To Each According

Comments on Part 1

The introduction is certainly interesting, tho I did begin to wonder what exact role the SRs had played in OTL's dumas and whether there was a historical analogue to your timeline's 2nd duma collapse. Probably I once knew these things, but my memory is degraded, and I do not remember

I liked your April Days, Sverdlov and the 'one year later' mention as well as 'future Georgian strongman' - they all made the retrospective historical article feel of this seem more real

Very interesting with no October/November 1917 revolution, Russia remaining under Kerensky and in conflict with the German Empire. Interesting that Kornilov's quashing of the rebellion comes from 'recent successes on the Eastern front' - I suppose Russia CAN fight through the Russian Winter if anyone can, and perhaps if not then recent refers to late Autumn the previous year. Interesting idea of Left-SDs terrorists for a decade, nicely sets the scene

- - -

Comments on Part 2

Very interesting, twisting a not-much campaign into a propaganda victory ! I also like your take on morale affecting the Battle of Riga

I am intrigued by a couple of things that maybe you get to later ? What is happening to the Romanovs - I assume throughout 1917 they remain in their semi-imprisonment, but as this goes on longer and the Kerensky government beds in, will people begin to wonder at them ? I mean both will people begin to plot to restore one (probably Michael) on the one hand, and on the other will people (Left-SDs ?) begin to think to kill them off ?

And in the longer term, if they remain around, what effect this would have on medium-term Russian history ? Especially if they do not go into exile

- - -

Comments on Part 3

Very interesting new take on Finland

There is evidence of a lot of research and knowledge here, on your part, but in a way it does make me aware of my complete ignorance, and I can't tell which parts have been retained from OTL as I don't recall enough about OTL (to be honest most of what I know of OTL in Finland was always from a German perspective and that has been completely deleted here)

Whilst I don't know if my methodology is any good, I probably would have written this slightly differently more from a 'Great Man' perspective to give it a focus and some personalities. Parties, organs of government, economic trends and strikes are fine, but without a sense that the struggle is personal it can get a bit confusing to an uninformed reader like myself

When a Finnish Prime Minister agrees for the continuance of a personal union with Russia, is this under Kerensky (and his successor) as PRESIDENT ?

I'm a little confused about the White-Red fighting - the Whites win in the SW then attack in the SE, without ever holding the South-central (where Helsinki is) so are they operating out of Central Finland ? Ah, looking at an atlas, I see Tampere is inland, and Vaasa on the Western coast... Is Viipuri Vyborg or somewhere that my atlas is not showing me ?

Interesting, I was wondering how the Germans would view events with Russia still in the conflict in 1918. You seem to have them decide to go with an all-out attack ni the West anyway, mainly due to worries about the Americans, regardless of not being able to withdraw large numbers of troops from the East

I think the food situation, whilst bad, is often exaggerated for Imperial Germany. But that's an IMVHO and I can't argue it

I guess if the Germans went off half-cocked in the West, lost heavily and faced a continuing two-front war then peace in June might make sense. However, its not a peace brought about by revolution etc, so the monarchies should remain intact and there should be no diktat. Let's see what you do :)

Your footnotes are very useful in this section, tho I didn't notice them until the end, oops !

- - -

Comments on Part 4

Who is Ridley Caplan ? (Had I an internet connection at home where I am reading this I could no doubt Google it, but I don't)

Similarly, who are Alash Orda ?

- - -

Comments on not Part 5

Oo, I'd not heard of Oskar von Hutier, I don't think

Very interesting knock-on effects you have !

- - -

Comments on Part 5

Very interestnig your Michael/George attacks

502000 men lost is a Hell of a number for the Germans, and I guess is the first time that their losses exceeded those of the Allies for any battle/campaign in the West

I am a bit confused by the grand strategic happenings here
-1- why the Germans want an armistice with the Russian Republic, when the Kornilov Doctrine is that Russia will not attack again, and one would have thought the Germans could have simply let them be
-2- why Kerensky would agree to such an armistice when he is supposed to stand by Britain and France in wanting a simultaneous end to the war
-3- why Austria-Hungary collapses so spectacularly that it begs an armistice in May 1918

