I think we can all agree that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was very harsh.
The loss of Ukraine and the Baltic effectively rendered the New Bolshevik Republic without the majority of its grain growing territory. It was a famine waiting to happen if such terms stood.
Though the German High Command and Junkers were pleased, the treaty had the unfortunate effect of further strengthening the resolve of the allies still fighting on the western front.
The propaganda machine in France and UK went into high gear, producing images of Brest-Litovsk type terms being imposed by Germany on the west if the was lost. This, among other things, may have staved off revolution on the homefront for a new more years.
But what if Brest-Litovsk was less harsh, to a massive degree?
Say instead Germany demands a free polish buffer and some Baltic territory around Memel and nothing more. Would the allies have been more open to coming to terms after Russia was knocked out?
The loss of Ukraine and the Baltic effectively rendered the New Bolshevik Republic without the majority of its grain growing territory. It was a famine waiting to happen if such terms stood.
Though the German High Command and Junkers were pleased, the treaty had the unfortunate effect of further strengthening the resolve of the allies still fighting on the western front.
The propaganda machine in France and UK went into high gear, producing images of Brest-Litovsk type terms being imposed by Germany on the west if the was lost. This, among other things, may have staved off revolution on the homefront for a new more years.
But what if Brest-Litovsk was less harsh, to a massive degree?
Say instead Germany demands a free polish buffer and some Baltic territory around Memel and nothing more. Would the allies have been more open to coming to terms after Russia was knocked out?
Last edited: