Greater Ukraine

[sahaidak]

Ukraine only needs to be able to supply the CP with grain for about a year. While Vasyl was in control of parts of Central/South Ukraine he still supplied the Germans with grain, but he returned grain that had been stolen. Clearly it was possible. Of course the Germans weren't happy, but at that point it is already to late, as they've withdrawn the majority of their forces to the Western Front. I could see Austria loaning Ukraine the money, or perhaps a neutral pro CP nation, like Sweden through a deal with Germany. With no Central Rada the Ukrainian troops would out number German and Austrian troops in Ukraine, assuming Ukraine could organize all the former Russian troops that swore loyalty OTL, some 300,000-350,000 including Skoropadsky's 50,000 troops. Peasents would be encouraged to sell their grain.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting the peasents will go along with everything, but I think things could have or would have gone alot better, espeically considering the chaos of the Central Rada is averted by Skoropadsky's and Vasyl von Habsburgs coup.

Austria-Hungary had no gold to spare by 1918, and neutrals, while rich in gold due to their trade with both warring coalitions, would probably be wary of lending to a newly independent nation which had just gone through a coup and was not recognized by the Entente (BTW, Sweden was relatively gold-poor, the Netherlands and Switzerland were far richer in that respect).

Also, the 300,000-strong Ukrainian troops you mentioned were mostly made up of peasants who started to go home as soon as they felt they would not be punished for it (most of them joined Ukrainian units of the Russian army in mid-1917, when desertion was still risky, because they hoped for better treatment from fellow Ukrainian officers and better supplies from the Central Rada, not because they wanted to fight for Ukraine). Ukrainian politicians of the time described Ukrainian regiments dissolving as soon as they entered Ukraine, even in January 1918, when the Central Rada asked everyone to fight for Ukraine. However, I agree that the Rada's earlier pacifism and hostile treatment of Skoropadsky and his troops in December 1917 were major blunders: some of these soldiers could have been persuaded to serve the Ukrainian government.

BTW, would the Germans tolerate a stronger Ukrainian army in 1918? After all, they disbanded the Bluecoat Division in April 1918 OTL, thus cutting the Ukrainian military by a third or so, even though it was already very weak.

Now, if the CPs put their collective mind to it, they could have found some gold for Ukraine (say, through a German guarantee for a Swiss-Dutch-Swedish loan to Ukraine); they also obviously could have tolerated their Kiev puppets (which Vasyl and Skoropadsky would be, let's be honest about it) creating a strong army, funded first by foreign loans, and then by reinstated taxes (collected by a restored government bureaucracy) as well as by limited money-printing (after all, the US managed to do it during the American Civil War, and Ukraine of 1918 was more or less equal to the US of 1860 regarding its economic development).

Still, this Habsburg-ruled Ukrainian state would be very fragile, as most of its subjects would be unhappy with taxation (but they would not rise up as long as the government would be intimidating enough), its largest neighbour would be Bolshevik Russia, known OTL for its ability to exploit internal conflicts of its enemies to conquer them, and its great ally would be doomed Imperial Germany, while ascendant Entente powers would likely see Ukraine as a German puppet (like they did OTL) and treat it accordingly after the CPs inevitably lose WWI. (King Vasyl von Habsburg would likely need to abdicate for the Entente to even think about helping Ukraine, since the Habsburgs were positively hated in Western capitals in 1918).

OTL, the victorious Entente supported White Russians against Ukrainians in December 1918, cutting Ukraine off from the sea coast. Now, had Ukraine been stronger, the Entente might have a second thought about it, and they might have even tried to use a stronger Ukraine to defeat the Reds. If this stronger Ukraine defeats a Bolshevik invasion and avoids a civil war after the CP troops leave its soil, its future should be as secure as that of interwar Poland or Estonia (that is, fairly secure short-term, very insecure long-term).

 

[thezerech]

Austria-Hungary had no gold to spare by 1918, and neutrals, while rich in gold due to their trade with both warring coalitions, would probably be wary of lending to a newly independent nation which had just gone through a coup and was not recognized by the Entente (BTW, Sweden was relatively gold-poor, the Netherlands and Switzerland were far richer in that respect).

Also, the 300,000-strong Ukrainian troops you mentioned were mostly made up of peasants who started to go home as soon as they felt they would not be punished for it (most of them joined Ukrainian units of the Russian army in mid-1917, when desertion was still risky, because they hoped for better treatment from fellow Ukrainian officers and better supplies from the Central Rada, not because they wanted to fight for Ukraine). Ukrainian politicians of the time described Ukrainian regiments dissolving as soon as they entered Ukraine, even in January 1918, when the Central Rada asked everyone to fight for Ukraine. However, I agree that the Rada's earlier pacifism and hostile treatment of Skoropadsky and his troops in December 1917 were major blunders: some of these soldiers could have been persuaded to serve the Ukrainian government.

BTW, would the Germans tolerate a stronger Ukrainian army in 1918? After all, they disbanded the Bluecoat Division in April 1918 OTL, thus cutting the Ukrainian military by a third or so, even though it was already very weak.

Now, if the CPs put their collective mind to it, they could have found some gold for Ukraine (say, through a German guarantee for a Swiss-Dutch-Swedish loan to Ukraine); they also obviously could have tolerated their Kiev puppets (which Vasyl and Skoropadsky would be, let's be honest about it) creating a strong army, funded first by foreign loans, and then by reinstated taxes (collected by a restored government bureaucracy) as well as by limited money-printing (after all, the US managed to do it during the American Civil War, and Ukraine of 1918 was more or less equal to the US of 1860 regarding its economic development).

Still, this Habsburg-ruled Ukrainian state would be very fragile, as most of its subjects would be unhappy with taxation (but they would not rise up as long as the government would be intimidating enough), its largest neighbour would be Bolshevik Russia, known OTL for its ability to exploit internal conflicts of its enemies to conquer them, and its great ally would be doomed Imperial Germany, while ascendant Entente powers would likely see Ukraine as a German puppet (like the did OTL) and treat it accordingly after the CPs inevitably lose WWI. (King Vasyl von Habsburg would likely need to abdicate for the Entente to even think about helping Ukraine, since the Habsburgs were positively hated in Western capitals in 1918).

OTL, the victorious Entente supported White Russians against Ukrainians in December 1918, cutting Ukraine off from the sea coast. Now, had Ukraine been stronger, the Entente might have a second thought about it, and they might have even tried to use a stronger Ukraine to defeat the Reds. If this stronger Ukraine defeats a Bolshevik invasion and avoids a civil war after the CP troops leave its soil, its future should be as secure as that of interwar Poland of Estonia (that is, fairly secure short-term, very insecure long-term).

I agree with the general consensus. I think you underestimate the ability of the Ukrainians and of Skoropadsky. He did manage to bring about a fairly large Ukrainian military and reinforced the bureaucracy after the chaos of the Rada. The Soviets probably wouldn't even invade until after WWI, considering what stopped them in the first place was the treaty of Brest Litvosk, which the Ukrainians would have signed much earlier. Plus theoretically Ukraine would have more territory to the east which would help alleviate the grain situation. Pretty soon the Germans and Austrians leave to the west. Then Vasyl, (who OTL didn't give a shit about the German's orders which is why they opposed his coronation) probably could extort at least some money or military aid from Germany, once their troops are gone. Since Ukraine ITTL is much stronger the Entente would likely swallow their pride and work with Ukraine to try and defeat the Reds. I think Skoropadsky would be smart enough to help only so long as the Russians remain very weak. OTL He turned to white support because of Petliura. I think Vasyl would change that, making them much more Ukrainophilic, once they have Western Ukraine, they can flood the whatever remains of the Rada with moderates and monarchists.

