To Each According

[Hnau]

The man who would become Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Communist movement, is never even born.

The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party
The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was not the first Russian Marxist group, that title belongs to the Group for Emancipation of Labour in 1883. The RSDLP was created to oppose Narodism, the more accepted revolutionary populist ideology that would later dominate Russia following the 1917 Revolution under the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. Despite Russia’s agrarian nature, the RSDLP program put its faith into the growing industrial working class, a tenet that ultimately led to their failure to take power in the revolutionary period following the Great War. The Social-Democrats were led for much of the party’s infancy by former newspaper writer Julius Martov. Under the RSDLP, trade-unions received much support in opposing the despotism of Tsar Nicholas II and the Russian imperial authority. The Soviet was popularized by the RSDLP as the revolutionary organ of choice following the Revolution of 1905. The RSDLP boycotted the First Duma of 1906, but were later represented in the Second Duma of 1907. Together with the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the RSDLP held 83 seats, but were largely held responsible for the dissolution of the Second Duma when it was discovered that Julius Martov was behind a conspiracy to subvert the army. SD presence was severely diminished in the Third Duma and until the February Revolution the RSDLP bided their time. Unlike the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who used terrorism to actively engage the Tsarist regime, the RSDLP preferred to gather converts and bolster unions, waiting for other parties to begin the liberal bourgeois revolution that would eventually lead to a Marxist socialist state. Nevertheless, the Russian Social-Democrats did organize and attend many international conventions to gather anti-war forces together, such as in the noted Zimmerwald Conference.

The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party participated in the February Revolution of 1917, especially as supporters of the brief Petrograd Soviet during that year, but unexpectedly did not ever gain the popularity that they sought to begin a Marxist revolution. It was not until April 20th, 1917 that the RSDLP made an impact in history with the April Days that brought them into conflict with the Provisional Government. Those responsible for these radical acts would later become part of Yakov Sverdlov’s Left Social-Democratic Party who would initiate the Soviet Uprising a year later. Sverdlov, however, merely built upon the radical, leftist wing of the RSDLP that had been initially organized by Alexander Bogdanov a decade earlier, when he emerged as an influential leader in the Party in 1908. While more famous for his scientific discoveries in systems analyses, tectology, blood infusions, and his influence on Nikolai Bukharin and future Georgian strongman Joseph Jugashvilli, Bogdanov should also be recognized for providing the philosophical foundation for the Left-SDs, namely that true communism could be initiated in the near future if the party could sponsor ‘scientifically-justified radical acts’.

The events of the April Days became the first of increasingly-violent pro-Soviet clashes with the Provisional Government throughout the revolutionary period. Julius Martov should be commended for consistently pulling the SDs back when it seemed that a civil war was imminent with the liberal Provisional Government under Alexander Kerensky, such as on October 17, 1917 when he pushed the Petrograd Soviet to vote down resolution to create a Military Defense Committee to direct the arming of the populace of Petrograd for the defense of the city against foreign invasion. Such an act had the potential to give the Soviet system legitimate power to combat the Provisional Government, but Julius Martov feared that too much weakening of the state could result in German imperialist victory over Russia.

The month of November was a critical time for the Petrograd Soviet and the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. In the municipal elections for the Soviet, the RSDLP took a third of the votes, a 50 percent increase from the last six months. The Left-SDs were bolstered with returns that convinced them that the city supported their calls for another violent revolution. Beginning November 22nd, Sverdlov thus began a manifestation in the city, with 75,000 gathering in the city center to demand radical action. Fortunately, blood was not shed, but because the Left-SDs were unopposed, Yakov Sverdlov felt that the time for his revolution was coming soon. Leon Trotsky, another RSDLP leader, is reported to have predicted the inevitable failure of the Left-SDs to combat the Provisional Government during this time, but unfortunately Sverdlov would not listen to his pleas for a reunion of the party. The Soviet had been revitalized by Sverdlov’s influence: by December, the soviets, which had throughout the year dwindled in inactivity, only existing on paper, were up and running once more under.

Two months later, on February 4th, 1918, the final confrontation began. The Provisional Government finally declared the organization of a Constituent Assembly election to be held at the end of the month. The Petrograd Soviet faced dissolution. The Left-SDs thus began their most massive demonstration in Petrograd yet. Preparations had been made months in advance that now saw Left-SDs passing out arms and ammunition to supporters throughout the capital. With hundreds of thousands thus mobilized, Petrograd became for a brief period a functioning communist Soviet government as envisioned by Sverdlov. Their public execution of anti-Soviet leaders and the looting in the city forced reaction from the Provisional Government. Kerensky thus sent General Lavr Kornilov to deal with the crisis, with orders to arrest all those behind it. Russian soldiers, inspired by recent successes on the Eastern Front and promises of peace within the month, quickly dispersed the masses by the week’s end.

The Soviet Uprising ended on February 11 with the last radicals subdued. The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was disenfranchised. In order to validate their party in the eminent government structure, party leaders Julius Martov and Leon Trotsky revoked Soviet-ism forever, signing the Writ of Supremacy to Alexander Kerensky which dissolved the Petrograd Soviet and acknowledged formally the Provisional Government. Echo uprisings would still occur for the next two months, with struggling Soviet rebellions appearing in major cities and quickly being put down by government forces. The remnants of the Left-SDs would become notorious terrorists for the next decade. Meanwhile, with the popular ascendance of Leon Trotsky over Julius Martov, the party began shifting in a different direction...

 

[Kidblast]

Oh, no Bolshevism! This looks interesting!

 

[Hnau]

Kerensky Offensive
The Kerensky Offensive (aka July Offensive or Galician Offensive) was the last Russian offensive in the Great War. It took place in July 1917.

Background
The Allies expected the new Russian provisional government to fulfill its obligations and continue to press the Germans on the Eastern Front. After the success of the Brusilov Offensive a year earlier, it was expected that just another small gain in territory could break the Central Powers. The offensive was decided by Alexander Kerensky, Minister of War, and led by General Brusilov. Kerensky had another motive to launching the offensive than merely aiding the Allies: an important Russian victory would restore popularity of the Provisional Government after the April Days two months earlier and restore the soldiers’ morale.

Kerensky could be seen as far too optimistic in his prediction of success of the ‘most democratic army in the world’. The Russian Army had been stretched thin over too many years of warfare. Furthermore, the Petrograd Soviet, still wielding power at this point, had tremendously weakened the power of officers, giving overriding mandate to “soldier committees”. The abolition of the death penalty was another contributing factor, as was the presence of revolutionary agitators, some who promoted a defeatist agenda [1] that caused dissension in the ranks, causing more than a few riots and mutinies along the front.

