I’m currently working on a Central Powers Victory scenario in WW1, in which the Central Powers focused on Russia first, defeated Russia in 1916 and after that focusing and defeating France.

But my question is: in this scenario, what would have happened to Russia? Would the Russian Revolution still happen, would Germans still have send Lenin to Russia, and if so, would there be a Russian Civil War and would the Reds still win this war?

Tell me please!
 
I don't think that the Germans would've used Lenin in such a case. You might still see a Russian revolution against the Tsar, but I think he survives it if he peaces out with the Germany under reasonable terms.
 
I don't think that the Germans would've used Lenin in such a case. You might still see a Russian revolution against the Tsar, but I think he survives it if he peaces out with the Germany under reasonable terms.
But why would the Tsar make peace with the Germans? In OTL he didn’t, even in a very very dire situation?
 
But why would the Tsar make peace with the Germans? In OTL he didn’t, even in a very very dire situation?
He didn't want to make a separate peace. Reasons why he might in an ATL:

He perceived that the French and the UK were breaking faith with him and were going to peace out first or,

He only narrowly hangs on in a Russian revolution and has to promise peace and bread to hold his coalition together. Maybe a few of his relatives get the chop but he manages to pull through.
 
He didn't want to make a separate peace. Reasons why he might in an ATL:

He perceived that the French and the UK were breaking faith with him and were going to peace out first or,

He only narrowly hangs on in a Russian revolution and has to promise peace and bread to hold his coalition together. Maybe a few of his relatives get the chop but he manages to pull through.
1. Why would France and the UK break there faith with him?
2. If there is a Russian Revolution as you suggest and I agree with you in that, why would the Tsar stay in power? It is plausible the Russians are in a more dire situation if the Germans focus on it and not have a large Western Front to deal with as in OTL, so why would the Tsar stay in power in a more dire situation than OTL, while he abdicated in OTL?

I like your scenario in which the Tsar stays in power, but I don’t think it is realistic.
 
I’m currently working on a Central Powers Victory scenario in WW1, in which the Central Powers focused on Russia first, defeated Russia in 1916 and after that focusing and defeating France.

But my question is: in this scenario, what would have happened to Russia? Would the Russian Revolution still happen, would Germans still have send Lenin to Russia, and if so, would there be a Russian Civil War and would the Reds still win this war?

Tell me please!
It will be practically the Kaiserreich universe.
The tsar will be overthrown by the republicans and Russia will become an unstable republic. There will be no civil war. However, in the 20s or early 30s, the scenario of Weimar Germany and the Third Reich is likely.
 
It will be practically the Kaiserreich universe.
The tsar will be overthrown by the republicans and Russia will become an unstable republic. There will be no civil war. However, in the 20s or early 30s, the scenario of Weimar Germany and the Third Reich is likely.
1. So the Russian Republic makes peace with the Germans due to a German peace offer?
2. You mean that Russia enters in crisis like Weimar Germany and after that turns in a fascist/nationalsocialist terror state like Nazi Germany I think?
 

kham_coc

Kicked
1. Why would France and the UK break there faith with him?
Well because they can't make their troops go into the AL meat grinder (and isn't making any progress).

2. If there is a Russian Revolution as you suggest and I agree with you in that, why would the Tsar stay in power? It is plausible the Russians are in a more dire situation if the Germans focus on it and not have a large Western Front to deal with as in OTL, so why would the Tsar stay in power in a more dire situation than OTL, while he abdicated in OTL?

I like your scenario in which the Tsar stays in power, but I don’t think it is realistic.
Personally Im partial to him simply realising that he screwed, and makes peace, then bribes the Army with land reform (A homestead for all our heroes!) and then he makes short work of anyone opposing him.
 
Well because they can't make their troops go into the AL meat grinder (and isn't making any progress).


Personally Im partial to him simply realising that he screwed, and makes peace, then bribes the Army with land reform (A homestead for all our heroes!) and then he makes short work of anyone opposing him.
1. Then I still don’t see why they would lose there faith: France, Britain and Russia had very much common interests in preventing Germany from dominanting the continent. If they let Germany crush Russia alone they will only support a German-dominated Europe.

2. Still, why would he do this while he didn’t in OTL?
 
1. Why would France and the UK break there faith with him?
2. If there is a Russian Revolution as you suggest and I agree with you in that, why would the Tsar stay in power? It is plausible the Russians are in a more dire situation if the Germans focus on it and not have a large Western Front to deal with as in OTL, so why would the Tsar stay in power in a more dire situation than OTL, while he abdicated in OTL?

