Which European government would feel suicidal enough to join inevitably lost war for the benefit of A-H?

Alex Milman

2018-01-23 04:08:52 UTC

Post by WolfBear
Did it make more sense for Imperial Germany to ally with Austria-Hungary or to ally with Russia (if it had to choose, that is)?

It did make sense to ally with BOTH, which was what Bismark was trying to achieve. So-called conflict of interests between A-H and Russia was a pure foolishness on BOTH sides and destruction of the Alliance of 3 Emperors required "contribution" of WII as well.

As for the "pros" and "contras" you listed, as I understand that they are all based upon a premise that the war was inevitable. If anything, alliance with Russia would make war almost unrealistic. Junior vs senior alliance member is also a grey area: I'm anything but sure that after 1870 Russia considered Germany as a lesser power.

WolfBear

2018-02-11 00:27:01 UTC

Post by WolfBear
Did it make more sense for Imperial Germany to ally with Austria-Hungary or to ally with Russia (if it had to choose, that is)?

Yes, Bismarck tried allying with both, but even he made some mistakes--such as by ordering the Reichsbank to cut off loans to Russia in 1887--thus causing Russia to turn to France for loans starting from 1888. This was two years before the Reinsurance Treaty expired.

Agreed about the Balkans.

Post by Alex Milman
As for the "pros" and "contras" you listed, as I understand that they are all based upon a premise that the war was inevitable. If anything, alliance with Russia would make war almost unrealistic.

Couldn't Germany and Russia eventually try pushing their weight around and try getting Austria-Hungary partitioned, though?

Post by Alex Milman
Junior vs senior alliance member is also a grey area: I'm anything but sure that after 1870 Russia considered Germany as a lesser power.

Russia had much more people than Germany had, though. In turn, this would ensure that, over time, Russia would become the senior partner in any Russian-German alliance.

Alex Milman

2018-02-11 02:45:39 UTC

Post by WolfBear
Did it make more sense for Imperial Germany to ally with Austria-Hungary or to ally with Russia (if it had to choose, that is)?

Russian-German alienation started around 1875 when Alexander II _personally_ demanded that Germany abstained from any attack on France. Situation worsened after the Congress of Berlin: in an interesting twist of logic Russia took offense at the fact that Bismark insisted on the conditions which Russia VOLUNTARILY took upon itself before starting the war of 1877 - 8. The relations kept worsening during the reign of Alexander III with Germany playing more active role on the Balkans. Custom conflicts did not help either (in 1893 there was a "custom war" with both sides sharply raising the custom dues). As for the Reinsurance Treaty, it already was a big step down from the Alliance of Three Emperors and Tripple Alliance (Germany - A-H - Italy) concluded in 1882 made it pretty much pointless. Small wonder that Russia policy was realigned toward France (BTW, it seems that the French loans started in 1877).

Post by WolfBear
Agreed about the Balkans.

Couldn't Germany and Russia eventually try pushing their weight around and try getting Austria-Hungary partitioned, though?

Why would they do that? On its own A-H was pretty much powerless but its breakdown could produce numerous problems without giving too many benefits to the "partitioners".

Germany would end either with the increased Catholic population or with the increased Slavic population (if it annexes Czechia) so what's the stimulus?

Russia may get Galicia but besides potential gains this would increase Polish population and create "Jewish problem": unlike Russian Empire where the Jews could not own the land, there were numerous big and small Jewish landowners in Galicia. Of course this did not prevent Tsarist government from considering annexation of the region during the WWI but still leaves a question about the German interests.

The rest is more interesting: what about other components of A-H? Would they end up as the independent states along the OTL post-WWI lines but with some adjustments for the historic traditions vs. ethnicity? Hungary ends with Slovakia and Transylvania but what about Serbia? After WWI it was "compensated" with the additional lands including those that did not belong to it historically, like Croatia. Why would it get such a present in ATL? Croatia either goes to Hungary (based on historic union) or ends up as independent state. What about the rest of today's Balkan states? Most of them did not have an independent history for many centuries. What will comprise ATL Czechia (if it ends up as an independent state)? Would Austria survive as a state with the borders close to OTL or became a German (Catholic) province? What about Tirol?

