Kerensky Makes Peace in 1917

OTL, after the February Revolution, the Provisional Government of Russia decided to continue participating in WWI, with disastrous results.

What if, instead, they had made peace with Germany in say, April or May? The collapse of the Russian army hasn't occurred yet, so its still a credible fighting force, and Germany has not advanced nearly as deeply into Russian territory as it had when the OTL Brest-Litovsk treaty was negotiated, so I think Russia can probably get a much better deal, in relative terms. I expect the terms of the treaty will be something like:

-Independent Finland, under a German prince. Might, or might not, get Vipurii/Vyborg and some of Karelia

-Some form of Baltic Duchy

-An independent Polish Kingdom

-Kars is returned to the Ottomans

-Guarantees not to interfere with German, Austrian, or Ottoman interests in the Balkans or Mideast

-Fairly stiff reparitions, and generous trade concessions to CP countries

I think this will probably hurt Kerensky's popularity, but not as much as continuing (and loosing) the war ultimately did. With the war having ended, the Communists have lost what was, OTL, their biggest stick to hit the Kerensky government with, and, more importantly, the army is still mostly intact and can be redeployed around Russian cities to keep order and restore the provisional government's authority. (And yes, the army would likely be loyal to Kerensky, if only because the communists are worse). If TTL has a Communist uprising, its probably going to go like the Sparticist Uprising did-quickly put down by the army.

Beyond that, how might the rest of WWI go? Germany can now transfer troops from the east to the west about a year earlier than it could OTL, and it can buy supplies from Russia, including grain, which will mitigate the damage from the British blockade to at least some extent. I think its highly possible we might see a "Fall Offensive" in 1917 on the Western Front, which could knock the French out of the war before large numbers of Americans arrive.
 

Stonewall

Banned
Interesting idea. I am not fully versed on the situation of the time, but I believe that even so a large-scale Communist uprising would take place, and while it would likely be put down it would still be a long and bloody affair. I also doubt Russia would be so willing to trade with Germany immediately after the end of the war, and Germany would still likely lose the war in the long run.
 
-Independent Finland, under a German prince. Might, or might not, get Vipurii/Vyborg and some of Karelia.

Unlikely this early. In Finland the Tokoi Senate had just formed in late March as the Provisional Government returned the political rights Finland had enjoyed earlier. Neither the Finnish left or right wing parties were pushing for independence in earnest in early 1917 - it would still take six months for that.

Even in late 1917 the Germans considered a Finnish declaration of independence a condition for supporting the Finns during the peace negotiations; and IOTL even the Bolsheviks had accepted Finnish independence before Brest-Litovsk was signed.

Russia does not have any reason to relinquish Finland. There is no German troops in Helsinki, and more to the point there were no Finnish troops that would challenge the Russian rule: the Finnish Red Guards were only being formed and the bourgeois Civil Guards would begin forming in earnest only in late summer 1917. The only armed forces in Finland are Russian, even if they are mutinous and demoralized.

Sure, Germany might demand Finland. But if Russia refuses to even entertain the idea, and it would, the Germans would see making a deal to stop fighting in the East much too important to let the peace hang on little, peripheral Finland. More likely is that the Germans don't make Finland an issue at all.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Seems like the offer on the table from the Germans was more generous than that. And the Russians might get some additional concessions. We are looking at Russia losing Lithuania (Duchy of whatever) and the Congress of Poland. Good chance a true negotiation could get the Germans to agree that both countries would have a mutually acceptable leader and have the neutrality permanently guaranteed. Think Belgium status. Not sure on new Ottoman border, but no worse than prewar is likely. The Tsar could have gotten gains, but the Russia army (non Armenians) basically went home upon the fall of the Tsar. Finland is likely part of Russia. This is date sensitive. Maybe some high degree of Autonomy. Probably no reparations as long as the Russians agree to ship food for gold.

