For Want of a Word – Stolypin endures

Sure that Russia will be revisionist, too much blood spilled, too much destruction and neither the Anglo-French and Wilson will give them all that they want and in any case it will not be enough for obvious reason. More than Germany, Russia will go for France his usual ally and economic supporter...Germany is usually competition in east europe while France not, so while a short term understanding is very possible, long term is veeeery difficult
Whether Russia will be a revisionist power depends on how the peace treaty shakes out and also what sort of government is in power in Russia. Even Italy didn’t have to a revisionist power until Mussolini came power, for example a royal dictatorship (King orders to March on Rome dispersed and declares martial law) would be much more willing to accept the international order even if it isn’t happy about it.

On Poland, I agree that Wilson is unlikely to ask for Polish independence (though he might ask for some ‘evolution towards responsible self-government’ the way he did for non-European territories and originally for regions in Eastern Europe before the total collapse of Austria-Hungary made him chance tracks) and if he even does than no Russian government is going to agree. Wilson does have some leverage but not enough to force Russia do to anything it truly doesn’t want and he cannot organize a financial boycott by private capital against Russia, which is the only thing that would really hurt Russia enough to make it reconsider.
Poland is unlikely to be very stable, that is true, but Russia should be able to hang on to it, at least for the moment. In the long-term Poland, and to a lesser degree Finland, is going to be a long-term trouble spot for Russia and sooner or later Russia likely has to let Poland go, but that date IMO hasn’t arrived by 1918/1919.

Also, France very likely won’t support Wilson too much, their number one consideration both IOTL and IATL isn’t securing territorial gains but securing France against possible German revanche (France knew that Germany would recover one day and as devastated as France was by the war they were deathly afraid of Germany attacking again in a couple of decades) in the future and keeping France safe, and keeping their Russian ally happy is an essential part of that strategy, which they aren’t sacrificing for Wilson who is neither willing nor able to commit the US to a long-term alliance with France.

Russia likely is able to secure much of what it wants in Anatolia (Constantinople and Ottoman Armenia have already been promised to Russia in treaties and Britain/France are unlikely to go back on them without a very good reason and pleasing Wilson, who wouldn’t care much for the rights of the Turkish people anyway, isn't a good reason), Poland (annexing the German parts of Poland and Galicia), and the Balkans (Serbia and Romania likely remain pro-Russian, Bulgaria is cowed, Greece is still mostly pro-British but that was already the case), Russia will likely have a reasonable degree of influence in the states that rise from the ashes of Austria-Hungary and AFAIK didn’t expect to dominate Central Europe anyway.
I’m not saying that revisionist feelings can’t arise for some very foolish nationalist reason, but is more likely that Russia feels mostly satisfied with the treaty and decides to mostly look inward (combating radicalism and assimilating/keeping the newly acquired territories).

In regards to Russia and Germany, with Austria-Hungary (mostly or fully) out of the picture most pre-war points of contention between Russia and Germany have been removed, Russia is more interested in the Balkans and Anatolia than in Central Europe, and neither of those are among Germany’s key geopolitical interests, and the Germany industry would love to buy Russian raw materials while selling them machinery, plus the German right-wing would feel much more comfortable with autocratic Russia than liberal Britain and France. A Russo-German rapprochement in the 1920s and long-term Russo-German cooperation are very much in the cards.
 
The longer-term diplomatic issue is that, with the German threat removed, the Entente, including it's key French-Russian leg, has no real reason to exist. And the Russian Empire, especially it it gets grabby in the the post-war, will be as big a boogeyman to the European left as the Bolsheviks were to the right OTL. Expect French and British leftists to denounce their governments' support of the Butcher of St. Petersburg and earnest liberals to pen tracts denouncing the "flood of barbarian Asiatics" pouring into civilised Europe.
Britain has no reason to be very friendly to Russia after the war, but France was IOTL in the discussions at Versailles very much looking for ways to contain Germany long-term (they knew German power had been weakened but wasn’t broken), including trying for long-term military alliances with the US or Britain, which neither were willing to agree to.
Russia likely will have no problem, at least in the short-term, to agreeing to continuing its military alliance with France and for that reason France is going to be working very hard to keep Russia happy.

In the long-term a possible Russo-German rapprochement could sour relations but if Russia either doesn’t come to an agreement with Germany or proves able to balance improved relations with Germany with its military commitment to France, which partly depends on aggressive Germany is going to act in the late 1920s/1930s, then the Franco-Russian alliance can endure for quite a while.
 
As Viktor Chernov, one of the leading Socialist-Revolutionaries, would later say: “We believed in a socialist revolution, and we got a medieval slaughter. That night, I finally realized that the salvation of Russia could not come through revolution, which would only bring the worst out of us”.
Looking forward to how the political of the Russian radical left develop and European left-wing politics in general.
If Chernov and like-minded leftists turn towards participating in the official Russian political system, that hints at genuine democratic spaces opening up within Russian society in the 1920s, as I find it unlikely that if the government offers mostly repression the left wouldn’t simply radicalize further instead of parts of it turning away from militancy and terrorism.
These democratic spaces within Russian society don’t necessarily have to take the shape of a parliamentary democracy, the Duma wasn’t a model of effective parliamentarism before WW1 and events of the February riots likely have soured government opinions on it further.
The Zemstvos have already been mentioned, maybe they are given more powers, responsibilities and independence (plus allowing for the possibility for open debate and political experimentation, even radical experimentation, as long as a tight lid is kept on agitation against the central government) and Russian democracy thus starts to develop at the local level before slowly spreading upwards.
This could push the Russian radical and socialist left into a more localist and cooperative direction (leftists radicals in the Zemstvos promoting farmer’s cooperatives (maybe some even modeled along the lines of kibbutzim) and possibly industrial/retail cooperatives in the cities.
Something like could have interesting consequences for European socialism and social democracy in general (maybe some form of reformist anarcho-syndicalism developing?).
 

marathag

Banned
Wilson, no doubt, will push for a Polish national state - and the French may back him as a way of cutting Germany down to size - but if the Tsar says no, then that's that.
An intact Imperial Russia can't run away from debt, like the Soviets did.
WW has a huge leash on the Russians, that he can apply real pressure on the economy
 
Which “former independent nation” do you have in mind? Poland? At least in OTL it’s leadership closely associated itself with the CPs
I would not say so. Poles were reluctant to support CP side, causing Germans to turn their attention to Ukrainians whom they promised Chełm (which caused massive unrest in Poland and caused Oath Crisis (Polish legionnaries refused to swear obedience to Kaiser) Piłsudski was arrested and Legionnaires fighting on Eastern Front under Haller switched sides and were absorbed by Polish Corps that fought on Russian side.
 
On Poland, I agree that Wilson is unlikely to ask for Polish independence (though he might ask for some ‘evolution towards responsible self-government’ the way he did for non-European territories and originally for regions in Eastern Europe before the total collapse of Austria-Hungary made him chance tracks) and if he even does than no Russian government is going to agree. Wilson does have some leverage but not enough to force Russia do to anything it truly doesn’t want and he cannot organize a financial boycott by private capital against Russia, which is the only thing that would really hurt Russia enough to make it reconsider.
I agree Wilson is not going to push for the independence of Russian Poland - any more than he's going to push for the independence of Ireland or Algeria. The question will be what happens in the German and Austrian Polish territories. If the Poles around Posen are in uprising as OTL (admittedly, if there's a Russian army advancing into Prussia they might not be), then he won't be happy allowing the Germans simply to send in an army and put down the uprising, nor will he (or the Poles) support Russia annexing the place. That leaves him supporting some sort of independent - or at lest autonomous - Polish state. The French, of course, will be keen to strip Germany of a much territory as possible, though they might be happier with it going to a strong Russia rather than a weak and unstable Poland.

An intact Imperial Russia can't run away from debt, like the Soviets did.
WW has a huge leash on the Russians, that he can apply real pressure on the economy
I think "can't" there means "won't". If the Russian government declares a "unilateral restructuring" of Russian debt, what can Wilson do about it? His only levers are blocking direct government-to-government aid/loans - which are much less important now Russia isn't mass-buying munitions - and trying to influence private entities against lending and investment in Russia. And Wall Street is notoriously more interested in the bottom line than what the politicians tell it. If Russia looks a good enough credit risk, the Russian government may calculate it can afford to piss off Wilson and still raise any needed cash privately on Wall Street or in London. Or they may go all autarchic and try to reduce dependence on foreign capital. Only if the Russians believe that they can't stay afloat without US-backed loans does Wilson have much power over them - and even then, if the Russians claim they need the revenues of Danzig or Krakow or Silesia to pay back Wall Street, is the US going to pull the plug?

Britain has no reason to be very friendly to Russia after the war, but France was IOTL in the discussions at Versailles very much looking for ways to contain Germany long-term (they knew German power had been weakened but wasn’t broken), including trying for long-term military alliances with the US or Britain, which neither were willing to agree to.
Russia likely will have no problem, at least in the short-term, to agreeing to continuing its military alliance with France and for that reason France is going to be working very hard to keep Russia happy.
I did say "once the German threat is removed". Those Frenchmen who still see Germany as the major threat - the Foch generation - are going to want to keep the Franco-Russian alliance. The new generation may not agree - there's going to be a big anti-war movement in the 20s and 30s, complete with claims that it was the alliance with Russia that got France into the war in the first place. If German emerges from the post-war as a left-ish democracy, people are going to start asking why republican France is allying with the Russian autocrat against democratic Germany. I can see it becoming a party issue, with the Right supporting the Russian alliance (and French investment in Russia) and the Left wanting a rapprochement with Germany.
 
Last edited:
Suggestion regarding Congress and Austrian Poland had been made by @Stenkarazin so we have to accept it as this TL's reality. x'D
About Russian plans for Poland:

I do not remember where I read that (I left most of my books in Europe), but I read that Sazonov entertained the idea of an autonomous Poland after the war. Grand-duke Nikolay Nikolayevich made similar promises. A Polish Committee was formed, basically mirroring the CP's efforts on the other side.

Is Sergei Dmitryevich Sazonov part of the government? He had plans for poland and central european balance .

Yes, a brother-in-law to Stolypin, Sazonov is still F.A. Minister in 1917-1918. Will probably be dismissed soon after (or during) the Paris Conference.

The link provided by our Polish friend seems to support what I thought : Galicia/Ruthenia would of course be annexed to Russia, but the idea a modicum of autonomy for the Polish lands was entertained by Sazonov and Nikolay Nikolayevich.

Of course it may be only empty-handed thinking and gratuitous propaganda, which cost nothing since at that time Russia had lost Congress Poland, but it may come back during the peace conference. Wilson could easily say that the Russians themselves had raised the idea of an autonomous Poland during the war.

