Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan manage to stay independent after WWI

After WWI, with the fall of the Russian Empire, many regions of it declared independence. Poland, Finland, and the three Baltic states managed to consolide themselves as independent states along the interwar era, but other separatist entities didn't endured, and after a few years were retaken by the USSR.
Among these separatist attempts were the Democratic Republic of Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia), the First Republic of Armenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Republic_of_Armenia), and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic). Could these countries, or at least some of them, manage to keep their independence, at least during the interwar era? If so, how would they, and a USSR without them, develop? And, especially, what would happen with Stalin now that his native land is no longer part of the USSR?
And, just to clarify a think, I'm asking here about their possibility of survival without a German victory in WWI, so no Germany here to enforce Brest-Litovsk.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Maybe Georgia and/or Armenia could survive for a certain period of time if Britain and/or France send a sufficient number of their troops over there. As for Azerbaijan, the Bolsheviks are going to fight to the death for it due to its oil.
 
Azerbaijan is a major problem, IIRC Lenin himself wrote in letters about how the nascent Soviet state needed to capture it for their oil reserves. Once you capture Baku you've penetrated the main geographic barrier of the Greater Caucasus mountain range so turning west and then north-west allowing you to capture Tbilisi is much easier.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Azerbaijan is a major problem, IIRC Lenin himself wrote in letters about how the nascent Soviet state needed to capture it for their oil reserves. Once you capture Baku you've penetrated the main geographic barrier of the Greater Caucasus mountain range so turning west and then north-west allowing you to capture Tbilisi is much easier.
Agreed with this but please keep in mind that, had Britain and/or France had the will to fight to protect Armenia and/or Georgia, those states might have been able to keep their independence for a while.

Of course, in any case, Stalin would probably want to settle some scores in the Caucasus in the 1930s; indeed, with the West being distracted by Nazi Germany, the time would be ripe for Stalin to deal with the Caucasus in the way that he would like.
 
Especially given these states' profound internal instability and their border disputes with almost all of their neighbours, I just do not see them surviving a determined push by the Soviet Union.
 
I don't think you can equate the three states in terms of prospects of survival. Azerbaijan was too vital for its oil for there to be much of a chance of Soviet Russia letting it stay independent unless (as was very unlikely) the British were willing to resort to all-out war. As for Armenia, the Turks had placed it in such a desperate situation that the Dashnak government clearly regarded the Soviet invasion as preferable to the alternative.

Georgia's prospects were somewhat better. "Apparently a turning point in Lenin's decision-making--originally he had been dubious about Stalin and Ordzhonikidze's proposals for an invasion--came in January 1921 when "Krasin reported a statement made to him by Lloyd George to the effect that Great Britain considered the entire Caucasus within the Soviet sphere of influence and contemplated no intervention there." Richard Pipes, *The Formation of the Soviet Union* (1964 ed.), p. 237. I do not think that Lloyd George could realistically threaten British military intervention to save Georgia by this time; British public opinion would not support such intervention. But he could have made it clear that the diplomatic and economic ties the Soviets wanted with Britain were contingent on leaving Georgia alone..." https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.history.what-if/g6hxLSMsjrk/6FmcZdJU7XYJ

Another point is that Georgia, as a state ruled by Mensheviks, was very much admired by western Social Democrats, who saw it as a model of socialism superior to the brutal Bolshevik variety. Kautsky visited it in 1920, and wrote an admiring report. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1921/georgia/ This could have two effects on the Soviet leaders. On the one hand, if western Social Democrats made it clear that leaving Georgia alone was a necessary condition for any united front with the Communists this could give the Soviet leaders some pause. On the other hand, just seeing the hated "renegade Kautsky" praise the Georgian Menshevik government might actually make the Soviets *more* anxious to crush Georgia...

All in all, if the British, the Turks (who might prefer an independent Georgia as a buffer), and the western Social Democrats all made it clear that their relations with the Soviets depended on leaving Georgia alone, then given Lenin's initial hesitation about an invasion, I couldn't rule out Georgia maintaining its independence for decades the way the Baltic states did--*if* Lenin had lived or at least if Stalin hadn't come to power. It is hard for me to see Stalin indefinitely tolerating his native Georgia being ruled by the Mensheviks. Indeed, the fact that Georgia was ruled by people who had played a major role in *all-Russian* Social Democracy distinguished it from the Baltic states (which were ruled by local nationalists) and meant that in a sense as long as Georgia remained independent, the Bolsheviks had not quite totally won the Russian Civil War.

