A Post-WW1 East Bloc

What if an "Eastern Bloc" of Communist states had formed following the First World War?

The Soviets got quite far west with the Battle of Warsaw, and had they won they could have feasibly taken a good chunk of Poland - likely reestablishing the boundary from prior to the war and annexing Galicia (Germany would likely be allowed to reclaim Posen and West Prussia). Afterwards, the Soviets retake the Baltic States. Poland is either a Polish SSR or a satellite state.

The Soviets support the Hungarian Soviet Republic and their puppet the Slovak Soviet Republic. Together the USSR and Hungarians defeat Romania and bring that country into the bloc.

Then Bulgaria's left-wing government that existed from 1920-1923 joins the bloc. Historically when Stamboliyski was faced with a coup the communists (who were answering to Moscow) did not intervene. Here they do, saving the Agrarian government and bringing Bulgaria into the eastern bloc.

Thoughts?
 
What if an "Eastern Bloc" of Communist states had formed following the First World War?

The Soviets got quite far west with the Battle of Warsaw, and had they won they could have feasibly taken a good chunk of Poland - likely reestablishing the boundary from prior to the war and annexing Galicia (Germany would likely be allowed to reclaim Posen and West Prussia). Afterwards, the Soviets retake the Baltic States. Poland is either a Polish SSR or a satellite state.

The Soviets support the Hungarian Soviet Republic and their puppet the Slovak Soviet Republic. Together the USSR and Hungarians defeat Romania and bring that country into the bloc.

Then Bulgaria's left-wing government that existed from 1920-1923 joins the bloc. Historically when Stamboliyski was faced with a coup the communists (who were answering to Moscow) did not intervene. Here they do, saving the Agrarian government and bringing Bulgaria into the eastern bloc.

Thoughts?

You create enough fear of the Red Devil on the Rhine to kick the otherwise half-hearted Entente interventions into high gear, likely getting the Japanese and Americans to actively push against the Soviets rather than withdraw as well as pull in more forces from Great Britain. Turkey too is likely courted and given greater leeway/borders in order to align Kemal's Nationalist government and insure the Soviets stay bottled up in the Black Sea.
 
What if an "Eastern Bloc" of Communist states had formed following the First World War?

The Soviets got quite far west with the Battle of Warsaw, and had they won they could have feasibly taken a good chunk of Poland - likely reestablishing the boundary from prior to the war and annexing Galicia (Germany would likely be allowed to reclaim Posen and West Prussia). Afterwards, the Soviets retake the Baltic States. Poland is either a Polish SSR or a satellite state.

The Soviets support the Hungarian Soviet Republic and their puppet the Slovak Soviet Republic. Together the USSR and Hungarians defeat Romania and bring that country into the bloc.

Then Bulgaria's left-wing government that existed from 1920-1923 joins the bloc. Historically when Stamboliyski was faced with a coup the communists (who were answering to Moscow) did not intervene. Here they do, saving the Agrarian government and bringing Bulgaria into the eastern bloc.

Thoughts?
Maybe even a Communist Finland could be part of this block.
 
Not really possible with most of this.

Russia in 1920-1922 is vastly different from Russia of 1945. It was nothing like the juggernaut at the end of WW2. The Soviets would be still fighting the Russian Civil War, facing food shortages, localized rebellions, divisions, and at the end of their rope when they reach Warsaw. (Pushing already limited resources even further.)

Winning at Warsaw does not make them stronger. If anything, it makes them weaker as Poland becomes a resource drain and it creates more anti-Soviet feelings and opposition in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

At the same time, the Hungarian Soviet Republic was bitterly unpopular with most of its people. The Red Terror only cost more of the government support even from the walking classes. It's army was falling apart between tension of nationalists and communists when the Hungarians nationalists realized the communist government had no intentions to recapture the lost territories, only to spread communist ideology and establish other communist states. (And remember, the Romanians lay a smack-down so hard, that they occupy all of Hungary.)

It is the same for Bulgaria. I doubt Stamboliyski and the Lefts could make it.

The Soviets needs peace badly at this time. They can't even avoid to try and attack the Baltic. (Which they already concluded hostilities with.)
 
The Soviets needs peace badly at this time. They can't even avoid to try and attack the Baltic. (Which they already concluded hostilities with.)

Yeah. The only way this can happen is with a much less destructive Russian civil war.

Maybe if the Bolshevik revolution never happens and the Russian elections in 1917 deliver a Bolshevik-Menshevik-SR coalition that has more legitimacy and thus faces less fighting at home, Russia might be able to spare the resources to help revolutions in their western neighbours.