I also tend to think that this Princeton Presbyterian Puritan Crusader of Shenandoah morality of Wilson would not hesitate to raise the issue of Poland at the Paris Conference, Russian feathers be damned. I agree it is far from a certainty, but the probability of this increases if at the same time Poles are raising havoc against the Russians on the ground.... which leads us to:

The probability of a Polish uprising in 1918-1920:

I hear all of your arguments. Indeed Poland is not going to be in the same situation ITTL than OTL in 1918. But... Poland may be in a better situation ITTL at end of the war than it was OTL in late 1917 - early 1918. Let me explain: faced with the persistent threat of Russia, it is possible that Germany would not adopt the heavy-handed ways that it did OTL; so possibly no Oath Crisis. It is also possible that, realizing by late 1917 that the war is turning against them, and focusing on a all or nothing gamble on the Western front (more or less an alt-Kaizerslacht), the Germans decide to do everything they can to bolster the Kingdom of Poland and Pilsudski's legions.

Then, once the war is lost and the Armistice signed, as Luke Dalton suggested, the Germans could deliberately leave depots and caches of weapons to the Poles. (the irony is that afterwards Germans will have a Silesian uprising on their hands).

I am not saying that a Polish uprising between 1918 and 1920 is going to be successful ITTL. But the probability of it happening is quite high: Congress Poles emboldened by Pilsudski's efforts and CP's support during the war; Austrian Poles shivering at the idea of being submitted to the Russian Autocrat (and worse, to these uncouth Ruthenians !); disorder in German-held Silesia, which can be used as a support base...

This insurrection will of course fail, and be put down with untold brutality by the Emperor (Gurko, Kornilov, Ungern are going to have a field day), but it could lead Wilson to address it during the Paris Conference.
 
About Russian plans for Poland:

I do not remember where I read that (I left most of my books in Europe), but I read that Sazonov entertained the idea of an autonomous Poland after the war. Grand-duke Nikolay Nikolayevich made similar promises. A Polish Committee was formed, basically mirroring the CP's efforts on the other side.



Yes, a brother-in-law to Stolypin, Sazonov is still F.A. Minister in 1917-1918. Will probably be dismissed soon after (or during) the Paris Conference.

The link provided by our Polish friend seems to support what I thought : Galicia/Ruthenia would of course be annexed to Russia, but the idea a modicum of autonomy for the Polish lands was entertained by Sazonov and Nikolay Nikolayevich.

Of course it may be only empty-handed thinking and gratuitous propaganda, which cost nothing since at that time Russia had lost Congress Poland, but it may come back during the peace conference. Wilson could easily say that the Russians themselves had raised the idea of an autonomous Poland during the war.

I also tend to think that this Princeton Presbyterian Puritan Crusader of Shenandoah morality of Wilson would not hesitate to raise the issue of Poland at the Paris Conference, Russian feathers be damned. I agree it is far from a certainty, but the probability of this increases if at the same time Poles are raising havoc against the Russians on the ground.... which leads us to:

The probability of a Polish uprising in 1918-1920:

I hear all of your arguments. Indeed Poland is not going to be in the same situation ITTL than OTL in 1918. But... Poland may be in a better situation ITTL at end of the war than it was OTL in late 1917 - early 1918. Let me explain: faced with the persistent threat of Russia, it is possible that Germany would not adopt the heavy-handed ways that it did OTL; so possibly no Oath Crisis. It is also possible that, realizing by late 1917 that the war is turning against them, and focusing on a all or nothing gamble on the Western front (more or less an alt-Kaizerslacht), the Germans decide to do everything they can to bolster the Kingdom of Poland and Pilsudski's legions.

Then, once the war is lost and the Armistice signed, as Luke Dalton suggested, the Germans could deliberately leave depots and caches of weapons to the Poles. (the irony is that afterwards Germans will have a Silesian uprising on their hands).

I am not saying that a Polish uprising between 1918 and 1920 is going to be successful ITTL. But the probability of it happening is quite high: Congress Poles emboldened by Pilsudski's efforts and CP's support during the war; Austrian Poles shivering at the idea of being submitted to the Russian Autocrat (and worse, to these uncouth Ruthenians !); disorder in German-held Silesia, which can be used as a support base...

This insurrection will of course fail, and be put down with untold brutality by the Emperor (Gurko, Kornilov, Ungern are going to have a field day), but it could lead Wilson to address it during the Paris Conference.
Will Roman Dmowski be important for future Poland? Historically he was strictly anti-socialist and anti-German. He also supported Russian actions against Pisłsudski and he was a member of russian Duma. From what I remember, at least he respected Stolypin even if he didn't like him as a Pole. He could cause a division in the independence movement that the Russians could take advantage of. His vision of Poland would be more suitable for Russians.
 
March – June 1917 – The Long Road to Summer
March – June 1917 – The Long Road to Summer

Frail is the veneer of civilization… On each side of the barricades, we remain Tatars through and through. Soloviev is proved right, once again. You know that my book [Petersburg] foretold that. I feel I know which direction to go from there”.

Andrey Biely to A.M. Remizov, April 1917.

Under the blue collar of the worker, a Scythian. Under the blue uniform of the Life-Guard, a Mongol. Too long you have disdained this truth. Look inwards, Russia, and do not despair: the red sun will rise anew: not a Marxist aster, mind you, this you should leave to the Germans and their love of mathematics; but a Scythian sun, red, and frightful”.

Alexander Blok, draft of an unsent letter to Maksim Gorky, June or possibly August 1918.

You should have seen, Piotr Nikolayevich, in what state I found the Tauride Palace! Like Odoacer on the Forum. The shrine of constitutionalism, utterly fouled, desecrated, by the very people it was supposed to represent. It couldn’t have been worse if the Swedes had taken the city ! So much for our attempts to behave like proper English gentlemen ! Once the war is over, it will be necessary for us (and I mean us) to reckon about that country of us where our bayonets are the only thing standing between civilization and anarchy”.

A. Kutepov to P.N. Wrangel, October 1917.

Petrograd was a scarred sepulchre. Throughout the city, many official buildings had burned: police stations, tribunals, but also an entire aisle of the Imperial Library, because the mob believed that it contained the State’s archives: it was a telling sign of the nature of the February Uprising that the people believed that, if they burned the State’s records, they would be free from any debt and servitude. Dozens of palaces had been plundered, works of art destroyed, officials, aristocrats, and really anybody wearing “German” clothes, beaten or murdered. To add to the devastation, Gurko and his troops had brought the peace of the desert to the city, like Belisarius had "pacified" Constantinople during the Nika Sedition.

Police forces from all over Russia came to the capital to achieve the restoration of order. The workers were treated relatively lightly, on the instances of Polivanov who worried about the inevitable drop of productivity in the industries attached to the war effort. In any case, the most outspoken of the workers had already been shot down by the Cossacks during the military operations of 5-11 March. Police detachments were accompanied by trainloads of grain, which helped to bring back peace and order to the industrial neighbourhoods of Petrograd.

The mutineers were treated more severely: the ringleaders (and especially the junior officers who had rallied the mutiny) were shot, or deported to Siberia. The bulk of the mutineers were dispersed to the remotest garrisons of the empire, in Turkestan or the Far-East. Only a fraction of the mutineers, who were able to impress their innocence on the military judges, were able to avoid that fate and were sent to military depots far from the front, where they would be “re-disciplined” by watchful officers. In any case, most of the Imperial Guards regiments were disbanded, the proud legacy of young Tsar Peter desecrated forever by their treachery. Only the Preobrazhensky, who had fielded the majority of the defenders of the Government Square, was maintained. In due course, each of its companies would form the nucleus of new Imperial Guard regiments, whose names (Lodomirsky, Anatolievski, Tsargradski) would echo in frightful glory during the 20's-30's.

As for the liberals and socialists who had tried to “mount the red horse”, whether in the Soviet or through the Duma Committee, their punishment varied greatly, and was in many cases arbitrary. The MP’s who had had the good senses to go over to Stolypin before Gurko’s entry in the city were treated relatively benignly: they were assigned to residence on their country estates or in their hometown, and deprived of their political rights. This was notably the case of A. Kerensky, who was put under house arrest in his father’s home in Simbirsk and forbidden to ever involve himself in politics. This relatively light sentence for someone who had been the darling orator of the Soviet might been explained by the influence of a few well-connected aristocrats, whose palaces Kerensky had apparently protected from the mob during the February days. Many well-connected MP’s like Rodzianko weren’t even forced to leave the city, provided they remained quiet and confined at home. The Soviet delegates were punished according to their faults: the ones who were determined to have taken arms and excited the mutineers were deported to labour camps; the others were condemned to internal exile, which is to say assigned to small towns in Siberia or Northern Russia, in relatively mild conditions. The Duma was officially disbanded, and would be recalled “once the situation allows it”.

This “reprise en main” departed starkly from the negligence previously shown by the regime. Indeed, the February Uprising was something of a wake-up call for the military and civilian authorities. The empire had been shaken to the core. The capital of the empire, the glorious city of Peter, symbol of the Emperor’s power and prestige, had been devastated by anarchy for a full two weeks. Another stinging humiliation, on top of the many that Russia had suffered since the beginning of this wretched war. This had to be the last one. Something had to change, even the Emperor could see that.

The Emperor didn’t even set foot in his ravaged capital. After a short visit to Tsarskoye Selo to meet with his family, he returned to Mogilev, where, with much dithering, he announced to Alekseyev his dismissal, and his replacement by Gurko. There, on 19 March, he took the unprecedented step of convoking in Smolensk an ad hoc War council gathering both military (Stavka and front commanders) and civilian representatives (ministers Stolypin, Krivoshein, Polivanov and Schcherbatov). Smolensk was chosen because, for the Tsar, this old and sacred Russian city, which has been invaded so many times by Russia's foes, embodied the immutable soul of the Russian land, which, through faith and untold sacrifices, would endure and prevail.

The Southwestern and Caucasus front commanders (respectively, Brusilov and Grand-duke Nikolay Nikolayevich) had sent emissaries, but the Northwestern and Western commanders (Ruzski and Evert) came in person. Coincidentally, they were the ones who, at Alekseyev’s behest, had been the most outspoken in pleading for the appointment of a Rodzianko ministry. They were now palpably afraid of losing their jobs.

