Independent Ukraine after WW1?
- Thread starter Scarecrow
- Start date
- Status
I have often though of that scenario too. But again you have the same problems has in OTL. The Western Leaders in Paris didn’t have the political will (or even the means) to enforce their will on the East. Poland was never supposed to get Eastern Galicia (W. Ukraine). They simply took it by force of arms.Scarecrow said:well in any CP victory, then satelite state status is guarenteed
I was hoping for an independent Ukraine after the CP loose, as per OTL
The two are directly tied together. But in any event you are right. OTL the Ukrainians had to fight the Poles, White Russians, and Bolsheviks at the same time with little or no Western help.Leej said:
So we have a couple of options. Reduce the number of enemies they have (by creating alliances), or add in powerful outside help. We could keep the Germans strong enough to get involved, but you don’t want to make them overweening. The French were very committed to a strong Poland, if Polish-Ukrainian relations are still poor, that rules them out. The best bet is Britain. The British did have a plan to carve out an independent Ukraine, Georgia, and possibly even a White (non-communist) Southern Russia, to halt the advance of Bolshevism. Of course Lloyd George decided he personally disliked the Ukrainians, so that quickly fell apart.
I like it, but it requires multiple changes in Ukraine and in the West.
Sir Isaac Brock said:
The two are directly tied together. But in any event you are right. OTL the Ukrainians had to fight the Poles, White Russians, and Bolsheviks at the same time with little or no Western help.
Sir Isaac Brock said:
hmm. I like that second idea, so all we have to do is have some kind of POD where Lloyd George doesnt dislike the Ukrainians.
There could even be some sort of war between the Ukraine and the Poles over Galica in the 1920's, or maybe a plebicide over eastern Galica?
or friendship and an allience is sponsored between the Ukraine and Poland, so the Ukraine would probibly be grabbed by Russia...
But what about the ALT Barbarosa? didnt the Ukrainians IOTL welcome the Germans as liberators in some extent? perhaps a bit more of this? how would occupying the Ukraine effect the Red Army?
If the British were smart they would have been making contact with the Ukrainian Diaspora (which was largely anti-Austrian) throughout the War. Hell in Canada 1000s of ethnic Ukrainian Austrian nationals were locked up as "enemy aliens" when they could have been valuable allies in encouraging anti-Austrian uprisings. If this had been the case, there would have been a ongoing realtionship between the Ukrainians and the British Empire.
Ideally, there would have been a pleblicite which would have divided the Austrian province of Galicia into to halves, the west (Kraków area) would go to Poland, and the east to Ukraine. Problem was the place was pretty mixed, even in the Ukrainan area the cities (eg. L'viv / Lwów) were heavily Polish and Jewish. There would either have to be proper minority rights (prefered) or a population exchge (not my prefered option).There could even be some sort of war between the Ukraine and the Poles over Galica in the 1920's, or maybe a plebicide over eastern Galica?
There was some (especially in the far West, the Polish-occupied area, not as much in Soviet Ukraine). But if Ukraine is an independent nation by WW2, they won't welcome any invaders as "liberators".
Sir Isaac Brock said:
Im starting to think that the POD may be friendlier British-Ukrainian relations...
Sir Isaac Brock said:
I guess if there was a British sponsored Ukraine it would be easier to push for such a plebicide, although there would still be problems, as you said the population was pretty mixed
Sir Isaac Brock said:
I was thinking after being Occupied by the Soviets for a couple of years, although Operation Barbarosa may well be different if there is a different Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact
With the M-R pact, lets say Poland still the same, but in exchange for the Soviets occupying the Ukraine, the Germans get the Baltic states?
looking at a map about the M-R pact, it seems that Lithuania was supposed to be origninaly in German influence, so maybe that ideas not so far fetched...although some Soviet generals may be screaming to Stalin about having the Germans so close to Leningrad, Moscow, etc, but then again, when Opperation Barbarosa commenced, Stalin was convinced (as was the percieved comaradery between Stalin and Hitler) that Hitler knew nothing of it, and that the attacks were a mistake.
the Ukraine is probibly a more desirable area then the Baltic states anyway (apologies to any Estonians, Latvians, Courlanders, or Lithuanians on the board
)Eastern Ukraine was Russian speaking even before Stalin and Hitler. So the Ukraine would be smaller. Belorussia would also be independent if the Ukraine was independent, and for the same hypothetical reason, ie,
1. The Germans attacked in the west against the Entente instead of in the east against the Bolsheviks.
2. The Entente war against the Bolsheviks didn't happen and compromise the Ukrainian and Belorussian antiBolsheviks.
3. The US signed a WWI peace treaty recognising the Ukrainian, Belorussian, Lithuainan, Polish, and Czechoslovakian borders with an independent Ukraine and used their financial power to make it stick.