So I would say that Georgia's prospects were better than those of the other two Transcaucasian republics--but still not very good, and almost certainly dependent on Stalin not coming to power. (Which of course could have consequences which might dwarf the fate of Georgia...) In fact, I'd have to say that what's more likely than Georgia retaining its independence is for it to lose it earlier--in May 1920. Only the Soviet-Polish war got the Politburo to stop Ordzhonikidze from moving then. https://books.google.com/books?id=smDy35onbtAC&pg=PA227
 
Thank you very much for all contributions here. So, going for what people wrote here, it seems it would be extremely difficult to Azerbaijan to survive, given the importance it had to the Soviets because of it's oil. The other two states may have survived, with Georgia having the best chanches among the two, if the the British and French were willing to back them, but this willingness was largely exhausted by WWI.

As for Armenia, the Turks had placed it in such a desperate situation that the Dashnak government clearly regarded the Soviet invasion as preferable to the alternative.
But did the Turks had plans to conquer all Armenia? I do know they intended to take the Kars region, what they did, but I don't know about marching till Yerevan.

Georgia's prospects were somewhat better. "Apparently a turning point in Lenin's decision-making--originally he had been dubious about Stalin and Ordzhonikidze's proposals for an invasion--came in January 1921 when "Krasin reported a statement made to him by Lloyd George to the effect that Great Britain considered the entire Caucasus within the Soviet sphere of influence and contemplated no intervention there." Richard Pipes, *The Formation of the Soviet Union* (1964 ed.), p. 237. I do not think that Lloyd George could realistically threaten British military intervention to save Georgia by this time; British public opinion would not support such intervention. But he could have made it clear that the diplomatic and economic ties the Soviets wanted with Britain were contingent on leaving Georgia alone..." https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.history.what-if/g6hxLSMsjrk/6FmcZdJU7XYJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.history.what-if/g6hxLSMsjrk/6FmcZdJU7XYJ
But could such diplomatic pressure make the Soviets think twice before invading Georgia? Would they be really hurt by this pressure?

Another point is that Georgia, as a state ruled by Mensheviks, was very much admired by western Social Democrats, who saw it as a model of socialism superior to the brutal Bolshevik variety. Kautsky visited it in 1920, and wrote an admiring report. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1921/georgia/ This could have two effects on the Soviet leaders. On the one hand, if western Social Democrats made it clear that leaving Georgia alone was a necessary condition for any united front with the Communists this could give the Soviet leaders some pause. On the other hand, just seeing the hated "renegade Kautsky" praise the Georgian Menshevik government might actually make the Soviets *more* anxious to crush Georgia...
Interesting. I did knew Georgia was ruled by the Mensheviks, but I didn't knew it was starting to be seen as an exemple for western Social Democrats. This could make the political developments of a world with a Menshevik Georgia especially interesting, with the worldwide left having another exemple to draw, as a possible way to Socialism. Of course, this could made the Soviets even more anxious to crush this state.

And finally yes, I'd say that if Stalin gets to power, he'll want to retake these states.

Finally, one more thing: Why did the Soviets accepted the independence of the states that managed to get independent of them? Poland defeated them, yes, and cut the them from Lithuania, but why they didn't tried to invade Estonia, Latvia, and Finland at the end of that war, like they did on the Caucasus?
 
On Armenia, Richard Pipes, who can hardly be accused of being a Bolshevik apologist, writes,

"There are many indications that the Soviet entry in Armenia was motivated by a desire to forestall the complete collapse of the Armenian Republic, and to prevent a Turkish occupation of Erivan. The Russian move was directed primarily against Kemal, whose victories had threatened to bring Turkish troops into the heart of Transcaucasia. The readiness with which the Dashnaks consented to the Soviet ultimatum, the establishment of a joint Communist-Dashnak government in the newly Sovietized Armenia, and the silence with which the Armenian diplomatic mission abroad treated the Soviet conquest while loudly protesting Turkish aggrandizement — all these facts indicate that the Armenian government did not consider the Soviet invasion an unfriendly gesture." https://books.google.com/books?id=smDy35onbtAC&pg=PA232

Another source adds,"The Dashnaks, however, claim that the Russians incited Turkey to attack Armenia in the first place and were now joining in the final conquest. Conclusive evidence is not available to support either interpretation." https://books.google.com/books?id=28UUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28
 
Last edited:
"I did knew Georgia was ruled by the Mensheviks, but I didn't knew it was starting to be seen as an exemple for western Social Democrats. This could make the political developments of a world with a Menshevik Georgia especially interesting ..."

Indeed. And by coincidence, I've just published a book on this very subject. The leaders of the European social democratic and labour parties were VERY impressed with what they found in Georgia, and they did see it as a real alternative to the emerging totalitarian state in Russia.

Karl Kautsky, the leading German socialist theoretician, wrote a whole book extolling the successes of the Georgian democratic socialists. Future British Labour prime minister Ramsay MacDonald was also effusive in his praise.