The conclusions of the Smolensk War Council were the following ones:​
  • The mutiny of the Petrograd military garrison has shown the low morale of the army, pushed to its utmost limits by the war.​
  • The morale and supply on the front remain worrying, especially on the Northwestern and Western fronts (Ruzski and Evert were of course interested in painting the situation in the darkest light, so as to justify their answer to the infamous “Alekseyev telegram”).​
  • Therefore, an offensive should not be considered before at least summer. The Allies would have to accept this decision. The focus of this offensive should be limited: it would be essentially about gaining some breathing space and bolstering morale at home. The theater of operations would be either the Southwestern front (Austria) or the Caucasus front (Turkey). (Gurko, who disliked Brusilov, made sure eventually that the Caucasus front was chosen). If the Allies demur, it would be replied that Russia is only having a go at the “soft belly” strategy that Britain has tried in 1916[1].​
  • In the meantime, no effort should be spared to bolster the supplies: food, clothing, ammunition, weapons, medicals,… are badly needed. Extra-effort should be made to carry Allied supply from the ports of entry to the front.​
  • The Petrograd riots have also shown the frailty of food supply to the big cities of Northern Russia. The Razvyorstka system of public-controlled grain supply has to be strengthened and systematized to other strategic cities – Ministries of Transports and Agriculture will focus on this, in close cooperation with the Zemstvos (see infra);​
  • Industrial production in Petrograd would inevitably take some time to recover. Every effort has to be made to redirect military production to other industrial zones in Central Russia (Tula, Voronezh, Kharkov, Kursk,…) – skilled workers deemed essential should not be conscripted;​
  • The Zemstvo’s parallel war effort is to be put under firmer control of the government, so that their activities are more efficient and more in line with the aforementioned priorities (of course the provincial liberals balked at that, but the beheading of the liberal leadership during the February Uprising left them stunned and defenseless);​
  • In light of these conclusions, close coordination between the government (especially War and Interior Ministries) and the Stavka is required (This was probably the biggest takeaway of the Smolensk Conference. Thoroughly frightened by the uprising, Nicholas II finally allowed his ministries to work directly with the Stavka through a board of coordination).​
Thus started the long slow way to summer. The war was raging on the other fronts, but all was quiet on the Eastern fringes of the great European War. The British blockade was taking its toll on Germany, who threw her submarines in unrestricted warfare in the Atlantic Ocean, which soon led the United States, where the Princeton Presbyterian of the Shenandoah Valley had just been reelected, to sever diplomatic relations with Germany. In Vienna, the new emperor and king tried to impulse secret peace negotiations, not aware of the disloyalty of his own ministers and the fickleness of French politics. The French, desperate of waiting for a new Russian offensive, threw themselves in murderous and useless offensives in the muddy graveyards of the Western front. In Palestine, the German-Ottoman forces managed to halt the British offensive. In Greece, the King and his Prime Minister were at loggerheads. British strategists were venting ideas about “better coordination” (i.e.: more slaughter of Russian soldiers in the Eastern fields). In the meantime, the Russians set about, ever so slowly and painfully, to put back their armed forces into shape.


[1] Direct impact of the Western Allies’ ambiguous reaction to the February Uprising : the Stavka has become less subservient to French calls for massive offensives on the Eastern front. It will allow new Chief-of-Staff Gurko to plan an offensive in the direction he wants, i.e. Caucasus.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
And Wall Street is notoriously more interested in the bottom line than what the politicians tell it. If Russia looks a good enough credit risk, the Russian government may calculate it can afford to piss off Wilson and still raise any needed cash privately on Wall Street or in London. Or they may go all autarchic and try to reduce dependence on foreign capital. Only if the Russians believe that they can't stay afloat without US-backed loans does Wilson have much power over them -
Yet the US put the screws to France and UK over Germany just a few years after the War.
Poles weren't demonized like the Germans in the War, and a far more sympathetic group.
Post WWI autarky attempt would be a disaster for Russia, as would defaulting. US would put the screws on the UK if The City tried to end run the US over the loans. The US had a decent leash around the UKs neck as well as Russia
 
How are imperial Russian finances?
They should be in tatters.
The cleverest move - bringing back revenues from alcohol sales taxes - is quite implausible now, what with the "drunken days of Petrograd" certainly being interpreted as another evidence for the dangers of inebriety and for why Prohibition is so necessary...
 
The russian army is not intact and while it survive it's not in a good shape, as it's not Russia due to...well being a partecipant in the biggest massacre know to men till now ( we are talking about a couple of million death, even more wounded and the economy in ruin, with a good part of the empire used as a battlezone) and frankly any border zone with a massive polish presence will have supply base, with the local goverment ok or not. While i understand the substantial difference between OTL and ITTL, you try to understand that after this kind of conflict there will only two nation in good shape, USA and Japan, the rest will understand that their reach for now is more limited and they have tons of internal problem to resolve that limit their action.
I think we should look the relative strengths at the end of the Great War. What can actually stop Russia from occupying Hungary with let's say 100,000 men after demobilization? The same arguments can be made for Czechia and Slovakia. The countries in question will feed the russian occupation forces, same as Romania and Poland fed the CP armies. To deploy 200k men in former AH is pretty easy for Russia despite the carnage. Who is going to stop them?

Britain with its small post war army managed to keep ~27,000 men at the Straits Zone post-war.

Relative strength is what mattered after the carnage. When it comes to that, the largest land army is in the best relative condition, even if just due to numbers.


Wilson was a crusader and once put in his mind something almost nothing can make him desist and honestly Russia is too in ruin economically to not be too receptive of the USA demand as money is needed, Petrogad know that and worse Wilson know that

Wait for Woodrow doing exactely that, trust me and both Paris and London will happyly point towards Petrogad to distract him while they do their choosing of the spoil and while they will try to limit russian influence in the former A-H, they will do the same in Asia (Japan alliance will be probably renewed), middle east and India

This is what is bothering me: I cannot think of a real-life example of a peace congress where one of the major victorious powers faces demands to lose pre-war soverign soil, especially by its own allies.

When I read "Paris 1919" by Margaret Macmillan, one thing was apparent to me - Wilson was full of cheap rhetoric. What I mean by that? Firstly, he didn't even know what he meant with his slogans. When asked what self-determination entailed, he didn't know how to respond. Was it language, religion, race (as the early 20th century racist people would understand it), common customs, or a combination of the above? He just put forward slogans, not policies. He wasn't ready to support his moralist talks with concrete policies or actual plans. The same you could see in his proposals regarding the League of Nations. He and his circle had not put a single thought on how is was supposed to work. A moralist showman, rather a stateman who would back words with actions.