The Offensive
Starting on July 1, 1917, the Russian troops attacked the Austro-Hungarian and German forces in Galicia, pushing toward Lviv. They achieved a breakthrough once more with General Brusilov’s infiltration tactics as used in the earlier Brusilov Offensive. Opposing soldiers began a rapid retreat to escape Russian retaliation, leaving weapons and supplies behind them. After two weeks the soldiers had reached the outskirts of Lviv, where fleeing German forces began to regroup and turn back the tide. On July 16, the fighting begins to stagnate with a loss of confidence amongst the troops.

On July 20th, a German and Austro-Hungarian counterattack would meet stiff resistance, having waited too long to take advantage of the lull in fighting. By July 24th, the Russians would begin a defensive retreat in response to the increasing enemy pressure, but nevertheless destroying everything of value they could not bring with them in a massive campaign of torched earth policy. By July 31st, the Russians had retreated almost completely to their old defensive line, having gained only a few kilometers in all. [2]

Aftermath
Though the Kerensky Offensive did not gain a huge amount of territory, the new Kerensky government proclaimed victory [3], as they did take a few kilometers at least. The engagement proved that many of Kerensky’s war policies were ineffectual, which would lead to the dissolution of the soldiers’ committees by General Kornilov on November 18, along with the banishment of revolutionary agitators and the illegalization of political literature. The death penalty remains a problem, however, Kerensky would not revoke such a measure that he believed to be so completely necessary.

Around the world, the Offensive proved that Russia was still in the fight, but that it had been stretched thin by the revolution. By November, with the adoption of the Kornilov Doctrine, the Allies would realize that the Russians would fight a purely defensive war from then on. At home, in the cities and countryside of Russia, Kerensky’s false announcement of a decisive victory accomplished exactly what Kerensky had wanted: there was renewed faith in the Provisional Government, and enough energy to sustain the war a little longer. There was renewed confidence in the Russian Army, which was sustained after the Russian victory in the Battle of Riga that October [4]. This strength would be needed in the long months of warfare ahead until the capitulation of the Central Powers in June of 1918.

--
[1] IOTL, the Bolshevik agitators on the front were the primary sources of defeatist literature amongst the soldiers. Without the organization of such a motivated anti-war effort to gain converts amongst the soldiers, the soldiers keep a substantial amount of morale. This allows the soldiers to fight and march a little bit longer and harder, which begins a knock-on effect: the closer the troops get to Lviv, the better morale gets. This doesn't count for enough to turn the Kerensky Offensive into a victory by a longshot, but it doesn't become the military fiasco it was IOTL. With the holding of just a few extra kilometers, after an organized retreat, there is a huge morale benefit throughout Russia.

[2] During July, engineers move into German trenches and re-position their equipment in order to create a defensive line the army can fall back to if necessary. A few new trenches are built, but Russia doesn't have THAT many resources. Nevertheless, it forces the Germans to build a new defensive line.

[3] The amount of deserters during the Offensive is significantly less ITTL due to its somewhat-success. This means fewer defeatist-activists in the cities. Kerensky can claim factually that the Russians gained territory. Plus, the Russians like being told that they are winning, despite the many soldiers who are dying every day.

[4] The Battle of Riga happened in September 1917 IOTL, with Russians completely surrendering. All they needed was confidence, and they could have defeated the Germans. This causes even more of a knock-on effect: another victory on the battlefield is another win for the Provisional Government and the morale of the entire army.

 

[Hnau]

Finnish Civil War
The Finnish Civil War was a part of the national and social turmoil caused by the Great War (1914-1918) in Europe. The war was fought in Finland from January 30 to June 15, between forces of the Sociat Democrats led by Prime Minister Kullervo Manner, commonly called the "Reds" and the forces of the non-socialist, conservative-led Senate, commonly called the "Whites". The Provisional Government supported the Whites until the results of the February Constituent Assembly came out, in which the Socialist-Revolutionaries established a majority. Following the election, Alexander Kerensky began to support the Reds instead, while the Whites went to the German Empire for military assistance.

The February Revolution in 1917 caused a total collapse of the Russian Empire, and the destruction in Russia resulted in a breakdown of Finnish society during 1917. The Social Democrats on the left and conservatives on the right competed for the leadership of the Finnish state, which shifted from the left to the right in 1917.

As there were no generally accepted police forces to keep order in Finland after the February Revolution, the left and right began building security groups of their own, leading to the emergence of two independent military troops, the White and Red Guards. An atmosphere of political violence and fear grew among the Finns. Fighting broke out in January 1918 due to the acts of both the Reds and Whites in a spiral of escalation. The Reds were victorious in the ensuing war. Following the defeat of Germany in the Great War, the Whites abandoned their cause, making it easy for the Reds to take control. However, their dependence on Russian military assistance and the shattered state of the country led to the establishment of the Federative Republic of Finland years later, as an autonomous division of the Federation of Sovereign Republics (FSR).

The Civil War remains the most controversial and emotionally loaded event in the history of modern Finland, and there have even been disputes about what the conflict should be called. Approximately 32,000 people died during the conflict. The turmoil destroyed the economy, split the political apparatus, and divided the Finnish nation for many years.

Background
The main factors behind the Finnish Civil War were the Great War and its detrimental effects on the Russian Empire. The conflict caused a breakdown of the nation mainly in the February Revolution during 1917. This led to a formation of a large power vacuum and struggle for power. Finland, as part of the Russian Empire, was strongly affected by the war between Germany and Russia, each empire with political, economic and military interests in Finland.

The immediate reason for the collapse of the Russian Empire was a domestic crisis precipitated by defeats against Germany and by war-weariness among the Russian people. On 15 March 1917 the Russian Tsar Nicholas II was removed, with his power transferred to the Russian Duma and the Provisional Government.

Autonomous status was returned to the Finns in March 1917, and the revolt in Russia handed the Finnish Parliament true political power for the first time. The left comprised mainly Social Democrats, covering moderate to revolutionary socialists; the right was even more diverse. The four main parties were the conservative Finnish Party and the Young Finnish Party, the social reformist, centrist Agrarian League and the conservative Swedish People’s Party.

The Social Democratic Party had gained an absolute majority in the Parliament of Finland as a result of the general elections of 1916. The new Senate under trade union leader Oskari Tokoi held political groups unwilling to compromise and unable to solve any major local Finnish problems. Real political power shifted instead to street level in the form of street councils formed by workers and soldiers after the revolution.

The rapid economic growth stimulated by the Great War, which had raised the incomes of industrial workers during 1915 and 1916, collapsed with the February Revolution, and the consequent decrease in production led to unemployment and heavy inflation. Large-scale strikes in both industry and agriculture spread throughout Finland, workers calling for higher wages and eight-hour-per-day working limits. Rationing and price fixing were introduced following food shortages throughout the country. Food supply, prices, and the fear of starvation became emotional political issues between farmers in the countryside and industrial workers in urban areas.

Battle for Leadership
The power struggle between the Social Democrats and the conservatives culminated in July 1917 in the passing of the Senate bill that eventually became the "Power Act", which incorporated a plan by the Social Democrats to substantially increase the power of Parliament, in which they had a majority; it also furthered Finnish independence by restricting Russia's influence on domestic Finnish affairs. The Agrarian Union and rightists eager for Finnish sovereignty supported the act, but both Finnish conservatives and the Russian Provisional Government refused to accept the Power Act and sent troops to Finland where, with the support of the conservatives, Parliament was dissolved and new elections announced. In those elections in October 1917, the Social Democrats lost their absolute majority, after which the labor movement’s role changed. Until then, it had mainly struggled for new benefits for its members; now the movement was forced to defend the gains it had already made. [1]

The collapse of Russia in the February Revolution resulted in a loss of institutional authority in Finland and the dissolution of the police force, creating fear and uncertainty. In response, groups on both the right and left began assembling independent security groups for their own protection. At first, these groups were local and largely unarmed, but by autumn 1917, in the power vacuum following the dissolution of parliament and in the absence of a stable government or a Finnish army, such forces began assuming a more military and national character. The Civil Guards were organized by local men of influence, usually conservative academics, industrialists and major landowners, while the Worker’s Security Guards were often recruited through their local party sections and the labor unions. The presence of these two opposing armed forces in the country imposed a state of “dual power” on Finnish society, typically the prelude to civil war. [2]

On 1 November, the Social Democrats put forward a political program called “We demand” in order to push for political concessions in domestic policy. After the uncompromising program had failed, the socialist initiated a general strike during 14-19 November 1917. While the general strike appeared to be successful, the Social Democrats were split between those supporting parliamentary means and the minority demanding revolution, very similar to experiences of the Social-Democrats in Russia. The Finnish Parliament, influenced by the general strike, supported the Social Democratic proposals for an eight-hour working day and universal suffrage in local elections on 16 November 1917. During the strike, however, radical elements of the Workers’ Security Guards began the first armed clashes with the Civil Guards in the main cities of southern Finland, with 16 reported casualties. If there were enough weapons in the country to arm the two sides, the war could have started then; instead, there began a race for weapons and a final escalation towards war. The Provisional Government Russia, busy with events in the capital and on the Eastern Front, declined to make a formal response to the events in Finland. [3]

Escalation
The events of the general strike in November deepened the suspicion and mistrust in Finland and put compromise out of reach. The conservatives saw the groups of radical workers active during the strike as a threat to the security of the former estates, so they resolved to use all means necessary to defend themselves, including armed force. At the same time, revolutionary workers and left-wing socialists were now considering removing the conservative regime by force rather than allowing the achievements of the workers' movement to be reversed. The result of this hardening of positions was that in late 1917, moderate, peaceful men and women, as so often throughout history, were forced to stand aside while the men with rifles stepped forward to take charge.

On January 20, 1918, the Parliament decided to create a strong police authority, in response to the slowly-building revolutionary elements in the cities. The Workers’ Guards were officially renamed the Red Guards, while the Civil Guards became the Finnish White Army. The first serious battles began on the January 25, 1918 with fighting in Karelia. The Engagement Order was issued on January 30, with the Red Order of Revolution issued the next day. Large scale mobilization of both sides began. [4]

For the Provisional Government and Premier Kerensky, the decision on which side to support was difficult. The Social-Democrats were similar to Yakov Sverdlov’s Left-SDs which were causing so much trouble in Petrograd at the moment, and were clearly the illegal aggressors in this situation, disagreeing with the results of the October elections and pushing for independence. The Whites wished to keep the personal union with Russia, but they were also monarchists. Kerensky had to make a painful choice: support the White Guards if only because the secession of Finland would allow the Germans the upper hand. On January 31st, the Red Guards attempted to attack trains carrying a large shipment of weapons from Russia, as promised to the Whites, but ultimately failed. This strengthened the position of the Whites considerably. [5]

On February 3rd, the capital of White Finland was moved to Vaasa. Red Finland under the People’s Council of Helsinki declared the Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic. The Reds would soon begin to look for German aid in supplying weapons, a huge problem for their army. The Red Guards first attempted to cut the Whites’ east-west rail connection north-east of Tampere, at the Battle of Vilppula, while they fought a defensive retreat south of River Vuoksi against a White advance with several Russian divisions. [6]

The Russian Army
Although some 70,000 Russian soldiers of the former Tsar’s army remained stationed in Finland during the start of the Civil War, the Russian contribution was less than expected. Kerensky tried to commit the Russian army on behalf of White Finland, but the Russian troops were war-weary after years of fighting against Germany. As a result, only 30,000 Russians could be persuaded to fight in the front line. Nevertheless, this was a significant boon to the White Army, whose 70,000 soldiers were greatly bolstered, along with Russian weapons. [7]

Kerensky switches sides
The Finnish civil war was significantly affected by the Russian Constituent Assembly held on February 22nd, the first anniversary of the February Revolution. With the Socialist-Revolutionary Party taking 54% of the vote, and the Russian Social-Democrats with 28%, Russia was placed firmly on the socialist road. While Kerensky would remain Premier until the end of March, the White forces began to doubt the wisdom of their alliance with Russia. The assembly cast the Finnish conflict into turmoil, with a majority of the Reds declaring imminent victory once the Socialist-Revolutionaries came into power in Petrograd. The Whites, widely supported by land-owning farmers, feared the Socialist-Revolutionaries narodism which could find land equally distributed amongst agricultural workers.

While Premier Kerensky continued to assure both sides in the Finnish civil war that Russia would support the legitimately elected government and those who agreed with the continuation of the Russo-Finnish personal union, many Whites began pushing for independence. The White faction was split. It was during this time that envoys from Vaasa departed to negotiate with the German Empire for military assistance. [8] Between organizing the continued hostilities against the Reds in the southern cities, the White Senate began drawing up a declaration of independence against the Russians. Russian soldiers and weapons nevertheless continued to be used for a week and a half, until March 1, when the Senate began sending Russian units back home.

It was at this time that Kerensky saw the writing on the wall and realized what needed to be done. His party, the Socialist-Revolutionaries had come into formal power, and he’d be damned if he gave them a Russia with a secessionist Finland. When Russian soldiers began to be shipped to Petrograd, he immediately froze all Russian supplies and weapons from being sent into White Finland. By March 5, White Finnish forces began arresting Russian troops instead of requesting their departure, taking their equipment and putting them on trains back to Petrograd. [9]

As White Finnish forces became more paranoid of the incoming Socialist-Revolutionary government and Russian soldiers throughout Finland, Premier Kerensky sent envoys to the Helsinki People's Council for negotiations of the conflict. The head Finnish Red leader, Kullervo Manner, agreed to provide for an order that no Russian was to be regarded as an enemy combatant, and to allow them hospitality in Red territory, in return for much-needed weapons shipments, which began to be confiscated from the Russian soldiers they were helping. As White forces began to attack Russian trains into Red territory, there was no choice but for Kerensky to switch sides. Prime Minister Manner was able to agree to a continued personal union with Russia in return for military aid. The Provisional Government of Russia thus decided to declare war on White Finnish forces on March 10, 1918. This was followed a day later by a declaration of independence from Vaasa and the White forces, including the demand for a Finnish monarchy free of Russian influences.

When the Russian policy during the Finnish civil war switched so suddenly, the whole conflict was tossed into turmoil. White forces met Russian soldiers in combat as they attempted to seize rail lines for transportation south and east to safer locations. More democratic White forces decided to oppose the new openly monarchist White government in Vaasa. Contrasting this new, sudden feeling of fear and uneasiness throughout the White ranks was the sudden jubilation of the Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic, who had gone from friendless, weaponless and on the defensive to the ally of a major power sympathetic to their cause.

The Battle of Tampere
The White Guards’ strategy was to strike first at Tampere, Finland’s most important industrial town in the south-west. The attack was launched on 15 March, with the White Army advancing along a line towards Tampere. The Red Guards collapsed under the weight of the assault. On 23 March, the White Army laid siege to Tampere, entering the town on 27 March, when the true battle began. While bolstered by Russian soldiers evacuating from the north, the White Army had significantly more weapons if not men. The Battle, lasting until 6 April, would be the bloodiest action of the war. The White Army lost 900 men, while the Red Guards and Russians lost 1,300 soldiers with a further 11,000 imprisoned. 80 civilians died due to artillery fire. [10]

After their defeat in Tampere, the Red Guards retreated eastwards. The White Army shifted its military focus to Viipuri, Karelia’s main city. However, Viipuri had become the locus of Russian military re-organization and evacuation efforts, and the defensive effort even managed by General Kornilov and STAVKA. The White Army would not be able to challenge the Reds’ hold on Viipuri, which allowed weapon and ammunition flow to continue into Red territory. After the Battle of Tampere, fighting stagnated into only bloody inconclusive siege after the next. The White Guards eventually lost the confidence they had built up during Tampere, hoping every day that the Germans would come to their rescue. Meanwhile, the Russians couldn’t do any more than keep the Reds from losing any more territory. Red and White purges begin on both sides of the conflict. [11]

Negotiations for German intervention
The Vaasa government began requesting German military aid by 25 February, and even began arguing for a military intervention by 5 March. However, diplomats reached Berlin just slightly too late: Imperial Germany had launched their Spring Offensive in Western Europe on 4 March, while strategic focus had been re-positioned towards the Western Front as early as 28 January. The German High Command had reviewed two items in the winter of 1917/18 – the Kornilov Doctrine, which the Russian government had released to the public in order to guarantee that there would be no more costly offensives during the war; and French estimates of the amount of incoming American soldiers on the Western Front. An offensive on the Eastern Front couldn’t begin until March, and it was estimated that to knock the Russians out of the war would take three months and take enough men to cripple the Austro-Hungarian Army. To Germany, the only way to win the war would be to knock France out of the war before the Americans bolstered the front until it became invincible. The East would wait until after then. This decision was not very hard-set until the Spring Offensive was launched, under which it became far too difficult to reverse their strategic position. [12]

Nevertheless, Germans weapons and supplies were sent to the White Army, while the Whites were also promised an invasion by April. Specifically, the Germans drew up plans to land soldiers from the shores of the Gulf of Finland by 8 April. A short while later, that would become instead the day they signed their armistice with Russia.

The April Armistice
While fighting had stagnated throughout Finland, the Spring Offensive in Western Europe was going strong, and then began to wind down by April. The Germans were unable to feed themselves due to the interminable blockade of their coastline. Meanwhile, American reinforcements were coming in greater and greater numbers. It was thus decided that in order to keep their successes in the Spring Offensive, soldiers would have to be taken from the Eastern Front to the Western. On April 8, hostilities ended on the Eastern Front, until the Summer Offensive beginning a month later on 15 May.

With German intervention in the Finnish civil war no longer a possibility, the morale of the Red Guard soared, while the morale of the White Army plummeted. Russian weapons and soldiers began to be sent from the Eastern Front northwards into Finland. The Reds began to advance on Tampere by 19 April, with the Battle lasting for six days. After 2,000 dead and victory over Tampere, the Reds began pushing northwards along the railroads towards Vaasa. Russian forces focused on removing white forces from Karelia to facilitate the transfer of materiel. By this time, a good part of the White Army’s supporters began to drop their nationalistic fervor and question the anti-democratic policies of the Vaasa government, especially after the ratification of the Power Act by the Chernov government in Petrograd on April 3rd. However, Vaasa continued to receive weapons from the Germans, while the Reds failed to take any more major cities for the rest of the war.

Hostilities continued until the Armistice of Chantilly between Imperial Germany and the Allies on June 3, 1918. With the blockade of the German coastline, weapon shipments became scarcer every passing day. The summer also allowed Reds and Russians to make considerably better ground than in earlier months. When the Vaasa government fled to Sweden on June 9, the White Army began a swift collapse when the people felt betrayed by their leaders. The Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic was declared the victor in the Finnish Civil War by June 15, when Red forces entered Vaasa and eliminated the desperate remnants of White Army organization there.

Red and White Terror
During the civil war, the White Army and the Red Guards both perpetrated acts of terror. Violations to rules of engagement began from the start. As incidents began building up, revenge executions at a local level began a trend that escalated into massacres and terrorism. In total, 2,000 Whites were executed in the Red Terror, with some 10,000 Reds were executed in the White Terror.

A Bitter Legacy
The Civil War was a catastrophe for the Finnish nation. 13,000 died on the battlefields, 20,000 children were orphaned. More than 4,000 died of starvation and sicknesses in Red and White prison camps. Overall, 32,000 people were killed in the conflict, nearly 1% of the population. The economic condition of the country deteriorated drastically, the most acute crisis being the food supply, already deficient by 1917. More importantly, the war created a legacy of bitterness and revenge between conservatives and liberals. In such a condition, the former nationalistic independence movement was quieted for years, while the new Russian government stepped in to dictate how Finland’s government would work. [13]

--
[1] As in OTL.

[2] As in OTL.

[3] The violence is somewhat less than IOTL, as the Social-Democrats do not have the support of Lenin following his ascendance during the October Revolution. This delays the escalation slightly.

[4] Most of these dates are around five days ahead of OTL, owing to the longer escalation period.

[5] This is where the Finnish Civil War diverges considerably. Instead of going initially to the Germans for assistance, the Whites go to the Russian Provisional Government, as they believe conservatism will triumph there. IOTL, the Whites only became pro-independent after the October Revolution. Without Lenin and without the October Revolution, they do not change their position. For the first month of warfare, the Whites will get everything the Reds did in OTL, while the Reds won’t get anything.

[6] IOTL, the Whites had a bridgehead here, threatening Russian assistance to the Reds. With Russian support, the Whites don’t stop there: they push the Reds into a retreat.

[7] Much different from OTL. After the armistice with Germany, all but about 9,000 Russian troops remained in the country. ITTL, all Russian soldiers remain. IOTL, only 4,000 of those 9,000 could be persuaded to fight on the front lines. That ratio is somewhat carried onto the 70,000 ITTL, with 30,000 being persuaded instead. Morale boosts due to the victory at the Battle of Riga and the somewhat-victory of the Kerensky Offensive also help. This gives the Whites a good 140% of what they had IOTL, but instead of mobilizing further, the White Army becomes dependant on the Russian soldiers in the country.

[8] IOTL, there were previous lines of communication with the Germans. The White Army is forced now to make a belated attempt to call on the German High Command for assistance. This, obviously, delays the German response time.

[9] This causes a logistical fiasco. The White Army has to deal with tens of thousands of Russians throughout their territory now questioning their position in this conflict. Some use force to deny the Whites their arrest. Others are brought to the prison camps that IOTL were being built for Reds. However, Russian soldiers are much more able than peasant-volunteers to cause rebellions. This saps the Whites strength considerably, as they have to deal with rogue Russian units in their territory throughout the rest of the conflict.

[10] Slightly more die because of more weapons in the hands of the White Army, and less amongst the Red Army. This balance will shortly begin to change.

[11] IOTL, the White Army would take Viipuri on 29 April. The Red Guards keep their strongholds in south-west Finland due to Russian assistance.

[12] Strategically sound. When it is made clear that Russia will no longer make any offensive actions, the Germans do have a chance to make long-term plans on how to invade Russia, instead of focusing on the defensive as well. The Germans also believed that revolutionary forces would continue to inflict damage on the Russians from behind, and that the Russians could only grow weaker.

[13] Without a White occupation of Red areas, there is significantly less that die in prison camps. More Whites die in Red prison camps than the other way around, ITTL, but because the Reds really don’t gain much ground, and because the Whites lost because their leadership fled, the occupation of enemy territory is less of a military one. IOTL, 13,500 people died in prison camps. ITTL, that number has been lowered to 3,400. Still, there are only 5,000 less deaths than IOTL because the military engagements were bloodier due to stagnation on the front and less of a balance in weaponry during the earlier part of the war. The result is that more soldiers die, but more civilians survive.

 

[Hnau]

Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1918
The elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly that were organized as a result of the events of the Russian Revolution of 1917 were held on February 22, 1918, the anniversary of the beginning of the February Revolution. The result was a clear victory for the Socialist-Revolutionary Party who polled far more votes than the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Various academic studies have given alternative results but all clearly indicate that while the Social-Democrats won Russia’s urban centers, as well as taking half of the votes of soldiers on the “Western Front”, it was the SRs who topped the polls having won the massive support of the country’s rural peasantry.

A study by Ridley Caplan found the following breakdown:

Socialist-Revolutionary Party (SRs), 16.043.000 votes, 46.5% with 325 deputies [1]

Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (SDs), 9.658.800 votes, 28.0% with 196 deputies [2]

Ukrainian Socialist-Revolutionaries, 3.433.000 votes, 10.0% with 70 deputies

Constitutional Democratic Party (Cadets), 2.248.400 votes, 6.5% with 46 deputies [3]

Georgian Social-Democratic Party, 695.100 votes, 2.0% with 14 deputies [4]

Alash Orda, 407.000 votes, 1.2% with 8 deputies

Various liberals, 1.261.000 votes, 3.7% with 26 deputies

Various socialists, 401.000 votes, 1.2% with 8 deputies

Various nationalist minorities, 368.000 votes, 1.1% with 7 deputies

The deputies of the Constituent Assembly quorum convened a month later in the Tauride Palace in Petrograd on March 30, 1918. Victor Chernov, head of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, would be elected Chairman of the Constituent Assembly by more than 200 votes. [5]

The product of the first few meetings would result in the passing of the “Law on the Land” on April 1, decreeing an abolition of landed proprietorship and the redistribution of the landed estates amongst the peasantry; the declaration the Democratic Federal Republic of Russia (RDFR) on April 2, a law assuring the Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic autonomy under a future Federation in which all ethnicities with compact territories are guaranteed national autonomy on April 3, the adoption of the Gregorian calendar on April 4, and the passing of an executive order sending peace-feelers to both the Entente and the Central Powers on April 5. [6]

--
[1] The Left-SRs never split with the Socialist Revolutionaries, so the SRs receive more votes.

[2] The RSDLP has the combined votes of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, with slightly less due to the recent revolts of the Left-SDs that cast the party in a poor light.

[3] The Bolsheviks are not attacking Cadet newspapers or acting aggressive against their leaders. Thus, the Cadets receive more votes.

[4] Slightly more due to the influence of Joseph Jugashvili.

[5] As in OTL, when the Constituent Assembly quorum convened for its one and only time. Slightly less drama without the Left-SRs and the Bolsheviks, of course.

[6] These were all ideas drafted in the one and only Constituent Assembly. Here, they are able to quickly come into fruition. Except for the promise to Finland that it would have autonomy under a federal structure. That is a new development due to the later date.

 

[Hnau]

(Not an update)

Consider the following implications of a more successful Kerensky Offensive due to better morale.

- With the morale boost of the K.O., Riga never falls. Who was responsible for the victory at Riga in OTL? None other than Oskar von Hutier, the general who developed infiltration tactics.

- With the different Finnish Civil War, there is never an amphibious invasion of the Russian islands in the Baltic Sea. Who was responsible for this victory in OTL? The same man, Oskar von Hutier.

- The Twelfth Battle of Caporetto utilized German generals and infantry who were released due to the victorious counter-offensive in the K.O. These men had fought on the Eastern Front, and had heard of Hutier's tactics in taking Riga. They applied it on the Italian Front, and then there was the Battle of Caporetto, a stunning victory that proved the genius that was infiltration tactics.

- After his victories on the Eastern Front in OTL, Hutier was given the Pour le Merite and shipped over to the Western Front where his skills could be better put to use. With Ludendorff, he used his new tactical ideas of stormtroopers and deep infiltration to devise the Spring Offensive.

- Inconclusive Kerensky Offensive instead of a total defeat leads to a victory at Riga and also no Battle of Caporetto which caused Hutier tactics to be disenfranchised and without Hutier's popular victories and relocation... Ludendorff continues basically the same strategies on the Western Front.

Kinda crazy, huh?

 

[Jape]

(Not an update)

Consider the following implications of a more successful Kerensky Offensive due to better morale.

- With the morale boost of the K.O., Riga never falls. Who was responsible for the victory at Riga in OTL? None other than Oskar von Hutier, the general who developed infiltration tactics.

- With the different Finnish Civil War, there is never an amphibious invasion of the Russian islands in the Baltic Sea. Who was responsible for this victory in OTL? The same man, Oskar von Hutier.

- The Twelfth Battle of Caporetto utilized German generals and infantry who were released due to the victorious counter-offensive in the K.O. These men had fought on the Eastern Front, and had heard of Hutier's tactics in taking Riga. They applied it on the Italian Front, and then there was the Battle of Caporetto, a stunning victory that proved the genius that was infiltration tactics.

- After his victories on the Eastern Front in OTL, Hutier was given the Pour le Merite and shipped over to the Western Front where his skills could be better put to use. With Ludendorff, he used his new tactical ideas of stormtroopers and deep infiltration to devise the Spring Offensive.

- Inconclusive Kerensky Offensive instead of a total defeat leads to a victory at Riga and also no Battle of Caporetto which caused Hutier tactics to be disenfranchised and without Hutier's popular victories and relocation... Ludendorff continues basically the same strategies on the Western Front.

Kinda crazy, huh?

Quite odd. Never even heard of von Hutier

 

[Hnau]

Hutier invented infiltration tactics (Hutier tactics) which were extremely important in the last part of the Great War. They became the basis for standard infantry tactics in the Second World War. Blitzkrieg and all that... wasn't possible without Hutier. WW2 became what it was because of these discoveries.

 

[Faeelin]

--
[1] IOTL, the Bolshevik agitators on the front were the primary sources of defeatist literature amongst the soldiers. Without the organization of such a motivated anti-war effort to gain converts amongst the soldiers, the soldiers keep a substantial amount of morale. This allows the soldiers to fight and march a little bit longer and harder, which begins a knock-on effect: the closer the troops get to Lviv, the better morale gets. This doesn't count for enough to turn the Kerensky Offensive into a victory by a longshot, but it doesn't become the military fiasco it was IOTL. With the holding of just a few extra kilometers, after an organized retreat, there is a huge morale benefit throughout Russia.

Hrmm.

I'm not sure it's that simple. The Bolshevks came to power because people were tired of the war after all, and when the Bolsheviks tried to keep the war going a few months later, the army simply refused to listen...

 

[Hnau]

The Russian army was very tired of the war and their capabilities were deteriorating... however, the high presence of revolutionary agitators sent to the front was a significant difference from any time before, and so should be held as at least a contributing factor to the defeat of the offensive.

Bolsheviks tried to keep the war going a few months later, the army simply refused to listen...

I don't think the Bolsheviks tried to continue the war. As soon as they came into power, one of their first decisions was to make peace on the front. The Brest-Litovsk talks were delayed in hopes that a revolution might begin in Germany and other countries, and when this failed, the Bolsheviks just retreated as far as they could to the east instead of continue the fight in Germany. After that... the Communists only fought when their survival was on the line.

I still believe that the soldiers in 1917 had enough energy for one last punch, especially if they just had the slight extra bit of morale.

 

[Hnau]

Ludendorff Offensive
The German authorities had realized that their only remaining chance of victory was to defeat the Allies before the overwhelming human and materiel resources of the United States could be deployed.Germany also had the advantage of nearly 22 divisions freed due to the impact of the Kornilov Doctrine on the Eastern Front.

Erich Ludendorff, the German commander, masterminded two separate German attacks, codenamed Michael and George. The first, Michael, was intended to threaten Paris in order to draw forces away from the Channel ports that were essential to British supply. George was to take advantage of this weakness by taking the ports and severing lines of supply and communication, which was imagined to be potentially devastating enough to end the Allied war effort.

Michael
On March 4, 1918 the Germans launched a major offensive against the British Fifth Army, the right wing of the British Third Army, and the bulk of the French Sixth Army. Unfortunately, the British had discovered a very approximate time and location of the offensive, and had done some work in reinforcing their positions. The German army, using the new Feuerwalze artillery bombardment technique created by Lieutenant Colonel Georg Bruchmuller, attacked a surface area of nearly 300 square miles. [1]

The French Sixth Army, commanded by the obstinate General Denis Auguste Duchene, was critical to Allied failure. Duchene had not been developed in depth following new defensive formation strategy. As a result, the Feuerwalze was very effective and the front swiftly collapsed. Duchene’s massing of his troops in the forward trenches also meant there were no local reserves to delay the Germans once the front had broken. The British and French were forced to a retreat further north of the line in order to not be outflanked, causing consequent breakthroughs from Vimy to St. Quentin. Reserves were overwhelmed and surrounded by the following German infantry. [2]

Ludendorff's dilemma was that the most important parts of the allied line were also the most strongly held. Much of the German advance was achieved where it was not strategically significant. Because of this, Ludendorff continually exhausted his forces by attacking strongly entrenched British units. At Arras on 13 March, he launched a hastily-prepared attack to try and widen the breach in the Allied lines, and was repulsed.

The German offensive was waged against an equal area of British and French defenses. The failure of the French Sixth Army to withstand the first few hours of the attack placed blame on the French commander-in-chief, General Petain, who made one last mistake in failing to keep his armies from falling back fast enough to resist capture. The Allies reacted by appointed the French General Ferdinand Foch to coordinate all Allied activity in France.

Victory seemed near for the Germans, who had capture over 60,000 Allied soldiers and well over 2000 guns by 15 March. However, after five days, the German advance began to falter, as the infantry became exhausted and it became increasingly difficult to move artillery and supplies forward to support them. As fresh units were moved to the front, defenses began to stiffen. After attempt after bloody attempt to seize a decisive rail center such as Amiens or Compiegne ends in failure, Ludendorff called off Operation Michael on 21 March. By the standards of the time, there had been an incredible advance. It was, however, of little value due to the amount of casualties suffered, and the fact that vital cities had not been taken. The newly-won territory was difficult to traverse, much of it shell-torn wilderness.

The Allies lost more than 402,000 men (British, British Empire, French and American). German troop losses were a fantastic 502,000 men, creating a ratio of casualties unseen on the Western Front largely due to overly-aggressive attacks by Ludendorff. In terms of morale, the initial German jubilation at the successful opening of the offensive soon turned to disappointment as it became clear that the attack had not achieved the desired results.

George
Michael had drawn British forces to defend a number of cities with strategic value threatened by the German offensive, including Amiens, Chateau-Thierry, Compiegne and Roye. This left the rail route through Hazebrouck and the approaches to the Channel ports of Calais, Boulogne and Dunkirk vulnerable.

The attack started on 25 March after a Feuerwalze. The British defenders on the southern flank held firm. The next day, the Germans widened their attack to the north, forcing the defenders of Armentieres to withdraw before they were surrounded, and capturing most of Messines Ridge. By the end of the day, British divisions in reserve were hard-pressed to hold a line along the River Lys. A day later, Ypres fell to the celebration of the German army, allowing the Germans to advance through the surrounding area. However, the offensive began to stall because of logistical problems and exposed flanks. Ludendorff ended George on 14 April to again disappointing results. The losses were at least roughly equal, with 122,000 Allied casualties to 110,000 German men wounded or killed. [3]

The recognition that George was another inconclusive attack and would not get the job done by the end of March spurred Ludendorff to urge the German military to sign an armistice with the Russian Republic, which was accomplished by 8 April.

Plans for one Last German Attack
The Ludendorff Offensive had weakened and exhausted the German military for useless territory. The High German Command was extremely upset by the price tag for their two blunders. Nevertheless, Erich Ludendorff planned for one last offensive, to use Ypres as a staging point for the taking of Dunkirk and Calais in one fell blow. To these ends, the commander drew another 15 divisions from the now inactive Eastern Front to be used in this last attack. Nevertheless, morale was low and the Americans were coming in ever greater numbers every month. It is also curious that Ludendorff believed such total victory could have followed by the taking of a mere two port-cities and the severing of just one major supply line. It remains that serious plans were drawn up to invade this area and it would have happened sometime mid-May if not for the massive disruption of the Armistice of Zurich caused within the Central Powers. The surrender of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under Emperor Charles I on May 10 was completely unexpected, causing a drastic shift in military policy. This distraction allowed for the Allies to begin their Three-Week Offensive that made defeat for the Central Powers inevitable.

--
[1] Operation Michael does not use Hutier/infiltration at all due to A) the lack of extra men from the Eastern Front to train as stormtroopers, B) the failure of Hutier to rise into fame thanks to his non-participation in the nonexistant Battle of Riga and C) Ludendorff's OTL ignorance of the tactics in the first place.

Thus, Ludendorff sticks to his original plan: one large diversionary offensive, along both OTL Michael's front and OTL Blucher-Yorck. ITTL, Michael combines facets from each battle. Feuerwalze is still used, as that idea developed without interference by the POD, and it is regarded as much more revolutionary.

[2] Duchene's failures as IOTL cause quicker breakthroughs in northern areas. Also, consider that there are less Americans and those that are in use are less trained.

[3] Michael took two-thirds the territory of OTL's Michael and more than 90% of the territory gained from OTL's Blucher-Yorck. George took about a fifth more territory, this being due to more British reserves from the area being relocated further south for better defenses than in OTL.

Map
The thick blue line further west than the first is TTL's after-offensive defensive line. The striped/dotted areas are OTL's gains in the Spring Offensive.

 

[Faeelin]

Oh, boy. Germany's gonna hate the Versailles treaty of the ATL.

 

[stevep]

Oh, boy. Germany's gonna hate the Versailles treaty of the ATL.

Might do, might not. Depends on the circumstances. With a moderate and stable Russia in the east the entire situation is going to be more stable in Europe so there won't be as great a fear of German revancism. Doubly so if Austria survives as a state and the peace terms include the transfer of Silesia to Austria in compensation for losses to the Serbs in the south. This will cause a lot of resentment towards Austria in Germany and markedly reduce the states power further but provided it doesn't trigger a general carve-up of the German empire you could see a markedly more moderate peace treaty. Also with greater economic and political stability in Europe post war [compared to OTL] you should see less rise of extremism. With a great degree of luck, even without changes in the US you might manage to avoid or greatly moderate the Depression.

Steve

 

[Hnau]

This will cause a lot of resentment towards Austria in Germany and markedly reduce the states power further but provided it doesn't trigger a general carve-up of the German empire you could see a markedly more moderate peace treaty.

Maybe. Remember, the Americans have had less of an impact due to an earlier end to the war, so Wilson will be less influential. Also, the Russians are led by the Social-Revolutionaries, which by the standards of the world are very radical, just not as radical as the Communists... and they are going to get representation in the Paris Peace Conference unlike OTL. The combination of these two new elements could make the Treaty of Versailles worse. I'm going to have to do a little bit more research, though.

Also, consider the impact of the Germans being able to place the blame on a 'traitorous' Austria-Hungary with much more justification than they did on the Jews and Communists in OTL. German ambitions for revenge against A-H, to claim the Sudetenland and Austria, are going to be very strong if the economy ever takes a tumble and extremists are able to take power...

 

[stevep]

Maybe. Remember, the Americans have had less of an impact due to an earlier end to the war, so Wilson will be less influential. Also, the Russians are led by the Social-Revolutionaries, which by the standards of the world are very radical, just not as radical as the Communists... and they are going to get representation in the Paris Peace Conference unlike OTL. The combination of these two new elements could make the Treaty of Versailles worse. I'm going to have to do a little bit more research, though.

However having an intact Austrian empire with a vested interest in opposing German revanchment to their SE and a Russia which isn't a pariah the situation is much more difficult for any Germany bid for dominance and given how lucky Hitler was historically. The less influence for the US will at least reduce the impact of any desire to carve narrow nationalistic states everywhere, which would be difficult with a remaining Austrian empire anyway. Also the shorter war means all the powers but especially Britain and France, have less drain on their resources - in terms of [FONT=&quot]casualties[/FONT], money and possibly most of all moral and self-confidence.

Also, consider the impact of the Germans being able to place the blame on a 'traitorous' Austria-Hungary with much more justification than they did on the Jews and Communists in OTL. German ambitions for revenge against A-H, to claim the Sudetenland and Austria, are going to be very strong if the economy ever takes a tumble and extremists are able to take power...

German nationalists will probably feel that way but in this case the Czechs will be even more loyal to the empire as they won't want to fall under Nazi rule. While also with Austria, Bohemia and Silesia all in one state that would be a hell of a bite for Germany to swallow, especially coming from a state of widespread disarmament, even without Austria having any allies, as it almost certainly will.