I suppose with regard to the latter no victory at Caporetto means that the Italians are steadily, if slowly, on the advance in their South whilst no peace with Russia means that pressure in the East is unrelenting - though if Germany agrees an armistice in the East in April, one assumes this applies to Austria-Hungary too

Looking at the ATL Versailles discussion at this point, and without reading down any further, I would say that the major factor as to how it turns out is going to be Poland. Kerensky seems to have gone for a federalist post-imperial approach, as witnessed with Finland, so he's clearly not going to support an independent Poland. You seem to have hinted that he is premier only til the end of March 1918 so maybe his successor is more inclined, but I can't see him abandoning Russian Poland. Thus, I can't see any reason for Germany to lose German Poland since Russia is hardly going to claim it. Thus, Posen and West Prussia will remain German, and the German Empire will be contiguous with East Prussia.

Er, did I miss the birth of FUGA somewhere ? It suddenly launches itself into the discussion... Hmmm, no can't see it mentioned before Hnau's post of May 26th 07:56... Greater Austria ? Are we meaning Greater Austrian EMPIRE or greater Austrian KINGDOM ? The former would include Hungary still whilst the latter would be the rump Austria after Hungarian independence but without losing the Czech or Slovenian lands

I have to say I don't understand why any change is happening in Silesia at all. With no independent Poland, and no chance that a federalist SR Russia is going to try to annex German territories, why does it not simply remain where it is ?

About Hitler, he is at this point a FORMER Austrian in all practical purposes since he is in the Bavarian army within the Imperial German army

How come Steve is discussing FUGA too without it having been mentioned prior to the post I highlighted above ? Were the two of you communicating by PM and forgetting that other readers were not privy to this ?

- - -

Comments on Part 6

Oh... I thought you'd done away with Caporetto due to no influence of von Hutier

I was certainly assuming this was so when discussing above the pressure on Austria-Hungary from the South

I think I understand what you are saying about this ATL Caporetto - its an Italian defeat but NOT an Austrian victory

- - -

Comments on Part 7

I can't shake the thought that Kaiser Karl chucked in the towel long before he had to - sure there is low morale and a rise in anti-war feeling, but strategically the worst he is facing is stalemate on all fronts, with in addition no collapse in the Salonika front (which in OTL was the final straw that broke the camel's back)

Thus, he is putting dynastic and national (supra-national) politics above the alliance, and above the war. I can't deny his right to do this, nor that to do it is in Austria's interests, but it is a surprise that he can put this into operation without Berlin finding out

IIRC OTL his peace moves in ?1917 were betrayed by Clemenceau to the Germans because the Frenchman wanted to defeat all his enemies utterly and didn't want them to begin to make piecemeal peace that would leave the Allies with less than they might get by total victory.

I'm a bit perplexed as to what simply occupying the Sudetenland would achieve ? Its a borderzone, true it has industrial capacity but I don't think it was recognised as a strategic one. I would think that occupying Salzburg would be more of a shock to Vienna, or a move on Prague itself

Hmmm, I seem to have misremembered things, reading your footnotes - well hardly the first time, my memory is shit these days

I am surprised that your alternate Russian government is negotiating at Brest-Litovsk on the same terms as OTL. Having sorted out Finland in a federal way, I was assuming that they intended to keep Poland and Lithuania within the state of Russia, and to do this they can hardly demand additional annexations from Germany

- - -

Comments on Hnau's comments between Parts 5 and 6

I still don't know where this FUGA has come from or why the idea of Germany ceding Silesia to Austria makes any sense

So there is an independent Poland ? Russia agreed to this even though they did not agree to an independent Finland ? It could be argued that Finland had the greater recent autonomy by WW1 not Poland

Also, Yugoslavia ? What exactly IS the FUGA ? If its a greater Austrian Kingdom then surely Slovenia/Carniola is part of this. So is Yugoslavia more of a Serb-Bosnian-Croat state ? And what of Montenegro ? Does everyone still allow the Serbs to massacre all of the Montenegrin royalists ?

- - -

Comments on Part 6

I would think that Germany has contiguous territory with Rumania, or has Russia held on enough in Bukovina to prevent Germany in Poland from having a common border ? If so, I would expect the Germans both in Poland AND Rumania to launch immediate offensives to reconnect with each other. Don't forget, Mackensen is in Rumania, more or less as military governor, but if necessary he can take control of the armies and use his excellent military skill to achieve the seemingly impossible

I think you mean Tsar Ferdinand is content if BULGARIA can hold onto the Southern Dobruja

Except I don't understand how Rumania gets it back here... Sorry, am getting confused !

I am not sure, but I think you are under-estimating the German presence in both Rumania and Salonika. If there remains the potential to reconnect to Germany via Poland, then the German units will fight tooth-and-nail to hold on, and maximum pressure be brought to bear on Bulgaria to stay in the fight

- - -

Comments on comments after Part 6

Yes, as well as Paul I am confused as to what Poland is

Transylvania is integral to the Hungarian half of the dual monarchy (tho pre-1848 it had been independent of Hungary as a crown-administered principality). It really depends on what exactly FUGA is (I still see no explanation) and whether it includes Hungary

IIRC Croat nationalists are in Italy demanding independence from Austria-Hungary and if the major POD for this ATL is from 1917 onwards, then I think they are already in operation

Hmmm, one point regarding Rumania is that the Western Allies are not going to be in a position to give it any aid at all if push comes to shove - one assumes the Ottomans in this timeline won't collapse so severely that we see British and French warships in the Black Sea, so Rumania is surrounded by powers who have varying degrees of animosity towards the West. I think it is going to have to bargain for itself - I'm still not sure how you gave it back the S Dobruja, but if Bulgaria does make peace and Mackensen's attempts to recreate a contiguity of territory with German-occupied Poland fails, then I can see Rumania re-emerge as an independent player, tho King Ferdinand is going to have to do this carefully and by siding with one of his presumed enemies or other. One supposes this is Russia, giving up any claim to Bessarabia, in turn for Russian support for gains against Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary (a partition of Transylvania does indeed seem likely at this point). I don't see him putting his faith in far-away allies when he is surrounded by potential enemies - he is going to have to make one of those potential enemies his friend

- - -

Comments on Part 7

Intriguing

So despite no formal civil war in Russia, Semenov is able to create a state-within-a-state out East when nobody is paying much attention to his actions. When the government finally decides to sort this out, his deputy jumps ship with a load of hangers-on... but into Manchuria ? Are you sure ? Is it not in a large part Japanese-occupied at this time ? OTL he went in Mongolia, did he not ?

Hmm, if Sternberg is at Chita I am thinking you DO mean Mongolia and not Manchuria

Yes, I am thinking reading the whole chapter that Manchuria was just a typo on your part since I know from your maps for me that you know this area of the world very well !

- - -

Comments on Part 8

So Victor Chernov has succeeded Kerensky as Russian head of state ? I'm not sure you actually made this clear before. If you did, very sorry!

Bit confused about Boroevic - when you call him Serbian, do you mean he is Austrian but ethnically a Bosnian Serb ? Again were I online at home I could look this up, but as I am not, I can't as I write this

Interesting use of von Hutier - I think you have a historical soft spot for this guy, like I am prone to use several distinct characters in my various timelines

Interesting how this German-Austrian mini-conflict leads to Germany ending up making peace with the Allies

- - -

Comments on comments after Part 8

I don't think the Ottomans are going to be in anywhere near the crisis of OTL - Kemal only really rose to pre-eminence due to his leading the defence of Anatolia against the Greek invasion, and more or less because the official commanders were hamstrung by the emperor/caliph's agreement to Allied terms.

The collapse of the central powers in late Spring/early Summer 1918 actually leaves the Ottomans in a better position since the collapse and advance of the Allies is not nearly so bad. In addition, it seems far less likely that anyone is seriously going to give the Greeks carte blance to invade Anatolia

The emperor who was in power when the war began is just about dying now, and Vahdettin can cast himself as a new man for a new situation, personally blameless and the man to move the empire forward in peace

- - -

Comments on Part 9

Oo, what does 'Koba' mean ?

Cool, Georgian independence with Ottoman friendship !