As soon as he returned to America, it was perfectly clear that the American policy makers in Congress had no intention on following whatever passed for wilsonian policies. He wasn't that strong not even in DC.

If he went on, making demands for a dissolution of the Russian Empire, he would either be mocked or treated as an invalid. Because make no mistake: for a foreign government to make demands for indepedence for one of the dozens of nations of the Russian Empire, it will be seen not only as a hostile posture (the kind that wars are fighting over) but as a backdoor for more nations getting independence and the end of the imperial russian political entity. That would provide the Russians with the perfect excuse of not paying their debt to DC or seize american property in Russia, and nobody would raise an eyebrow for that responce to such hostile actions. Great Powers cannot be treated as banana republics/ satelites - it is demonstrated through history. It would be the equivalent of an OTL Paris congress where Wilson arrives and demands that Britain with give Ireland its independence. It didnt happen in OTL even though the irish lobby was far more powerful in American compared tot he polish one and the US held much much much greater british wartime debt.

Then it is the attitude of the other Great Powers. French policy makers may have been sympathetic to a personal level to the plight of Poles, but their actions were pure raison de-etat. After all, the republican France sought out the absolutist monarchy as an ally. A creation of independent Poland would be a disastrous moment for french security and their strategic standing: a Great Power ally is replaced by a Minor one. Russia would then be a natural ally for Germany and french security is FUBAR. France was bleeding white and lost a whole generation of its young male population, only to start acting against her interests?

Not to mention that France wanted a Rhine border. A border that was supported by Sazonov. So, would France start alienating the only ally that supports the full spectrum of french objectives? Not that France would get the Rhine border- not with Lloyd George around and a less powerful Wilson ( less powerful compared to his OTL situation). I expect the French and Russians start their negotiations with a Rhine border, then fall back to an independent Rhineland and finally reach agreement with the core french desire -a 1790 border. The 1790 border includes Saarland with its rich coal fields. French industrialists will get their wet dream: iron and steel mills in Lorraine with coal from nearby Saarland- no need to import tariff-ridden german Saarland coal.

Lastly, we come to Britain. Lloyd George will look at the post-war size of the British Army, will take a look at the size of the post-war Russian Army and geography, will peak back at Ireland and think very carefully: "How can we placate the russian bear from exerting way too much influence in the former AH"?
 
About Russian plans for Poland:

I do not remember where I read that (I left most of my books in Europe), but I read that Sazonov entertained the idea of an autonomous Poland after the war. Grand-duke Nikolay Nikolayevich made similar promises. A Polish Committee was formed, basically mirroring the CP's efforts on the other side.



Yes, a brother-in-law to Stolypin, Sazonov is still F.A. Minister in 1917-1918. Will probably be dismissed soon after (or during) the Paris Conference.

The link provided by our Polish friend seems to support what I thought : Galicia/Ruthenia would of course be annexed to Russia, but the idea a modicum of autonomy for the Polish lands was entertained by Sazonov and Nikolay Nikolayevich.

Of course it may be only empty-handed thinking and gratuitous propaganda, which cost nothing since at that time Russia had lost Congress Poland, but it may come back during the peace conference. Wilson could easily say that the Russians themselves had raised the idea of an autonomous Poland during the war.

I also tend to think that this Princeton Presbyterian Puritan Crusader of Shenandoah morality of Wilson would not hesitate to raise the issue of Poland at the Paris Conference, Russian feathers be damned. I agree it is far from a certainty, but the probability of this increases if at the same time Poles are raising havoc against the Russians on the ground.... which leads us to:

The probability of a Polish uprising in 1918-1920:

I hear all of your arguments. Indeed Poland is not going to be in the same situation ITTL than OTL in 1918. But... Poland may be in a better situation ITTL at end of the war than it was OTL in late 1917 - early 1918. Let me explain: faced with the persistent threat of Russia, it is possible that Germany would not adopt the heavy-handed ways that it did OTL; so possibly no Oath Crisis. It is also possible that, realizing by late 1917 that the war is turning against them, and focusing on a all or nothing gamble on the Western front (more or less an alt-Kaizerslacht), the Germans decide to do everything they can to bolster the Kingdom of Poland and Pilsudski's legions.

Then, once the war is lost and the Armistice signed, as Luke Dalton suggested, the Germans could deliberately leave depots and caches of weapons to the Poles. (the irony is that afterwards Germans will have a Silesian uprising on their hands).

I am not saying that a Polish uprising between 1918 and 1920 is going to be successful ITTL. But the probability of it happening is quite high: Congress Poles emboldened by Pilsudski's efforts and CP's support during the war; Austrian Poles shivering at the idea of being submitted to the Russian Autocrat (and worse, to these uncouth Ruthenians !); disorder in German-held Silesia, which can be used as a support base...

This insurrection will of course fail, and be put down with untold brutality by the Emperor (Gurko, Kornilov, Ungern are going to have a field day), but it could lead Wilson to address it during the Paris Conference.
Well, as far as the speculations are going we can have it pretty much any way but after the German capitulation the Legions are not big enough to stand up to a huge army without the OTL-like support from France and without the OTL breathing space that gave Poland a chance to get organized. An idea with the depots is not too serious because things like that are defined by the acts of capitulation and potential for “oops” is rather limited. Anyway, few looted depots would not be enough for maintaining a war effort for any serious period of time.
Now, the Ruthenia is tricky. Of course, the Austrian Poles would not like the idea but keep in mind two things: most of them are civilians and majority of the population are Ukrainians who hate them. Put on the top of it an obvious fact that the occupying force is going to be generally sympathetic toward the Ukrainians and, especially in the case of a military conflict within Congress Poland, extremely suspicious toward the local Poles and you can easily get a “spontaneous” massacre with the Poles asking the hated Russians to save them.

