Brest Litovsk alternative borders challenge

It seems to me that the OTL Treaty is quite outlandish, I mean over 50 million people and ~1 million square miles ceded? The German really needed to concentrate on the West asap, so there must have been some way for a better Russian deal.

The point is to make as minor changes as possible (ex. personality of key figures, slight delays of certain events etc.) which result in radically different borders.
 
Well the OTL treaty was the result of a completely crushing Russian defeat in the war.

The Kerensky government which had replaced the Tsar tried another offensive, which failed miserably.

The Bolsheviks then came to power and were basically determined to make peace at any cost.

It's really quite difficult to see this as being anything that ends well for the greater Russian Empire, they were in a desperate situation, and had no real leverage in negotiations, the Germans knew this, and pressed for an extremely harsh peace.
 
Is there a way though to make Russian defeat complete, but not THAT complete?

A kind of situation where they would consent to the border being the armistice line, for example (~OTL Second Polish Republic Eastern border), but would not freely give up Ukraine? There were many devastating defeats in history, but rarely one that resulted in such a massive loss. In essence, had this border been upheld, Russia could hardly have evolved into the superpower it did in OTL.

And while Russians might have had no leverage, Germans were also pressed by time. What if a more prudent German leadership negotiates an earlier peace, with more restrictive borders and then devotes its full strength to the West, where the war was really being decided?
 
One more thing, on the same subject: how exactly would the German version of a post-war political map in the 'Brest-Litovsk-lands' look like?

Which would be the borders of the likely puppet-states?. I'm thinking first and foremost of Poland. How much of Congress Poland would be incorporated into Germany and which would be the Polish-Ukrainian/Polish-Belarus border? More like OTL present or more like OTL Second Polish Republic?
 
It seems to me that the OTL Treaty is quite outlandish

I feel the same. What surprises me is that, in quite a few discussions I’ve seen on this board, a few people seem almost to assume that this is the ‘default’ result of a German victory over Russia in alt-WWIs.

Is there a way though to make Russian defeat complete, but not THAT complete?

A kind of situation where they would consent to the border being the armistice line, for example (~OTL Second Polish Republic Eastern border), but would not freely give up Ukraine? There were many devastating defeats in history, but rarely one that resulted in such a massive loss. In essence, had this border been upheld, Russia could hardly have evolved into the superpower it did in OTL.

And while Russians might have had no leverage, Germans were also pressed by time. What if a more prudent German leadership negotiates an earlier peace, with more restrictive borders and then devotes its full strength to the West, where the war was really being decided?

One solution would be for Russia to accept the earlier German demands which did not include Ukraine or Estonia.

If earlier PoDs and more drastic changes are acceptable, you can have Russia can keep even more. For example, suppose Germany somehow defeats France quickly. If this is achieved, Russia will have no concieveable hope of victory and will probably try getting out of the war asap. In such a situation it might even get away with status quo antebellum, especially if the German victory in the west is secured at the cost of worse performance in the east.

One more thing, on the same subject: how exactly would the German version of a post-war political map in the 'Brest-Litovsk-lands' look like?

Which would be the borders of the likely puppet-states?. I'm thinking first and foremost of Poland. How much of Congress Poland would be incorporated into Germany and which would be the Polish-Ukrainian/Polish-Belarus border? More like OTL present or more like OTL Second Polish Republic?

Something similar to this:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=394961&postcount=4

but small details may differ. One thing about the map which intrigues me is the gargantuan Lithuania: to what extent are its borders on this map accurate? It seems to contain at least one small error: IIRC Ukraine was awarded a slice of what the map proclaims to be Poland (Chelm and environs). As far as Poland is concerned, Germany had trouble deciding what to do about it. Even as late as Brest-Litovsk it wasn’t sure how it was supposed to be ran, or what its precise borders were to be. I don’t think a separate Belarus would be likely to happen.
 

Thanks, great map!

So it seems Germany wasn't gonna annex a great deal of land, which makes sense to me. Nazis wanted to conquer vast territories because they planned to genocide the locals, but without such crazy policies, adding the Polish heartland to Germany is likely to become a weakness rather than a strength.

Lithuania is definately too big, I'm not even sure that land would have been Lithuanian majority; the Poles in the area would want to join with independent Poland, and this Lithuania would end up quite disunited and unstable.