Given that Germany under such a scenario will be deeply anti-Austrian as you say how will they feel about Austrian immigrants, even those who served in the German army in WWI?

Steve

 

[Hnau]

About Silesia joining the Federal Union of Greater Austria (FUGA)... It's a tough decision. The Allies don't owe FUGA anything, its much more the other way around, because the Allies had to fight off claims of nationalist parties such as the Czechoslovakian crowd in order to win FUGA's armistice, which effectively ended the war five months earlier. It also makes sense that FUGA should if anything lose territory, but more in a German sense instead of splintering completely.

Maybe there is enough Wilsonian idealism that the plebiscite in Silesia could include union with Greater Austria, and maybe people would much rather see Silesia in the hands of FUGA, whose survival is dependent on the Allies, than within Germany. However, there is then the fact that the much greater influx of ethnic Germans are likely to screw up politics throughout the rest of Greater Austria, where-in everyone is trying to balance equality between the various ethnicities.

 

[Hnau]

Given that Germany under such a scenario will be deeply anti-Austrian as you say how will they feel about Austrian immigrants, even those who served in the German army in WWI?

Austrians won't be hated as the Jews were... they are Germans after all. Some may blame the Emperor Charles instead, or even the other minorities in former A-H for forcing him to make such a decision to keep his throne. But Austrians will certainly be held in a lower position because of their origin and because Austrian 'cowardice' will be throughout Germany regarded as the real reason for defeat in the Great War. Austrian immigrants might be able to get away with pretending to be Germans, but if they are caught, I believe a statement of rejection of their homecountry might be able to do it, especially if they fought in the German Army. There will still be a stigma surrounding Austrians, though, for a while longer.

Anti-Austrianism will be rampant from 1919-1920 during those turbulent years. Then I expect it to cool down... at least until some kind of 'Austrian Scare' begins in which it is believed Austrians are trying to overthrow the country, though I know not how that fear would begin to develop (a resurgent, economically and militarily, FUGA?)

 

[stevep]

Austrians won't be hated as the Jews were... they are Germans after all. Some may blame the Emperor Charles instead, or even the other minorities in former A-H for forcing him to make such a decision to keep his throne. But Austrians will certainly be held in a lower position because of their origin and because Austrian 'cowardice' will be throughout Germany regarded as the real reason for defeat in the Great War. Austrian immigrants might be able to get away with pretending to be Germans, but if they are caught, I believe a statement of rejection of their homecountry might be able to do it, especially if they fought in the German Army. There will still be a stigma surrounding Austrians, though, for a while longer.

Anti-Austrianism will be rampant from 1919-1920 during those turbulent years. Then I expect it to cool down... at least until some kind of 'Austrian Scare' begins in which it is believed Austrians are trying to overthrow the country, though I know not how that fear would begin to develop (a resurgent, economically and militarily, FUGA?)

Hnau

I was thinking of one particular former Austrian and the impact on his career. Although thinking about it there were a number of other Austrians who played a significant role in Germany OTL in the 30's and early 40's.

Steve

 

[stevep]

About Silesia joining the Federal Union of Greater Austria (FUGA)... It's a tough decision. The Allies don't owe FUGA anything, its much more the other way around, because the Allies had to fight off claims of nationalist parties such as the Czechoslovakian crowd in order to win FUGA's armistice, which effectively ended the war five months earlier. It also makes sense that FUGA should if anything lose territory, but more in a German sense instead of splintering completely.

The FUGA does lose territory in the south. [How much I don't know as a long while since I read about this]. However it depends on whether they think its useful removing Austria from the list of the enemy powers. Can think of several reasons why they might:
a) It secures Italy and denies Germany bases in the Adriatic.

b) Germany is just about completely isolated from its remaining southern allies. [Only a very convoluted link via occupied Rumania].

c) It will be a hit on central power moral. Also the food supplies of Hungary especially would be lost to Germany and its allies.

d) If it includes a return of prisoners of war then Russia especially might well benefit from the return of numerous POWs. [How they will affect internal Russian politics could be an interesting point].

e) If their thinking ahead the Silesia transfer will weakened Germany markedly by removing an important industrial region. Even more importantly, by causing a major split and point of controversy between Austria and Germany it will mean that any future hostile Germany will have to consider opposition from this greater Austria.

Maybe there is enough Wilsonian idealism that the plebiscite in Silesia could include union with Greater Austria, and maybe people would much rather see Silesia in the hands of FUGA, whose survival is dependent on the Allies, than within Germany. However, there is then the fact that the much greater influx of ethnic Germans are likely to screw up politics throughout the rest of Greater Austria, where-in everyone is trying to balance equality between the various ethnicities.

The change in the population, with more Germans added and Slavs lost in the south will upset things. Although it will be mitigated by the fact that the German population will probably be divided for a while over the future of the monarchy and remaining sense of identity with Prussia/Germany. However the Germans will still be small enough to be a minority in the overall population of FUGA. Which will mean they will have to seek some support from either the remaining Slavs or the Hungarians, or preferably both.

Steve

 

[Hnau]

Battle of Caporetto
The Battle of Caporetto (or the Battle of Karfreit as it was known by the Central Powers) took place from 24 October to 12 November 1917, on the Austro-Italian front of the Great War, the last major offensive by either side on that front. Austro-Hungarian forces were able to smash the Italian front line again and again, eventually taking the critical rail center of Udine.

Losses
Italian losses were enormous: 12,000 were killed, 22,000 wounded and 70,000 taken prisoner; also 1,600 guns were captured by the Austrians, though many had their firing mechanisms removed by retreating artillerymen. Austro-Hungarian troops laid siege to the vital railroad center of Udine by 6 November and captured the city four days later. Austro-Hungarian forces suffered 20,000 casualties. [1]

Strategic Impact
While the Austro-Hungarians had taken back a significant amount of territory that the Italians had paid many men for, at the end of the battle the troops of both sides were extremely exhausted. Food for the armies was at an all-time low, and soldiers lived in horrible conditions. The leadership of both nations continued to use fear to motivate their soldiers. Such conditions made it impossible to continue major engagements on the front, effectively ending the war on that line. Due to the defeat in Caporetto, the Boselli government fell and led to Vittorio Emanuele Orlando taking power as the next Prime Minister.

---
[1] In OTL, German reinforcements were sent to help wage the Battle of Caporetto due to the victory over the Kerensky Offensive. With an inconclusive K.O., less German reinforcements are sent. Without the Battle of Riga and less German officers/generals, Hutier tactics aren't used. The combination of these two factors makes the Austro-Hungarian offensive much less successful. Without this critical strategic victory, the Austro-Hungarian Empire will be much more willing to come to terms with the Allies in the Armistice of Zurich.