Would Carpathia and Transylvania be indepedent? If it let them dodge the Hungarian share of postwar reparations?
Poland would not be as large, would have no oil, and would have better relations with their neighbors because they would not be able to oppress the minorities. Of course, the neighbors might oppress their new Polish minorities.
Crimea might also be independent. Could go any way. It would not have a land border with Russia, and that might help. Especially if the White Russians got some of the German battleships to guard the straits. Or it was allied to the rest of mitteleuropa.
1. The Germans attacked in the west against the Entente instead of in the east against the Bolsheviks.
2. The Entente war against the Bolsheviks didn't happen and compromise the Ukrainian and Belorussian antiBolsheviks.
3. The US signed a WWI peace treaty recognising the Ukrainian, Belorussian, Lithuainan, Polish, and Czechoslovakian borders with an independent Ukraine and used their financial power to make it stick.
Would Carpathia and Transylvania be indepedent? If it let them dodge the Hungarian share of postwar reparations?
Poland would not be as large, would have no oil, and would have better relations with their neighbors because they would not be able to oppress the minorities. Of course, the neighbors might oppress their new Polish minorities.
Crimea might also be independent. Could go any way. It would not have a land border with Russia, and that might help. Especially if the White Russians got some of the German battleships to guard the straits. Or it was allied to the rest of mitteleuropa.
Scarecrow said:
I think the initial plan for the partition gave another section of central Poland to Russia and Lithuania to Germany but they swapped the two over. Can't remember why but a vague memory that Stalin wanted it to reduce the number of Poles he had to handle and keep the Germans further from Leningrad. Since with the initial boundary there would have been an even bigger pocket for Soviet troops on the border as well as the greater danger for Leningrad it may just have saved the Soviet Union.
Steve
Scarecrow said:heres a brief map i did up, just showing Poland, the Ukraine and western USSR. Enjoy!
Not to sure about Polands eastern border though...
Yes, there's something wrong with Poland's eastern border, or more precisely, south-eastern border - I see an outline of a Lvov wojewodship (I hope I got the name right) in Poland... but there seems to be a change for Ukraine's benefit more East - the Tarnopol and Stanislavow wojewodships seems to become part of Ukraine (they were a part of Poland in OTL)
Oh, and about Polish-Ukrainian war - in the eastern Galicia was a separate Ukrainian govt, independent from Kiev - it was them who Poles fought most, not the Ukrainian govt in Kiev (although Poles were fighting them too
)I think it would have been preferable for the Allies to have the Crimea with the Ukraine (in the ToBL, the Crimea was supposed to be seperate from the Ukraine, as part of Germany, but since this is an Allies win WW1 scenario, it doesnt realy applywkwillis said:
)my POD is a 'fuzzy' One, that is its basicly that Lloyd George doesnt find the Ukrainians objectionable, and the Ukraine is a british back country, the same way independent Poland was for the French, so I fear that Belorussia may get shafted.
But eastern Ukraine may well be a bit smaller; it has a bit that wasnt attatched to the Ukrainian SSR IOTL, and thought that the Ukrainians may try to grab some land...
yeah, it is for Ukraines benifit I gave Tarnopol and Stanislavow to the Ukraine, as part of Eastern Galica. so, perhaps the Ukraine gets Lvov as well, and the Poland/Soviet border is a bit westward as well, especialy if the P-U war is buttiflied away, or is much smaller?Tizoc said:Yes, there's something wrong with Poland's eastern border, or more precisely, south-eastern border - I see an outline of a Lvov wojewodship (I hope I got the name right) in Poland... but there seems to be a change for Ukraine's benefit more East - the Tarnopol and Stanislavow wojewodships seems to become part of Ukraine (they were a part of Poland in OTL)
Oh, and about Polish-Ukrainian war - in the eastern Galicia was a separate Ukrainian govt, independent from Kiev - it was them who Poles fought most, not the Ukrainian govt in Kiev (although Poles were fighting them too
Well it would certainly help. The Allies had a very uncertain and confused response to the Bolshevik Revolution. F.e.: Churchill said the revolution needed to be "strangled in it's nursery", while on the other hand the Allies refused to discuss a common policy on Russian at the Paris Peace Conference because they though it was outside the purview of the conference.Scarecrow said:
What you need is someone at a high level (PM, preferably) to decide that Russia proper is lost to the Reds, but that the outlying empire can still be saved.
