Can Germany grab Central Asia from Russia in 1918?

CaliGuy

Banned
Out of curiosity--had Germany decided to try weakening Russia even further in 1918 and thus would have also demanded that the Bolsheviks give up Russian rule over Central Asia, would the Bolsheviks have accepted this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned

I mean having the Bolsheviks withdraw from there and then finding some local Muslims (perhaps from among the Basmachi) whom they would be willing to help fund in an attempt to seize power there.

They couldn't even hold Ukraine or the Caucasus

Didn't the Germans make a mistake there by not letting the Turks have all of the Caucasus, though? Indeed, wouldn't that have helped prevent Germany from overextending itself?
 

Deleted member 97083

One does not simply grab territory from Russia.

Didn't the Germans make a mistake there by not letting the Turks have all of the Caucasus, though? Indeed, wouldn't that have helped prevent Germany from overextending itself?
The Ottoman Empire was in no shape to expand into the Caucasus in 1919.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The two main conditions for an armistice from the US was the end of all fighting and nulling the Brest-Litovsk treaty.
That's why it is imperative for Germany to keep the U.S. neutral in this TL by avoiding the resumption of USW.

One does not simply grab territory from Russia.

And yet Germany did just that in early 1918.

The Ottoman Empire was in no shape to expand into the Caucasus in 1919.

Didn't the Ottomans capture Baku (against German wishes) in late 1918 in our TL, though?
 
Didn't the Ottomans capture Baku (against German wishes) in late 1918 in our TL, though?

The situation there was chaotic even by Russian Civil War standards, with Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Whites, the British, the Armenians, and Nuri Pasha's Army of Islam all at cross purposes. In the long run, the distance between the center of Turkish strength and the Caspian Sea will put them at a disadvantage versus the Russians. It simply can't last. And that also goes for anything in Central Asia, only there the Russians have the additional advantage that their rail network was designed to allow them to efficiently put down local revolts, plus it's too far for the Germans or the Turks to reliably supply much of anything.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The situation there was chaotic even by Russian Civil War standards, with Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Whites, the British, the Armenians, and Nuri Pasha's Army of Islam all at cross purposes. In the long run, the distance between the center of Turkish strength and the Caspian Sea will put them at a disadvantage versus the Russians. It simply can't last.

Weren't both Moscow and St. Petersburg farther from the Caucasus than Constantiople was, though?

Also, if the Ottoman Empire is able to acquire Baku, Armenia, and Georgia, wouldn't it have an extremely great defensible northern border in the Caucasus?

And that also goes for anything in Central Asia, only there the Russians have the additional advantage that their rail network was designed to allow them to efficiently put down local revolts, plus it's too far for the Germans or the Turks to reliably supply much of anything.

Oh, I agree that Germany and the Ottoman Empire would be unable to ensure Central Asia's independence over the long(er)-run. However, they could nevertheless use and exploit a Russian reconquest of Central Asia for propaganda purposes (for instance, by arguing something along these lines: "Those big bad Russians! How dare they strip Kazakhs, Uzbeks, et cetera of their independence!"
 
Why would the Ottomans and Germans be burning up precious resources to try and add Central Asia to their sphere in a time as important as 1918, when they've got far bigger things to be worrying about, like, y'know, all the stuff going down in all the other fronts they were engaged in at the time :p

And ensuring that the Russians left Central Asia and stayed out would have taken up resources alright, and likely would have brought in no gain for the immediate war effort.
 
Weren't both Moscow and St. Petersburg farther from the Caucasus than Constantiople was, though?

Also, if the Ottoman Empire is able to acquire Baku, Armenia, and Georgia, wouldn't it have an extremely great defensible northern border in the Caucasus?

Yes, but the areas of Russian urbanization didn't end in Moscow. I think this map of the Volga watershed should illustrate a little better how they were able to supply things further south:
Volgarivermap.png


As you can see, the Volga empties into the Caspian south of Astrakhan, and you should be able to reach Baku that way. The Ottomans don't have anything comparable to getting things across eastern Turkey by land, which is one of the reasons they had so much trouble in this theater IOTL. As for the Turks getting more defensible frontiers, I honestly don't think they had the strength to get the borders you describe. The Ottoman Third Army basically got decimated by the Russians in 1916, and only Russian reverses elsewhere stopped them from losing chunks of eastern Turkey. And even after the Russians fell to pieces, the remnants of the Third Army lost battle after battle to the Armenians. You'd need some sort of 1915-ish POD to fix the Turkish issues in this theater.

Oh, I agree that Germany and the Ottoman Empire would be unable to ensure Central Asia's independence over the long(er)-run. However, they could nevertheless use and exploit a Russian reconquest of Central Asia for propaganda purposes (for instance, by arguing something along these lines: "Those big bad Russians! How dare they strip Kazakhs, Uzbeks, et cetera of their independence!"

The original Russian conquest of this region was still in living memory in this period, so it seems besides the point.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Yes, but the areas of Russian urbanization didn't end in Moscow. I think this map of the Volga watershed should illustrate a little better how they were able to supply things further south:
Volgarivermap.png


As you can see, the Volga empties into the Caspian south of Astrakhan, and you should be able to reach Baku that way. The Ottomans don't have anything comparable to getting things across eastern Turkey by land, which is one of the reasons they had so much trouble in this theater IOTL. As for the Turks getting more defensible frontiers, I honestly don't think they had the strength to get the borders you describe. The Ottoman Third Army basically got decimated by the Russians in 1916, and only Russian reverses elsewhere stopped them from losing chunks of eastern Turkey. And even after the Russians fell to pieces, the remnants of the Third Army lost battle after battle to the Armenians. You'd need some sort of 1915-ish POD to fix the Turkish issues in this theater.

Point taken about the Volga watershed.

However, in regards to the Ottomans' Caucasian borders--are you suggesting that the Ottomans couldn't have obtained those borders even in late 1918 when Russia was in a state of civil war and collapse?

The original Russian conquest of this region was still in living memory in this period, so it seems besides the point.

Conquering an area twice looks worse than conquering an area once, no? Plus, it might improve Germany's image in the Muslim world, no?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Why would the Ottomans and Germans be burning up precious resources to try and add Central Asia to their sphere in a time as important as 1918, when they've got far bigger things to be worrying about, like, y'know, all the stuff going down in all the other fronts they were engaged in at the time :p

And ensuring that the Russians left Central Asia and stayed out would have taken up resources alright, and likely would have brought in no gain for the immediate war effort.
Oh, I completely agree with you. Indeed, I was simply wondering on what the limits of German power in the East in 1918 were.
 

Deleted member 97083

And yet Germany did just that in early 1918.

Didn't the Ottomans capture Baku (against German wishes) in late 1918 in our TL, though?
Yeah but both lost those territories very quickly. If the US stays out perhaps it is plausible, however Central Asia is quite a stretch.
 
Point taken about the Volga watershed.

However, in regards to the Ottomans' Caucasian borders--are you suggesting that the Ottomans couldn't have obtained those borders even in late 1918 when Russia was in a state of civil war and collapse?

Their repeated inability to defeat an Armenian force they outnumbered two to one suggests that the answer's yes. If anything, the Russians knocked both Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans out of the war in 1916. The two could keep fighting still, but their ability to go on the offensive without German help was reduced to near zero.

Conquering an area twice looks worse than conquering an area once, no? Plus, it might improve Germany's image in the Muslim world, no?