Too late to keep USA out of war. This is one of the few scenarios where the USA may come out with a lot more KIA. Probably June H&L launch a huge, unfocused attack. It could be much like the Spring plan OTL, or different. Bit much to assume it is an exact repeat. Without the USA adding to reserves, the Germans have a good chance of a major breakthrough. More of a French morale issue. Will it hold? Hard to see the Germans capturing Paris, so it is not a knock out blow without a morale break. A French morale break is very, very possible. The problem for the Germans is they will be exhausted by the attack, even if they have much better success. So say they do copy the Spring offensive for discussion sake. And they have greater success (Amiens and Harcourt). We are now in September. The Germans need to get supplies organized so they can launch the next attack. Say towards Paris. How long does it take to get organized and resupplied? 30 days? 90 days. So you get say a November Push. Winter probably shuts down the major attack in January. Start back up for one more big push in Spring (if the Germans have reserves left). It is one of them that could go either way. I would think odds strongly favor French morale (military and civilian) breaking, and a negotiated peace at terms reasonably favorable to Germany. USA just can't get there fast enough.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I always thought this is a rather underused area of potential AH.

Agreed. It would make a great TL. But it takes an odd grouping of interests. You need someone hugely interested in the RCW, but who still wants to write 1-2 years of Western Front battles. Also, it would help if the person is up to speed on Ottomans since the UK likely pulls a lot of troops from the Fronts fighting the Ottomans. The flock of butterflies from no RCW can easily be overwhelming.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Interesting idea. I am not fully versed on the situation of the time, but I believe that even so a large-scale Communist uprising would take place, and while it would likely be put down it would still be a long and bloody affair. I also doubt Russia would be so willing to trade with Germany immediately after the end of the war, and Germany would still likely lose the war in the long run.
Depending on the exact time this happens a Communist uprising would be difficult to impossible with a peace signed.

That is not to say however, that Kerensky would be able to stay in power.
 
Certainly Krensky would not have a long future as head of a government. What happens next threatens to crawl off in a dozen directions. Over the next decade the former Russian Empire might:

1. Become a Federation like the United States with a balance between popular democracy at the local levels and the wealthy classes controling a some sort of Republic at the top.

2. A Facist/Nationalist central Russian state exercising some degree of control over states of the divergent ethinic groups. That is Finns, Balts, Poles, Urkrainias, Uzbeks, Georgians, ect.. ect..ect.. all attempting to gain independance from the heirs of the Czar. Perhaps the Russians would let them all go in the interest of building a strong Russian state. Like the Turks abandoned claims the Ottoman empire.

3. A Communist revolution coming alter in the 1920s.

4. Aristocracy resumes control, behind the mask of a fake republic, that preserves the empire. This might be a strong centralized facist state that crushes independance movements.

Question here is which of these or alternatives would be best equipped to deal with Hitler & his nazis from 1938? Clsoely related would be which is a more economically sucessful model?
 
Question here is which of these or alternatives would be best equipped to deal with Hitler & his nazis from 1938? Clsoely related would be which is a more economically sucessful model?[/QUOTE]

Would Hitler come to power if there was no fear of communism?
 

Deleted member 14881

Question here is which of these or alternatives would be best equipped to deal with Hitler & his nazis from 1938? Clsoely related would be which is a more economically sucessful model?

Would Hitler come to power if there was no fear of communism?[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't think so because it was fear of Judeo-Bolshevikism and a bad economy that brought them to power
 
Kerensky did not become prime minister until July. So if peace is made before then it is Prince Lvov not Kerensky who does it. Actually part of the POD is that Milyukov does not become the Foreign Minister. Really don't see Kerensky being anything more than Justice Minister.

In the fall there are elections for the Russian Constituent Party with the Socialist Revolutionaries gaining a majority as per OTL. Chernov becomes head of government. Land reform is his #1 priority. He also declares Russia to be a federal republic. Monarchists and landowners unite to oppose the government so we get at least a little bit of a White vs Pink (SR) civil war. Lenin may eventually try a power grab but that's more likely in 1918 than 1917.
 
Hitlers philosophy was fundamentaly racist & anti semitic. ie: He rejected the US as a mongrels unfit for a Aryan world despite that Bolshiviks did not govern there. Poland is another example. To put it another way Hitler thought the Slavic peoples were subhuman & undeserving of self government or national independance. In Hitlers public dialoge Jewish bankers, jewish democrats, or anything else connected to "Jewish" served just as well as Bolshivik.

In Hitlers electorial rise in Germany the economy, the Versailles Treaty, lack of confidence in the current governments, anti Semitecism and Aryan racial theorys were all part of his platform with anticommunism just one smaller part of the whole. There has been a post war exaggeration of Hitler & the nazis as a bulwark against Communism & the USSR. This rather forgets that the nazi party garnered working class support with socialist policies & promises, & that a portion of the working classes shifted their votes from the Communist & other socialist parties to the nazis. The idea of the middles class seeing the nazis as saviors is a bit exaggerated, a few did but most still voted for the traditional middle class parties.

