No US, no Kerensky Offensive; how will WWI end?

[Kaiserboi]

In my last post I asked what the effects might be of US neutrality on the immediate events of 1917. It seems that one major change would be no Kerensky Offensive, since US loans were a major part of convincing the Russians to try it. Had the offensive not taken place (and failed), Russia would've been considerably more stable, and the Provisional Government might've lasted through 1917, focusing on consolidating their regime and conserving their forces for the following year.

What would be the results of this? Would the lack of US support, coupled with Russian inaction on the eastern front, be enough to break Italian and French morale? Even in OTL they suffered from heavy defeats and mass mutinies late in the year. Would this be enough to force their governments to make peace, or cause enough turmoil for a German breakthrough to be successful? How would Britain and Russia respond if their allies left the war?

Could Lenin still cause significant trouble in Russia? Or would the threat of revolution be averted? What will it take to get Kerensky to make peace, and how long will he hold out? Or is there still a possibility that Germany will eventually crumble under the blockade and the stress of fighting on two fronts?

 

[Catspoke]

Would Kerensky Russia without USA loans be forced to make peace with Germany?

Some people say all the Allies would be in trouble financially without USA loans, at the least the Allies would have to limit their west front offensives.

I suspect all the Allies including Russia would try to just hold the line hoping the blockade works.

Germany might make a serious effort to knock Italy out of the war in the fall of 17.

 

[Kaiserboi]

Would Kerensky Russia without USA loans be forced to make peace with Germany?

Some people say all the Allies would be in trouble financially without USA loans, at the least the Allies would have to limit their west front offensives.

I suspect all the Allies including Russia would try to just hold the line hoping the blockade works.

Germany might make a serious effort to knock Italy out of the war in the fall of 17.

My question with regard to Italy is wehther the CPs can afford to transfer troops from the eastern front when Russia is still not completely broken.

 

[Catspoke]

My question with regard to Italy is wehther the CPs can afford to transfer troops from the eastern front when Russia is still not completely broken.

So its October 1917, before the OTL December armistice anyway, you would have to think the Austrians could commit 4 more divisions and the Germans another 2 divisions, maybe more, perhaps launch an additional offensive out of the Trentino, 2 days later, using reserves drawn OTL in by the Kerensky offensive.

(I am a bit skeptical of Kerensky government not making an armistice regardless anyway in this time line). Probably a summer 1917 USA dictated peace conference amongst all powers.

Germany getting Belgian Congo (and Portuguese Angola if losses in Namibia and Pacific are unrecoverable). Poland as an independent, German dependent buffer. otherwise 1913 boundaries. Austria occupies Serbia for a year.

 

[ReconGuy02]

I stated my opinion :
Without Offensive and Kornilov Affair, Reds fail to do something like OTL.
Kerensky sits in war like he pledged until early 1918, and then seeing that Entente can't win the war and Army at this point is practically in a state of CSA military in late 1864 or German military post-Hundred Days in 1918, bows out of the war somewhere in January or February of 1918, accepting initial B-L( modest reparations, Poland, Baltics, Finland and some concessions in Caucasus,along with Bessarabia going to Romania)

 

[Catspoke]

I stated my opinion :
Without Offensive and Kornilov Affair, Reds fail to do something like OTL.
Kerensky sits in war like he pledged until early 1918, and then seeing that Entente can't win the war and Army at this point is practically in a state of CSA military in late 1864 or German military post-Hundred Days in 1918, bows out of the war somewhere in January or February of 1918, accepting initial B-L( modest reparations, Poland, Baltics, Finland and some concessions in Caucasus,along with Bessarabia going to Romania)

Seems reasonable. The only possible change would be French/British have financial troubles due to lack of USA entry.

Which means probably a curtailment of west front offensives, which leads to even more increased German reserves to do something in Italy, or launch a more powerful Moldavian offensive maybe late in 1917, neither one would be decisive really, but would reinforce any feeling of German military advantage.

With Belgian relief food and a trickle of USA supplies making it in, Germany is probably OK in February 1918. Even the vague threat of Russian withdrawal, along without any means to force a peace themselves, though would almost force the Allies into a general peace conference.

 

[Kaiserboi]

So its October 1917, before the OTL December armistice anyway, you would have to think the Austrians could commit 4 more divisions and the Germans another 2 divisions, maybe more, perhaps launch an additional offensive out of the Trentino, 2 days later, using reserves drawn OTL in by the Kerensky offensive.

(I am a bit skeptical of Kerensky government not making an armistice regardless anyway in this time line). Probably a summer 1917 USA dictated peace conference amongst all powers.

Germany getting Belgian Congo (and Portuguese Angola if losses in Namibia and Pacific are unrecoverable). Poland as an independent, German dependent buffer. otherwise 1913 boundaries. Austria occupies Serbia for a year.