Post by Alex Milman
Junior vs senior alliance member is also a grey area: I'm anything but sure that after 1870 Russia considered Germany as a lesser power.

Russia had much more people than Germany had, though. In turn, this would ensure that, over time, Russia would become the senior partner in any Russian-German alliance.

Well, based strictly on that principle China would be a senior partner in any coalition. :-)

Seriously, why should there be a clear senior/junior partner? Who was senior in the Franco-Russian alliance?

WolfBear

2018-02-17 23:40:53 UTC

Post by WolfBear
Did it make more sense for Imperial Germany to ally with Austria-Hungary or to ally with Russia (if it had to choose, that is)?

Thanks for all of this information.

Post by WolfBear
Agreed about the Balkans.

Couldn't Germany and Russia eventually try pushing their weight around and try getting Austria-Hungary partitioned, though?

Why would they do that? On its own A-H was pretty much powerless but its breakdown could produce numerous problems without giving too many benefits to the "partitioners".

That depends on what one considers to be benefits. For instance, German Kaiser Wilhelm II could hypothetically become a Pan-German nationalist and believe that all ethnic German-majority areas should become part of Germany (even at the cost of increasing Catholic political power in Germany).

Post by Alex Milman
Germany would end either with the increased Catholic population or with the increased Slavic population (if it annexes Czechia) so what's the stimulus?

As I wrote above, if Kaiser Wilhelm II has a personality change, an increased Catholic population might not necessarily be perceived as being a bad thing. (Indeed, Adolf Hitler had no problem in strengthening Germany by annexing Catholic-majority areas in our TL.)

As for Czechia, the Slavic population in Germany would increase by less than 10% if Germany were to annex it. Indeed, it doesn't seem like that much of a demographic problem to me.

Post by Alex Milman
Russia may get Galicia but besides potential gains this would increase Polish population and create "Jewish problem": unlike Russian Empire where the Jews could not own the land, there were numerous big and small Jewish landowners in Galicia. Of course this did not prevent Tsarist government from considering annexation of the region during the WWI but still leaves a question about the German interests.

Out of curiosity--could the Russian Empire simply strip the Galician Jews of their lands? I mean, it would certainly be an extremely atrocious thing to do, but Tsarist Russia generally didn't have a habit of treating its Jews well.

Post by Alex Milman
The rest is more interesting: what about other components of A-H? Would they end up as the independent states along the OTL post-WWI lines but with some adjustments for the historic traditions vs. ethnicity?

Yes, pretty much.

Post by Alex Milman
Hungary ends with Slovakia

Wouldn't Russia want to directly annex Slovakia? After all, if Germany gets Czechia, a Czechoslovak state is impossible to make and thus the next best thing seems like a direct Russian annexation of Slovakia, no?

Post by Alex Milman
and Transylvania

Wouldn't Romania want Transylvania for itself, though?

Post by Alex Milman
but what about Serbia? After WWI it was "compensated" with the additional lands including those that did not belong to it historically, like Croatia. Why would it get such a present in ATL? Croatia either goes to Hungary (based on historic union) or ends up as independent state.

Did the Croats actually want independence during this time, though? Indeed, it seems more likely for Russia to agree to a German annexation of Czechia in exchange for giving Slovakia to Russia and Bosnia + Croatia + Slovenia to Serbia.

Post by Alex Milman
What about the rest of today's Balkan states? Most of them did not have an independent history for many centuries.

What happens to Albania, Greece, and Bulgaria would depend on whether or not the Balkan Wars still take place in this TL.

Post by Alex Milman
What will comprise ATL Czechia (if it ends up as an independent state)?

Presumably the borders of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in our TL. Basically, Germany keeps the Sudetenland but the Czech-majority areas become independent.

That said, though, Germany might decide to directly annex all of Czechia in this TL since I am unsure how viable a Czech state without the Sudetenland is going to be.

Post by Alex Milman
Would Austria survive as a state with the borders close to OTL or became a German (Catholic) province?

No, Austria gets annexed by Germany in this TL.

Post by Alex Milman
What about Tirol?

It presumably gets divided based on ethnic lines. Italy gets the Italian-majority and Ladin-majority areas while Germany gets the German-majority areas.