Well if the Poles decide they want an particular piece of land, the French will back them up, almost no matter what. So you need the British and / or Americans on the other side supporting the Ukrainians. As for the plebiscite: the rural areas will be mostly pro-Ukraine with other pockets, the cities (like L'viv) will likely go pro-Poland. The overall majority would likely be slightly pro-Ukraine in the eastern half of Galicia. They would have to divide it (Galicia) into two halves, most likely, and ignore city by city or county by county results or risk creating a maze of exclaves and enclaves. The border would probably closely resemble The Curzon Line, proposed by the British foreign secretary of the time.
Can’t answer any WWII questions until we know the nature of the beast we are creating in 1918.I was thinking after being Occupied by the Soviets for a couple of years, ...apologies to any Estonians, Latvians, Courlanders, or Lithuanians on the board
Unless you have a specific outcome in mind we can work towards. If you want a Ukraine strong enough to prevent Germany from actually getting the chance to fight the Russians, that’s one thing. If you want a Ukraine that gets quickly picked apart à la Poland, that’s another.
BTW, we haven't even talked about how to get ethnic Ukrainian lands back from Czslk, Hungary, or Romania.
It wouldn't have to be. Borders can be based on political and diplomatic considerations, or the result of force of arms. In any event, eastern Ukraine wasn't as Russofied then as it is now, so I'd say there would be a lot of support of independence.wkwillis said:
BTW, good thinking, I've been concentrating on the Brits, but the US could be pro-Ukraine too. Problem again, is the OTL they weren't. Wilsonian ideal were great and all then it involved German and Austrian territory. But for whatever reason the Allies didn't want to get too involved in carving up Russia.
A different Civil War would be a start. Have European Russia split into a White South Russia and Red in the North. Siberia can be a mass of Cossack fiefs, Japanese backed Atamans, some White Russians, partisans and so forth.
Thats what I ment when i talked 'upthread' about it being a fuzzy POD, simply a change in how someone thinks, probilby what you have just sugested actualySir Isaac Brock said:
Sir Isaac Brock said:
Curzon Line? could be, although i feel that the Poles may try to push for more Soviet territory getting the OTL border, at least in the north, right?
Sir Isaac Brock said:Can’t answer any WWII questions until we know the nature of the beast we are creating in 1918.
Unless you have a specific outcome in mind we can work towards. If you want a Ukraine strong enough to prevent Germany from actually getting the chance to fight the Russians, that’s one thing. If you want a Ukraine that gets quickly picked apart à la Poland, that’s another.
yes. we must walk, before we can run...
My specific goal was one that was geared very similarly to OTL, but now I am not to sure. perhaps the Ukraine could be strong enough to throw its weight around a bit, especialy with 7 million citizens not dead through forced famine
I do like the thought of a strong Ukraine...
I was assuming that the Ukriane would be carved out of Russian territory, along with eastern Galica. Although Romania is interesting, esp if they and the Ukraine have a 'border dispute'Sir Isaac Brock said:
Great minds think alike. Although I think a changed general feeling throughout the British and Dominion ruling classes would be even more important that a single person's opinion. (Unless that person is at the height of power, i.e. the British PM).Scarecrow said:Thats what I ment when i talked 'upthread' about it being a fuzzy POD, simply a change in how someone thinks, probilby what you have just sugested actualy
The Poles will push for as much as they can get. It really depends on whether or not the displeasure of the Brits and / or Americans is enough to keep them from making war on their neighbours. We briefly touched on Belarus and the Balts, but all the same things that applies to the Ukrainians applies to them too. (i.e. too many enemies, too few allies). Although, OTL the Balts faired much better than the Belarusians.
Assuming you can unite all the ethnic Ukrainian territories, and create a stable government with outside friends, then Ukraine will be an important nations based on it's large population (bigger than the Poles, making them the largest nation between the Germans and the Russians), and many resources (oil, coal, and black earth soil).yes. we must walk, before we can run...
My specific goal was one that was geared very similarly to OTL, but now I am not to sure. perhaps the Ukraine could be strong enough to throw its weight around a bit, especialy with 7 million citizens not dead through forced famine
Me too.
OTL the Romanians occupied the whole of the ex-Austrian province of Bukovina, despite the fact only the southern half was majority Romanian. The northern half was majority Ukrainian, but again, it was all very mixed. Again, you need some reason, some power that will scare the Romanians off. Or you need it as a plot device, you can still give Bukovina to the Romanians and make it a join of tension with Ukraine.
- Status