In general, situation would be almost doomed to be nasty under pretty much any scenario.

Now, as far as Wilson is involved, I already expressed my opinion that the “Russian Poland” is off the table and the fact that it was temporarily occupied by the CP during the war is irrelevant: it is a part of one of the victorious countries and Wilson’s opinions on the subject would be ignored (most probably even he was not idiotic enough to express them in your TL). Galicia is under Russian occupation and, according to the Wilsonian principles, can’t be considered Polish because majority of the population is not Polish. Which leaves an issue of the Prussian Poland. Can it realistically be made into an independent state, what would be its shape and what are the international implications? Probably we can assume that by this time Russia does not want to have “too many Poles” as the subjects so the new Polish state is a narrow stretch of the territory that includes Posen, Cracow and Silesia (?).
The main problem for that country is that in this TL it is lacking the powerful ally, France: as was already pointed out, when push comes to shove Russian Empire is much more valuable to France. Germany for a while is not a major player (and is not happy about losing Silesia) so there are no useful friends. But, short of some miracle (visiting ASBs changed mindset of the Polish politicians or something to the same effect) it is reasonable to expect that as soon as the dust settles, there are attempts on both sides of the border to restore the “true” Poland (preferably, “from sea to sea” 😜) and that at some point the events are going to escalate to violence (terrorism on the Russian territories backed up by the Polish government). How things would proceed from that point taking into an account that the Polish territory serves as a safe heaven?
 
Last edited:
In Galizia no group was absolute majority (it was roughly 45% Ukrainian, 45 % Polish, 10% Jewish).
Post ww1 Russia which still have Poland is going to be Germany's ally eventually-there is no Austria-Hungary anymore and both countries have troubles with Poles. France would have nasty surprise.
 

marathag

Banned
tain with its small post war army managed to keep ~27,000 men at the Straits Zone post-war.
Because that area was vital.
Hungary isn't.
Egypt wasn't a hostile posting in the 1920s
Hungary would be more like Palestine in the 1940s.
Just not worth the men being killed there.
 
This is what is bothering me: I cannot think of a real-life example of a peace congress where one of the major victorious powers faces demands to lose pre-war soverign soil, especially by its own allies.

If Wilson went on, making demands for a dissolution of the Russian Empire, he would either be mocked or treated as an invalid. Because make no mistake: for a foreign government to make demands for indepedence for one of the dozens of nations of the Russian Empire, it will be seen not only as a hostile posture (the kind that wars are fighting over) but as a backdoor for more nations getting independence and the end of the imperial russian political entity. That would provide the Russians with the perfect excuse of not paying their debt to DC or seize american property in Russia, and nobody would raise an eyebrow for that responce to such hostile actions. Great Powers cannot be treated as banana republics/ satelites - it is demonstrated through history. It would be the equivalent of an OTL Paris congress where Wilson arrives and demands that Britain with give Ireland its independence. It didnt happen in OTL even though the irish lobby was far more powerful in American compared tot he polish one and the US held much much much greater british wartime debt.

Then it is the attitude of the other Great Powers. French policy makers may have been sympathetic to a personal level to the plight of Poles, but their actions were pure raison de-etat. After all, the republican France sought out the absolutist monarchy as an ally. A creation of independent Poland would be a disastrous moment for french security and their strategic standing: a Great Power ally is replaced by a Minor one. Russia would then be a natural ally for Germany and french security is FUBAR. France was bleeding white and lost a whole generation of its young male population, only to start acting against her interests?

Not to mention that France wanted a Rhine border. A border that was supported by Sazonov. So, would France start alienating the only ally that supports the full spectrum of french objectives? Not that France would get the Rhine border- not with Lloyd George around and a less powerful Wilson ( less powerful compared to his OTL situation). I expect the French and Russians start their negotiations with a Rhine border, then fall back to an independent Rhineland and finally reach agreement with the core french desire -a 1790 border. The 1790 border includes Saarland with its rich coal fields. French industrialists will get their wet dream: iron and steel mills in Lorraine with coal from nearby Saarland- no need to import tariff-ridden german Saarland coal.

Lastly, we come to Britain. Lloyd George will look at the post-war size of the British Army, will take a look at the size of the post-war Russian Army and geography, will peak back at Ireland and think very carefully: "How can we placate the russian bear from exerting way too much influence in the former AH"?

Well, as far as the speculations are going we can have it pretty much any way but after the German capitulation the Legions are not big enough to stand up to a huge army without the OTL-like support from France and without the OTL breathing space that gave Poland a chance to get organized. An idea with the depots is not too serious because things like that are defined by the acts of capitulation and potential for “oops” is rather limited. Anyway, few looted depots would not be enough for maintaining a war effort for any serious period of time.
Now, the Ruthenia is tricky. Of course, the Austrian Poles would not like the idea but keep in mind two things: most of them are civilians and majority of the population are Ukrainians who hate them. Put on the top of it an obvious fact that the occupying force is going to be generally sympathetic toward the Ukrainians and, especially in the case of a military conflict within Congress Poland, extremely suspicious toward the local Poles and you can easily get a “spontaneous” massacre with the Poles asking the hated Russians to save them.