For what would happen post WWI, in the 20s and 30s, I think the Soviet Union would be much weaker than OTL, not only because of the loss of Ukraine, but also because ITTL the white movement would be alot harder to defeat.

 

[sahaidak]

I agree with the general consensus. I think you underestimate the ability of the Ukrainians and of Skoropadsky. He did manage to bring about a fairly large Ukrainian military and reinforced the bureaucracy after the chaos of the Rada.

The thing is, all Ukrainian regimes (except the West Ukrainian People's Republic) lacked true mass support and at the same time, faced well-armed, well-organized (especially on the local level) and politically active (but largely unpatriotic) population. The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (Makhnovist) was probably the most colorful example of this phenomenon, but similar groups existed everywhere in Ukraine.

As a counter-example, pre-WWI Tsarist regime also lacked true mass support, but it had a well-organized bureaucracy and military that kept most lower-class people unarmed, unorganized and fairly obedient (due to fear or habit). Of course, the Bolsheviks largely lacked it too, and they faced a well-armed population too, but they made up for the lack of peasant support by a highly disciplined party bureaucracy, terror and relatively high support levels among urban workers. The Poles or Estonians, on the other hand, built a bureaucracy and a military of their own, mostly similar to the Tsarist one, but based on genuine mass support offered by a highly patriotic population.

Now, what Skoropadsky tried to do, was to rebuild the Russian Imperial system with himself as its leader, and possibly with the Ukrainian high culture instead of Russian (or rather along with it). He lacked mass support, and I do not see how it could have been obtained given most Ukrainians' anti-statism at the time. He did not eschew terror, and tried to build up a support base for his regime among richer peasants (like the Bolsheviks did with urban workers), and still he failed, one of the reasons being that richer peasants sided with the rest of their class (and against great landowners) in the end. More reasonable agrarian policy would have improved the situation, of course, and better terms of grain procurement would have helped as well - but would it be enough? I doubt it.

And then again, the Bolsheviks offer a fascinating example of a fringe group winning a civil war, defeating a few foreign interventions, forcing an unwilling population to obey and rebuilding a state almost from scratch, but it required terrible levels of violence. Skoropadsky's regime, on the other hand, was violent enough to make itself hated, but not violent enough to force people into obedience.

 

[thezerech]

The thing is, all Ukrainian regimes (except the West Ukrainian People's Republic) lacked true mass support and at the same time, faced well-armed, well-organized (especially on the local level) and politically active (but largely unpatriotic) population. The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (Makhnovist) was probably the most colorful example of this phenomenon, but similar groups existed everywhere in Ukraine.

As a counter-example, pre-WWI Tsarist regime also lacked true mass support, but it had a well-organized bureaucracy and military that kept most lower-class people unarmed, unorganized and fairly obedient (due to fear or habit). Of course, the Bolsheviks largely lacked it too, and they faced a well-armed population too, but they made up for the lack of peasant support by a highly disciplined party bureaucracy, terror and relatively high support levels among urban workers. The Poles or Estonians, on the other hand, built a bureaucracy and a military of their own, mostly similar to the Tsarist one, but based on genuine mass support offered by a highly patriotic population.

Now, what Skoropadsky tried to do, was to rebuild the Russian Imperial system with himself as its leader, and possibly with the Ukrainian high culture instead of Russian (or rather along with it). He lacked mass support, and I do not see how it could have been obtained given most Ukrainians' anti-statism at the time. He did not eschew terror, and tried to build up a support base for his regime among richer peasants (like the Bolsheviks did with urban workers), and still he failed, one of the reasons being that richer peasants sided with the rest of their class (and against great landowners) in the end. More reasonable agrarian policy would have improved the situation, of course, and better terms of grain procurement would have helped as well - but would it be enough? I doubt it.

And then again, the Bolsheviks offer a fascinating example of a fringe group winning a civil war, defeating a few foreign interventions, forcing an unwilling population to obey and rebuilding a state almost from scratch, but it required terrible levels of violence. Skoropadsky's regime, on the other hand, was violent enough to make itself hated, but not violent enough to force people into obedience.