There are also a couple of mini-states which make little sense to me. Why have an independent Courland, for instance? And a Don Cossack state? Come on. Who exactly would benefit from that? I think Germany would instead look to make Ukraine stronger and an ally against Russian irredentism. Also 'Northern Dobruja' has little chance of long term survival.

All in all the general outline of the map is realistic; Poland isn't going to be much more than a rump of its former self with a victorious Germany and Ukraine will likely be established as the most important buffer state. The next question is the fate of the Austro-HUngarian Empire, which cannot possibly hold on forever, victory or not; but I guess that's a different thread.
 
It seems to me that the OTL Treaty is quite outlandish, I mean over 50 million people and ~1 million square miles ceded? The German really needed to concentrate on the West asap, so there must have been some way for a better Russian deal.

The point is to make as minor changes as possible (ex. personality of key figures, slight delays of certain events etc.) which result in radically different borders.
Well, I don't know if this meets your criterion, but one of the crucial divergences in my Reds tl was that because the US had been involved in WW1 from the start, the Germans were ultimately willing to make peace with the Bolsheviks quite quickly, resulting in them occupying no land in the Russian Empire, and only supporting some native client regimes, with varying success.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Is there a way though to make Russian defeat complete, but not THAT complete?

A kind of situation where they would consent to the border being the armistice line, for example (~OTL Second Polish Republic Eastern border), but would not freely give up Ukraine? There were many devastating defeats in history, but rarely one that resulted in such a massive loss. In essence, had this border been upheld, Russia could hardly have evolved into the superpower it did in OTL.

And while Russians might have had no leverage, Germans were also pressed by time. What if a more prudent German leadership negotiates an earlier peace, with more restrictive borders and then devotes its full strength to the West, where the war was really being decided?
Yes, OTL the Germans offered terms under which Russia only had to cede Lithuania and Poland, the Bolsheviks turned it down under the impression that revolution in Germany was imminent. Have Trotsky/Lenin be more pragmatic/pessimistic and you'll have it.
 
From recollection, in OTL by the time of Brest-Litovsk msot Russian soldiers had deserted, tempted by the promise of land being up for grabs back in their homes. The Germans were close to Petrograd and the Soviets had very few loyal troops present.

The threat couldn't be much more obvious. If the Soviets have more loyal troops around Petrograd, they're in a much better position to resist German demands.
 
Thanks, great map!

So it seems Germany wasn't gonna annex a great deal of land, which makes sense to me. Nazis wanted to conquer vast territories because they planned to genocide the locals, but without such crazy policies, adding the Polish heartland to Germany is likely to become a weakness rather than a strength.

Annexing large areas with non-German populations was bound to become a weakness, which is why the German plans for any possible annexations in the east involved deporting the natives to make room for German settlers.

Lithuania is definately too big, I'm not even sure that land would have been Lithuanian majority; the Poles in the area would want to join with independent Poland, and this Lithuania would end up quite disunited and unstable.

As far as the border is concerned, German intentions are all that matters. Such a Lithuania would be something quite unique, and would have to be a federal state if even lip service is paid to self-determination. I’m not even sure wether Lithuanians would outnumber the Poles living there or not. But they certainly would not have been a majority. Still, this might suit Germany: the troublesome Poland is reduced, and Lithuania itself becomes more unstable and thus even more reliant on Germany.


The threat couldn't be much more obvious. If the Soviets have more loyal troops around Petrograd, they're in a much better position to resist German demands.

I doubt wether this, in itself, would be enough. There’s no use in making a last stand at Petrograd if valuable areas such as Ukraine remain wide open to invasion anyway.
 
Yes, OTL the Germans offered terms under which Russia only had to cede Lithuania and Poland, the Bolsheviks turned it down under the impression that revolution in Germany was imminent. Have Trotsky/Lenin be more pragmatic/pessimistic and you'll have it.

Great, this is exactly what I was looking for. It really seems not much of a stretch to assume some pragmatism from a politician like Lenin, and there you go, a very different deal.

Do you know the details of the German proposal? Poland is supposed to mean Congress Poland, I guess, not the whole land that OTL became the Second Republic. So for instance Vilnius is not included, although it was occupied by Germans at the time of the negotiations, unless I'm mistaken. Is it reasonable to assume that Germans would agree to a deal that would have them retreat from some regions they have previously occupied?

And generally: what is the minimum that Germany would agree to? Certainly not the pre-war boundaries, I think. Or is this also a matter of pragmatism and a more competent German leadership would have made concessions in the East (even earlier) in return for a better chance of winning in the West?
 