What would the effects of an offensive in Italy be? Same as OTL Caporetto, or enough to, say capture Venice, maybe force them to sue for peace?

Kerensky was pretty committed to staying in the war and still thought he could win. IDK, would he really make peace so quickly? Not sure how Portugal's going to hand over Angola either, because unless UK puts pressure on them there's no leverage there. Wilson seems too naive and idealistic to negotiate a peace in Germany's favor.

 

[Kaiserboi]

I stated my opinion :
Without Offensive and Kornilov Affair, Reds fail to do something like OTL.
Kerensky sits in war like he pledged until early 1918, and then seeing that Entente can't win the war and Army at this point is practically in a state of CSA military in late 1864 or German military post-Hundred Days in 1918, bows out of the war somewhere in January or February of 1918, accepting initial B-L( modest reparations, Poland, Baltics, Finland and some concessions in Caucasus,along with Bessarabia going to Romania)

Would Kerensky really sue for peace in early 1918, before he'd even tried anything on the eastern front? Russia's year of recovery should put her in a better position, wouldn't the Entente want to give it a chance? It could perhaps turn the tide.

Also, how would Germany get all that (especially Finland and Ukraine) without Russia collapsing into civil war?

 

[Catspoke]

What would the effects of an offensive in Italy be? Same as OTL Caporetto, or enough to, say capture Venice, maybe force them to sue for peace?

Kerensky was pretty committed to staying in the war and still thought he could win. IDK, would he really make peace so quickly? Not sure how Portugal's going to hand over Angola either, because unless UK puts pressure on them there's no leverage there. Wilson seems too naive and idealistic to negotiate a peace in Germany's favor.

There was an otl american peace proposal where germany would get the belgian congo so I was thinking along those lines. I'll see if I can find a link. Once peace is at hand the German navy sails to occupy angola.

 

[ReconGuy02]

Would Kerensky really sue for peace in early 1918, before he'd even tried anything on the eastern front? Russia's year of recovery should put her in a better position, wouldn't the Entente want to give it a chance? It could perhaps turn the tide.

Also, how would Germany get all that (especially Finland and Ukraine) without Russia collapsing into civil war?

He will see writing on the wall in 1918, especially if US is not coming.

 

[DrakonFin]

I stated my opinion :
Without Offensive and Kornilov Affair, Reds fail to do something like OTL.
Kerensky sits in war like he pledged until early 1918, and then seeing that Entente can't win the war and Army at this point is practically in a state of CSA military in late 1864 or German military post-Hundred Days in 1918, bows out of the war somewhere in January or February of 1918, accepting initial B-L( modest reparations, Poland, Baltics, Finland and some concessions in Caucasus,along with Bessarabia going to Romania)

I am going to disagree about Finland. It was not Brest-Litovsk that detached Finland from Russia, it was the October Revolution, the Finnish declaration of independence, and, importantly, the fact that the Bolshevik government in Petrograd for its own tactical reasons recognized Finland as independent already at the end of December 1917. The Brest-Litovsk treaty therefore only confirmed the facts on the ground, Finland having been detached from Russia de jure. All things considered, Finland was practically an unexpected windfall bonus for the Germans, a decent gain for a very limited outlay of resources.

Without the Bolsheviks taking power, the process that led to Finland's independence would have been averted. And in this case, the Germans would not have the grounds to demand Finland. Remember that German troops never controlled even a part of Finland prior to March 1918. Or, to the point, prior to the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. With Kerenski still in power, the Germans would not have the "diplomatic capital" to demand Finland - in other words, to demand an area that would still be in Russian control, even if tenuous control, and could only be taken via an amphibious attack, would take a bigger diplomatic cost than the Germans would likely consider it to be worth. If there is "diplomatic capital" to spend in the negotiations, I'd wager the Germans would likely rather use it for areas closer to the Reich proper, south of the Gulf of Finland. Finland, to be honest, was peripheral.

 

[ReconGuy02]

I am going to disagree about Finland. It was not Brest-Litovsk that detached Finland from Russia, it was the October Revolution, the Finnish declaration of independence, and, importantly, the fact that the Bolshevik government in Petrograd for its own tactical reasons recognized Finland as independent already at the end of December 1917. The Brest-Litovsk treaty therefore only confirmed the facts on the ground, Finland having been detached from Russia de jure. All things considered, Finland was practically an unexpected windfall bonus for the Germans, a decent gain for a very limited outlay of resources.

