The Soviet Union in a Central Powers victorious world

Say the Soviet Union was formed the same time in OTL, 1917, then the Germans win the war in 1918, what would be it's fate in such a world?

What would be German Soviet be like? Would the Kaiser send his troops to destroy the new country a few years after the end of the Great War? Or would he allow it's existance as long as it submits to Germany's new world order? How would internal Soviet politics differ from OTL? Would there be a cooperation betwen the Soviets and the defeated Western powers?
 
Interesting..

My first thought is that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is not going to be reversed if the Central Powers defeat the allies at some point in 1918. I suspect the potential influence of America (and general exhaustion) would make it unlikely a "harsh" peace could be imposed on Britain, France and Italy by a victorious Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey at that stage.

Some colonies in Africa and elsewhere might change hands but while German dominance on the Continent would be confirmed, it is far more problematic for Germany to assert global dominance over Britain in the wider world. It might be that a defeated Britain would withdraw from Europe and concentrate on relations with America and the Empire.

As for the Soviet Union, it would have to deal with a network of (possibly) pro-German client states in the Baltic and elsewhere. That of course assumes that the Bolsheviks survive the Civil War. Of course, the Germans contributed to the triumph of Lenin but might not want a successful Soviet Union as a focus for political dissidents at home so we might see German support for "White" forces on a larger scale than happened in OTL.

We could then see a successful White offensive and the restoration of a Monarchy and a pro-German government in St Petersburg (name happily restored).

What happens to Italy ? Does Mussolini still take over in 1922 ?
 
The soviet government would encourage Bolshevist movements in Ukraine, all other German-occupied lands, and A-H, using anti-German ressentiment for its cause. The empires of the Ottomans and Habsburgs aren't the most stable, so Germany'll have a hell of a work to hold its new empire together.
 
The soviet government would encourage Bolshevist movements in Ukraine, all other German-occupied lands, and A-H, using anti-German ressentiment for its cause. The empires of the Ottomans and Habsburgs aren't the most stable, so Germany'll have a hell of a work to hold its new empire together.

True. I was never able to understand if the free-for-all in Ukraine played for the Soviets of for the Whites. My bet is on the former; therefore an Ukraine more or less stable under German tutelage would be an advantage for the Whites.

The big "if" deals with Germany itself: manpower is scarce, raw materials the same, food is at a premium.
The main allies - A-H and the Ottoman empire - may have win the war, but not necessarily have won the peace (an interesting question would be the following: what happen if there is an armistice on the continent, but UK and USA refuse to sign it? Not much that the Germans can do against UK, much less against the USA).

Germany has to keep garrisons in Northern France at least, and Belgium; must bolster its puppet states in the Baltic (plus Ukraine); and ultimately has to demobilise before everything goes down the drain (if victory means that Germany becomes a garrison state, I don't think the kaiser can wave away the internal tensions so easily).

The is also a strong likelihood of red insurrections (most likely aided and abetted by the Soviets, but not necessarily so) in France, Italy, Austria and Hungary, which would spill over into Germany.

A very chaotic time-line: I doubt very much that one might say: "and after the triumph in 1918, the kaiser lived a long and prosperous life, governing a rich German empire", but everything and (almost) anything might happen.
 
The big "if" deals with Germany itself: manpower is scarce, raw materials the same, food is at a premium.

I'd disagree with that. When Germany wins, the first and most important thing they'd have in an armistice would be the end of the blockade. Therefore food and raw materials would arrive pretty fast. There wouldn't be a problem to pay for them, since clearly the loosers will pay it. Therefore I'd say the shortages would be over quite early.

Regarding manpower, I don't think its rare. The problem with such a war is on the opposite that once the war is over, there's plenty of manpower, who didn't learn anything else than fighting. IOTL Germany had hundrets of thousands of Freikorps soldiers who were willing to fight on even when they were defeated. With Germany triumphant, I think there would be even more willing to fight on. And they'd be well trained, experienced men against the new red army...

The main allies - A-H and the Ottoman empire - may have win the war, but not necessarily have won the peace

That's of course true. For the time being, I'd say that the recent victory would help these empires to survive for some years, yet in the end they'd be doomed. But probably not within the first 2 or three years after their victory in the great war.

an interesting question would be the following: what happen if there is an armistice on the continent, but UK and USA refuse to sign it? Not much that the Germans can do against UK, much less against the USA.
[\quote]

The most important thing would be that the blockade would still be in place, therefore the shortages would stay on.

However, how could that happen? Does that mean that the US and the British do not accept the armistice, yet retreat from the continent? OR do they fight on? Or do they just stay there and blockade?

Germany has to keep garrisons in Northern France at least, and Belgium; must bolster its puppet states in the Baltic (plus Ukraine); and ultimately has to demobilise before everything goes down the drain (if victory means that Germany becomes a garrison state, I don't think the kaiser can wave away the internal tensions so easily).