That is mostly true, however I think you are exaggerating the anti statism especially in urban and central Ukraine, that was not true. One of the reasons I have Vasyl so prominent in my suggestion was he was pro peasant refusing to give land lords back the land that the peasants took from them. In this he gained massive support from the peasants in the area he occupied. He would have peasant support, He is King, not Skoropadsky. By the time the CP are done, Vasyl and the Sich Riflemen have enough power+popularity to essentially force Skoropadsky out, he doesn't have enough support, best he can hope is to ride out the war, then use post war influence to gradually give the landlord class some of their power.

 

[sahaidak]

He would have peasant support, He is King, not Skoropadsky.

Petliura had massive support in late 1918 OTL, he supported all peasant demands throughout his time in power, and still, he couldn't keep people in his army: the Ukrainian army numbered 140,000 men in December 1918, most of them local anti-Hetmanate guerrillas (according to Abbott and Pinak's Ukrainian Armies 1914-55, p. 17); by May 1919, they were down to around 15,000 (idem, p. 18) (or 30,000, according to Hnatevych's Istoriia Ukrainskoho Viiska, p. 460). The chief reasons for these losses were desertion and switching to the enemy's side (Hnatevych, pp. 458-59).

I think you are exaggerating the anti statism especially in urban and central Ukraine, that was not true.

Let's agree to disagree, then.

 

[thezerech]

Petliura had massive support in late 1918 OTL, he supported all peasant demands throughout his time in power, and still, he couldn't keep people in his army: the Ukrainian army numbered 140,000 men in December 1918, most of them local anti-Hetmanate guerrillas (according to Abbott and Pinak's Ukrainian Armies 1914-55, p. 17); by May 1919, they were down to around 15,000 (idem, p. 18) (or 30,000, according to Hnatevych's Istoriia Ukrainskoho Viiska, p. 460). The chief reasons for these losses were desertion and switching to the enemy's side (Hnatevych, pp. 458-59).Let's agree to disagree, then.

Petliura did not have a functioning state though, an ordered anarchy is not the best environment to build an army. In the end, Vasyl would also have west Ukraine as a base of support.


EDIT: Units like the Sich Riflemen the best units and soldiers in Ukraine despised Petliura (and rightfully so, he sold out their homes) They chose plot in Vienna, then fight for a "traitor" like Petliura. With the Westerners he would have had a functioning army.

 

[sahaidak]

Petliura did not have a functioning state though, an ordered anarchy is not the best environment to build an army. In the end, Vasyl would also have west Ukraine as a base of support.

Yes, if King Vasyl created a functioning state over 1918 and did not get overthrown for that state's policies like Skoropadsky did, his mobilization effort would have likely been somewhat more successful than Petliura's feeble attempts OTL (but would it have been sufficient to repel the Reds?). However, these are big 'ifs,' and even if the (Central and Eastern) Ukrainian army was, say, twice as strong ITTL as it was OTL (i.e., 30-60,000 instead of 15-30,000), it would have still been weaker than White and Red Russian formations operating in Ukraine.

To decisively win the war with Soviet Russia, Ukraine needed to have like 200,000 disciplined soldiers in December 1918-January 1919. It had millions of trained men (veterans of WWI), mountains of arms and ammunition (WWI Russian Army's storage facilities), but these men did not want to be subject to military discipline again (and who would blame them, seeing that they had gone through three years of pitched battles and trench warfare from 1914-1917?)

EDIT: Units like the Sich Riflemen the best units and soldiers in Ukraine despised Petliura (and rightfully so, he sold out their homes) They chose plot in Vienna, then fight for a "traitor" like Petliura. With the Westerners he would have had a functioning army.

