Is a lasting Brest-Litovsk settlement possible?

Central Powers victory timelines often feature Germany controlling huge areas in the east, from the Baltics to all of Ukraine. But is it possible for WWI to end like this?

In order for this to happen, the USA must remain neutral. Otherwise, if the Central Powers manage to get as far east as they did in OTL, any peace treaty they establish won't last any longer than 1-2 years.

Also, the war must last long enough for the Russian war effort to collapse. In OTL it took over 3 years. Without a Russian collapse the Central Powers aren't likely to get far beyond the 1915-1917 frontlines.

If the Russian war effort is beginning to collapse and Russia gives up, German gains are probably close to the initial OTL demands at Brest-Litovsk, which amounted to most of what later became Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

For Russia not to give up at this point, 3+ years into the war the western Entente must be performing so well that they appear to be going to win ... but still lose. This seems unlikely to me.

Thoughts?
 
Central Powers victory timelines often feature Germany controlling huge areas in the east, from the Baltics to all of Ukraine. But is it possible for WWI to end like this?

Not without a negotiated peace on the Western Front. By 1917-18, Germany was in no position to win the war through force of arms alone. If Germany wanted to end the war on their terms, they need to force the Entente to seek a armistice or they need to wait for the Entente to come to them with a proposal for a armistice that benefits Germany. One of the terms for the armistice must be the end of the British blockade, so food can come in form neutral countries like the Netherlands or the United States.

But even if that happens, I don't see Germany being able to maintain control over the whole thing. Ukraine was a specific goal of Germany at Brest-Litovsk for it's vast reserves of grain and wheat. Well, for 1917-18, Germany was unable to obtain anything substantial from Ukraine because of Bolshevik interference and the fact that there was no truly legitimate government in place. Maintaining it's new possessions in Eastern Europe against the Bolsheviks and the Whites is going to grind up a lot of manpower and material. I simply don't think the German people would've had the stomach for yet another protracted war in the East.
 
Well I sertenly think it's possible, not the easiest thing in the world but eminently possible, also I would suggest reading some other ww1 discussion on why whith out American support Germany can win in the West.
 
But even if that happens, I don't see Germany being able to maintain control over the whole thing. Ukraine was a specific goal of Germany at Brest-Litovsk for it's vast reserves of grain and wheat. Well, for 1917-18, Germany was unable to obtain anything substantial from Ukraine because of Bolshevik interference and the fact that there was no truly legitimate government.

Don’t overstate importance of the Bolsheviks: Germans were opposed pretty much by everybody except for their puppet government. Nationalists, anarchists, local bandits with no clear political affiliation, you name it. Not to mention that for quite a while the “Bolsheviks” in that framework mostly amounted to the Ukrainian Bolshevik government with its own Red Army (which, AFAIK, included even criminals). The Germans were trying to restore the old order (as far as land was involved) and were too heavy into the confiscations.

Elected national government did exist but it was extremely weak.
 
It's possible, but likely requires a PoD early in the war that gives Germany advantages that she did not enjoy iotl. Perhaps some battlefield change, could leave Italy a neutral for longer, or something like that. The course of the war plays out a bit different from otl and Germany keeps the territory in the eat.

I'd point out that Brest Litovsk was renegotiated and clarified in August 1918 with the treaty of Berlin . This treaty loosened the language around the status of Ukraine , given the changes on the ground since BL.
 
Yes, the losses entailed by the Treaty would prevent Russia from challenging the terms of the Treaty for quite some time and the Western Entente can be dealt with via a successful Spring 1918 offensive.
 
Is it not the simplest POD to refrain from USW.
No US involvement. Economically the war becomes unsustainable for Britain and France. The outlook in 1918 does suggest a peace offer would be a good idea...
 
Tricky scenario. *maybe* if...

*Italian 2nd Army surrounded after Caporetto, surrenders
*Cardona blames Capello, keeps his job
*Italians fall back to Po & Mincio in disarray as expected by the UK & France
*CP offers lighter peace terms to Italy separately in December 1917, Piave as new border, food/medicines/reparations, etc.
*Treaty of Venice in late March 1918
*Operation Michael gets 500k more troops, better results for CP due to lower Allied morale & greater CP numbers
*France and UK to the table, Brest-Litovsk recognized as part of Treaty of Paris [1919]
 
First I rely on a no USA premise, in fact with a continuing neutral USA the freedom of the seas issue cuts into the British Blockade, no financing puts the Entente on a budget past 1916 and opens the door to negotiated peace in 1917.

Next I would argue that without the USA Russia is far more willing to bow out and the terms should not look like B-L, that was a harsher peace after Soviet intransigence, here it would be possible for a "provisional government" to settle out rather than hang on, so we impact the revolution too.

Russia can afford to lose the unruly Polish, they can lose Latvia and Lithuania, even Finland, that gives both A-H and Germany "gains", and here we should see Ukraine off the list or partly carved up to add to Austrian Ukraine, but that is a stretch. Germany can be heavy handed, stupid and short sighted but events here can make a peace possible, Russia has not lost much and can resume trade with Germany, in fact that might be the savior of this peace, an unravelling of the Entente puts Germany on the search for alternate trade zones, Russia can be that, uncomfortable and unwilling bad partners perhaps, but practical. In short I think events can impose this uneasy peace long enough to let it take root and realign things so no one power is victor or boss, everyone lost enough to find another war unpopular but not so much lost to require revenge.
 
The German Offensives of 1918 by David T. Zabecki outlines that, if either Amiens or Hazebrouck, the BEF would automatically lose 50% of their logistics chain and be rendered incapable of offensives. Even worse, the Bethune coal mines would either be cut off or directly overrun, collapsing around 70% of French war production and thus making the incoming Americans irrelevant as it wouldn't be until well into 1919 they could sustain their own logistics needs; the Anglo-French cannot last until 1920 at this point. This would mean a compromise peace in favor of the Central Powers, with the recognition of Brest-Litovsk as likely the biggest German gain from the Treaty. If both fall, then it's a decisive victory for Germany. The BEF would have to abandon 90% of its equipment and fallback behind the Somme at the least if not do a "Dunkirk" because they've just lost their logistics entirely. The Germans can then overrun the channel ports, closing the channel approaches to London, as well as allowing them to fully focus on the French armies who now have an open flank due to the loss of Amiens and the British evacuating from their positions. Entirely possible French morale collapses as they abandon Northern France and the Germans directly overrun Paris. This would be a decisive German victory in the war, and Brest-Litovsk would definitely be enacted and maintained; better the Kaiser in the Kuban or Gomel than the French Flanders, afterall.
 
Top