I think occupying France wouldn't be that hard. Just occupy some fortresses, parts of the channel coast and the coal fields around Lille. I don't think that France would revolt very fast after loosing such a desastrous war. The same would be true for Belgium. With the east, I don't think the occupied countries (with the exception of Poland) would be very hostile to the Germans. There would be some German princes ruling, autonomy like never before under the tsar, protection against the Reds...
For some years Germany wouldn't face many problems here.

The is also a strong likelihood of red insurrections (most likely aided and abetted by the Soviets, but not necessarily so) in France, Italy, Austria and Hungary, which would spill over into Germany.

These insurrections would probably be the most important problem. I don't think there would be some in victorious Germany, but there'd be many in France and the other countries which have lost - quite as OTL. And of course the Generals and the Kaiser would be eager to destroy them. That's difficult, yet on the other side it could ironically help German control over the continent. Parisienne bourgeousie wouldn't be that worried about the German army executing Communist rebels in Paris. If there really would be a danger of France becoming a bolshevik state, we'd even see French volunteers fighting alongside Germany for the new French kingdom.

A very chaotic time-line: I doubt very much that one might say: "and after the triumph in 1918, the kaiser lived a long and prosperous life, governing a rich German empire", but everything and (almost) anything might happen.

Hehe, very true. I think one could say that "and after the triumph in 1918, the German Empire ruled Europe undisputedly for 3 years, in which the yet ever victorious German Army smashed all communist uprisings, but then...".
 
IIRC the free for all in the Ukraine ONLY happens AFTER the defeat of the Germans. Skoropadsky's government remains as Germany's client otherwise, and IIRC again the Whites are not much in evidence at this period there.

IIRC (I'm sorry but its ages since I read much on this) Judenich's White army and Mannerheim's Finns were planning a joint assault on Petrograd with the backing of Ludendorff. This would become the first front in the Bolshevik effort to survive.

A defeated Allied and Associated Powers presumably leaves the Czech legion high and dry but with no prospect of returning home (to whom they are traitors) they probably still cut deals for themselves.

Another question is the status of the Japanese. The Central Powers won't have defeated THEM in a presumably-Western-Front orientated victory (or even a super-Caporetto Mark II). Thus, Japan probably won't feel any need to make peace until it has got what it wants from Germany. Considering that Japan is sitting in Vladivostock, it might well get to keep it if it looks to the Germans that the Bolsheviks are going to be able to survive - why make them any stronger than they have to ?

A victorious Enver won't go buggering off to Bokhara but I'm sure the national and anti-Bolshevik forces there can get along fine without him, and may well become the longer-term pain in the arse (or belly) of the Soviets

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
It wouldnt last long.If the Germans won World War 1 they would be in a position to easily occupy and finish off Communism in Russia.
 
Germany was a great power then, sure, but it wasn't as über as some people here believe. Holding down half of Europe, keeping the Social Democrats in check, supporting the rotting empires of Turkey and A-H, and at the same time march towards Moscow and Leningrad? That's a bit too much.
 
Germany was a great power then, sure, but it wasn't as über as some people here believe. Holding down half of Europe, keeping the Social Democrats in check, supporting the rotting empires of Turkey and A-H, and at the same time march towards Moscow and Leningrad? That's a bit too much.
That was pretty much the argument I made in a rather long post I made on the subject a few months back. After 1918, or whenever, Germany is essentially going to have to repair the European order all by itself, and the last thing they have time for is a gigantic land invasion of Russia.

However, if you change around the post-Lenin leadership of the USSR, there's a good chance its life could be measured in years, rather than decades. Stalin was a very terrible person, but he also did manage to create a system that was able to survive a vicious competition against the Americans for a couple decades, which is something of an accomplishment right there. Without him, the Soviet Union might be even more disorganized, and hence vulnerable to German manipulation.
 
In the Gurps AE TL "Dixie" Germany manages to win WW1 (with the help of the US, who fight the also anti-German CSA), purges Lenin, Trotzky and Stalin and give power to Pavel Milyukov.
 
i think the Germans would seek allies to help againist the communist threat. dosent nessecary have to be military force but ecnomic and policitcal sanctions. i think the united states would oblige the Germans in helping keep down the USSR cause the USA hated the communists. In the disaster of World War 1, wouldnt ocupid countries turn to communisim for hope. Communist movments in France, Italy, Belgium would gain popularity
 
However, if you change around the post-Lenin leadership of the USSR, there's a good chance its life could be measured in years, rather than decades. Stalin was a very terrible person, but he also did manage to create a system that was able to survive a vicious competition against the Americans for a couple decades, which is something of an accomplishment right there. Without him, the Soviet Union might be even more disorganized, and hence vulnerable to German manipulation.

