What if Kerensky avoids offensives?

Let’s say Kerensky gets a more realistic view of his army and decides that offensives will not work? He recognizes that America will inevitably tip things in 1918. Kerensky uses a Fabian Strategy across much of the front if need be, prioritizing Petrograd and Moscow. If his government is still losing, he will negotiate unfaithfully with Germany to buy time.

What are the odds of this working? Can they last until mid-late 1918 to win? What would their creditors response to this be? Would they be denied loans or have it held against them post war?
 
The Bolshevik antiwar propaganda will continue to bite. Post-February, the Russian Army was in a rather similar situation as the French Army during their mutinies: many soldiers were not against resisting the Germans per se, as there were still millions of men at the front. But they had a lot of axes to grind with their officers, the general status of Russian society, the reasons why the war was being fought, and so on. Addressing these issues while still maintaining the needed cohesion for defending anything was a task way beyond the resources and skills of the OTL provisional government.

The most important issue is the imminent threat of famine in the cities, as well as the legitimacy of the new government. Going forward with the Constituent Assembly elections as soon as possible would create a left-wing majority Assembly, where the Bolsheviks would still remain firmly in the minority. Naturally the Kadets were dead-set against this idea, and the Trudoviks that Kerensky represented were equally less than eager to hand away their grip to power.

So in order to make scenario work one needs to avoid the splits and factionalism of the PSR. And a POD where Kerensky is in power in the first place is already too late for that.
 
I have written a post about ww1 and Kerensky where this is included.

If one only does this one thing and this only change then that alone may give Russia a few more months or maybe even win the war.

In the original timeline after the failed Kerensky offensive, many soldiers started deserting en masse taking their weapons with them, going home and shooting the land owners and claiming the land. The government reacted by ordering soldiers to be sent in and stop this, but no soldiers would follow those orders. This lead to a crisis in the government.

Then you have the Kornilov affair, where he wanted to possibly reinstate the monarchy and give back power to the nobles or have some type of military dictatorship. That whole coup was still born since very few soldiers would follow him and the whole transport network was cut of for him by the workers. This affair also lead the government to arm the Bolsheviks to help protect Petrograd.

Now without the Kerensky offensive, many of those problem can be butterflied away. But who knows for how long.

Which is why in my post I added, land distribution, debt forgiveness for the peasants and many other things.

About foreign creditors obviously they will not deny anything since Russia losing the war means that Russia can not pay back, there might not even be a Russia. In addition to that, not attacking does not mean that the central powers can simply take their soldiers and transfer them to France, the soldiers have to still be kept on the Russian front.
 
There are some pro CP butterflies early on. The Austrians suffered a bit in the offensive and wouldn't here.

I could see a bigger strike against Italy or maybe something against Salonika or bigger counter strikes on the western front..
 
There are some pro CP butterflies early on. The Austrians suffered a bit in the offensive and wouldn't here.

I could see a bigger strike against Italy or maybe something against Salonika or bigger counter strikes on the western front..
Do you think Russia would be able to hold on much longer?
 
In the original timeline there were elections held on the 25th of nov of 1917 and the Constituent Assembly was installed in jan 1918. They where then by force removed by the Bolsheviks.

Not having the Kerensky offensive may possibly buy enough time for this elected government to start governing.
 
Do you think Russia would be able to hold on much longer?

Doubtful.

The Bolsheviks were calling for all land to be given to the peasants. If the government refuses it drives the peasants into the Bolshevik camp. If it does, then many soldiers are liable to head for home to make sure og getting their share. Either way it ain't promising.
 
Avoiding the offensives would keep the Russian Army around in a somewhat functional state and avoid many escalations. But, as many have pointed out, it merely buys Kerensky time. Hunger and Chaos still loom. If he uses the time to get an elected assembly and government running, he could stabilise the country, but at the cost of losing power himself. Hunger can't even be averted with an early drop Out of the war. Like many other countries Russia was bound to come Out of the war weakened, destabilised and deeply changed. So, there is No miracle option available.
But If the offensives are avoided and the CA is elected sooner, Russia could still avoid Bolshevism and international Isolation.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Going forward with the Constituent Assembly elections as soon as possible would create a left-wing majority Assembly, where the Bolsheviks would still remain firmly in the minority. Naturally the Kadets were dead-set against this idea, and the Trudoviks that Kerensky represented were equally less than eager to hand away their grip to power.

I'm trying to follow your logic here. So you're saying Kerensky was from a faction with limited support and found the ongoing war a convenient excuse to not hold new elections that would replace him? So the PG was trying to prolong its members' personal stay in power but dressing it up with a 'national interest' excuse of "we can't hold elections and seat constituent assembly too soon because the war is on"? Who might have been picked other than Kerensky or a member of his faction? Would they do different and why? Also, even if delay in elections is still in his self-interest, along with continuation of the war, why does this make an offensive in particular absolutely imperative?
 
I'm trying to follow your logic here. So you're saying Kerensky was from a faction with limited support and found the ongoing war a convenient excuse to not hold new elections that would replace him? So the PG was trying to prolong its members' personal stay in power but dressing it up with a 'national interest' excuse of "we can't hold elections and seat constituent assembly too soon because the war is on"? Who might have been picked other than Kerensky or a member of his faction? Would they do different and why? Also, even if delay in elections is still in his self-interest, along with continuation of the war, why does this make an offensive in particular absolutely imperative?

The political strategy adopted by the Kadets and Trudoviks was dictated by war and ideology.

Aside from classical liberal reforms such as freedom of speech and assembly, they were ultimately after a new “responsible ministry” (otvetstvennoe ministerstvo) accountable to a new Constituent Assembly or Duma, consisting of representatives chosen by universal suffrage. Since they knew that the old ruling elites would never allow the left-wing radicals to share power under such reformed system of government, the liberal strategists therefore concluded that the liberal opposition forces would be the primary beneficiaries of all political reforms, being the only acceptable alternative to left-wing revolutionary anarchy. Thus, it logically followed that in a free and fair elections, "the flower of the Russian intelligentsia" would dominate. The fact that the masses were uneducated and confused in 1917 made it all the more important from the Liberal point of view to "educate" them and postpone elections until they would see the error of their ways and vote proper liberal parties, their true benefactors, to power. The fact that Kadet was a minor nobility-dominated party really affected their worldview. Trudoviks were rather similar in their views - they pursued politics that they viewed as best for the people, while also supporting the continuation of the war to defend the new freedoms of Russian society.

The middle- and upper class liberals had passively resisted the autocracy and had longed for a constitutional monarchy or better yet, a republic, since 1905. The wartime formation of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union and the Union of Cities were both necessary wartime adaptations to the ineptness of Czarist authorities, and clear Liberal challenges to the pre-war status quo. To the most ruthless liberal leaders, the left-wing terrorists had been seen as useful allies as long as the Czar had been in power. But these liberal leaders had no illusions what would happen after they would reach their reformist goals and gain power in the country through free elections. When they would no longer neither need nor tolerate left-wing terrorism, they had no qualms about supporting the same harsh repressive policies they were now publicly condemning, as the July Days showed. To the Provisionary Government, winning the war was a key goal, since they wanted to reform the Russian society according their own vision. Ceding power to the most radical left-wing political forces was in conflict with this vision, since it would jeopardize the vision of a liberal, free Russia. One has to remember that everyone was following the only historical example that was available: the French Revolution. To the educated Russian middle class, the brave young anarchist and social-revolutionary sans-culottes should now stand aside, and let educated men conduct sensible policy for the good of the country and the people.

According to Kerensky an offensive was necessary because the new revolutionary zeal would inspire the Russian armies, just like it had allowed the French revolutionary armies to triumph. And a victory in war would also validate the policies of the Provisionary Government and allow them to guide the masses to reason (and to a Liberal electoral victory in the Constituent Assembly elections.)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
According to Kerensky an offensive was necessary because the new revolutionary zeal would inspire the Russian armies, just like it had allowed the French revolutionary armies to triumph. And a victory in war would also validate the policies of the Provisionary Government and allow them to guide the masses to reason (and to a Liberal electoral victory in the Constituent Assembly elections.)

Kerensky....silly, silly Girondiste
 
Top