Differences in WW1 aftermath due to the Red victory?

[diegosimeone]

This is the time period that pretty much solidified the modern world's border line. Many things could have gone differently if the Reds didn't win or let alone, never existed in the first place, at least as a formidable force, so it'd be just a brief historical hiccup in Russia's history.

I'm not hugely aware what Russia's military situation during this period was, but I do know that they were involved in wars against the Germans-Austrians-Bulgarians around Salonica in a combined effort to push them off of Serbia, while they also had a Caucasus front vs the Ottomans that was going quite well. And of course they were defending their lands against the Central Powers, something that started off badly iirc but they were winning their latest important battles, pushin the Central Powers further back.

I also know that during the Turkish War of Independence, while the Entente was growing weary of the Greek political ping pong sitation, to the extent that the Italians were backing both sides at one point, that the Red Soviet Army was funding and moving weapons to the Ottomans/Young Turks, something that a non-Communist Russia would never have done. In fact, Russia would probably be leading the war against the Turks in 1920 and be heavily involved in a second front from the east, something that Venizelos of Greece was hoping for even without the Russians. It was such a complex period that even many Armenians joined the Turkish side in that war - falsely believing that the new state would not have been a Turkish nation but simply a continuation of the Ottoman empire - because they wanted to avoid being under Soviet control, among other reasons. Several supported a Soviet Armenia as they felt that under the Russians they'd be more secure.

Additionally, I'm not entirely sure what their plan for Germany was, but with Russia effectively out of the Versailles Treaty and signing a seperate treaty with the Central Powers meant that the Russians would lose many important claims they had in Europe. The Soviets also gave up the Ukraine which was probably the most important grain and coal production of the Russian Empire back then.

This of course had an importance in Germany's ability to focus on the western front with France as well, but I don't think that there's any scenario where Russia remaining involved and without a massive civil war it lost where the Central Powers win it.

So the main questions here are:
1) How would Eastern Europe and Russia look like, if Russia remained on the war and on the victor's side?
2) Would the Treaty of Versailles be more hostile towards Germany? Perhaps demanding a partition?
3) What would happen to the Ottoman/Turkish front?
4) Would this be the catalyst to avoid WW2 from happening, at least in the day it happened?

Feel free to correct or add any situations that I have omitted.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I cant see Russia giving up Poland if it is on the winning side. Propably demanding all German/Austrian former Polish territories.

On the other side a non revolution Russia might not be interested in dismantling the German monarchy.

Another thing Imperial Russia always wanted is Constantinople and if thats denied to a victorious Russia I can see them going the route of Italy moving slowly to a pro German policy in the 30s.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[diegosimeone]

There would also be a potential conflict between the British and the Russians. The British historically sided with anyone else (usually Ottomans) that wanted to restrict Russian access to the Mediterranean. So being their allies and handing them Constnatinople/Asia Minor would have been a big no no for British Foreign Policy. They'd potentially agree to split it between Greece and Italy, while giving Russia special access and special administration rights, but not sovereigncy.

I also wonder how Armenia would look and if Kurdistan would form. The Middle East would also look vastly different with the Russians being interested there this time.

The Treaty of Sevres would probably be enforced for good, but here is why I think the British might have been catalytical. It feels like the Italians and the British would back the Turks here over the Russians, but they wouldn't really act on it publicly. Perhaps they'd be the ones giving weapons and money to the Turks instead of the Soviets in this timeline as they would really really not want Russia or a satelite state of theirs to take over the entire coast, even if that sounds like a big stretch. The Italians were doing it already, so why not the British as well? The Russians would definitely find out and be massively pissed about it for sure, but would they go to war?

Neither side really would want to go to war right after WW1 of course and with the USA emerging with Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations, diplomacy could prevail.

 

[Henry IX]

It depends a whole lot on your assumptions about how Russia remains in the war. But here is my possible scenario:

Kerensky declines to mount a major offensive in 1917, concentrating on rebuilding the Russian army and restoring some measure of discipline to the soldiers. As a result there are reliable military units available to crush any Bolshevik uprisings. Kerensky may be able to hold onto power or the army may overthrow him, either way Russia is able to man and defend its front line and it remains in the war, causing a German collapse earlier than before. Russian government is some form of semi- or quasi- democratic parliamentary system dominated by the military.

The key Russian aims at the beginning of the war were to increase its control over the Slavic peoples, dismember the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Balkans and gain control over the Dardanelles and trade into the Black Sea. It would be likely to gain most of these in the chaos of the collapse of the A-H Empire. The only area they would be likely to be stymied is in control over Constantinople, where the British are likely to oppose Russian ambitions to the last drop of Turkish and/or Greek blood. I would guess some form of client state/ dependency too weak to oppose Russian wishes is the most likely compromise, with Turkey being confined to Asia Minor.

In Eastern Europe Germany would likely lose its Polish territories, as would Austria. The Russians would be likely to oppose the Wilson's doctrines of self determination would be firmly opposed by the Russians, who I would guess would back the French, leading to treaty that is even more punitive than OTLs Versailles. I think partition is unlikely, but massive reparations payments to Russia as well as France and Britain are likely.

The 20th century would be unrecognisable, with a completely different WW2 if one even happens.

 

[Herbert West]

The Treaty of Sevres would probably be enforced for good

I cannot see this happening. An exhausted Turkey managed to militarily overturn it OTL. Add in the squabbling between the allies and Russia vis-a-vis the Dardanelles, and there is no way in hell that Sevres gets enforced.

 

[diegosimeone]

I cannot see this happening. An exhausted Turkey managed to militarily overturn it OTL. Add in the squabbling between the allies and Russia vis-a-vis the Dardanelles, and there is no way in hell that Sevres gets enforced.

Maybe not the actual treaty, but an equally or even more harsh on the Ottomans?

It's not like either party wanted them to exist and have a hold in Europe. The only issue is whether the Russians and the British would argue and even go to war with each other over the Dardanelles/Constantinople.
I'm guessing, depending on who was the Greek leader, the British could influence them into wanting to take the land for themselves and oppose Russian ambitions there, but that wasn't a very significant force to worry them. It'd only give the British a platform to operate from in a potential conflict that would look very much like the Russian Civil War. Reds vs Whites vs Greens vs anyone else. Not a dual conflict, but British+Greece vs Russia, both of them vs Ottomans/Turks and then you'd have the Kurdish and Armenians who could potentially align themselves with one of the two, or France/Italy who would probably idly wait and sit there.

But I cannot fathom a situation where the Ottomans are not cut into pieces if the Entente prevails with a Russian victor on the table. They indeed managed to overturn the Sevres but that was with Russian/Soviet help, which not only won't exist here but would work against them and at an additional front, while the other allies would be more invested in the conflict now that Russia could swarm in and take over most of modern day Turkey. If anything, Turkey could very well be another case of the Balkans with various states popping out over the decades if their nationalistic movement fails.

 

[pithorr]

In Eastern Europe Germany would likely lose its Polish territories, as would Austria. The Russians would be likely to oppose the Wilson's doctrines of self determination would be firmly opposed by the Russians, who I would guess would back the French, leading to treaty that is even more punitive than OTLs Versailles. I think partition is unlikely, but massive reparations payments to Russia as well as France and Britain are likely.

It's not certain actually. Poland began to fight the Reds when the formidable forces of the Whites were still in action. Occasionally they even coordinated their moves with Denikin, however later Piłsudski decided rather to let the Russians bleed out themselves. He prefered the Bolsheviks to win, just to have Russia as extremely weakened and isolated neighbour. So, the potentially victorious Whites would have to clash with the already organised Polish forces, like the Reds did IRL. Everything depends on the condition of the Whites in this case. The Reds didn't make it, but we have to bear in mind that Poland got substantial French support in that war, what could not happen in case of the war with the Whites.

 

[Jopa79]

My comment concerns about the Northern Europe, mostly Finland. The Red victory in the aftermath of WW1 enabled Pro-independence movements in Finland, Poland and in the Baltic States and eventually creation of independence in all of these nations.

Ruining the Russian Monarchy and the Russian turmoil was the permit for the Finnish Declaration of Independence in 1917. Lenin was nearly out of options due the complexity situation in Soviet-Russia and 'allowed' this to happen and recognized the Finnish Independence. But Lenin had another view behind his promise. Believing the Global Red Revolution Lenin also thought the Finnish Workers' Socialistic Republic would soon join back to the Soviet Union. However, it happened otherwise - no Global Revolution and the result of the Finnish Civil War in 1918 carried Finland under German influence but still remaining its independence.

But what if the Russian Monarchy had remained? At least the Quest for Independence considering all of these nations (Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) would have been much harder to complete. The two eras of Russification in Finland (1899-1905 and 1908-1917) were Russian attempts for a significant decrease of autonomy in the Grand Duchy of Finland and these two eras as well were the reasons for the Finnish National Ideology, the Finnish National Enthusiasm and the pursuit for the Independence. The Finnish uprising for independence was highly-like to happen, even if the Russian Monarchy remained, would the uprising achieved the objective, no-easy to answer.

Russian Monarchy would have been much stronger if it was a winning country in WW I and without the historical aftermath. A single nation's run for independence would have been suppressed, probably. But if the minors would have formed an alignment with a simultaneous uprising it would have been harder to resist. And if it was in the interests and in the intentions of other major European Powers, they might have intervened in this new theater of war.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Which would give even more room for a Russian/German reconcilement.

 

[Grosshaus]

In my opinion the best chance of Russia walking away from WW1 on the winning side would indeed require no Kerensky offensive in 1917. I don't see that shortening the war at all, since no quick victory in East would not persuade Germans to mount their final and fatal offensive in 1918. Instead we would have seen buildup of American forces during 1918 and Entente breaking through the Western Front in spring 1919. By then there would have been communist and nationalist uprising all around Russia, but without using up all resources and motivation in 1917 the state could barely survive.

I don't see how Russia could have advanced to pre-war borders, but at the end of the war German troops would still occupy at least Poland. Most likely areas also elsewhere. Strong nationalist revolts supported by weaponry taken from or given by Germans in Poland, Finland, Baltics and Ukraine were likely. It would have taken all Russian attention to manage those. Alternatively, although very unlikely, a formation of an actual democracy with Duma taking control over the army and proper representation and protection for the national minorities. Although surely there would have been will to carve up large portions of Ottoman Empire, it wouldn't have been possible against strong opposition backed by UK or France. So Armenia for sure, naval access and bases quite likely, potentially some sort of free state of Istanbul but no annexation of Istanbul or Turkey.

Nominally Czar of Russia was simultaneously Czar of Poland instead of Poland being part of Russia. Should Russia manage to overcome Polish revolt, could they have used this? Meaning carve up a larger Poland from Germany and Austria that would have limited autonomy under Russia. Slavic former Austrian states would also receive either high military pressure or strong attempts to achieve close ties diplomatically by Russia.

 

[Ming]

Seems Britain and France agreed to Russian control of Istanbul even before Sykes Picot. Sure perfidious Albion is perfidious and after the German empire is dismantled the reasons for Anglo Russian cooperation thin out rapidly, but reneging on this would turn Russia into a jilted enemy. Russia will have a lot of things on their plate in the post war aftermath and might not be able to do anything in the immediate, but it's a serious betrayal with long term diplomatic consequences.

I'm having trouble thinking of something similar the allies did. Short changing Italy doesnt quite cut it. Selling Ethiopia / Czechoslovakia / Poland down the river doesn't compare.


WW2 Axis is an alliance between Italy, Russia, and Japan.

 

[Barsoom]

Seems Britain and France agreed to Russian control of Istanbul even before Sykes Picot. Sure perfidious Albion is perfidious and after the German empire is dismantled the reasons for Anglo Russian cooperation thin out rapidly, but reneging on this would turn Russia into a jilted enemy. Russia will have a lot of things on their plate in the post war aftermath and might not be able to do anything in the immediate, but it's a serious betrayal with long term diplomatic consequences.

I'm having trouble thinking of something similar the allies did. Short changing Italy doesnt quite cut it. Selling Ethiopia / Czechoslovakia / Poland down the river doesn't compare.