I agree with you, but I am leery of attributing Wilhelmine Germany with the sort of statesmanship this policy requires.
 

Keenir

Banned
quote=sumwhereinCA;1083425] i think the united states would oblige the Germans in helping keep down the USSR cause the USA hated the communists.[/quote]

in 1920?
 

Well, the US did send an expeditionary force to Russia in support of the Whites. It failed, but the ribbon decoration for being deployed there is still on the charts even today. This is way to hazy too be sure about, but I think some black troops were deployed there and certain communists were surprised/amazed that the black troops didn't desert and join the communists.
 
The Spring Offensive of March 1918 was aimed at the conjunction between the British and French armies, with the target to reach Amiens and (possibly) the Channel ports. If the offensive develops as per OTL, it is quite clear that either the Germans win or loose. No room for separate armistices. But Ludendorff himself was quite convinced that the war could not be won, and was aiming to get better conditions for an armistice.
If we assume that the German strategy is different (assume that the brunt of the offensive is against the French, rather than the British), a possible scenario could be that the French front collapses (unlikely, but if we want a change...), and the Germans get their breakthrough. The BEF does not collapse, but makes an orderly retreat toward the Channel ports, and most of it is re-embarked and taken back to England. Under these assumptions, it would be possible to have a French surrender, while the British and the Americans fight on (or just refuse the armistice). Even without considering what's going to happen in different fronts (e.g., Italy, the Balkans, Syria), IMHO this would as a minimum continue the blockade, and would put Germany in a very difficult situation.

Note that even if the CPs win in 1918, it does not mean that the food scarcity will disappear. After 1945, and victory in Europe, UK was still kept under rationing for some years (and the merchant fleets of USA and UK were much larger than what would be available to Germany in 1918).

I quite strongly disagree with the assumption that German troops might be kept in the army after 1918 (at least in numbers large enough to garrison Northern France and Belgium, to keep in line the Baltic states and Ukraine, and eventually to mount an offensive against the Soviets). 1918 had seen mutinies also in Germany, and most of these troops were fighting since 1914.
This was true on both sides of the war: not unsurprisingly, the Entente never seriously considered an intervention in Russia, beyond holding for some time Odessa and Arkangelsk (and the Japanese occupying Vladivostock). It would be a nightmare, and would present the usual problem when one fights a war against Russia (take Moscow and hold it, or loose), not to mention the logistics difficulties and a very confused political situation. IMHO, the Germans would have done the same as the Entente did in OTL (i.e., try to keep the Soviets bottled in Russia, and wait for the end of the civil war); their task would be harder in a way, since they need to prop up Ukraine too, but they would have the advantage of being able to use Turkish troops (even if using Ottoman troops in Ukraine would not be the quickest way to make the new regime popular). Turkish troops might also keep a lid on the Caucasus (maybe) and certainly to secure Baku oil wells (which should make life a bit more easier for Germany).

Honestly, it might work, but I think it would not. Europeans (including Germans) are tired of war, and the more they are kept in uniform the more likely mutinies and the like.

The other problem is that I do not think CPs can win in 1918 (but that's another story).
 
Structurally Russia was on the way up as an industrial power prior to WW1, something Stalin pushed with a bloody vengence in the 30s, until it was on par with Germany by 1941. If the SU can survive its counter-revolution/civil war/foreign intervention of the immediate post war era I think it would rise to superpower status by the 50s. I think that if Germany did win WW1 Russia would be largely granted the 15-20 years of peace it needed to become a superpower.
 
However, if you change around the post-Lenin leadership of the USSR, there's a good chance its life could be measured in years, rather than decades. Stalin was a very terrible person, but he also did manage to create a system that was able to survive a vicious competition against the Americans for a couple decades, which is something of an accomplishment right there. Without him, the Soviet Union might be even more disorganized, and hence vulnerable to German manipulation.

If the NEP remains in place, the USSR might be better off economically, less repressive, and probably less frightening to the neighbors.
 
It is not that unlikly that germany goes socialist and allies with russia? At least in 1919 germany was morr or less a Sovjet(Räte)-rebublic!
Germany and russia establish a Puffer-Ukraine and have peace.
 
I just thought I'd bump this thread because of all the other ones about a CP victory. So, another question I'd like to ask is; how would the Soviet Union evolve with Brest-Litovsk borders? Economically and Industrially? Would it still be able to achieve the same level of industrialization it had OTL or at least come close? And what else would be different?
 
With the B-L borders, no Ukraine to strip-mine for food to sell abroad, so industrialization-by-brute-force might be rather difficult.

Much less oil to sell abroad too, since Baku will be in the hands of the Turks and Georgia an ally of Germany (under Menshevik control, no less--they won't want to deal with Lenin).
 
Top