German peace terms with Russian Provisional Government

Why should we assume that the Germans, if successful in the West, will then abide by any "moderate" terms they had agreed to in 1917 with Russia? (And that a separate peace in the summer of 1917 would indeed result in a German victory in the West was pretty widely believed at the time.)

Because the Germans aren't cackling super villains determined to destroy everything good, God-fearing Europeans created? Germany didn't beat the shit out of Austria again after the Franco-Prussian War, they didn't attack Russia during the Russo-Japanese War (which would have essentially been France and Russia vs Germany and likely A-H), and they didn't backstab the Italians after securing an alliance with Austria. Like it or not, Germany's behavior diplomatically was exceptional during the years between its foundation and WWI. Maybe its diplomatic strategy was stupid, but it abided by international law and acted no differently from the other powers. I see no reason for this to change after victory any more than I see a full-force Entente invasion of China, Turkey, or Germany post-war. Sure, Germany might muck around in Russia and support anti-Bolshevik groups, but I give them a .00000097973% chance of launching an unprovocted military expedition into Russia. Hell, the Entente didn't do it, and they had more resources than Germany, not to mention a member who was committed to intervening no matter what and would have relished outside support.
 
Because the Germans aren't cackling super villains determined to destroy everything good, God-fearing Europeans created? Germany didn't beat the shit out of Austria again after the Franco-Prussian War, they didn't attack Russia during the Russo-Japanese War (which would have essentially been France and Russia vs Germany and likely A-H), and they didn't backstab the Italians after securing an alliance with Austria. Like it or not, Germany's behavior diplomatically was exceptional during the years between its foundation and WWI. Maybe its diplomatic strategy was stupid, but it abided by international law and acted no differently from the other powers. I see no reason for this to change after victory any more than I see a full-force Entente invasion of China, Turkey, or Germany post-war. Sure, Germany might muck around in Russia and support anti-Bolshevik groups, but I give them a .00000097973% chance of launching an unprovocted military expedition into Russia. Hell, the Entente didn't do it, and they had more resources than Germany, not to mention a member who was committed to intervening no matter what and would have relished outside support.
I could see this happening only if Ludendorff stays in power, perhaps due to socialists uprisings that means his government remains. The guy was a rabid anti-Communist. But even he wouldn't go too far with any sort of expedition. Perhaps seizing Petrograd would be as far as he would go as he had the means to do that. Then he can wait back while supplying arms and food to any anti-Communist groups.
 
Because the Germans aren't cackling super villains determined to destroy everything good, God-fearing Europeans created? Germany didn't beat the shit out of Austria again after the Franco-Prussian War, they didn't attack Russia during the Russo-Japanese War (which would have essentially been France and Russia vs Germany and likely A-H), and they didn't backstab the Italians after securing an alliance with Austria. Like it or not, Germany's behavior diplomatically was exceptional during the years between its foundation and WWI. Maybe its diplomatic strategy was stupid, but it abided by international law and acted no differently from the other powers. I see no reason for this to change after victory any more than I see a full-force Entente invasion of China, Turkey, or Germany post-war. Sure, Germany might muck around in Russia and support anti-Bolshevik groups, but I give them a .00000097973% chance of launching an unprovocted military expedition into Russia. Hell, the Entente didn't do it, and they had more resources than Germany, not to mention a member who was committed to intervening no matter what and would have relished outside support.

Once again, I am not saying that Germany is simply going to invade Russia. But there are other ways to weaken Russia--e.g., support separatist movements, encourage a German-friendly Poland to claim "historically Polish" lands in the East, etc. No need to endanger a single Pomeranian grenadier...

(I am speaking here about possible German intervention in a non-Bolshevik Russia. I think that intervention against a Bolshevik one could be more open, given that the Bolsheviks made no secret of their desire to promote revolution in Germany as elsewhere. Even when the Kaiser rejected the idea of military intervention against the Bolsheviks in the summer of 1918--after all, they were the only party in Russia supporting Brest-Litovsk!--he significantly added the words "without foreclosing future opportunities." https://books.google.com/books?id=5mSkxsos488C&pg=PA184
 
Last edited:
Once again, I am not saying that Germany is simply going to invade Russia. But there are other ways to weaken Russia--e.g., support separatist movements, encourage a German-friendly Poland to claim "historically Polish" lands in the East, etc. No need to endanger a single Pomeranian grenadier...

(I am speaking here about possible German intervention in a non-Bolshevik Russia. I think that intervention against a Bolshevik one could be more open, given that the Bolsheviks made no secret of their desire to promote revolution in Germany as elsewhere. Even when the Kaiser rejected the idea of military intervention against the Bolsheviks in the summer of 1918--after all, they were the only party in Russia supporting Brest-Litovsk!--he significantly added the words "without foreclosing future opportunities." https://books.google.com/books?id=5mSkxsos488C&pg=PA184

That is much different than breaking a treaty for... "lol, because" or something similar. Sure, Germany would help fund separatist groups to destabilize and/or weaken Russia, but they're not going to pull a Munich and tear up a treaty because they can.
 
Once again, I am not saying that Germany is simply going to invade Russia. But there are other ways to weaken Russia--e.g., support separatist movements, encourage a German-friendly Poland to claim "historically Polish" lands in the East, etc. No need to endanger a single Pomeranian grenadier.
Wouldn't that also lead to trouble with the poles in Germany and Austria-Hungary and with the exception of the Baltic nations,Finland and Poland isn't national consciousness with the other groups non-exist especially among Belorussian and Ukrainians.
 
Wouldn't that also lead to trouble with the poles in Germany and Austria-Hungary and with the exception of the Baltic nations,Finland and Poland isn't national consciousness with the other groups non-exist especially among Belorussian and Ukrainians.

That was definitely not true of the Ukrainians by 1917, as the election to the Constituent Assembly showed: "Of the 120 deputies elected in Ukraine, 71 were Ukrainian SRs, 2 were Ukrainian Social Democrats, 4 were from the national minorities (1 Pole, 2 Jews, 1 Moslem), 30 were Russian SRs, 11 were Bolsheviks, 1 was a Kadet, and 1 was from the Union of Landowners." http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\A\L\All6RussianConstituentAssembly.htm

True, the Ukrainian SR and Ukrainian SD parties did not yet advocate outright independence for Ukraine, but they were definitely nationally conscious--already perhaps more nationalist than socialist.
 
I could see this happening only if Ludendorff stays in power, perhaps due to socialists uprisings that means his government remains. The guy was a rabid anti-Communist. But even he wouldn't go too far with any sort of expedition. Perhaps seizing Petrograd would be as far as he would go as he had the means to do that. Then he can wait back while supplying arms and food to any anti-Communist groups.

By what means would Ludendorf sray in power, military coup against the Kaiser?

The silent dictatorship was merely the central coordination by OHL of the powers granted to Corps area commanders in wartime under the 1851 siege law. When the war ends so too will the powers granted to Corps area commanders and thus OHLs capacity to centrally coordinate them.

While Ludendorf may remain high up in OHL the power of OHL will be reduced unless drastic measures like a coup are undertaken.
 
By what means would Ludendorf sray in power, military coup against the Kaiser?

The silent dictatorship was merely the central coordination by OHL of the powers granted to Corps area commanders in wartime under the 1851 siege law. When the war ends so too will the powers granted to Corps area commanders and thus OHLs capacity to centrally coordinate them.

While Ludendorf may remain high up in OHL the power of OHL will be reduced unless drastic measures like a coup are undertaken.
Well that's why I was saying perhaps there are devastating Spartacist uprisings that actually threaten to overthrow Germany which allows the country to still be in "wartime" mode. Ludendorff would never do a coup against his Kaiser. Perhaps if the Kaiser and his son was assassinated which leads to a young Kaiser then Ludendorff could try to force himself as "Regent" but he would do everything within monarchist confines.
 
Well that's why I was saying perhaps there are devastating Spartacist uprisings that actually threaten to overthrow Germany which allows the country to still be in "wartime" mode. Ludendorff would never do a coup against his Kaiser. Perhaps if the Kaiser and his son was assassinated which leads to a young Kaiser then Ludendorff could try to force himself as "Regent" but he would do everything within monarchist confines.