WW2 Axis is an alliance between Italy, Russia, and Japan.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Sykes-Picot was negotiated between France and Britain with Russia overseeing. It was signed before the Russians pulled out of the war. It was understood by the negotiators that Russia would gain its own sphere of influence in eastern Turkey and control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles. As far as I know there was no agreement on satellite states, so I assume it was up to Russia whether or not to create Armenia as a puppet state.

As for your prediction, it would be a likely outcome if Britain reneged on the Turkey deal and shortchanged Russia elsewhere. If that doesn't happen, I don't see Russia engaging in aggressive foreign policy. With the Turkey deal it would gain a long-standing goal which it would have trouble to maintain. It would also struggle to contain internal discontent. Without the wartime chaos there is IMO little chance of Russian revolution, at least in the form it took in our timeline. But a backlash against Kerensky or one against the Tsar are both possibilities and internal strife virtually guaranteed. Add restless national minorities (Poles, Finns, etc.) into the mix and the result is an empire preoccupied with domestic enemies rather than foreign ones.

 

[fr-rein]

1. Russia would capitulate or, at best, be at the situation similar to Italy after WWI. Make no mistake, major offensive failed not because it was bad, it failed because Army was not willing to fight anymore for the causes unknown or "emperor fights his cousin because his cousin started a war because his nephew was killed by some Serbs" which is not that appealing cause in mind of mobilized impoverished serfs. Like in Italy, even if Army stayed still, it would fall from German offensive most likely - just less easily.
2. As Russia would be at best in position of Italy (or worse), it would be negotiating with Germany against Poland... so actually chances are that Germany would even lose somewhat less while Russia would try to contain Poland and force it to be a part of it - all to keep Poland weak. As well as Baltics and all other potential minorities which would demand rights like Poland had before WWI.
3. Most likely Armenia would be bigger. Turkey and Greece would still fight, but Armenia at least would have Ararat and sea access most likely. Russian army wouldn't be the thing enforcing Armenia's borders, but not attacking Russia could keep their diplomatic support. Perhaps Pontus could survive as well.
4. Of course not. Eastern Europe would still undergo revolutions, civil wars, conflicts and such.

The Soviets also gave up the Ukraine which was probably the most important grain and coal production of the Russian Empire back then.

Russia stopped effectively controlling it even before as Ukraine People's Republic took ground even before German army came here. Politically influence of center detioriated very quickly, Army disintegrated and because many Republicans were also socialists they had much higher authority and trust locally. Similar things apply to a number of other self-proclaimed republics - their only real contenders were Bolsheviks. White Army ideas were way less popular, especially because they failed to solve land question (giving nobles land to peasants) and others.

 

[Henry IX]

It's not certain actually. Poland began to fight the Reds when the formidable forces of the Whites were still in action. Occasionally they even coordinated their moves with Denikin, however later Piłsudski decided rather to let the Russians bleed out themselves. He prefered the Bolsheviks to win, just to have Russia as extremely weakened and isolated neighbour. So, the potentially victorious Whites would have to clash with the already organised Polish forces, like the Reds did IRL. Everything depends on the condition of the Whites in this case. The Reds didn't make it, but we have to bear in mind that Poland got substantial French support in that war, what could not happen in case of the war with the Whites.

If it got to the point of a full blown civil war like OTL then I think you are correct. If the provisional government had managed to hold the country together then the Poles are not fighting as one side in a multi-factional civil war but rather as a single combatant against a major power. Unless there is a major simultaneous uprising by a large number of minorities the Russians are likely to maintain control in the short and medium term.

 

[pithorr]

If it got to the point of a full blown civil war like OTL then I think you are correct. If the provisional government had managed to hold the country together then the Poles are not fighting as one side in a multi-factional civil war but rather as a single combatant against a major power. Unless there is a major simultaneous uprising by a large number of minorities the Russians are likely to maintain control in the short and medium term.

