A three-way land swap between Austria, Prussia/Germany, and Russia?

Apr 2017
1,662
U.S.A.
Well, if Russia would have been feeling nasty, it could have simply expelled all or at least most of the Muslims from northern Anatolia. After all, Russia did engage in the Circassian genocide in the 19th century. Plus, Russia can reach Constantinople by sea.
Russian naval campaigns weren't their strength. Even if they took Constantinople (which would have to have the blessing of the great powers), supplying it by sea would be very difficult. Look at how Russia struggles to supply the crimea now and that's a lot closer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,327
SoCal
Russia was using the façade of protecting orthodox Christians as a pretense to expand into the ottoman empire. This was somewhat curtailed by the Balkan states desire for independence, Russia then changed its goals to making them client states (similar to what happened across the world in the cold war). If Austria blocks their access to the Balkans it won't work as well.
Client states aren't worth shedding Russian blood over, IMHO. I could see a humanitarian case for intervention but not so much a national interests case.

Taking Anatolia to get Constantinople means pretty much taking the heartland of the Ottoman empire, something the rest of Europe wouldn't allow.
Well, they wouldn't allow Russia to acquire Constantinople in any case, so it's not going to make much difference.

Doesn't mean they didn't want to. They naturally wanted Austrian and german territory.
If they did, then this shouldn't be a problem for them considering that expansion in that direction would still be open to Russia if Russia would actually be willing to go to war against A-H and Germany.

Russia may allow Austria to annex Romania but they wouldn't give their own territory away as well. That's too much.
OK. Anyway, acquiring Romania should be enough for Austria. :) I suggested Bessarabia because it would provide a more defensible border for Austria on the Dneister River.

Also, Russia actually did return Persia's north sea coastline back to Persia in the 1730s after previously conquering it from Persia in the 1720s. Thus, there actually was a precedent for Russia giving up its own territory. Plus, there was also the Alaska Purchase in 1867.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,327
SoCal
Russian naval campaigns weren't their strength. Even if they took Constantinople (which would have to have the blessing of the great powers), supplying it by sea would be very difficult. Look at how Russia struggles to supply the crimea now and that's a lot closer.
Is A-H not going to allow Russia to supply Constantinople by land?

Also, in any case, this shouldn't matter too much since Russia is unlikely to actually acquire Constantinople without a Great War and if there's going to be a Great War, Russia is going to have to fight and defeat Austria in any case.
 
Aug 2014
300
New York, USA
Well, if Russia would have been feeling nasty, it could have simply expelled all or at least most of the Muslims from northern Anatolia. After all, Russia did engage in the Circassian genocide in the 19th century. Plus, Russia can reach Constantinople by sea.
That's a completely wrong approach and not how Russians view their geostrategic position. Imagine that land = sea. The largest unified landmass geographically is Eurasia+Africa (the continent division is artificial). Russia is the largest country on this landmass. They do not need a navy to push into Asia, they do not need a navy to push into Europe. They use the great grass sea to go places.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,327
SoCal
That's a completely wrong approach and not how Russians view their geostrategic position. Imagine that land = sea. The largest landmass geographically is Eurasia+Africa (the continent division is artificial). Russia is the largest country on this landmass. They do not need a navy to push into Asia, they do not need a navy to push into Europe. They use the great grass sea to go places.
OK. However, the Russians could force the Turks and/or the Austrians to grant them land passage to Constantinople if they will decisively defeat them in a Great War.
 
Apr 2017
1,662
U.S.A.
Client states aren't worth shedding Russian blood over, IMHO. I could see a humanitarian case for intervention but not so much a national interests case.

Well, they wouldn't allow Russia to acquire Constantinople in any case, so it's not going to make much difference.

If they did, then this shouldn't be a problem for them considering that expansion in that direction would still be open to Russia if Russia would actually be willing to go to war against A-H and Germany.

OK. Anyway, acquiring Romania should be enough for Austria. :) I suggested Bessarabia because it would provide a more defensible border for Austria on the Dneister River.

Also, Russia actually did return Persia's north sea coastline back to Persia in the 1730s after previously conquering it from Persia in the 1720s. Thus, there actually was a precedent for Russia giving up its own territory. Plus, there was also the Alaska Purchase in 1867.
The Soviet Union shed blood to dominate eastern Europe. No one said that wasn't worth it.
Russia would be hesitant to cede territory to a future rival, even if they planned to take it from them in the future. It would strengthen them short term.
Russia returned Persia's coastline because it was indefensible and sold Alaska because they were broke after the Crimean war. At the time they thought it was worthless, something they regretted later.
Russia wouldn't want to be dependent on another power to supply its territory, especially a future rival.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,327
SoCal
The Soviet Union shed blood to dominate eastern Europe. No one said that wasn't worth it.
That was only after it was attacked by Nazi Germany, though.

Russia would be hesitant to cede territory to a future rival, even if they planned to take it from them in the future. It would strengthen them short term.
What about giving Austria most of Romania but not Dobruja?

Russia returned Persia's coastline because it was indefensible and sold Alaska because they were broke after the Crimean war. At the time they thought it was worthless, something they regretted later.
OK.

Russia wouldn't want to be dependent on another power to supply its territory, especially a future rival.
So, why not give Austria most of Romania but not Dobruja?
 
Apr 2017
1,662
U.S.A.
That was only after it was attacked by Nazi Germany, though.

What about giving Austria most of Romania but not Dobruja?

OK.

So, why not give Austria most of Romania but not Dobruja?
They continued to shed blood putting down rebellions and don't forget the biggest one, Afghanistan.
Assuming Dobruja went to Russia, that's a very narrow land connection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Aug 2014
300
New York, USA
That was only after it was attacked by Nazi Germany, though.



What about giving Austria most of Romania but not Dobruja?



OK.



So, why not give Austria most of Romania but not Dobruja?
If Russian ultimate goal is to take Constantinople, they should be negotiating with the British and French. Making concessions to Austrians, who ultimately have no say in the matter anyway, wouldn't be a good policy. Russians did not view Austrians as a 'great power' to make concessions to.

Its like in modern day, if they wanted to take Korea for whatever reason, they would negotiate between China and US and not Japan...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist