AHC/WI: Ukraine stays independent

It's hard to get a surviving Ukraine during the civil war as the anarchist forces under Nestor Makhno were under assault by both whites and reds.

Having Mahkno refuse to cooperate with the Red Army could retain his forces long enough for him to make a bid for independence from both the white and red factions during the civil war.

How the Ukrainian regime under Mahkno does economically, politically, etc. is an entirely different matter.
 
Perhaps a successful Pilsudski-Petliura alliance, though I'm not sure how likely that really is--exactly how much support in Ukraine itself did Petliura have? Pilsudski had to deal with Dmowski and his allies undermining efforts in that direction, but had his own legions on his side. Did Petliura have any similar power base?
 
Makhno and his Anarchists weren't the only Ukrainian organisation though were they? The only way I can see the Ukraine possibly staying independent is if one of the Great Powers decide they want an ally in eastern Europe like the French did with Poland and decide to back one of the Ukrainian nationalist groups. To my mind that means the British as the French were too involved with the Poles, who had their own designs on parts of the Ukrainiane, and the Americans just weren't interested in that kind of foreign adventure. The problem with involving the British though is that IIRC David Lloyd George wasn't all that well disposed to them so they missed their best opportunity at Paris Peace Conference in 1919. If you could work up a point of departure that gets him to change his mind, a wealthy farsighted Ukrainian expatriate sees which was the wind is blowing and starts to lobby him mid-way through the Great War perhaps?, then it might be do-able. Even then it's going to be a tough fight to survive.
 
It's hard to get a surviving Ukraine during the civil war as the anarchist forces under Nestor Makhno were under assault by both whites and reds.

Having Mahkno refuse to cooperate with the Red Army could retain his forces long enough for him to make a bid for independence from both the white and red factions during the civil war.

How the Ukrainian regime under Mahkno does economically, politically, etc. is an entirely different matter.

Makhno is the absolute last person you would use in a Ukrainian independence scenario.
 
To prevent the Ukraine from being invaded at all -- never mind who wins -- the Central Powers have to hold out longer. The Communists weren't going to take on the Germans after their humiliation in 1918. That means that Skorpopadsky lasts longer, too. He has to use the breathing space wisely, and reach an accommodation with the nationalists and find outside allies who are able and willing to help keep the Ukraine independent. Maybe Turkey after 1923?

A couple of minor points: the Communist state wasn't called the USSR until 1922. Previously it was called the RSFSR (=Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic).
France did have forces in the Ukraine (specifically, Odessa) from Dec. 1918 to April 1919, but the army was no real help to the Whites, and the navy crews mutinied.
 
Makhno is the absolute last person you would use in a Ukrainian independence scenario.
Why? I know next to nothing about his strategic sense - is that it, or are you talking about his eminently interesting but eminently impractical politics?
 
Why? I know next to nothing about his strategic sense - is that it, or are you talking about his eminently interesting but eminently impractical politics?

Exactly, when you look at Ukraine, they had a couple of chances at independence, but infighting did away with that. Keep the Ukrainian People Republic going and give Symon Petliura a fighting chance.
 
Another possible idea I've thought of might involve Archduke Wilhelm of Austria, he was something of a Ukrainian nationalist and had been unofficially groomed to become king of an independent Ukraine. Perhaps at the tail end of the war he recognises what is happening and manages to use the chaos and his authority as an Archduke to position himself and the Ukrainians better e.g. try and get as many Ukrainian soldiers as possible deployed to East Galicia, try to divert supplies and build up a stockpile of arms and ammunition, if units are deserting en masse and going home see what you can scavenge from them etc. The downside of this though could be having a Habsburg too closely associated with the whole affair could make the Allies suspicious, so he'd probably have to step back after a bit.

If they could solidly hold Eastern Galicia/West Ukrainian People's Republic and the Drohobych oil fields that helps them out financially quite a bit, plus IIRC they had a deal with the Czechoslovakians to trade oil for arms which is another boost. That does necessitate holding Eastern Galicia and a land connection with Czechoslovakia though during the Polish-Ukrainian War. Now there was a plan on the books to officially split Galicia into separate western and eastern provinces but apparently Charles decided to hold off actually implementing it until after war had ended so it fell by the wayside. If however it was split before the end of the war and the Ukrainians are solidly in control of the area around Lviv and Eastern Galicia then that might be enough for them to hold on to it if Britain and France told the Poles to knock things off.


What border would have had ITTL Ukraine?
Well getting pushed back and losing all the land our timeline's Ukraine has east of the Dnieper river could be possible, however there's no real physical border to the north where modern day Belarus so there's little to stop the Soviets sweeping down from there. Modern Ukraine does seem to map up fairly closely to various Russian Empire governorates so providing they survive I'd expect to see them be used as the building blocks to make up the country/decide on the borders.
 
Top