Eastern Europe in a Central Powers Victory

These are some old (2012) posts I made over on the Kaiserreich forums, but a lot of the information in said posts is applicable here and may prove of interest elsewise. I've hidden them behind a spoiler so the content doesn't essentially dominate a page. Affairs in the East leave Austria-Hungary in a poorer position then I remember.




Very interesting read! I will adjust the map accordingly later.
 
Please look at this map:

Mitteleuropa_ENG_wielgórski.PNG


Without Belarus in Central Power hands, Russia would have an absolutely enormous front line on which to attack Ukraine.
So it looks like Germany picks Poland as a new buffer in this map. While it obviously would have preferred not to, I suspect that even with the history of the two countries in the preceding century, Germany might have been able to make Poland into a more reliable ally (OK, client state) if they were willing to make the right concessions. Of course, besides the obvious risk of giving people embittered to your country the ability to build a significant state there was the additional price of giving up the opportunity to annex a small Polish rump state later (which they almost certainly planned on doing). On the other hand, the Poles were not fond of Russia. In fact, I would argue that at the time, many disliked it even more than they disliked Germany. I suppose that if the option of making Belarus or Ukraine into a buffer state should not be available or if Germany were worried about not being able to keep them from rejoining Russia, Poland could potentially be turned into a more credible back up buffer which would almost certainly be willing to fight against Russia provided that it felt the 20 million Poles in Europe had been given a satisfactory nation after the war (so, yeah, it's going to take more than a chunk around Warsaw the size of Holland). With that in mind, the Germans might not only be compelled to let Galicia join the nation, but possibly also to expand its eastern border to include cities that already had significant Polish populations and were historically part of the commonwealth.
 
Last edited:
Why not annex all of Karelia and the Kola Peninsula to leave Finland with a short and defensible Russian border between the Ladoga and the Onega?

Edited Finland's borders to include Karelia and North Ingria. The Heimosodat that Finland fought historically could see Karelia and North Ingria fall to the Finnish with German backing ITTL. That being said, what exactly would happen to the Kola Peninsula? How would Murmansk be eliminated(if it gets eliminated)? And some input on Belarus would be great.

View attachment 348002

While the traditional "Three Isthmus Border" would be the Finnish maximum demand, I personally think that we should not assume that Finland gets it by default. One major issue is Murmansk and the Murmansk railway - if Germany decides to go to the effort of depriving Russia of those major assets, then we might see that maximum Finland realized. But if Russia has at least some say in the issue, and Germany for some reason does not want to waste "diplomatic poker chips" pushing Russia in this area but rather uses that leverage further south, Russia might keep the Murmansk and railway combo and in that case realistic maximum Finnish borders would stop just short of the railway line.

In any case we need to remember that for Germany Finland and Karelia are more peripheral areas than Ukraine and the Baltics, and thus, if it is necessary to choose, Germany would sacrifice some of its (and Finland's) goals up north if that means getting better rewards down south. This area is strategically much more important for Russia than for Germany, especially when the Russians are losing most of their Baltic ports, so they would try to hold on to Murmansk and the railway if at all possible. In most cases, I believe that Russia would not be in a position where Germany can dictate all the terms of the peace, but even if Russia is in dire straits it would have some chances for bargaining at least. Perhaps in some peace deal, just the ability of potentially quickly cutting the railway and rendering Murmansk useless as a port, by having the Finnish border right next to the railway line, might be enough for the Germans in strategic terms.
 
Last edited:
Re: German colonization. My take is Germans migrating to the urban areas would be more influential than rural. Businessmen & skilled tradesmen would have incentive to immigrate, following investment from Germany. They would draw German cultural and political influence with them. The would be a reverse as the local business class circulates through Germany in pursuit of investment, sales, and purchases.
 
What about Germany creating states that don't have a hope of surviving in the longer term so that Russia is occupied with them for a while giving Germany time to consolidate its hold on MittelEuropa? I imagine they would have a list of states that have to survive and be integrated, others that would be nice to have and still others who they would happily sell up the river in exchange for gains elsewhere.
 
While the traditional "Three Isthmus Border" would be the Finnish maximum demand, I personally think that we should not assume that Finland gets it by default. One major issue is Murmansk and the Murmansk railway - if Germany decides to go to the effort of depriving Russia of those major assets, then we might see that maximum Finland realized. But if Russia has at least some say in the issue, and Germany for some reason does not want to waste "diplomatic poker chips" pushing Russia in this area but rather uses that leverage further south, Russia might keep the Murmansk and railway combo and in that case realistic maximum Finnish borders would stop just short of the railway line.

In any case we need to remember that for Germany Finland and Karelia are more peripheral areas than Ukraine and the Baltics, and thus, if it is necessary to choose, Germany would sacrifice some of its (and Finland's) goals up north if that means getting better rewards down south. This area is strategically much more important for Russia than for Germany, especially when the Russians are losing most of their Baltic ports, so they would try to hold on to Murmansk and the railway if at all possible. In most cases, I believe that Russia would not be in a position where Germany can dictate all the terms of the peace, but even if Russia is in dire straits it would have some chances for bargaining at least. Perhaps in some peace deal, just the ability of potentially quickly cutting the railway and rendering Murmansk useless as a port, by having the Finnish border right next to the railway line, might be enough for the Germans in strategic terms.
And Britain might have a say too. They're not going to want Russia to be too crippled and Murmansk is the only Russian port they can reach without going through CP waters. With their navy and possession of many of the German colonies, the British already have a great deal of leverage.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What about Germany creating states that don't have a hope of surviving in the longer term so that Russia is occupied with them for a while giving Germany time to consolidate its hold on MittelEuropa? I imagine they would have a list of states that have to survive and be integrated, others that would be nice to have and still others who they would happily sell up the river in exchange for gains elsewhere.
You mean such an independent states in Central Asia?
 
Edited Finland's borders so that Russia still has the railroad to Murmansk, don't know if it's correct though. I'm pretty busy so I will edit the rest of the map when I get a chance.
aqol3IN.png
 
What about Germany creating states that don't have a hope of surviving in the longer term so that Russia is occupied with them for a while giving Germany time to consolidate its hold on MittelEuropa? I imagine they would have a list of states that have to survive and be integrated, others that would be nice to have and still others who they would happily sell up the river in exchange for gains elsewhere.
That essentially is the White Russians, who would be allowed to operate from German-occupied areas but not receive any direct support from Germany itself (i.e., military intervention).
 
Edited Finland's borders so that Russia still has the railroad to Murmansk, don't know if it's correct though. I'm pretty busy so I will edit the rest of the map when I get a chance.
aqol3IN.png

Those Finnish borders would still cut the southern part of the Murmansk railway as it stood in the early 1920s.

A simplified map of the situation during WWII. The dotted line is the part of the Murmansk railway rendered unusable by the Finnish advance. The branch running roughly east-west just below the southern tip of the White Sea, connecting the Murmansk-Leningrad line to the Arkhangelsk-Vologda line did not exist prior to WWII. This Belomorsk - Obozersky branch running on the isthmus between the White Sea and Lake Vygozero was built IOTL only in 1941, then allowing the Soviets use Murmansk even if the Finns captured a part of the original Murmansk rail line.

valtaussuunnitelma.jpeg


As long as the borders of Finland do not reach to the coasts of Lake Onega, Lake Vygozero and the White Sea, the border line can be made to skirt the original line of the Murmansk railway - in other words, just short of the dotted line here.
 
Belarus can look like whatever you want, that nation hardly had an independent national identity to begin with and it's borders would depend on the whim of the Germans.

You could have a border at the Dnieper, or have it extend to OTL borders, or give them Smolensk as well.
 
Finally had some spare time and edited Finland’s borders again. What would the border of Belarus look like?
I no longer have easy access to the book I was sourcing and it doesn't appear that it was in my prior arguments/notes, so I don't believe that the boundaries of White Ruthenia were ever a priority for the German government beyond that the State "existed". I imagine that a border at the Dnieper would be the absolute minimum given that is easily definable and defensible, though there isn't much preventing Germany from pushing for the full extent of their claims in an effort to placate the BNR's cessions to what would be Lithuania and the Ukraine; I'd stick with the former however.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Edited Ukraine's borders, temporarily got rid of Belarus and edited Finland's borders. What would the fate of the cossack republic's be?
1iZWkyU.png
It would depend on just how much Germany is willing to spend (in terms of money, troops, and lives) in order to prop it up.
 
Edited Ukraine's borders, temporarily got rid of Belarus and edited Finland's borders. What would the fate of the cossack republic's be?
On the surface the German's have an interest in keeping the Don, Kuban and North Caucasusian Republics alive, and there was already a sizable detachment deployed to Georgia at the time (80k or so I think) so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for smaller detachments to be deployed in the Don and North Caucasusian Republics, or for those States to enter defensive alliances with the German Empire. The problem is that inevitably another election will be held in Germany at some point, and whatever government that results from that would have major effects in the East in terms of actual troop deployments and aid given to the Associated Republics and (potentially) to the White Russians. I doubt that any of the States would fall to the Bolsheviks, knowing the Germans would probably push them out with ease given past experience, but they could potentially operate with a level of independence that was not in the initial planning of the Germans on the basis of simply being overstretched.

It would not be in the interests of the German Empire however to allow either of the Cossack States to attach to the Ukraine given how powerful it was already set to become (even with the Crimea being detached as an Associated State of sorts for German colonization), and I believe there were divided loyalties in terms of pursuing that course of action anyhow.
 
So I took the map and tried my hand at giving a better visualization of my suggestions on a larger scale. The Belorussian border is the big question mark of course, but I reasoned at the very least that the German Empire would favor the Belorussians over the Ukrainians in most of the border disputes, if only to weaken the Ukrainian Republic a slight bit and make controlling them easier, that and I'm not sure how the Dneiper would line up on this map.

I also opted not to display them given they would be fairly small, but the cities of Thessaloniki and Constanta would probably be "International Cities". I was also unsure as to how much influence the Ottomans would wield in Persia at this time given there are obvious limits to the Turks force projection, but Enver Pasha would be obsessed at ensuring Persia would exclusively enter the Ottoman sphere of influence, as well as trying to bring the inhabitants of Central Asia on their side as well (though I doubt that could truly turn the tide there).

TheRussianEast(Mine).png

Just because I know that's small, here's a larger version I screenshot:

TheRussianEast(Mine Zoomed In).fw.png
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
Re: German colonization. My take is Germans migrating to the urban areas would be more influential than rural. Businessmen & skilled tradesmen would have incentive to immigrate, following investment from Germany. They would draw German cultural and political influence with them. The would be a reverse as the local business class circulates through Germany in pursuit of investment, sales, and purchases.
How many Germans do you think will settle in Mitteleuropean cities in this TL, Carl?
 
Edited Finland's borders to include Karelia and North Ingria. The Heimosodat that Finland fought historically could see Karelia and North Ingria fall to the Finnish with German backing ITTL. That being said, what exactly would happen to the Kola Peninsula? How would Murmansk be eliminated(if it gets eliminated)? And some input on Belarus would be great.

View attachment 348002

I totally and belatedly agree with @DrakonFin 's (that scarily knowledgeable guy's) comments that you already acted upon - it's unlikely that the great powers would ever acceed to Finland's maximum goals.
 
Top