Germany and Austria agree Peace with Russia summer 1917

Kerensky didn't understand how weak his position was. The Army was mutinous and the people were nearing starvation. If he'd really understood the situation he would have made peace on the best terms possible, rather than worry about getting loans from the Allies and keeping them happy.

The Germans and Austrians would have taken Poland and some of the Baltic and demanded reparations, but their terms would have been a lot less severe than Brest Litovsk.

They certainly would have agreed in order to face the West before the US had built up its forces. The only thing lacking was a Russian desire to end the war.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The terms the Central Powers were looking for were basically the front lines become the new border. Russia would have been better off accepting the terms. The problem was people expected the USA to come save the Entente, and they were right. So either the whites or communists could simply wait for a Entente win, and regain the lost land plus probably new lands.

So to have Russia/USSR make peace you need a butterfly effect of the USA not entering the war. With the USA not in the war and a collapsing society, it makes a lot more sense for the Russians to make peace, and the peace will be earlier than OTL, possibly in the Summer of 1917.

The only catch is that as battle conditions for each side improved in the war, the terms tended to become harsher. So Germany might well have went from the cease fire line being the new border to something like OTL terms if the USA was not in the war. At any time after November 1915, it made sense for all sides to seek a negotiated peace, and all the major powers interests were hurt by continuing the war. It was clear by late 1915, it would not be a quick war, there were no miracle weapons that would win the war quickly, that the war was going to bankrupt the powers, and the casualties on all sides would be crushing. But it is hard to find peace offers in WW1 that are a negotiate peace terms, the terms were normally victor terms.
 
A smart Germany would have offered the 1914 boundry as a standing offer anytime from 1914-1917. I can't see any Russian government besides the communists agreeing to giving up any territory.

Russia though before considering any peace with Germany should just tell the western allies "our days of attacking are over", we will hold the line but that is it, No Krenensky offensive probabvly means that government holds on (and no Brusilov offensive means the Czars government holds on). OR we will have to make a seperate peace with Germany, the Allies will agree to the new situation no doubt
 
The terms the Central Powers were looking for were basically the front lines become the new border. Russia would have been better off accepting the terms. The problem was people expected the USA to come save the Entente, and they were right. So either the whites or communists could simply wait for a Entente win, and regain the lost land plus probably new lands.

So to have Russia/USSR make peace you need a butterfly effect of the USA not entering the war. With the USA not in the war and a collapsing society, it makes a lot more sense for the Russians to make peace, and the peace will be earlier than OTL, possibly in the Summer of 1917.

The only catch is that as battle conditions for each side improved in the war, the terms tended to become harsher. So Germany might well have went from the cease fire line being the new border to something like OTL terms if the USA was not in the war. At any time after November 1915, it made sense for all sides to seek a negotiated peace, and all the major powers interests were hurt by continuing the war. It was clear by late 1915, it would not be a quick war, there were no miracle weapons that would win the war quickly, that the war was going to bankrupt the powers, and the casualties on all sides would be crushing. But it is hard to find peace offers in WW1 that are a negotiate peace terms, the terms were normally victor terms.

How is it better off sacrificing so much of its richest, most industrialized territories for no reason other than a German army is sitting on them?
 
If the Russians ask politely and offer good compensation - AH and Germany would be content with a large bite out of russia for the time being...

Again, why is any Russian government going to voluntarily yield a large bite out of itself? Lenin had to resort to histronics to get the Bolshies to do this, why's any other Russia going to act any differently than that?
 
Again, why is any Russian government going to voluntarily yield a large bite out of itself? Lenin had to resort to histronics to get the Bolshies to do this, why's any other Russia going to act any differently than that?

Never said that Russia would do it, just what the CPs would demand...

Said differently, The CPs would demand more than Russia is willing to give, so NO peace...
 
Again, why is any Russian government going to voluntarily yield a large bite out of itself? Lenin had to resort to histronics to get the Bolshies to do this, why's any other Russia going to act any differently than that?

Uh, because the alternative was revolution?

Why did the Germans agree to the Versailles Treaty? Because the alternative was worse. That is why a Russian government should have sought peace ay time after 1916. The Czar and then the Provisional Governemnt failed to realize how precarious the situation was. It wasn't a matter of choosing between good and bad or even between bad and worse. It was between really bad and utter total ruin.

What doomed both Kerensky and the Czar was that they refused to admit as much.
 
Uh, because the alternative was revolution?

Why did the Germans agree to the Versailles Treaty? Because the alternative was worse. That is why a Russian government should have sought peace ay time after 1916. The Czar and then the Provisional Governemnt failed to realize how precarious the situation was. It wasn't a matter of choosing between good and bad or even between bad and worse. It was between really bad and utter total ruin.

What doomed both Kerensky and the Czar was that they refused to admit as much.

That didn't stop Kerensky, did it? The Bolsheviks also yielded solely because Lenin said "DO" and they did. Germany also never accepted Versailles, neither would Russia accept losing so much territory regardless of signing any treaty.
 
What doomed both Kerensky and the Czar was that they refused to admit as much.

If the Czar or Kerensky just stop trying to bail out the western allies with ill advised offensives they avoid doom. Hold the line, keep your soldiers alive, try not to to use up too much supplies, pick on the Turks if the opportunity presents itself, improve the Murmansk railway.

As long as Russia is in the war at some level, the Allies win eventually (even without the United States) then you win back everything in the general peace, plus get chunks of Turkey and Austria too.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
How is it better off sacrificing so much of its richest, most industrialized territories for no reason other than a German army is sitting on them?

If early enough, the Tsar's regime survives, Russia losses Poland and Lithuania which it lots anyway IOTL, and the horrors of communism are avoided.

If between the first and second revolution, the Russians avoid the horrors of the Russian civil war and lose Poland and Lithuania which is lost IOTL.

If after the communist take power, they have an easier time winning the RCW. It is better from their perspective.

And in all scenarios, millions of fewer Russians are KIA, MIA, or starve to death.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If the Czar or Kerensky just stop trying to bail out the western allies with ill advised offensives they avoid doom. Hold the line, keep your soldiers alive, try not to to use up too much supplies, pick on the Turks if the opportunity presents itself, improve the Murmansk railway.

As long as Russia is in the war at some level, the Allies win eventually (even without the United States) then you win back everything in the general peace, plus get chunks of Turkey and Austria too.

Yes, the 1917 offensives were clearly a mistake, and you plan works much better for both Kerensky and the Russian people than OTL, but an outright peace deal would be even better. Russia had publicly promised a free Poland, and so re-integrating Poland would be difficult and bloody. The Germans also want the Russians out of the war badly, so they may attack anyway. Sending a million farmers back to the farms from the front lines would have been a huge help for the food situation, and would have probably not hurt the Russian Army's combat effectiveness. Without enough ammo, food and weapons, extra bullet catchers are of a minor help.

In 1916, canceling the Brusilov offensive (Tsar last major offensive) could go several ways. It may well save the regime, if the changes allow enough extra food production, but it comes at a cost. Romania will not enter the war. The Brusilov offensive stopped A-H attack on Italy and pulled Germans from the west. The A-H attack would not have crippled Italy, even if wildly successful, but every win helps. But the Germans will be different. Without Romania entering the war and the troops sent east, the Germans have a lot more reserves which will likely be used at Verdun and the Somme. If this is enough to win Verdun, it has a huge morale impact on France. Or it the UK loses more men and takes greater losses at the Somme, it helps the Germans. And Hindenburg may not replace Falkenhayn, or maybe he does anyway. It is also very likely the Germans don't fall back to the Hindenburg line, which will also change 1918. And if doing better in 1916, maybe unrestricted submarine warfare is not resumed, and if the decision is delayed until after the Tsar falls from power, which is a date open to debate, it likely never will be. Canceling the Brusilov offensive is a decision where at least 10 credible TL can be written, each with a world vastly different 5 years later.
 
but an outright peace deal would be even better

Certainly better short term. It just seems that if your Russia and sign a peace and give up these places, send home the soldiers and start building your self back up you risk:

Worst case:
the Germans going out and destroying France, forcing a peace with Britain, then becoming so strong in 10 years that your faced with a war of conquest against a enemy so strong he just wins and you just lose everything.

Middle case: France, Britain and Italy force a compromise peace on Germany, Germany is still strong and still holding on to the territories you have ceeded, France is pissed and is no longer investing in Russia but is using English money to build the biggest freaking Maginot line imaginable.

Best case: The U.S is in and the Allies win in 1919 you have an independent Poland on your western border. (Not so bad I guess, better than Germany for sure)
 
If early enough, the Tsar's regime survives, Russia losses Poland and Lithuania which it lots anyway IOTL, and the horrors of communism are avoided.

If between the first and second revolution, the Russians avoid the horrors of the Russian civil war and lose Poland and Lithuania which is lost IOTL.

If after the communist take power, they have an easier time winning the RCW. It is better from their perspective.

And in all scenarios, millions of fewer Russians are KIA, MIA, or starve to death.

There's no early enough after a year of no Russian political or military leadership like 1916.
 
Top