I can accept a partition of some degree of the Ottoman Empire, but I don't think that they would fight on alone for long - not least because Britain is not going to have the will once Germany has given up. Thus the preliminary peace feelers by Istanbul are likely to bring instant reaction, and Britain will abandon its allies if necessary to get a peace to end the final conflict

What you might, oddly enough, get from this is a unified Hashemite state including Hejaz, Transjordan and Palestine. The British haven't got into Syria, and their advances in Mesopotamia are not, I think, conclusive in this time period.

France might get a quasi-independent Lebanon out of this, perhaps, but it would be under Ottoman suzerainty

Perhaps Basra province would end up independent

But European Turkey, Anatolia, Syria, Kurdistan and Baghdad should all remain within the Ottoman Empire

So, you have a war between a strong Georgia and a loose Azeri-Armenian alliance, which can only last as long as they see the common enemy as worse than each other. I reckon Georgia will win what it has (I don't know if this is different than OTL, since in OTL they include minorities such as Abkhazia and S Ossetia). The others though might win their independence.

What this means might depend on the relations between Britain and France on the one hand and SR Russia on the other. If they remain allied but not friendly, then Lord Dunsterville might end up supporting Azeria and Armenian states, and the British will to see this through might well be higher than in OTL since the slaughter of Summer-Autumn 1918 never happened and the intervention in force in Russia neither, so a smallish but strategically significant force in the S Caucasus could be allowed full play, fish 'jam' not withstanding

- - -

Most intrigued as to where this is going, or where it can go...

IMHO a lot of things remain in the balance

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Hnau

Banned
Wow, Grey Wolf, you've outdone yourself! Thank you so much for the comprehensive commentary! Its really going to help me think about the plausibility of the timeline as a whole, thanks.

@ The Romanovs - The more democratic Russian state wouldn't kill the royal family. I'll suspect that monarchist groups will pressure for them to remain in a ceremonial position, but I know what t Social-Revolutionaries would think: they've treated them so badly already that the Romanovs aren't going to return to St. Petersburg or Moscow kindly, they'll want to retake power. As such I believe they will be banished, though not killed, sent to the British perhaps.

I probably would have written this slightly differently more from a 'Great Man' perspective to give it a focus and some personalities.

That probably would be better. I've been having difficulty deciding on a format for my timelines. For TEA I've experimented with a 'Wikipedia article' format. I don't think its too successful: too much information and, like you said, not much of a personal look into the events happening.

Who is Ridley Caplan ? Similarly, who are Alash Orda ?

Ridley Caplan is a althistorical researcher. The Alash Orda are an OTL Kazakh nationalist group.

IIRC OTL his peace moves in ?1917 were betrayed by Clemenceau to the Germans because the Frenchman wanted to defeat all his enemies utterly and didn't want them to begin to make piecemeal peace that would leave the Allies with less than they might get by total victory.

Really? I had beleived that he did so merely because the Austrian foreign policy minister had insulted him. I can see Clemenceau doing just that, however. Interesting...

@ FUGA or Greater Austrian Confederation - Yeah, that's strange, where did we begin that conversation? FUGA was to be the successor state to the A-H Empire, a federation of national states in union with one another: Austria, Bohemia, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia. Croatia is to only join later, when the Croation Peasants rebel against Yugoslavia as they did in OTL. In OTL, however, there wasn't a multi-ethnic federation on their border.

So there is an independent Poland ?

Yes, at least I planned to have one. The difference between Poland and Finland is that Poland is occupied for most of the war by Germany, and is given quasi-independent status. Finland does not have that 'luxury' despite coming close to it.

Hmm, if Sternberg is at Chita I am thinking you DO mean Mongolia and not Manchuria

Yes, that is a typo. Ah, an embarassing one too. Sternberg does invade Mongolia, not Manchuria.

Oo, what does 'Koba' mean ?

Iosef Dzhugashvili's Georgian nickname, in contrast to his Russian one. :)

All in all, I'm considering three different things with this timeline, and your analysis, Grey Wolf, will certainly assist me in these endeavors.

I plan to
A) repost this thread under the title 'A Leninless World' in hopes that my main message will be more obvious and I'll get more of an audience,
B) change a few events, there are a lot of moments in this timeline where events are just too unlikely, and I knew this as I was writing the timeline, but I really wanted to see Russia in a strong place for the Paris Peace Talks: I see now that this is almost impossible, even without the communists,
C) change the formatting of the timeline: my Wikipedia style isn't suiting me, as there is too much information which the reader can't sort out between OTL facts. I plan to put together a format somewhere between Grey Wolf's Central Powers victory series and Admiral Matt's Fuhrer's Rush In, two timelines I admire. In short, this means updates for every quarter-year, without no lengthy explanations, as well as a style that speaks directly to the reader, to help them understand divergences from the main timeline.

Hopefully this new three-point plan will help both the audience to enjoy and understand the timeline as well as the author to get more things done in less time.
 

Hnau

Banned
I am a bit confused by the grand strategic happenings here
-1- why the Germans want an armistice with the Russian Republic, when the Kornilov Doctrine is that Russia will not attack again, and one would have thought the Germans could have simply let them be

I guess the idea is that the Germans want to relocate divisions from the Eastern Front to the Western. While the Kornilov Doctrine means no new Russian offensives, there is still fully defensive war, and the Germans don't know if the Russians might decide to break the KD and overwhelm the Eastern Front. That means the full German defending force remains in the eastern trenches, with only a few divisions being taken to the Western Front.

To make up for losses in the Spring Offensive, the Germans want to confirm an armistice with Russia so that the Eastern Front can be demilitarized.

-2- why Kerensky would agree to such an armistice when he is supposed to stand by Britain and France in wanting a simultaneous end to the war

By April, Kerensky is no longer in charge. Instead you have Victor Chernov, the new Premier of the Constituent Assembly, who has wanted an armistice since the summer of 1917.

why Austria-Hungary collapses so spectacularly that it begs an armistice in May 1918

Increased pressure from Italy, failure of the German Spring Offensive to make the Austro-Hungarians feel comfortable of victory, and the fact that their peace plan has not been leaked from Clemenceau. Originally. Now with your information it seems like Clemenceau might just leak the information anyway, albeit a little later.

I am surprised that your alternate Russian government is negotiating at Brest-Litovsk on the same terms as OTL. Having sorted out Finland in a federal way, I was assuming that they intended to keep Poland and Lithuania within the state of Russia, and to do this they can hardly demand additional annexations from Germany.

The Russians wanted peace and to them it looked like the Central Powers might win. No doubt it was assumed that some fringe territory would have to be abandoned, the same conclusion Lenin came to. I can also see, Chernov being a narodist and not a communist, that he would heed the opinions of the people. If a territory was unanimous in their desire for independence, as much of Poland was, he would give them to them. This happens later though.

still don't know where this FUGA has come from or why the idea of Germany ceding Silesia to Austria makes any sense

Karl I promised to the Allies in OTL to make Austria-Hungary a 'federal union' in order to make peace. ITTL it will actually happen: the Federal Union of Greater Austria. I'm planning to turn this into the Greater Austrian Confederation afterwards. Stevep seems to think that Silesia would be given to Austria because Austria has become dependent on Allied aid and support for its own survival, and so in effect is a puppet/ally of France, UK, and the US. Better to give Silesia over to the GAC than to Germany. The plebiscite would also probably succeed because of the Silesians would want to join an unhindered German-led federation rather than the hobbled Weimar Germany (or whatever its counterpart becomes).

I think you mean Tsar Ferdinand is content if BULGARIA can hold onto the Southern Dobruja

Ah, I meant Tsar Ferdinand I of Romania. The Romanian-Bulgarian conflict in WWI is so difficult to explain because there are two Tsars with the title of Ferdinand I !!! What's the chances of that happening? Kind of funny though.

So despite no formal civil war in Russia, Semenov is able to create a state-within-a-state out East when nobody is paying much attention to his actions. When the government finally decides to sort this out, his deputy jumps ship with a load of hangers-on... but into Manchuria ? Are you sure ? Is it not in a large part Japanese-occupied at this time ? OTL he went in Mongolia, did he not ?

Ah, no this was not a typo. Semenov flees for Japanese Manchuria (though who had been supporting him with weapons). Sternberg, his former deputy, takes control and eventually attacks Mongolia.
 