That's not how it'd be seen in this period. Conquering twice implies that the rebellious regions would be seen at least temporarily as "not Russia", which seems anachronistic to me. It'd more likely be written off as an internal Russian affair, and too distant for Europeans to care about. Muslims might care a bit more, but Russia was probably cagier than most European powers in managing Muslim subjects anyways, and the tepid OTL response to Ottoman calls for Jihad doesn't inspire additional confidence.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
Yeah but both lost those territories very quickly. If the US stays out perhaps it is plausible, however Central Asia is quite a stretch.
Yeah, obviously the U.S. would have to remain neutral in WWI for this. However, even then, I am beginning to have doubts even about the Caucasian part of this.

Their repeated inability to defeat an Armenian force they outnumbered two to one suggests that the answer's yes. If anything, the Russians knocked both Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans out of the war in 1916. The two could keep fighting still, but their ability to go on the offensive without German help was reduced to near zero.

How good were the Ottomans at defense during this time, though?

Also, are you suggesting that it would have been best for Germany to focus everything on defending Ukraine and to just ignore the Caucasus?

That's not how it'd be seen in this period. Conquering twice implies that the rebellious regions would be seen at least temporarily as "not Russia", which seems anachronistic to me. It'd more likely be written off as an internal Russian affair, and too distant for Europeans to care about. Muslims might care a bit more, but Russia was probably cagier than most European powers in managing Muslim subjects anyways, and the tepid OTL response to Ottoman calls for Jihad don't inspire additional confidence.

Fair enough, I suppose.
 

Deleted member 97083

Yeah, obviously the U.S. would have to remain neutral in WWI for this. However, even then, I am beginning to have doubts even about the Caucasian part of this.
I think the Germans were more likely to be able to hold the Caucasus than the Ottomans. The Germans at least were fully industrialized and had up-to-date railroads in their own land. The Ottomans didn't even have proper infrastructure for their own empire.
 
How good were the Ottomans at defense during this time, though?

Also, are you suggesting that it would have been best for Germany to focus everything on defending Ukraine and to just ignore the Caucasus?

I mean, plenty of people could give you more detailed assessments, but it seems like the Ottomans acquitted themselves reasonably well on the defense. Certainly at Gallipoli they did so, and also at the start of the Caucasus campaign when the Russians attacked first. It's just that after that Enver Pasha started making unreasonable demands of the troops at the front that made Conrad seem responsible, demanding offensives through the highest mountain range in Europe in the middle of winter. For the Third Army it was all downhill from there.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think the Germans were more likely to be able to hold the Caucasus than the Ottomans. The Germans at least were fully industrialized and had up-to-date railroads in their own land. The Ottomans didn't even have proper infrastructure for their own empire.
Yes, but a risk of the Germans attempting this is that they might have very well gotten overstretched and thus lost both the Caucasus and Ukraine, no?

If so, wouldn't it have been better for the Germans to put everything into the defense of Ukraine and to screw over the Caucasus?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I mean, plenty of people could give you more detailed assessments, but it seems like the Ottomans acquitted themselves reasonably well on the defense. Certainly at Gallipoli they did so, and also at the start of the Caucasus campaign when the Russians attacked first. It's just that after that Enver Pasha started making unreasonable demands of the troops at the front that made Conrad seem responsible, demanding offensives through the highest mountain range in Europe in the middle of winter. For the Third Army it was all downhill from there.
OK; understood.

Basically, I was wondering about having the Germans conquer all of this idea and then give it to the Ottomans and put the Ottomans in defensive positions throughout the Caucasus.

However, what I am worried about with that scenario is the risk of German overstretching.
 

Deleted member 97083

OK; understood.

Basically, I was wondering about having the Germans conquer all of this idea and then give it to the Ottomans and put the Ottomans in defensive positions throughout the Caucasus.

However, what I am worried about with that scenario is the risk of German overstretching.
The Germans could give parts of the Caucasus to the Ottomans and then take it back later when the Ottomans collapse. After the likely Ottoman genocidal rampage in Georgia, and stories of Bolshevik violence to the north as well as German + Coalition anti-Bolshevik propaganda, then the German Empire won't seem as bad in comparison.
 
Top