AHC: An Independent Caucasus After 1918

[Simon]

It's somewhat late and I've probably had too much cider so my thoughts turn to an idea I've been mulling over for a while, is there any way to achieve a Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan that after the break up of the Russian Empire declare independence and then manage to retain it in the face of the Soviets? Bonus points if you can do the same for the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus to act as a defensive buffer. The minimum would be an independent Azerbaijan. Briefly reading through the history of the region the post-1917 set-up seems to be a complete mess with a promising start of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, only for it to collapse with the understandable declaration of national independence by the constituent countries who fell to warring with each other over territorial disputes in fairly short order. The political scene seems to have been a shifting collection of factions and countries that changed fairly easily.

Looking at things from a broad overview it seems as though you need to keep at least both Georgia and Azerbaijan independent at that provides a nice mountainous defensive barrier with only a few major gorges and valleys through such as Darial Gorge with the Georgian Military Road or the coastal routes along the Black or Caspian seas. If one of them falls though it opens a much more accessible 'side door' as it were to the other as well as a path to Armenia. Having them all facing the same way, towards the Soviets, even if not actively working together is also a must. So the only way of getting this and keeping them from tearing chunks out of each other that I can think of is to have someone forcefully explain that's it's a stand together or fall separately, backs them up and plays unofficial umpire to try and keep a lid on things until the Soviets aren't a problem.

The two most likely candidates for this role I think would have to be the French or the British, leaning more towards the British. They both sent forces to occupy parts of Russia during the civil war and they certainly weren't friendly to the Soviets, the British actually sent a military force to the region called Dunsterforce but they ran into some problems on the way and were really too small to be able to do great amounts. Just the journey to get there was weird and wonderful enough, resulting in a description by Roger Ford in Eden to Armageddon: World War One in the Middle East of

A British General on the Caspian, the only sea unploughed before by British keels, on board a ship named after a South African President and whilom enemy, sailing from a Persian port, under the Serbian flag, to relieve from the Turks a body of Armenians in a revolutionary Russian town.

So what if Dunsteforce was larger and a serious effort on the part of the British to support the Caucasian states to gain a foothold of influence in the region? The main prize that can be seen has to be the oil industry at Baku which the Anglo-Persian Oil Company or Royal Dutch Shell would be interested in. Even if the British didn't gain the concessions it would still deny the oil to the Soviets, and fucking with them would be worth the price of admission in and off itself. So can anyone come up with any alternative ideas of how to keep these three countries independent and non-Soviet?

 

[Simon]

Nearly a hundred views and no replies? Shouldn't be surprised I guess.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I have four books on the subject that I haven't got around to reading yet. Honestly I'd love to contribute and know more about the topic but I currently have nothing to give.

 

[katchen]

Would the Americans have been interested enough to stay involved if the occupation areas had been reversed and the British had been in Archangel and the Americans had been in the Caucasus? What if Standard Oil of New Jersey had a chance at Baku and Grozny? Would John D. Rockefeller be able to buy Congress's acquiescence to a continued American presence until another power, perhaps Italy could be found to guarantee the continued independence of the Caucasus until the Bolsheviks gave in and recognized the independence of the Caucasus nations by treaty as they did Poland? Could this lead to railroad and pipeline links from Persia to the Black Sea via Azierbijan, Georgia and Batumi and give Persia/Iran the inside path to influence in the United States instead of Saudi Arabia?

 

[kung Zog]

I dont have OTL in my head but what about no temporary peace between ukrainan anrachists and the bolsheviks. It would lead to a more shattered left in general snd might be enough to either have more stable nationalist movements in the caucasus, or to have a leftist movements that stresses, in a way similar to the anarchists, their independence from russia.

 

[Simon]

Okay still running down the various factions, alliances and armed forces. Gods the region was a mess. Still need to find a decent order of battle for various sides though. Some new bits of information that are annoying setbacks but also others that actually make this seem like an at least half-decent viable idea.

What if Standard Oil of New Jersey had a chance at Baku and Grozny?

Could happen, they were apparently very interested in the Caucasus region in the early 1900s but the deal came to naught, they did however buy half the shares in one of the major local oil companies in 1920 when things with the Soviets were uncertain so they were definitely still interested. A quick check looks as though the main players in Azerbaijan's oil industry at the time included Branobel - owned by the Nobel family, Royal Dutch Shell, Anglo-Russian Oil Company, Russian Oil General Corporation, de Rothschild Frères and a number of other companies and individuals so it's fairly cosmopolitan.