That actually sounds like an interesting timeline... Who was second in line for the throne in 1918?
 
Wilhelm III. He was already an adult which is why I clarified that he died as well so it'd be Wilhelm IV, a teenage boy around the time who'd Ludendorff could actually control.


"Wilhelm IV" was twelve in Nov 1918.

So the effective ruler would be his uncle, Prince Eitel Friedrich, who by Hohenzollern family law would become Regent. Offhand I don't know enough about him to guess his attitude.
 
"Wilhelm IV" was twelve in Nov 1918.

So the effective ruler would be his uncle, Prince Eitel Friedrich, who by Hohenzollern family law would become Regent. Offhand I don't know enough about him to guess his attitude.
I didn't realize who the Regent was would be set in stone. I thought there was some level of choice.
 
I didn't realize who the Regent was would be set in stone. I thought there was some level of choice.

In theory there might be, but iirc there was generally a recognised set of rules about it. In "Salic Law" monarchies the next adult male in line was the usual choice. If we were talking about a revolution it might be different, but if it's simply a death, then EF is pretty certain to get it.
 
The choice would have been between Prince Heinrich (Wilhelm II's only brother) and Prince Eitel Friedrich (Wilhelm III's eldest brother). Absolutely no way for Ludendorff to become regent; not that he himself would ever have considered turning regent, that job was completely out of his scope.
 
The Spartacist uprising is pretty much what the 1851 Siege Law was designed to deal with, coming out of the 1848-9 Revolutions as it did.

But what I would want to know is why would such an uprising would occur in a scenario where peace on the Eastern Front occurs a year earlier than OTL? A win in the East in early 1917 would take a huge amount of pressure off Germany and drastically alter the nature of the war from then on.
 
The Spartacist uprising is pretty much what the 1851 Siege Law was designed to deal with, coming out of the 1848-9 Revolutions as it did.

But what I would want to know is why would such an uprising would occur in a scenario where peace on the Eastern Front occurs a year earlier than OTL? A win in the East in early 1917 would take a huge amount of pressure off Germany and drastically alter the nature of the war from then on.

Could peace on the eastern front have occurred a year earlier? Maybe if the Tsar had stayed in power. But there is absolutely no way the Provisional Government could have concluded peace in early 1917. As I pointed out recently:

March 1917 was absolutely impossible. Sukhanov, a left-wing "Zimmerwaldist" Menshevik wrote with regret that "During the first weeks the soldiers of Petrograd not only would not listen, but would not permit any talk of peace. They were ready to lift up on their bayonets any uncautious 'traitor' or exponent of 'opening the front to the enemy.'" (Quoted in Adam Ulam, *The Bolsheviks* [New York: Macmillan 1965], p. 325. https://books.google.com/books?id=TdCK1WkconkC&pg=PA325 (See https://books.google.com/books?id=6-D_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA202 for a slightly different translation.)

As for the Bolsheviks before Lenin's arrival, read Stalin's *Pravda* article of March 28: "The mere slogan 'Down with the war' is absolutely impractical. As long as the German Army obeys the orders of the Kaiser, the Russian soldier most stand firmly at his post, answering bullet with bullet and shell with shell. ... Our slogan is pressure on the Provisional Government with the aim of compelling it to ... attempt to induce all the warring countries to open immediate negotiations ... Until then every man remains at his fighting post." https://books.google.com/books?id=vUYwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT118&lpg=PT118
 
Therein lies the problem with a question like this; why would the PG make peace ITTL where the circumstances are the same as OTL?

In my mind the seeds of a 1917 win for the CP would have to be sown in 1914 or 1915 and events would have to roll to a situation where in early 1917 the PG makes a different choice. Such seeds don't have to be on the Eastern Front, maybe something on the Western Front upsets the balance of hope for the PG leading them to make a different decision, but the same circumstances will likely lead to the same decisions.
 
Why would a separate peace be easier for him?

Could he pull off a separate peace?

Would the highest likelihood be he makes a separate peace and then gets overthrown quickly?

That's certainly possible, but my point is that a separate peace *may* at least be *conceivable* to him whereas it was simply out of the question for Kadets and Right Mensheviks and Right SR's in 1917.
 
Top