GW

Just to clarify a couple of points:

a) The mention of Silesia being transferred to Austria was something in the peace negotiations I read a long while ago. Some compensation to sweaten the pill for Austria in making concessions in the south. As I said it also had the advantage for the allies of causing a split between Germany and Austria which would hinder any German revanchment later. Not something Hnau fancied initially but the idea seemed to grow on him. Personally its something I think would be very useful in avoiding a WWII type scenario as you have a decent sized power in central-eastern rather than a number of very small and weak states too weak to resist a reviving Germany.

b) FUGA was a term that Hnau started using somewhere back in the correspondence. May have got missed by you in reading through so much but definitely there somewhere.

Steve
 
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.

Like Grey Wolf wrote, your take on the Finnish Civil War is certainly interesting, though I suspect that in the circumstances you have described, there might have been no civil war at all.

When in OTL Finland declared independence December 6th 1917, this was precisely because the Provisional Government had fallen and the Senate decided that after the dissolution of a legitimate Russian government the "personal union" with Finland had de facto disappeared. When ITTL Kerensky manages to stabilize the situation in Russia, the Svinhufvud senate could have retained their original opposition to independence. Before the Bolsheviks gained power, it was mainly the Social Democrats who wanted Finland independent.

Then again, the Social Democrats were not a revolutionary party, but in the event of the October Revolution were hijacked by a revolutionary minority and goaded into revolution by Lenin and company. If no one is doing the goading and there is no support from St. Petersburg, the Social Democratic majority is not going to make a revolution.

What I'd expect to happen in Finland in this situation would be a period of serious instability, crisis after political crisis and limited scuffles between the Workers' Guards and the White Guards. But if Germany does not send in troops or at least promise quite heavy support to the minority (and it seems to be a minority, as you haven't even included a Jaeger Movement in this TL) pushing for independence against a legitimate (we Finns are sticklers for legitimacy) Russian government , this is as far as it goes. I see the events going something like during 1905, being only a bit more severe. When WWI ends, Finland stabilises and stays a part of Russia.

So the end result is the part I agree with you, the stuff in between not so much.
 

Hnau

Banned
Ferdinand of Romania was titled King? Hmm... I wonder where I got the idea that he was normally titled Tsar.

Concerning the Ottoman Empire: I'm definitely thinking of letting them hang on with the territories you suggest. There will be a French mandate covering Lebanon and southern Syria to include Damascus (interesting geopolitical future for Lebanon), as well as a British mandate over Palestine (with a much reduced Transjordan). Otherwise, the OE will find themselves in control of Iraq north of the Euphrates and a lot of northern Syria. However, there will be a British 'super-Kuwait' including Basra and a little extra. I like the look of it on my map.

What I'd expect to happen in Finland in this situation would be a period of serious instability, crisis after political crisis and limited scuffles between the Workers' Guards and the White Guards. But if Germany does not send in troops or at least promise quite heavy support to the minority (and it seems to be a minority, as you haven't even included a Jaeger Movement in this TL) pushing for independence against a legitimate (we Finns are sticklers for legitimacy) Russian government , this is as far as it goes. I see the events going something like during 1905, being only a bit more severe. When WWI ends, Finland stabilises and stays a part of Russia.

A Finn that gives arguments in opposition to independence? You my good sir are a breath of fresh air! :)

Really interesting course of events you've detailed. I'd have thought the White Guard would have done away with legitimacy with the onset of a radical government. And, I'd have thought that the Social Democrats didn't take much convincing to get involved in revolutionary activities. As to the Jaegers, well, I need to do some more research. Thanks for the inside information!
 
Last edited:
I'd have thought the White Guard would have done away with legitimacy with the onset of a radical government. And, I'd have thought that the Social Democrats didn't take much convincing to get involved in revolutionary activities. As to the Jaegers, well, I need to do some more research. Thanks for the inside information!