Would John D. Rockefeller be able to buy Congress's acquiescence to a continued American presence until another power, perhaps Italy could be found to guarantee the continued independence of the Caucasus until the Bolsheviks gave in and recognized the independence of the Caucasus nations by treaty as they did Poland

I doubt it. They mostly stuck around in the European areas of Russia for only a year or so until 1919, or 1920 in the Far East and that was as much to keep an eye on the Japanese as anything else. As for the Poland comparison the US seems to of been one of the main supporters of an independent Armenia and yet did pretty much bugger all during the Turkish–Armenian War or when the Soviets rolled in and made a puppet out of it. They might send some nice words of encouragement but I can't see them actively supporting a country that isn't strong enough to stand on its own, when you look at the League of Nations Mandate Woodrow Wilson proposed the American public was pretty much uniformly hostile and it lost the vote by a landslide.

Could this lead to railroad and pipeline links from Persia to the Black Sea via Azerbaijan, Georgia and Batumi and give Persia/Iran the inside path to influence in the United States instead of Saudi Arabia?

Err, why would they be building a pipeline north? As I understood it most of Persia's oil and gas deposits are located in the south-west and south of the country. If you build a pipeline to the Black Sea all that means is you're either planning on selling mostly Russia, Bulgaria or Romania since there weren't any trans-European pipelines yet or you'll have to sail through the Bosphorus which is just going to be an added pain in the arse. Loading to ships on the Persian Gulf and then sailing from there seems much more logical to me unless I'm missing something. There was a pipeline going from Baku to Batumi for Azerbaijan to get the their goods out, followed by a second parallel pipeline build from 1928-30, but that makes sense since they're landlocked and it's the only way to get to their markets.

I don't have OTL in my head but what about no temporary peace between Ukrainian Anarchists and the Bolsheviks. It would lead to a more shattered left in general and might be enough to either have more stable nationalist movements in the caucasus, or to have a leftist movements that stresses, in a way similar to the anarchists, their independence from Russia.

If you mean Makhno and his Black Army then they never had a chance. By the end of things the Anarchists were mostly having to expropriate, read steal, from the locals to survive so that didn't do their popularity much good and the Soviets had the massive advantage in numbers, supplies and organisation. Even if there's no temporary alliance the Anarchists are still in the middle of a three way fight between the Soviets and the Whites, with their being the smallest of the three IIRC. It might take the Soviets a bit longer but the Anarchists are still going down. Even the Whites wouldn't of allowed an independent Ukraine. The only way I've ever really been able to see one forming as a French or more likely British backed state, and even then it would be a major fight.

 

[MDSJR1967]

The Red Army would have forced them into the Soviet Union sooner of later. They had no chance in the long run.

 

[Simon]

The Red Army would have forced them into the Soviet Union sooner of later. They had no chance in the long run.

Are you referring to the Ukrainian Anarchists or the Caucasus states? It is certainly going to be a challenge getting an independent Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, mainly because of the Azerbaijani oil. IIRC it was producing something like nearly three quarters of the Russian Empire's total output and a rather large percentage of world production, no wonder Lenin apparently said "Soviet Russia can not survive without Baku oil." Now they did have other oil and gas fields but with the Baku oil they didn't have a pressing need to develop and exploit them, without Baku this would probably force them to bring the alternate source on-stream much sooner. Still going to kneecap their economy for a fair while though.

 

[katchen]

The Russians knew that there was oil in the swamps of the Ob Basin. Had known about it since the 18th Century. Building the railroad to Surgut would be a lovely early excuse for the gulag, not that the Cheka needed one.

 

[Halagaz]

It should be possible if the allies decide to prop up the counter-revolutionaries in Russia through its "soft underbelly" to a much greater degree than OTL (and of course secure a bunch of oil in the process but that probably isn't going to be on the front pages).

The Republic of the Northern Caucasus is pretty much doomed, I think, whatever happens. Allied troops who break through to the region are likely to support Denikin's south Russian armies and it would take a lot, I believe, for Denikin to not draw the line at Georgian, Armenian and Azeri independence and accept yet another republic being carved out of what he considers integral Russian territory. So unless he and his forces somehow don't come into the equation at all, the "best" Northern Caucasus can hope for is some kind of a half-baked administrative autonomy under one or more of the native pro-russian commanders, like the Chechen General Aeris-han Aliev.

The Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani Democratic Republics would also have to be turned into Allied puppets, at least in terms of foreign policy and military activities, to ensure they don't jump at each other's throats at the worst possible moment. Especially the last two.

 

[Simon]

The Russians knew that there was oil in the swamps of the Ob Basin. Had known about it since the 18th Century. Building the railroad to Surgut would be a lovely early excuse for the gulag, not that the Cheka needed one.

Well that's handy as it gives them a possible viable alternative. If there's one then it changes the fight over the Caucasus from an almost existential one to merely a colossal pain in the arse if they don't win one.

The Republic of the Northern Caucasus is pretty much doomed, I think, whatever happens.

Yeah, I only really included them since they contain a lot of mountainous country that would make good defensive terrain. I think the best they could hope for would be to maybe have some supplies channelled to and act as a disposable defensive buffer.