I've been telling people that my book -- The Experiment: Georgia's Forgotten Revolution 1918-21 -- is a kind of alternative history, because Georgia under the Mensheviks is what Russia might have turned out like had the Russian democratic socialists won their fight against Lenin.
 
Have Kornilov take other White movement as Supreme Leader. He was in favour of striking a mutually agreeable deal with independence movements: he'd recognise their independence, and they'll help him against the Soviets. Unsurprisingly, other White generals didn't like him much.
 
But would the Democratic Republic of Georgia be allowed to keep the borders they claimed? In particular, the parts nowadays in Turkey seem difficult to keep.

1024px-Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia_%28en%29.svg.png
 
But would the Democratic Republic of Georgia be allowed to keep the borders they claimed? In particular, the parts nowadays in Turkey seem difficult to keep.

1024px-Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia_%28en%29.svg.png
That was within the areas that went to the Ottoman Empire with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Turkish Republicans would accept no less. Sure, they could be forced to, but I don't see anyone having a problem with them taking it back, which they did with force. Anyways, the Georgians, Armenians, and Azeri all lay claim on a bit of each other's land, in part because of the emptiness of some of it, the mountains, etc. I for one wonder if the Iranians try to get the Azeri to change their name, as land had apparently never been called Azerbaijan before WWI. Instead that went to the Iranian portion. Anyways, maybe the Iranians pick off a bit of land themselves, but not too much. I do however think they would get along well with the Armenians, who have reason to worry about all their other neighbors.
 

trajen777

Banned
Ok lets give it a try
1. Have the monkey not bite the king of Greece -no death -- military not disrupted and wins vs Turkey -- takes 20% of Turkey.
2. Have Wilson get more of this way at Ver. and agrees to support Armenia with some aid - left over weapons as well as older ships (these are used to minimize USSR arming of Turkey (this was a major reason for the Turkish army to defeat Greece)
3. Greece forms the little alliance (Azer + Georgia + Greece + Italy + Japan + Armenia.
a. Greece , Armenia, and Georgia keep Turkey from retaking Anatolia back.
b. Financial aide allows alliance to hire German tech military aide as well as get lots of weapons seized from Germany
c. Italy and Japan ally with the Little Alliance by being allowed to buy discounted oil, (their need will grow and become dependent on this flow). IN exchange for this a constant flow of weapons and tech flows into The alliance.
d. As USSR grows in power - GB, France, Poland, Romania join the alliance or lend support.
4. IN the 30's as Germany grows the alliance is solidified (USA still supporting Armenia)
5. Japan never attacks USA because their need for Oil is covered, focuses more on their army vs USSR.
6. With oil flowing into the west and USSR forced to buy from 3rd party souces their industrialization leaves them much weaker.Sales of oil to German industrialists diminish the impact of the depression and Germany under Hindenberg is brought into the anti USSR alliance (Hitler butterflied ?? ) (not sure about number 6 but like the rest)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
There were actually some talks between Turkey and the Reds, so Turkey knew the Red Army's ambitions (that became quite clear to everyone after the invasion of Azerbaijan anyways). So I think the Turkish an Soviet intrusions into Armenia were quite calculated from both sides, they knew what they wanted and that they could make a deal with the other side.

Regarding a possible alliance between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.... no. They didn't like each other at all. The relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan were hostile and they were fighting each other. Neither trusted Georgia, and Georgia didn't think much of them due to overlapping territorial ambitions.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
But would the Democratic Republic of Georgia be allowed to keep the borders they claimed? In particular, the parts nowadays in Turkey seem difficult to keep.

1024px-Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia_%28en%29.svg.png
Also the claims of Georgia in northeast Anatolia clashed with Wilsonian Armenia. Though it makes sense that Georgia would claim the Laz inhabited areas, but just like Wilsonian Armenia (though the Democratic Republic of Armenia actually never officially claimed the "Wilsonian lands), it was just ambitions to maybe fulfil later, they didn't really exercise any real control over the area.
 
Maybe Georgia and/or Armenia could survive for a certain period of time if Britain and/or France send a sufficient number of their troops over there. As for Azerbaijan, the Bolsheviks are going to fight to the death for it due to its oil.
How ironic that Lenin, the staunch anti-imperialist that he was before he came to power, suddenly adopted an imperialist attitude to Azerbaijan and other former territories of the Tsarist Russian Empire.
Have Kornilov take other White movement as Supreme Leader. He was in favour of striking a mutually agreeable deal with independence movements: he'd recognise their independence, and they'll help him against the Soviets. Unsurprisingly, other White generals didn't like him much.
How ironic that Kornilov seemed to be more sympathetic to the independence movements than the 'anti-imperialist' Bolsheviks.
 
Top