Glad if I can be of assistance. The legitimacy of the Provisional Government was of course strenuous at best and a matter of much debate. And, to be fair, the Finnish parliament had passed a Power Act proclaiming itself to be the highest power in the land, above the Provisional Government in late summer 1917. But still, the Finns expected the Provisional Government to accept the act before declaring independence...:rolleyes: When it was rejected, they went and drafted a new one, which undoubtably would have gone down the same way had not the Provisional Government be overthrown.

Before the October Revolution the Finnish political leaders were, in my view, not ready to make a break for independence unilaterally if it looked like Russia could be likely to want to (and be able to) crush the attempt and/or Germany was not committed to Finnish independence.
 
Last edited:

Hnau

Banned
In the Russian-dominated Federation of Sovereign Republics (FSR) I'm developing in the timeline, there will be eventually no need for a Power Act, as Finland is to become a Federative Republic, meaning that they'll have full authority over their domestic affairs, with the federal government really only stepping in to manage foreign policy and trade throughout the federation, somewhat based on the current Russian Federation but with even a little less central authority. As such, I can imagine that Chernov will pass the Power Act (perhaps the third version, slightly not as 'powerful') as a sign of things to come.

What this means also is that Finland keeps 1.2% of their population, which could be useful later on.
 
Ferdinand of Rumania was king, Ferdinand of Bulgaria was Tsar based on the fact that Tsar is the historical title for Bulgarian monarchs going back to Byzantine times.

Will look through the rest later :)
And also refresh my memory regarding Karl/Sixtus/Clemenceau etc as I may well not be right

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The scenario is obviously well thought out and well-researched. So many people just dash out PoDs without proper research and seem to operate along the lines what-they-wish-had-happened instead of historical trends and actualities on the ground. Personally, I've been thinking about this heavily the last couple of months, done some research and here are my 2-cents.

1.) You overestimate the strength of the Red Army in 1917. The best change for any type of success would very, very limited operations at the front and heavy defensive positions. Steaming the tide of German advance with a good defense is the best change for success. Germany will still make gains, probably take Riga and maybe menace Petrograd. A say its about a fifty-fifty change that if Russia continues the war that the Germans will mount an attack on the capital in the hopes that it will end the war on the Eastern Front. In OTL, Kerensky tried to relocate the capitol to Moscow in mid-1917 in order to keep the apparatus of state from following to a Germany advance, the Soviet would not allow it. The Bolsheviks relocated to Moscow for the exact same reasons in 1918. If the government can keep the Red Army from complete collapse for long enough for the American to make a significant impact on the Western Front then the War will end. I would urge you to look up Revolutionary Defensism to get an idea about what would be the only way that Kerensky could have continued the war with the support of the entirety of the SRs and some of the Social Democrats.

2.) Your descriptions of the Spring Offensive seem incredibly likely, but I don't see Austria-Hungary throwing in the towel like that. A-H will continue to fight as long as the German Empire has the slightest chance of victory. Everyone, even the Austrians and Hungarians, know A-H is a corpse that will surely collapse if the Central Powers lose. I can see the war continuing into September or October 1918, until the Americans make an Allied victory unavoidable.

3.) As soon as the war ends or an armistice is agreed to, a full-on White-Red Civil War will breakout. The army and aristocracy is not going down without a fight. I have an interesting book about the Russian Civil War that shows, time after time, the Monarchist officers would overthrow any form of constituent government as soon as it organized. Even when facing a full-fledged Bolshevik offense, white officers showed themselves more inclined to lose fighting SRs and Liberals than ally with them against the Communists. See the The Committee of Members of the Constituent Assembly, the Directory or any of the other post-Constituent Assembly organizations ended by the army - their were many. The only thing keeping the white officers even marginally on the side of the Kerensky was his willingness to continue the war. Truth be told, Kerensky is too much of an idealistic upper class liberal to keep the situation from spelling over into civil war. He is not ruthless enough to keep control of Russia. He is too far left to work effectively with the military and the Allies and too far right to use the radical elements within Social Democrats and the SRs to secure to his position. Without Lenin to led the Bolsheviks, the end result will be some kind of conservative authoritarian dictatorship probably led by General Kornilov. In OTL Kerensky feared the whites more than the Bolsheviks, see the Kornilov Affair, and as the experiences of the ex-Constituent Assembly members during the Civil War show, he was probably right.
 
Top