Russian Revolution Comes Early

Let's assume that one of the droughts which periodically afflicts Russian agriculture begins in 1915, causing major crop failures and famine (we'll assume that this is localized to Russia and Ukraine, and doesn't affect the rest of Europe too much). By the spring of 1916, peasant revolts in the afflicted areas have required significant numbers of Russian troops to be re-deployed out of the front lines to put them down. This allows the Germans and Austrians to resume their successful offensives of the previous year, pushing the Russians completely out of Poland and into Russia itself. Romania, seeing Russia teetering on the brink of collapse, joins the Central Powers and invades Russia as well in July 1916.

The drought continues as the summer of 1916 drags on, and once again, the crops fail. There are more revolts, not only by the rural peasants but in the cities as well. The Tsar orders his soldiers to put them down, but now, the soldiers refuse to fire on the peasants and workers. A mob of workers and soldiers marches on the imperial palaces in St. Petersburg, and the Tsar barely escapes with his family. As per OTL, they are captured by soldiers outside the city and forced to abdicate in September 1916.

The Russian armies, with the political situation behind them collapsing, melt away, and the Germans, Austrians, and Romanians advance deep into the Ukraine, occupying most of it by the time the snows come in November 1916.

A Provisional Government under Alexander Kerensky doesn't even consider attempting to continue the war, and sues for peace on December 1, 1916. The Treaty of Kiev is signed on Christmas Day, 1916, with terms similar to the OTL Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Now, the Germans and Austrians can redeploy the bulk of their forces to the west in the spring of 1917, giving them the ability to launch major offensives there a year earlier than in OTL.

What are the effects of all this?

=robertp6165;5035592]What are the effects of all this?

Click to expand...

Pretty clearly the CPs win. Britain may salvage ahalfway tolerablle peace for hersrelf, but her allies (bar Japan) are toast.

Er, too many problems with this scenario.

1) Falkenhayn is in charge of the German army if we're assuming all remains equal in the high commands of the Central Powers. He never really wanted war in the East very much and arguably was a better strategist than H&L were. Without the troops alotted to the Verdun offensive Germany does not have the logistical power to go joyriding into Russia.

2) Russia did starve throughout the war, this didn't matter until the German armies were clearly unstoppable and approaching well up close to Leningrad, and the rise of antiwar sentiment had as much to do with Kaiserreich financing of antiwar movements as it did with defeats of Russian armies.

3) Brest-Litovsk was not the initial German model for a peace treaty, and if this does happen Falkenhayn will go for a peace with indemnities but no border changes, and he'll retain command and enjoy sending H&L to beat up Italy.

Snake Featherston said:

Er, too many problems with this scenario.

1) Falkenhayn is in charge of the German army if we're assuming all remains equal in the high commands of the Central Powers. He never really wanted war in the East very much and arguably was a better strategist than H&L were. Without the troops alotted to the Verdun offensive Germany does not have the logistical power to go joyriding into Russia.

Click to expand...

Well, we can add into the scenario that a strategic decision is made to concentrate on Russia, which was clearly weaker than France given the disasters it suffered in 1915...and hold the line in France during 1916, so Verdun doesn't happen.

Snake Featherston said:

2) Russia did starve throughout the war, this didn't matter until the German armies were clearly unstoppable and approaching well up close to Leningrad, and the rise of antiwar sentiment had as much to do with Kaiserreich financing of antiwar movements as it did with defeats of Russian armies.

Click to expand...

In OTL, the CITIES experienced food shortages during the war. The crops didn't fail, and such shortages in the cities were largely as a result of inability to transport the food to the cities (the peasants in the countryside didn't experience much in the way of shortages until the famine of 1920-21).

However, in this scenario, the situation is much worse. The crops DO fail, and there are not only food shortages, but actual famine in both the cities and the countryside.

Snake Featherston said:

3) Brest-Litovsk was not the initial German model for a peace treaty, and if this does happen Falkenhayn will go for a peace with indemnities but no border changes, and he'll retain command and enjoy sending H&L to beat up Italy.

Click to expand...

Well, the form of the peace treaty with Russia isn't all that important to scenario. What's important is that the revolution happens and Russia is out of the war a year early.

BTW, I like the idea about beating up Italy. That might well be the smartest use of the troops released by the collapse of Russia...knock Italy out of the war in 1917, and you've got at least a million more troops for the final push against France in the Spring of 1918...

robertp6165 said:

Well, we can add into the scenario that a strategic decision is made to concentrate on Russia, which was clearly weaker than France given the disasters it suffered in 1915...and hold the line in France during 1916, so Verdun doesn't happen.

Click to expand...

If Falkenhayn is general-in-chief that's a no-go. He was focused and rightly so on the Western Front, not on the Eastern, and he refused this kind of concentration until Brusilov wiped out the Austro-Hungarian army. This was despite the overwhelming victory in the Battle of Lake Naroch. Russia was also not necessarily more weak than France, at Premyzl it had won one of the biggest victories its armies would win during the war shortly before Gorlice-Tarnow started.

robertp6165 said:

In OTL, the CITIES experienced food shortages during the war. The crops didn't fail, and such shortages in the cities were largely as a result of inability to transport the food to the cities (the peasants in the countryside didn't experience much in the way of shortages until the famine of 1920-21).

However, in this scenario, the situation is much worse. The crops DO fail, and there are not only food shortages, but actual famine in both the cities and the countryside.

Click to expand...

As I recall the famine hardly slowed down the armies in the civil war, and such a famine in Russia from weather conditions is equally likely to affect *Germany* which was starving in 1916 as well.

robertp6165 said:

Well, the form of the peace treaty with Russia isn't all that important to scenario. What's important is that the revolution happens and Russia is out of the war a year early.

BTW, I like the idea about beating up Italy. That might well be the smartest use of the troops released by the collapse of Russia...knock Italy out of the war in 1917, and you've got at least a million more troops for the final push against France in the Spring of 1918...

Click to expand...

A task that was very difficult to do IOTL and any in any ATL that would pursue it requires Falkenhayn to not be in charge, which would require PODs back in 1914 that probably change the whole shape of the war in 1915.

robertp6165 said:

Let's assume that one of the droughts which periodically afflicts Russian agriculture begins in 1915, causing major crop failures and famine (we'll assume that this is localized to Russia and Ukraine, and doesn't affect the rest of Europe too much). By the spring of 1916, peasant revolts in the afflicted areas have required significant numbers of Russian troops to be re-deployed out of the front lines to put them down. This allows the Germans and Austrians to resume their successful offensives of the previous year, pushing the Russians completely out of Poland and into Russia itself. Romania, seeing Russia teetering on the brink of collapse, joins the Central Powers and invades Russia as well in July 1916.

Click to expand...

Is all this really necessary?

Even OTL, the Tsarist regime was getting distinctly wobbly by the latter half of 1916. Afaics, it was pretty much on borrowed time after the failure of the Brusilov Offensive, and it's as much luck as anything that it lingered on until March. All that's needed is a strike in Petrograd to get out of hand, for enough troops to go over to the strikers for them to fight off the Cossacks, and the next thing you know the capital is in rebel hands. The whole house of cards could have folded up more or less any time.

If Kerensky takes power in Oct 1916, presumably Lenin et al are back in town by thene nd of Nov, and from there it's all downhill. By sometime in March, the Bolsheviks are in charge and talking peace with Germany. With Russia so visibly folding, Germany has held it's fire on USW, so America isn't coming in. All in all, pretty much a worst casecenario for the Allies.