Petliura sold out Galicia only in November 1919, that is, after it was already lost (the Ukrainian Galician Army retreated east in July 1919). When the Western Ukrainian People' Republic was still going strong, Petliura asked them for troops (February 1919), but they couldn't spare even a single brigade until they defeated the Poles (which of course never happened). I see no reason why the Westerners would respond to Vasyl von Habsburg's pleas for help more favourably than they did to Petliura's requests OTL. I agree that Western Ukraine had a functioning state and a fine disciplined army, but that state had like 4 million citizens, and its army numbered 100,000 men at peak strength. They tried to repel the Poles with that army, but ultimately failed. How would they be able to defend all of Ukraine from the Poles and Russians of all colors at the same time?

 

[thezerech]

Yes, if King Vasyl created a functioning state over 1918 and did not get overthrown for that state's policies like Skoropadsky did, his mobilization effort would have likely been somewhat more successful than Petliura's feeble attempts OTL (but would it have been sufficient to repel the Reds?). However, these are big 'ifs,' and even if the (Central and Eastern) Ukrainian army was, say, twice as strong ITTL as it was OTL (i.e., 30-60,000 instead of 15-30,000), it would have still been weaker than White and Red Russian formations operating in Ukraine.

To decisively win the war with Soviet Russia, Ukraine needed to have like 200,000 disciplined soldiers in December 1918-January 1919. It had millions of trained men (veterans of WWI), mountains of arms and ammunition (WWI Russian Army's storage facilities), but these men did not want to be subject to military discipline again (and who would blame them, seeing that they had gone through three years of pitched battles and trench warfare from 1914-1917?)

Petliura sold out Galicia only in November 1919, that is, after it was already lost (the Ukrainian Galician Army retreated east in July 1919). When the Western Ukrainian People' Republic was still going strong, Petliura asked them for troops (February 1919), but they couldn't spare even a single brigade until they defeated the Poles (which of course never happened). I see no reason why the Westerners would respond to Vasyl von Habsburg's pleas for help more favourably than they did to Petliura's requests OTL. I agree that Western Ukraine had a functioning state and a fine disciplined army, but that state had like 4 million citizens, and its army numbered 100,000 men at peak strength. They tried to repel the Poles with that army, but ultimately failed. How would they be able to defend all of Ukraine from the Poles and Russians of all colors at the same time?

You're missing a critical point. The Central Rada never comes to power, in 1917 Vasyl takes Kyiv. Many Ukrainian troops where dismissed by the Rada, then they returned to their homes. Once the Rada realized its mistake it was too late and they didn't want to return to the war. If Vasyl accepts their request they'll (or at least many more than OTL) will remain in service. Especially once Vasyl enacts his reforms. He has more time than Skoropadsky to organize an Army and a State. Once the reds invade he's got a much larger army than OTL, and a much better one at that. The Bolsheviks wouldn't meet with popular support (or certainly not as much as OTL) they'll be beaten. If I have to I could add some PODs earlier in the war, make the Russian collapse worse and earlier, to give less support to the Bolsheviks, and more troops to Vasyl.

EDIT: Yes, it is a Ukraine Wank, I never said it wasn't but it is certainly possible.

 

[sahaidak]

You're missing a critical point. The Central Rada never comes to power, in 1917 Vasyl takes Kyiv. Many Ukrainian troops where dismissed by the Rada, then they returned to their homes. Once the Rada realized its mistake it was too late and they didn't want to return to the war. If Vasyl accepts their request they'll (or at least many more than OTL) will remain in service.

If they will, and if Vasyl will manage to fund and feed his army without robbing Ukrainian peasants, the Greater Ukraine will have a fighting chance, yes. Still, it will be a very fragile entity in its early years.

EDIT: Yes, it is a Ukraine Wank, I never said it wasn't but it is certainly possible.

I'm all for Ukraine wanks, I just like them to be plausible, and I believe that plausibility demands recognition that the nationalizing process was just starting in Russian-ruled parts of Ukraine in the 1910s, and most people were still fairly apathetic about the Ukrainian state.