Such a coalition may also try to stick out WW1 to the end. Which, if Russia can somehow hold on until the end, could mean that such a block even had the sanction of the Western members of the alliance.

I suspect the socialist coalition would need to quickly recognize the need to make peace with Germany though.

fasquardon
 
Yeah. The only way this can happen is with a much less destructive Russian civil war.

Maybe if the Bolshevik revolution never happens and the Russian elections in 1917 deliver a Bolshevik-Menshevik-SR coalition that has more legitimacy and thus faces less fighting at home, Russia might be able to spare the resources to help revolutions in their western neighbours.

Such a coalition may also try to stick out WW1 to the end. Which, if Russia can somehow hold on until the end, could mean that such a block even had the sanction of the Western members of the alliance.

I suspect the socialist coalition would need to quickly recognize the need to make peace with Germany though.

fasquardon

I sort of doubt this. It is not just the Russian Civil War, but the whole nightmare that was the Great War Russia has to rebuild from. The economy is collapsing and civil unrest was everywhere in the Russian State.

Relations between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks has broken down since before 1914, the Mensheviks own splits, Lenin come back to control of the Bolsheviks, and the 1917 split greatly damage the other. I also doubt Russia staying in the war any longer. Russia was falling apart every way and which way with the failure of the Kerensky Offensive and the total breakdown of the Russian Army and anti-government riots.

Russia would bail as soon as possibly with some version of Brest-Litovsk with a new government. (As to win support of the Russian People). I doubt think the Mensheviks would be very interesting in trying to spare the 'Revelation' while they got far bigger issues going on in the homefront.
 
Relations between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks has broken down since before 1914, the Mensheviks own splits, Lenin come back to control of the Bolsheviks, and the 1917 split greatly damage the other. I also doubt Russia staying in the war any longer. Russia was falling apart every way and which way with the failure of the Kerensky Offensive and the total breakdown of the Russian Army and anti-government riots.

When Lenin came back the Bolsheviks (under the leadership of Kamenev, Stalin and Muranov - yes, Stalin was, before Lenin convinced him otherwise, a big proponent of doing things by cooperation and consensus and generally building a broad tent, not a narrow Bolshevik-only tent) were working towards a re-unification with the Mensheviks since the main disagreement between them - what to do about the Tsar - wasn't an issue since Russia had already become a republic.

Had Lenin not returned, it seems to me that there are very high odds that a pan-socialist coalition would have won power democratically.

And yes, the army was in a terrible state. But many of the Bolshevik's early decisions made things worse. That needn't be the case in an atl, especially if different socialists are in power than Lenin.

It's easy enough for the Russian army to perform better in 1917 and 1918. Whether this is enough to see Russia hanging on until Germany is defeated in the west is another question, and I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

I sort of doubt this. It is not just the Russian Civil War, but the whole nightmare that was the Great War Russia has to rebuild from.

Hm. My own impression is that WW1 hit the Russian economy like a bunker-buster and then the Civil War hit the remains of that economy like a nuclear weapon. In other words, Russia was badly damaged by WW1, but that paled in comparison to the brutality and mass starvation that occurred during the Civil War.

In other words, Russia is waaaaay stronger if the Civil War is less.

But... I'd be interested to hear if you have any sources that disagree with that picture.

Russia would bail as soon as possibly with some version of Brest-Litovsk with a new government. (As to win support of the Russian People). I doubt think the Mensheviks would be very interesting in trying to spare the 'Revelation' while they got far bigger issues going on in the homefront.

Actually, the Mensheviks were generally pro-war from what I understand. As were most of the Bolsheviks.

The war was seen by them as a war against autocracy and Kaiser Bill was seen as someone who just had to go for the sake of the world.

fasquardon
 

The Avenger

Banned
Yeah. The only way this can happen is with a much less destructive Russian civil war.

Maybe if the Bolshevik revolution never happens and the Russian elections in 1917 deliver a Bolshevik-Menshevik-SR coalition that has more legitimacy and thus faces less fighting at home, Russia might be able to spare the resources to help revolutions in their western neighbours.

Such a coalition may also try to stick out WW1 to the end. Which, if Russia can somehow hold on until the end, could mean that such a block even had the sanction of the Western members of the alliance.

