Independant Ukraine: 1918

How can we get the Western Powers to support the independance of the Ukraine, rather than let is fall to the Soviets later on? I always found it strange that Britain and France would lets a country with such potential fall their ideoligical enemy.
 
The Allies in 1918 can't really support an independent Ukraine against the 'Red Tide'. They are war weary and any major deployment of troops will probably adversely affect the respective governments in the polls. Even if they had aided the Ukraine and it was independent from the events of the 1920s and 30s we know that the new formed nations of Central Europe pretty much had to fend for themselves.

I think its likely that a sovereign Ukraine will be short lived and probably end up being occupied by the Soviet Union like the Baltic states.
 
I think its likely that a sovereign Ukraine will be short lived and probably end up being occupied by the Soviet Union like the Baltic states.

This has huge effects though. The Baltic nations treat the Soviet Era as a period of occupation, whereas the Ukraine has warmer feelings towards it. A USSR without the Ukraine is smaller than OTL, of course, and has much less grain.

Moreover, perhaps the Ukraine ends up as part of Pilusdski's POlish-led federation....
 
The Ukraine would be occupied by the USSR in the early 20's. Just like they occupied Georgia & Armenia, and tried to do to Poland [1922].
 
The Ukraine would be occupied by the USSR in the early 20's. Just like they occupied Georgia & Armenia, and tried to do to Poland [1922].

A Ukraine that was already independent would probably remain so in the event of some Soviet-Polish/Ukrainian war if it went like OTL with a Soviet defeat.
 
I always found it strange that Britain and France would lets a country with such potential fall their ideoligical enemy.

They weren't too enthusiastic about breaking up Russia because they were hoping the Whites would win the civil war. Besides, the Ukrainians had already been allied to the Bolsheviks and then the Central Powers, so they weren't exactly trustworthy, and many were socialists or anarchists. It made more sense to support Denikin and Wrangel.
 
The Ukraine would be occupied by the USSR in the early 20's. Just like they occupied Georgia & Armenia, and tried to do to Poland [1922].

Careful, though. As Susano pointed out, the Poles started the war, and there was a heated debate about whether or not to invade Georgia. And there's also the exampe of the Baltic states and Finland.
 
Originally posted by Susano
Well, after Poland had invaded them.
From Polish POV the war with bolsheviks lasted since 1919, and the march on Kiev was supposed to be liberation of Ukraine. It was supported by Ukrainian forces commanded by Petlura. In some other thread I mentioned that before 1922 that part of eastern Europe was actually one big mess without any established borders - nations liberated by the fall of the Russian Empire fought each other to create their own states. Polish-Ukrainian offensive on Kiev is now considered an invasion of Soviet Russia because Kiev was controlled then by Soviets and eventually remained in Soviet hands. BTW, Soviet Russia wasn't recognized then by any goverment. But imagine, WI Soviets occupied Finland, and Swedish-Finnish force succesfully liberated Helsinki - would you still call it invasion of Soviet Russia? Ukraine was as Soviet as Finland under Soviet occupation (if that had happened).
 
None of which, BTW, strike me as particularly receptive to the notion of becoming part of Poland. If there is going to be a union, it's either going to be a rather loose federation or an outright Polish conquest. And where Poland ends and Ukraine starts is going to be a _rather_ contentious subject.

Bruce
 

Susano

Banned
Originally posted by Susano

From Polish POV the war with bolsheviks lasted since 1919, and the march on Kiev was supposed to be liberation of Ukraine. It was supported by Ukrainian forces commanded by Petlura. In some other thread I mentioned that before 1922 that part of eastern Europe was actually one big mess without any established borders - nations liberated by the fall of the Russian Empire fought each other to create their own states. Polish-Ukrainian offensive on Kiev is now considered an invasion of Soviet Russia because Kiev was controlled then by Soviets and eventually remained in Soviet hands. BTW, Soviet Russia wasn't recognized then by any goverment. But imagine, WI Soviets occupied Finland, and Swedish-Finnish force succesfully liberated Helsinki - would you still call it invasion of Soviet Russia? Ukraine was as Soviet as Finland under Soviet occupation (if that had happened).

Now, if we strip your post of rhethorics ("liberated" here and "liberated" there), its still as I said. Poland invaded the Ukraine, supported by Ukrainian units. You may have had a point about blurry borders, if not for the fact that the Polish troops took Kiev. Thats not the border, thats the Ukrainian capital!

And, yes, if a Swedish force with some decoration Finnish units landed in Soviet Finnland, it would be an invasion of Finland/the Soviet Sphere. My point was, if you strike at somebody, you shouldnt wonder ifu he strikes back. jhence the Soviet Invasion of Poland hardly can be cited as proof for Soviet agressivity.
 
Originally posted by Susano
Now, if we strip your post of rhethorics ("liberated" here and "liberated" there), its still as I said. Poland invaded the Ukraine, supported by Ukrainian units. You may have had a point about blurry borders, if not for the fact that the Polish troops took Kiev. Thats not the border, thats the Ukrainian capital!
And, yes, if a Swedish force with some decoration Finnish units landed in Soviet Finnland, it would be an invasion of Finland/the Soviet Sphere. My point was, if you strike at somebody, you shouldnt wonder ifu he strikes back. jhence the Soviet Invasion of Poland hardly can be cited as proof for Soviet agressivity.

OK, I understand your point. Indeed, when you attack someone else's troops (wherever they are) it means war. However, Polish-bolshevik conflict didn't start with Kiev offensive. It actually started in February 1919 near Mosty (Belarus), when Polish forces stopped bolshevik troops pushing west after German withdrawal. It is not sure who fired the first shot. The fighting lasted through whole 1919. Poles were quite succesful, mostly because bolsheviks were occupied with fighting against the Whites. In January 1920 Poles captured Daugavpils (Dueneburg) and gave it to the Latvians. The Kiev offensive was only another operation in that conflict.
 
If there is going to be a union, it's either going to be a rather loose federation or an outright Polish conquest. And where Poland ends and Ukraine starts is going to be a _rather_ contentious subject.

Not really. Before embarking on the Kiev Offensive the Poles and Ukrainians agreed on a border similar, if not identical, to the one Poland got after the Peace of Riga. This is not to say the Ukrainians liked it, but they had sorted that part out and the Poles didn't intend to keep Kiev for themselves.
 
Not really. Before embarking on the Kiev Offensive the Poles and Ukrainians agreed on a border similar, if not identical, to the one Poland got after the Peace of Riga. This is not to say the Ukrainians liked it, but they had sorted that part out and the Poles didn't intend to keep Kiev for themselves.


Well, having the Red Army breathing down your neck does wonders for one's willingness to compromise...:)

Bruce
 
Top