Without the Bolsheviks taking power, the process that led to Finland's independence would have been averted. And in this case, the Germans would not have the grounds to demand Finland. Remember that German troops never controlled even a part of Finland prior to March 1918. Or, to the point, prior to the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. With Kerenski still in power, the Germans would not have the "diplomatic capital" to demand Finland - in other words, to demand an area that would still be in Russian control, even if tenuous control, and could only be taken via an amphibious attack, would take a bigger diplomatic cost than the Germans would likely consider it to be worth. If there is "diplomatic capital" to spend in the negotiations, I'd wager the Germans would likely rather use it for areas closer to the Reich proper, south of the Gulf of Finland. Finland, to be honest, was peripheral.

The thing is, IIRC, Provisional Government promised independence to Finnish representatives

 

[DrakonFin]

The thing is, IIRC, Provisional Government promised independence to Finnish representatives

Could you quote a source for that? Who exactly promised this to whom? Would they have had the power to honor that promise even if they were committed to the idea? I think that for many if not most involved in Russian politics, Finland's position should have been left for the Russian constituent assembly to decide.

In any case, the lack of the October Revolution would cause major knock-on effects and butterflies for both the larger Russian internal politics as well as politics in Finland. IOTL, the Bolsheviks taking power in Petrograd practically radicalized the Finnish nationalist right and pushed them towards taking action for independence. Prior to it, the conservatives were careful and it was the Social Democrats who were making the most noise about Finland detaching itself from Russia. With the Russian government scraping by and avoiding an internal collapse in 1917/1918, and thus avoiding the collapse of Russian power and standing in Finland, too, I think that it would be fair to predict that the the chances of Finland gaining independence would have been lower ITTL than IOTL.

 

[ReconGuy02]

Could you quote a source for that? Who exactly promised this to whom? Would they have had the power to honor that promise even if they were committed to the idea? I think that for many if not most involved in Russian politics, Finland's position should have been left for the Russian constituent assembly to decide.

In any case, the lack of the October Revolution would cause major knock-on effects and butterflies for both the larger Russian internal politics as well as politics in Finland. IOTL, the Bolsheviks taking power in Petrograd practically radicalized the Finnish nationalist right and pushed them towards taking action for independence. Prior to it, the conservatives were careful and it was the Social Democrats who were making the most noise about Finland detaching itself from Russia. With the Russian government scraping by and avoiding an internal collapse in 1917/1918, and thus avoiding the collapse of Russian power and standing in Finland, too, I think that it would be fair to predict that the the chances of Finland gaining independence would have been lower ITTL than IOTL.

Fair enough

 

[Kaiserboi]

He will see writing on the wall in 1918, especially if US is not coming.

I just wonder if he'd want to give the restabilized Russian Army a chance. I guess if France and Italy are battered enough, and if Russia remains in a bad situation, he might figure they can't win. But there was actually strong opposition to making peace, even among the peasant soldiers, before the Kerensky Offensive, to the point where people were getting murdered for even suggesting it.

 

[ReconGuy02]

I just wonder if he'd want to give the restabilized Russian Army a chance. I guess if France and Italy are battered enough, and if Russia remains in a bad situation, he might figure they can't win. But there was actually strong opposition to making peace, even among the peasant soldiers, before the Kerensky Offensive, to the point where people were getting murdered for even suggesting it.

Nah. Economy will still be broken, Army would still be ineffective, and morale will still be low. I removed only Reds from OTL equation. Russia is still in a deep shit

 

[Kaiserboi]

Nah. Economy will still be broken, Army would still be ineffective, and morale will still be low. I removed only Reds from OTL equation. Russia is still in a deep shit

Yeah you're probably right about that. BTW, do you have sources showing how the US loans influenced the Kerensky Offensive? I was under the impression that Kerensky needed an offensive (or thought he did) to prove Russia could still fight.

 

[ReconGuy02]

Yeah you're probably right about that. BTW, do you have sources showing how the US loans influenced the Kerensky Offensive? I was under the impression that Kerensky needed an offensive (or thought he did) to prove Russia could still fight.

Elihu Root visited Petersburg in late June 1917 and met with Provisional Government, asking Russia to stay in war and put pressure on CP on Eastern Front. In exchange he promised greater amount of financial support from US and loans with close to zero interest rates. This is easily findable on Google.

 

[Kaiserboi]

Elihu Root visited Petersburg in late June 1917 and met with Provisional Government, asking Russia to stay in war and put pressure on CP on Eastern Front. In exchange he promised greater amount of financial support from US and loans with close to zero interest rates. This is easily findable on Google.

I've read about ROot's mission to RUssia and I know he said "no loan no fight." I wash not aware of a specific connection to the Kerensky Offensive.

 

[ReconGuy02]

I've read about ROot's mission to RUssia and I know he said "no loan no fight." I wash not aware of a specific connection to the Kerensky Offensive.

Well, there was one