Of course a lot depend's on a certain moment in time, but in case of Kerensky's gov, you have to bear in mind that the Germans were already standing deep on the soil of Rusian Empire and Krensky would have had to agree for some kind of Brest-Litowsk anyway. It meant Russia leaving Entente, so not so much would have changed actually. And Russia, White or Red, signing separate, unfavourable and humiliating peace with Germany, would have been hardly a major power anymore. I don't think that in 1917 Russian peasant wanted to die in that cursed war any longer and especially to die for Warsaw. Actually the Reds managed to mobilize the people to the extraordinary effort onces again, partially due to social promises, partially to the terror, for sure for the scale not available by the Whites in that moment, what the outcome of the Civil War IRL proved it perfectly...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It depends a whole lot on your assumptions about how Russia remains in the war. But here is my possible scenario:

Kerensky declines to mount a major offensive in 1917, concentrating on rebuilding the Russian army and restoring some measure of discipline to the soldiers. As a result there are reliable military units available to crush any Bolshevik uprisings. Kerensky may be able to hold onto power or the army may overthrow him, either way Russia is able to man and defend its front line and it remains in the war, causing a German collapse earlier than before. Russian government is some form of semi- or quasi- democratic parliamentary system dominated by the military.

The key Russian aims at the beginning of the war were to increase its control over the Slavic peoples, dismember the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Balkans and gain control over the Dardanelles and trade into the Black Sea. It would be likely to gain most of these in the chaos of the collapse of the A-H Empire. The only area they would be likely to be stymied is in control over Constantinople, where the British are likely to oppose Russian ambitions to the last drop of Turkish and/or Greek blood. I would guess some form of client state/ dependency too weak to oppose Russian wishes is the most likely compromise, with Turkey being confined to Asia Minor.

In Eastern Europe Germany would likely lose its Polish territories, as would Austria. The Russians would be likely to oppose the Wilson's doctrines of self determination would be firmly opposed by the Russians, who I would guess would back the French, leading to treaty that is even more punitive than OTLs Versailles. I think partition is unlikely, but massive reparations payments to Russia as well as France and Britain are likely.

The 20th century would be unrecognisable, with a completely different WW2 if one even happens.

How Would Canceling the Russian Revolution Cancel the Possibility of One in Germany?

The German desire for revenge would have been the same. And what if that had made it become Communist if Russia hadn't? The revenge-appeal of the German Communists might be that an internationalist ideology would make them more able to win the new World War II, because they could appeal to the enemy countries' working class to sabotage the Allies' war effort,whereas German nationalism couldn't.

 

[Yakman]

is the base assumption of the timeline change that Kerensky's defenders head off Lenin's initial revolt and the Bolshevik revolution never gets off the ground? Or is it that the White beat the Reds in the Civil War?

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Russia would capitulate or, at best, be at the situation similar to Italy after WWI. Make no mistake, major offensive failed not because it was bad, it failed because Army was not willing to fight anymore for the causes unknown or "emperor fights his cousin because his cousin started a war because his nephew was killed by some Serbs" which is not that appealing cause in mind of mobilized impoverished serfs.

: confused:

Nobody, in all of history, has ever cared about what goes on in the mind of an impoverished serf.

Not even impoverished serfs care.

You fight for your master because he is your master and he told you to. It's about loyalty, not your opinion of the rationality of his cause.

 

[fr-rein]

You fight for your master because he is your master and he told you to. It's about loyalty, not your opinion of the rationality of his cause.

I agree about loyalty.
But at that point there was no loyalty to Emperor in trenches. Army started to rot even before he got deposed.
New (white) governments consisted of same old officers, bureaucrats and nobles. They were no different from old regime and failed to gain loyalty as they failed to address social issues.
All the reasons why Emperor got deposed were still there under Kerensky. How would he gain the loyalty from Army and regain discipline if the mobilized folk, peasants and workers mainly, killed officers or blatantly ignored them? Without solving land issue (and other ones) it would be impossible.
In short, in 1917 there was no loyalty available, not even Bolsheviks had an army to resist German offensive. And one of key reasons why Bolsheviks won was because of them being able to gain loyalty by radical solution of social issues, including land reform.

 

[diegosimeone]

is the base assumption of the timeline change that Kerensky's defenders head off Lenin's initial revolt and the Bolshevik revolution never gets off the ground? Or is it that the White beat the Reds in the Civil War?

Mostly the first one, but either scenario could be argued.