Also, in regards to Slovenia and Istria, here is another suggestion--Germany could annex Slovenia (including Trieste, due to its importance as an Adriatic port) while Serbia only annexes Bosnia and Croatia.

Post by Alex Milman
Junior vs senior alliance member is also a grey area: I'm anything but sure that after 1870 Russia considered Germany as a lesser power.

Russia had much more people than Germany had, though. In turn, this would ensure that, over time, Russia would become the senior partner in any Russian-German alliance.

Well, based strictly on that principle China would be a senior partner in any coalition. :-)

Oh, absolutely.

Post by Alex Milman
Seriously, why should there be a clear senior/junior partner? Who was senior in the Franco-Russian alliance?

I don't know in 1894, but Russia was clearly the senior partner by 1917.

Alex Milman

2018-02-18 19:20:19 UTC

Post by WolfBear
Did it make more sense for Imperial Germany to ally with Austria-Hungary or to ally with Russia (if it had to choose, that is)?

Thanks for all of this information.

Post by WolfBear
Agreed about the Balkans.

Couldn't Germany and Russia eventually try pushing their weight around and try getting Austria-Hungary partitioned, though?

Why would they do that? On its own A-H was pretty much powerless but its breakdown could produce numerous problems without giving too many benefits to the "partitioners".

This is also within a realm of a possibility (as far as the framework stays) but I was thinking not only about the religious part of the equation but rather of a potential unwillingness (at that time) of the Austrians to became subjects of the German Empire. Military conquest is one thing but incorporation of a big territory into your state is a different issue. Not impossible but problems vs. advantages is an open question.

Post by Alex Milman
Germany would end either with the increased Catholic population or with the increased Slavic population (if it annexes Czechia) so what's the stimulus?

This was a different time and a different political situation.

Post by WolfBear
As for Czechia, the Slavic population in Germany would increase by less than 10% if Germany were to annex it. Indeed, it doesn't seem like that much of a demographic problem to me.

But why bother at all? Where is the gain? Germany is already European super-power.

Out of curiosity--could the Russian Empire simply strip the Galician Jews of their lands?

Just for fun of it?

Post by WolfBear
I mean, it would certainly be an extremely atrocious thing to do, but Tsarist Russia generally didn't have a habit of treating its Jews well.

The Hell is in the details. Most of the restrictions did not apply to the Jews who were _officially_ rich (aka, belonged to one of the merchant "guilds) or had a high education (there were some other categories but I simply don't remember all the details). Now, a rich landowner IS rich so it is not such a big deal to adjust the rules a little bit to accommodate this category.

Keep in mind that when conversation is about the Jews in Russian Empire, most of the oppression was at the bottom level and the trick was not as much in the Pale itself, which was of a size of a decent European state (Loading Image...

), but in the difficulties of movement even within the Pale. For travelling within the country, any subject of the Russian Empire needed (at least in theory) an identity certificate signed by the local authorities. In the most densely populated (by the Jews) parts of the Pale these authorities had been closely associated with the religious ones and we are talking about the most conservative branch of Judaism which did not appreciate any "innovations" (see memoirs of general Grulev who managed to get out of that environment and described it in great details). Even the state-sponsored Russian schools (as an addition to the religious ones) had been facing a negative attitude and the same goes for those who was trying to get out of his village (and out of control of the religious leaders). So, both Tsarist administration and the local "powers" had been working hand-by-hand to the same effect.

OTOH, in the less conservative areas (most of Ukraine and Moldavia) the Jews had been much more active in the broader business and social activities (all the way to the Jewish "mafia" in Odessa :-)).

Yes, pretty much.

Post by Alex Milman
Hungary ends with Slovakia

Wouldn't Russia want to directly annex Slovakia?

How would I know? :-)

Post by WolfBear
After all, if Germany gets Czechia, a Czechoslovak state is impossible

It was a monstrosity with no historic background and a minimal (AFAIK) cultural or economic link between the 2 parts. Historically, Slovakia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary so it would fit into "historic" category.

Post by WolfBear
to make and thus the next best thing seems like a direct Russian annexation of Slovakia, no?

What's the gain? Just to have more Slavs, even if they were speaking the different language?

Post by Alex Milman
and Transylvania

Wouldn't Romania want Transylvania for itself, though?

In OTL Rumania was one of the victors of WWI. In this scenario it is more or less irrelevant so why favor it over Hungary in a clear break to the historic tradition?

Did the Croats actually want independence during this time, though?

AFAIK, historically they tended to dislike the Hungarians and fought against them on Hapsburg side at every opportunity. What would they want in this ATL is anybody's guess but there are 4 options: (a) leave Croatia in Austria, (b) make it independent, (c) make it a part of Hungary, (d) make it a part of the expanded Serbia (regardless different religion and culture).

Post by WolfBear
Indeed, it seems more likely for Russia to agree to a German annexation of Czechia in exchange for giving Slovakia to Russia and Bosnia + Croatia + Slovenia to Serbia.

As I said, I don't see any advantages for the Russian Empire in getting Slovakia (I may be missing something) but there could be general problems with the creation of expanded Serbia: being on the Southern flank of the expanded German Empire it may become a dangerous troublemaker (especially if it is getting too close to Russia politically) and who needed these problems?

Post by Alex Milman
What about the rest of today's Balkan states? Most of them did not have an independent history for many centuries.

What happens to Albania, Greece, and Bulgaria would depend on whether or not the Balkan Wars still take place in this TL.

Post by Alex Milman
What will comprise ATL Czechia (if it ends up as an independent state)?

Presumably the borders of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in our TL. Basically, Germany keeps the Sudetenland but the Czech-majority areas become independent.

But wouldn't it be pretty much surrounded by German Empire?

Post by WolfBear
That said, though, Germany might decide to directly annex all of Czechia in this TL since I am unsure how viable a Czech state without the Sudetenland is going to be.

Post by Alex Milman
Would Austria survive as a state with the borders close to OTL or became a German (Catholic) province?

No, Austria gets annexed by Germany in this TL.

Post by Alex Milman
What about Tirol?

It presumably gets divided based on ethnic lines. Italy gets the Italian-majority and Ladin-majority areas while Germany gets the German-majority areas.
Also, in regards to Slovenia and Istria, here is another suggestion--Germany could annex Slovenia (including Trieste, due to its importance as an Adriatic port) while Serbia only annexes Bosnia and Croatia.

Germany stretching "from sea to shining sea"... Britain is definitely getting hysterical. :-)

Post by Alex Milman
Junior vs senior alliance member is also a grey area: I'm anything but sure that after 1870 Russia considered Germany as a lesser power.

Russia had much more people than Germany had, though. In turn, this would ensure that, over time, Russia would become the senior partner in any Russian-German alliance.

Well, based strictly on that principle China would be a senior partner in any coalition. :-)

Oh, absolutely.

Post by Alex Milman
Seriously, why should there be a clear senior/junior partner? Who was senior in the Franco-Russian alliance?

I don't know in 1894, but Russia was clearly the senior partner by 1917.

I have serious doubts on that account: in OTL it was quite accommodating to the French strategic plans and too dependent upon the French and British imports.

The Horny Goat

2018-02-19 01:13:35 UTC

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:20:19 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
In OTL Rumania was one of the victors of WWI. In this scenario it is more or less irrelevant so why favor it over Hungary in a clear break to the historic tradition?

Well in OTL's historical settlement not only had Rumania been part of
the Allies but even more importantly since the war had crushed the
Bela Kun regime which earned them a LOT of support from the Allies.

Realistically Rumania would have been a danger to pretty much any
Hungarian regime which claimed Transylvania no matter what political
stripe.

WolfBear

2018-02-21 00:09:35 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:20:19 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
In OTL Rumania was one of the victors of WWI. In this scenario it is more or less irrelevant so why favor it over Hungary in a clear break to the historic tradition?

Well in OTL's historical settlement not only had Rumania been part of
the Allies but even more importantly since the war had crushed the
Bela Kun regime which earned them a LOT of support from the Allies.
Realistically Rumania would have been a danger to pretty much any
Hungarian regime which claimed Transylvania no matter what political
stripe.

Completely agreed. Plus, Romania would almost certainly want to participate in any Russo-German coalition which breaks up Austria-Hungary.

a***@gmail.com

2018-03-17 13:10:19 UTC