Another idea might be knocking Russia out earlier. Germany cared more about France, and A-H was more interested in Balkans Sphere of Influence. Both would of agreed to "light" border adjustments against Russia if it means knocking her out of the war.

Have Hotzendorf not transfer troops from Galicia to Italy for the Strafexpedition (which would not occur now). This should stop the Brusilov Offensive cold like the Lake Naroch Offensive earlier in the year. This also would mean Romania will stay out of the war. So, by the end of 1916 Russia might be willing to go to the table as she was hobbled after Brusilov Offense stalled OTL. In a case where it was defeated she would be even worse off. This might effect the Western front if Germany doesn't pull troops from Verdun like she did OTL, though probably not as the area was just a meat grinder.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Great, this is exactly what I was looking for. It really seems not much of a stretch to assume some pragmatism from a politician like Lenin, and there you go, a very different deal.

Do you know the details of the German proposal? Poland is supposed to mean Congress Poland, I guess, not the whole land that OTL became the Second Republic. So for instance Vilnius is not included, although it was occupied by Germans at the time of the negotiations, unless I'm mistaken. Is it reasonable to assume that Germans would agree to a deal that would have them retreat from some regions they have previously occupied?

And generally: what is the minimum that Germany would agree to? Certainly not the pre-war boundaries, I think. Or is this also a matter of pragmatism and a more competent German leadership would have made concessions in the East (even earlier) in return for a better chance of winning in the West?
Yes, it was congress Poland

Peace negotiations began on December 22, 1917, a week after the conclusion of an armistice between Russia and the Central Powers, at Brest-Litovsk (modern Brest, Belarus, near the Polish border). The Germans were represented officially by Foreign Secretary Richard von Kühlmann, but the most important figure in shaping the peace on the German side was General Max Hoffmann, Chief of Staff of the German armies on the Eastern Front (Oberkommando-Ostfront). Austria-Hungary was represented by Foreign Minister Ottokar Czernin, and from the Ottoman Empire came Talat Pasha. The Germans demanded the "independence" of Poland and Lithuania, which they already occupied, while the Bolsheviks demanded "peace without annexations or indemnities" — in other words, a settlement under which the revolutionary government that succeeded the Russian Empire would give neither territory nor money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
 
It seems to me that the OTL Treaty is quite outlandish, I mean over 50 million people and ~1 million square miles ceded?


Was it all that outlandish given Russia's size?

Both Austria and Huhgary lost a bigger share of their total populations at St Germain and Trianon than Russia did at BL, and Turkey probably would have done had the Treaty of Sevres been maintained. Nearly all the WW1 peace treaties followed the same pattern of chopping off those areas inhabited by ethnic minorities.
 
Last edited:
Was it all that outlandish given Russia's size?

Both Austria and Huhgary lost a bigger share of their total populations at St Germain and Trianon than Russia did at BL, and Turkey probably would have done had the Treaty of Sevres been maintained. Nearly all the WW1 peace treaties folowed the same pattern of chopping off those areas inhabited by ethnic minorities.

Indeed. In this respect only Versailles and the treaty with Bulgaria were much milder then Brest-Litovsk. But B-L still represented what was in absolute terms the greatest single de facto annexation in that period, by a large margin.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It seems to me that the OTL Treaty is quite outlandish, I mean over 50 million people and ~1 million square miles ceded? The German really needed to concentrate on the West asap, so there must have been some way for a better Russian deal.

The point is to make as minor changes as possible (ex. personality of key figures, slight delays of certain events etc.) which result in radically different borders.

Accept earlier. B/L was really punishing the Russians for refusing the previous, fairly generous offer of the cease fire lines being the new borders (roughly speaking). When the B/L treaty was signed, the Russian lines had collapsed and there were 5 major columns advancing deep into Russia at a rapid rate. The artillery fire of Germans could be heard in central St. Petersburg. It was trading Belarus and the Capitol for the Ukraine. The deal makes sense. And the earlier German offer was subject to negotiation, so probably the Russians could have got a bit better deal.

Is there a way though to make Russian defeat complete, but not THAT complete?

A kind of situation where they would consent to the border being the armistice line, for example (~OTL Second Polish Republic Eastern border), but would not freely give up Ukraine? There were many devastating defeats in history, but rarely one that resulted in such a massive loss. In essence, had this border been upheld, Russia could hardly have evolved into the superpower it did in OTL.