That is, a series of lucky strikes might have resulted in Ukraine winning its independence war in 1919, but it would be a close-run thing nonetheless, and the victorious Ukraine would be a very unstable state, prone to coups, assassinations, uprisings and other unpleasantnesses (like OTL interwar Poland, BTW, but even more so, since the Poles were already a consolidated nation in the 1920s). Of course, it would still be miles better than OTL Soviet Ukraine, which was a pretty grim place even in the 1920s, and a veritable hell on Earth in the 1930s and 1940s.

 

[thezerech]

If they will, and if Vasyl will manage to fund and feed his army without robbing Ukrainian peasants, the Greater Ukraine will have a fighting chance, yes. Still, it will be a very fragile entity in its early years.
I'm all for Ukraine wanks, I just like them to be plausible, and I believe that plausibility demands recognition that the nationalizing process was just starting in Russian-ruled parts of Ukraine in the 1910s, and most people were still fairly apathetic about the Ukrainian state.

That is, a series of lucky strikes might have resulted in Ukraine winning its independence war in 1919, but it would be a close-run thing nonetheless, and the victorious Ukraine would be a very unstable state, prone to coups, assassinations, uprisings and other unpleasantnesses (like OTL interwar Poland, BTW, but even more so, since the Poles were already a consolidated nation in the 1920s). Of course, it would still be miles better than OTL Soviet Ukraine, which was a pretty grim place even in the 1920s, and a veritable hell on Earth in the 1930s and 1940s.

Yeah, it could certainly be strengthened by PODs during the war or even before, yes alot of luck, and bit of that Cossack spirit, and it'll work. You've got to be optimistic. I always wanted to write that for a TL, maybe one day I will.

EDIT: I really love my copy of Ukrainian Armies 1914-1955, but I can't find it. Great book, I know it's in my house, of course most of my info is from Subtleny's "A History of Ukraine" which I read a few years ago.

 

[nico223]

Russian and Ukrainians are one people.
The difference is as a resident of Texas and New York resident in Civil War days

 

[nico223]

Any person in Ukraine may think that he is a Russian or Ukrainian
Own choice
Ukrainian love Europe
Russian likes to Moscow
the only difference is the political

 

[Histor32]

Russian and Ukrainians are one people.
The difference is as a resident of Texas and California resident

Ukrainian and Russians are Slavic people yes, but one people no. More like Canada or England and the United States. While they lots in common they are SEPERATE nations with different ideas for the future politically. Doesn't mean they are very much similar, just means Ukrainians posses a strong self identity and wish to be independent of Russia while remaining close, such as the case of England and the United States. Several hundred years of Russification and the Soviet Union didn't seem to change these facts

 

[Histor32]

Any person in Ukraine may think that he is a Russian or Ukrainian
Own choice
Ukrainian love Europe
Russian likes to Moscow
the only difference is the political

Difference is deeper than just political, it's called self identity

 

[nico223]

Thirty percent of the population of Crimea were "Ukrainians" Now they are all "Russian" and vote for Russia.
Become a Russian is a matter of five minutes.

 

[nico223]

Russian was 23 percent In 1989 in the Ukraine
After 12 years was 17 percent
Russian became the Ukrainians

 

[Kohlticus Euraleth]

Thirty percent of the population of Crimea were "Ukrainians" Now they are all "Russian" and vote for Russia.
Become a Russian is a matter of five minutes.

What's the source for this?

 

[nico223]

What's the source for this?

Polls population
28 percent until 2014 regarded themselves as Ukrainians.
In 2014 -15 percent

Ukrainians began to Russian

 

[thezerech]

Russian and Ukrainians are one people.
The difference is as a resident of Texas and New York resident in Civil War days

Oh look another genius who graduated from Kremlin university of morons. I missed the part where Texas and New York have different languages in my time in those two states.

 

[nico223]

I missed the part where Texas and New York have different languages in my time in those two states.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109228/Russian-Language-Enjoying-Boost-PostSoviet-States.aspx

83 percent of the population of Ukraine prefer to speak Russian