In general, situation would be almost doomed to be nasty under pretty much any scenario.

Now, as far as Wilson is involved, I already expressed my opinion that the “Russian Poland” is off the table and the fact that it was temporarily occupied by the CP during the war is irrelevant: it is a part of one of the victorious countries and Wilson’s opinions on the subject would be ignored (most probably even he was not idiotic enough to express them in your TL). Galicia is under Russian occupation and, according to the Wilsonian principles, can’t be considered Polish because majority of the population is not Polish. Which leaves an issue of the Prussian Poland. Can it realistically be made into an independent state, what would be its shape and what are the international implications? Probably we can assume that by this time Russia does not want to have “too many Poles” as the subjects so the new Polish state is a narrow stretch of the territory that includes Posen, Cracow and Silesia (?).
The main problem for that country is that in this TL it is lacking the powerful ally, France: as was already pointed out, when push comes to shove Russian Empire is much more valuable to France. Germany for a while is not a major player (and is not happy about losing Silesia) so there are no useful friends. But, short of some miracle (visiting ASBs changed mindset of the Polish politicians or something to the same effect) it is reasonable to expect that as soon as the dust settles, there are attempts on both sides of the border to restore the “true” Poland (preferably, “from sea to sea” 😜) and that at some point the events are going to escalate to violence (terrorism on the Russian territories backed up by the Polish government). How things would proceed from that point taking into an account that the Polish territory serves as a safe heaven?

Okay, your arguments are quite convincing.

But what about a Polish uprising, against all odds, in the spirit of 1830 and 1863-1864 ? I mean vague promises were made to the Poles, an embryon of autonomous state was created by the CP, an embryon of an army... They know that Wilson wants to impose self-determination to Europe, however vague his vision is... Surely, knowing the Polish mindset, this would be enough to prompt them to try something desperate ?

Again, I should mention that I am not envisioning Poland getting its autonomy outright. Just that a desperate Polish rebellion, met with brutal repression, would prompt Wilson to discuss Poland during the negotiations, and that this issue would play a role in the estrangement between Russia and her Western allies. Sincerely looking for your opinions on that topic.
 
Because that area was vital.
Hungary isn't.
Different Powers have different vital interests.

Britain is the mistress of the seas, control of chokepoints at sea is vital.

Russia is a land power that wants to project power at land. The central located Pannonian Field open up the route to Austria, Bohemia and half the Balkans- the whole central Europe. If you are a british policy maker in 1918, with a victorious Russia, would you be so sure that Russia wont just send 2-3 corps to support a fraction of Hungarian landed aristocrats (a natural ally for conservative Russian aristocrats) in return for expanding their zone of influence? Hungary is a land of powerful aristocrats, that may face a popular uprising . Russian bayonets may support the aristocrats- nothing to do with Israel/Palestine in the 1940s. They did the same in 1848 after all.

So, while control of the seas is the main aim of british policy, I doubt they would risk getting a WW1 Iron Curtain with half of Europe in russian orbit. In international relations theory, if a power wants to stop a potential hostile power of growing too strong - and they dont have the means to actually stop them by force, they enter into a form of agreement/alliance with the rival to try to influence/control them via different means. The best example of that strategy, was the OTL Entente: when it was formed it wasnt aimed against Germany- they wanted to limit Russia by entering a partnership with their closest ally.

I think the same arguments apply for a TTL post-WW1 world.
 
Last edited:
I agree Wilson is not going to push for the independence of Russian Poland - any more than he's going to push for the independence of Ireland or Algeria. The question will be what happens in the German and Austrian Polish territories. If the Poles around Posen are in uprising as OTL (admittedly, if there's a Russian army advancing into Prussia they might not be), then he won't be happy allowing the Germans simply to send in an army and put down the uprising, nor will he (or the Poles) support Russia annexing the place. That leaves him supporting some sort of independent - or at lest autonomous - Polish state. The French, of course, will be keen to strip Germany of a much territory as possible, though they might be happier with it going to a strong Russia rather than a weak and unstable Poland.


I think "can't" there means "won't". If the Russian government declares a "unilateral restructuring" of Russian debt, what can Wilson do about it? His only levers are blocking direct government-to-government aid/loans - which are much less important now Russia isn't mass-buying munitions - and trying to influence private entities against lending and investment in Russia. And Wall Street is notoriously more interested in the bottom line than what the politicians tell it. If Russia looks a good enough credit risk, the Russian government may calculate it can afford to piss off Wilson and still raise any needed cash privately on Wall Street or in London. Or they may go all autarchic and try to reduce dependence on foreign capital. Only if the Russians believe that they can't stay afloat without US-backed loans does Wilson have much power over them - and even then, if the Russians claim they need the revenues of Danzig or Krakow or Silesia to pay back Wall Street, is the US going to pull the plug?


I did say "once the German threat is removed". Those Frenchmen who still see Germany as the major threat - the Foch generation - are going to want to keep the Franco-Russian alliance. The new generation may not agree - there's going to be a big anti-war movement in the 20s and 30s, complete with claims that it was the alliance with Russia that got France into the war in the first place. If German emerges from the post-war as a left-ish democracy, people are going to start asking why republican France is allying with the Russian autocrat against democratic Germany. I can see it becoming a party issue, with the Right supporting the Russian alliance (and French investment in Russia) and the Left wanting a rapprochement with Germany.
As far as the French loans to Russia are involved it was not just a matter of “right” and ”left”: the dividends made them a popular investment among the middle class and, unless situation changes, they would remain so providing a broad support base for the reasonably good relations.
 
Top