I suspect the socialist coalition would need to quickly recognize the need to make peace with Germany though.

fasquardon
If the Bolsheviks aren't promoting defeatism among Russian troops on the Eastern Front, couldn't Russian military discipline be a bit stronger? If so, couldn't the Germans be unable to seize vast parts of Russia in early 1918?
 
if warsaw fall to the reds I think Versailles is going to become WAY more lenient towards Germany who suddenly become the only reliable shield against the red menace, still demilitarization of Rhineland, cession of Alsace-Lorraine, all colony stripped, but i can see the remaining of a bigger fleet to antagonize the remnant of the Russian Baltic Fleet, and the army restriction will be absolutely changed, at least half a million army is needed, way more artillery, probably still no siege artillery, no tanks is a must but maybe a small aviation for recon is left. and the German are absolutely going to retake and protect German minorities, like Danzig and western Prussia, probably also Posen is going to be retaken, French are going to be megapissed, but like everyone else will be screaming to not let Germany become another SSR, that will be equal to lose the entire continent to the commies...after that if other ex Hapsburg territories get overrun by the commies, Britain the US, Italy and Japan will push for a crusade to liberate eastern Europe. the only one who get wanked by this nightmare are the German, who retain a way bigger army, get back some crucial industrial area and are not that humiliated by the peace, the one who get ultramegafucked are the Poles, ravaged by another war and lose another time the access to the sea.
 
What Versailles? The British will be happy to rip the paper in half and the French can deal with it.

Hah! The British were the main winners from Versailles. They are not going to tear up their treaty months after getting it signed.

And it's worth noting that not all the harsh terms in Versailles were French ideas - indeed, most of them came from other members of the alliance.

In the British case... Why reparations were so high? The British wanted the Germans to pay the pensions of their soldiers. Removing all German colonies? The British and their Dominions wanted Germany contained in Europe. Taking away Germany's navy? The British didn't like the competition (the loss of the merchant navy was probably one of the single harshest impacts of the treaty).

fasquardon
 
Hah! The British were the main winners from Versailles. They are not going to tear up their treaty months after getting it signed.

And it's worth noting that not all the harsh terms in Versailles were French ideas - indeed, most of them came from other members of the alliance.

In the British case... Why reparations were so high? The British wanted the Germans to pay the pensions of their soldiers. Removing all German colonies? The British and their Dominions wanted Germany contained in Europe. Taking away Germany's navy? The British didn't like the competition (the loss of the merchant navy was probably one of the single harshest impacts of the treaty).

fasquardon

And I'm sure the British like the idea of a Red Germany even less, because then that leads to a Red France, and Red Low Countries, and pretttty soon, the defeat of the Royal Navy.
 
And I'm sure the British like the idea of a Red Germany even less, because then that leads to a Red France, and Red Low Countries, and pretttty soon, the defeat of the Royal Navy.

Yeah, but they can stop a Red Germany without tearing up Versailles. For example, they could allow Germany to maintain a heavily armed "police force" or turn a blind eye to the Friekorps for longer (in OTL, they turned a blind eye until the Germans had crushed their own revolution). If Britain wants to do this while keeping good relations with France, they can offer economic concessions on the large French debt.

There are ways to buttress Germany without giving up the British gains in the war. So why would they?

fasquardon
 
Yeah, but they can stop a Red Germany without tearing up Versailles. For example, they could allow Germany to maintain a heavily armed "police force" or turn a blind eye to the Friekorps for longer (in OTL, they turned a blind eye until the Germans had crushed their own revolution). If Britain wants to do this while keeping good relations with France, they can offer economic concessions on the large French debt.

There are ways to buttress Germany without giving up the British gains in the war. So why would they?

fasquardon

And if that Red Germany has Poland and Russia and all of Eastern Europe behind it like in the scenario? It's far more likely that England has a knee jerk reaction and panics and overreacts.
 
I highly doubt Germany would turn Red at all.

The issue is the Spartacists (Along all with other Red revolts) was not organize, the radical pacifists and the main Party stood against them, they face hostility from....all of Germany really, the Allies (Mostly Americans and British) would go as far as a march on Berlin if the Reds seem to be somehow winning. They would not accept a Communist state in Central Europe.

Germany in 1918-1919 was very different from Russia of 1917.
 
It's accurate to say that there was one already. The Three Emperors' League was a kind of imperial-monarchist Warsaw Pact. Instead of upholding Marxism-Leninism, the three Empires (Germany, Habsburgs, Russian Empire) were trying to suppress democratic and socialistic agitation while preserving the non-national borders for as long as possible. With the exception of West Germany and Austria, the communist eastern bloc covered almost the same territory as the League. Polish nationalism was a thorn in the side of both blocs.
 
Top