Absent a Communist Soviet Union Hitler would have labeled any other Russian & other Slavic states as Jewish controled subhumans just as with the Stalinist regime. The Bolshiviks & Communists were convienent but not essential to Hitlers message, which was racial/nationalistic at its core
 

Cook

Banned
Kerensky did not become prime minister until July.
Beat me to it.

I think this will probably hurt Kerensky's popularity, but not as much as continuing (and loosing) the war ultimately did.

Regarding Kerensky: when he became Premier, he informed the other allied powers that Russia would be unlikely to be able to remain in the war much longer. The Kerensky Offensive was about putting Russia in at least a decent position for negotiations with Germany.

Terms such as you propose would lead to the collapse of the Provisional Government if accepted.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hitlers philosophy was fundamentaly racist & anti semitic. ie: He rejected the US as a mongrels unfit for a Aryan world despite that Bolshiviks did not govern there. Poland is another example. To put it another way Hitler thought the Slavic peoples were subhuman & undeserving of self government or national independance. In Hitlers public dialoge Jewish bankers, jewish democrats, or anything else connected to "Jewish" served just as well as Bolshivik.

In Hitlers electorial rise in Germany the economy, the Versailles Treaty, lack of confidence in the current governments, anti Semitecism and Aryan racial theorys were all part of his platform with anticommunism just one smaller part of the whole. There has been a post war exaggeration of Hitler & the nazis as a bulwark against Communism & the USSR. This rather forgets that the nazi party garnered working class support with socialist policies & promises, & that a portion of the working classes shifted their votes from the Communist & other socialist parties to the nazis. The idea of the middles class seeing the nazis as saviors is a bit exaggerated, a few did but most still voted for the traditional middle class parties.

Absent a Communist Soviet Union Hitler would have labeled any other Russian & other Slavic states as Jewish controled subhumans just as with the Stalinist regime. The Bolshiviks & Communists were convienent but not essential to Hitlers message, which was racial/nationalistic at its core

I have to take issue with this; Hitler was still forming his opinions in WW1 and was heavily influenced by his experiences during and after the war. Sure he was anti-semitic by this point anyway, having lived in Vienna during the mayorship of Karl Lueger and grown up in an anti-semitic society in turn of the century Austria, but was not totally cemented in his world view yet:
http://firstworldwar.com/features/aslowfuse.htm
It was really the loss of WW1 and the post-war blame on Jewish politicians that Ludendorff started and perpetuated, while also the immense fear that the German public experienced of the Spartakist Uprisings that cemented Hitler's fear of and obsession with anti-Semitism.

I should point out too that the Bolshevik party's leadership was noticeably Jewish, something their enemies heavily promoted, and they sent representatives who were often of Jewish heritage out to lead communist revolts in Central Europe.
For example Bela Kun in Hungary and the Bavarian Soviet Republic:
http://firstworldwar.com/features/munich_intro.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kun_Béla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Toller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Leviné
This heavily influence Hitler and the German public who came to think Judaism synonymous with Bolshevism and threatening communist revolutions.

The events in Munich and Bavaria especially influenced Hitler, who was there for the events, and the reactionary Freikorps really played up the Jewish character of the leadership of the Soviet Republic, something Hitler no doubt latched onto.

All of these events and more increased anti-semitism in Germany after the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#In_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend

So Hitler was very much influenced by what happened in Russia with the Communist Revolution, its spill over into Central Europe, the communist uprisings in Germany, the Versailles treaty and the post war narrative that grew up around it. I don't think its totally safe to say that Hitler would have been as rabidly anti-semitic, anti-communist, or even in power had the Bolsheviks not risen to power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Russia gets out of the war by summer 1917, this may mean that the "final" German offensives in the west are a little earlier and stronger and you get some sort of peace of exhaustion in the west, certainly not the full Allied victory. IMHO if the war ends early in the east, you may not see the Bolsheviks take power - no reason for the Germans to let Lenin back in from Switzerland for example.

No Versailles + no USSR = no Nazis, no Hitler
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I think ITTL Russia becomes a right wing dictatorship.
Well if the Reds don't get their chance, it will be Denikin and Vrangel and Yudenich's cliques running the country. Hell, Kerensky's rule basically collapsed because he was trying to fend off a coup from the Right with the forces of the Left; rather the opposite of contemporary Germany.
 
Top