And while Russians might have had no leverage, Germans were also pressed by time. What if a more prudent German leadership negotiates an earlier peace, with more restrictive borders and then devotes its full strength to the West, where the war was really being decided?

Russia was collapsing by mid-1916. If Russia leaves the war earlier, the better it does. In fact, the earlier is generally better. By the winter of 1915/16, rational leaders on all sides should have made peace. Only Japan won WW1.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I feel the same. What surprises me is that, in quite a few discussions I’ve seen on this board, a few people seem almost to assume that this is the ‘default’ result of a German victory over Russia in alt-WWIs.

One solution would be for Russia to accept the earlier German demands which did not include Ukraine or Estonia.

If earlier PoDs and more drastic changes are acceptable, you can have Russia can keep even more. For example, suppose Germany somehow defeats France quickly. If this is achieved, Russia will have no concieveable hope of victory and will probably try getting out of the war asap. In such a situation it might even get away with status quo antebellum, especially if the German victory in the west is secured at the cost of worse performance in the east.

Something similar to this:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=394961&postcount=4

but small details may differ. One thing about the map which intrigues me is the gargantuan Lithuania: to what extent are its borders on this map accurate? It seems to contain at least one small error: IIRC Ukraine was awarded a slice of what the map proclaims to be Poland (Chelm and environs). As far as Poland is concerned, Germany had trouble deciding what to do about it. Even as late as Brest-Litovsk it wasn’t sure how it was supposed to be ran, or what its precise borders were to be. I don’t think a separate Belarus would be likely to happen.

Most TL I have seen have a different border, often much different. I don't think people assume B/L is the default.

I don't think the German had decided exactly what to do. There were many plans, but few hard details that I have found. They had selected the new rulers of Finland and the Baltics, but the rest was very chaotic. Small changes to however the Germans win WW1 would have big impacts on the final solution to land allocation.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Thanks, great map!

So it seems Germany wasn't gonna annex a great deal of land, which makes sense to me. Nazis wanted to conquer vast territories because they planned to genocide the locals, but without such crazy policies, adding the Polish heartland to Germany is likely to become a weakness rather than a strength.

Lithuania is definately too big, I'm not even sure that land would have been Lithuanian majority; the Poles in the area would want to join with independent Poland, and this Lithuania would end up quite disunited and unstable.

There are also a couple of mini-states which make little sense to me. Why have an independent Courland, for instance? And a Don Cossack state? Come on. Who exactly would benefit from that? I think Germany would instead look to make Ukraine stronger and an ally against Russian irredentism. Also 'Northern Dobruja' has little chance of long term survival.

All in all the general outline of the map is realistic; Poland isn't going to be much more than a rump of its former self with a victorious Germany and Ukraine will likely be established as the most important buffer state. The next question is the fate of the Austro-HUngarian Empire, which cannot possibly hold on forever, victory or not; but I guess that's a different thread.

Everything varies with the POD required for German win. But some things can be said. The Polish and Catholic parties will likely not allow for outright annexation of Poland and/or clearing a border strip of Poles. The last thing the Prussians want is more Poles in Germany. The eastern part of what would become Poland is troubling to handle. No clear majority, and in many locations lots of people can claim plurality. Classic issue is how to you count a man who can speak 4 languages and has ancestors of 3 ethnic groups? And in many areas, the plurality is Jewish, and no one is seriously considering a Jewish state in this time frame.

Courland was a Russian Administrative unit, so they were considering keeping it.
 
Most TL I have seen have a different border, often much different. I don't think people assume B/L is the default.

I didn't mean timelines, where the changes are justified, rather a few individual posts concerning, say, the consequences of Paris falling in 1914, where the assumption seems to be that if Germany occupied an area in OTL, it would do so in an ATL too. Not that there's anything wrong with contemplating this, of course. I was just remarking that, due to their sheer size, it surprises me a little that such territorial changes are occasionally being 'casually' proposed.

And in many areas, the plurality is Jewish, and no one is seriously considering a Jewish state in this time frame.

Outside numerous small cities, which regions were these, precisely? I thought that the Jewish population was distributed relatively evenly, and since it numbered 10-15% of the total population, the areas which would be sufficiently ethnically mixed for the Jews to be a plurality seem to have been few indeed.
 
Top