I like your scenario in which the Tsar stays in power, but I don’t think it is realistic.
1. Germany is doing better in your TL and France and the UK are both war weary, moreso than OTL. The US perhaps was being more rigorously neutral and less willing to extend credit. But the key thing isn't that the UK and France are contemplating peacing out, it is that the Tsar THINKS they're doing so.

2. If there's a Russian Revolution, but it doesn't have Lenin, it's very conceivable that the Tsar might initially be deposed but restored by some of his faithful generals. One of those generals gives him the 'Peace and Bread' formulation (one short of Lenin's triad), and he runs with it. Perhaps the general also implies 1) strongly.
 

kham_coc

Kicked
1. Germany is doing better in your TL and France and the UK are both war weary, moreso than OTL. The US perhaps was being more rigorously neutral and less willing to extend credit. But the key thing isn't that the UK and France are contemplating peacing out, it is that the Tsar THINKS they're doing so.
And remember from his perspective he is losing men and lands at a ferocious pace - meanwhile the French and the British are lollygagging around the same place they have been for the last two years - You could see how this could be perceived as bad faith.
2. If there's a Russian Revolution, but it doesn't have Lenin, it's very conceivable that the Tsar might initially be deposed but restored by some of his faithful generals. One of those generals gives him the 'Peace and Bread' formulation (one short of Lenin's triad), and he runs with it. Perhaps the general also implies 1) strongly.
Yeah, And saying the only way to maintain Army cohesion is to end the war, bribe the soldiers, and then put down the labourers.
 
But my question is: in this scenario, what would have happened to Russia? Would the Russian Revolution still happen, would Germans still have send Lenin to Russia, and if so, would there be a Russian Civil War and would the Reds still win this war?
As the others stated, it depends on the caveats or premises you use. The Central Powers preferred to get Russia out of the war first, even in OTL. They made multiple truly generous peace offers, that boiled down to near status quo ante. If such an offer is accepted, is the deciding question.

Scenario 1A: Russia accepts a generous peace offer: Some minor border corrections or shifts. Nothing drastic. As Lieven ably demonstrated in his works, as long as the Tsarist regime holds the loyalty of the elites, they would prevail. With a generous peace settlement and the likely story of being left alone and betrayed by their allies, it could be possible for them to retain their station. Nikolaus, in a rare moment of brilliance, abdicates and makes way for his brother, who institutes a system more in line to the A-H and German one. Democratic elements, with a strong executive under the nominal control of the Tsar. No civil war or anything more destabilizing. Any harmful or disturbing unrest is quelled either through concession or force.

Scenario 1B: Russia accepts a generous peace offer: This leads towards the elites making an ultimatum to the Tsar, they want a say and Nikolaus, as the bumbling idiot he was, answers with violence. Order breaks down and the regime faces a revolution. The Republic shortly contemplates to declare the peace treaty void and listen to the whispers from the Entente of the great spoils of victory, but sounder heads prevail. The Russian Republic then faces civil war with Tsarist loyalists and depending on the actions of the Entente and CP powers, one side or the other wins.

Scenario 2A: Russia rejects peace offers: Without some of the great successes of OTL and a quicker and worse crumbling of their front, the army is in a horrible state. The complete dissolution they suffered after the initial negotiations for Brest-Litovsk were abandoned by the Soviets would likely happen. Essentially, allowing Central Power forces to advance by train without a fight. In a follow-up, having lost massive prestige and standing among the elites and loyalists, Nikolaus is couped out. Considering how his brother did not have the aspirations or ambitions towards such an act, it would likely be a revolution to create a republic. Following the popular sentiment, they want to make peace and get a decent one, not generous, but significantly less than OTL Brest-Litovsk. Essentially a modified offer that was made to the Soviets OTL, on which Trotsky walked out.

Scenario 2B: Russia rejects peace offers: OTL happens earlier. Lenin is sent earlier and from there a similar line of events happens, but CP throws it support behind the White Forces after they got their peace. Considering Trotsky's move in OTL it would likely end with a treaty in line with Brest-Litovsk. With CP support and likely direct help, it is unlikely that the Soviets would carry the day.

PS: I know it is Tsar Nicholas.
 
1. Germany is doing better in your TL and France and the UK are both war weary, moreso than OTL. The US perhaps was being more rigorously neutral and less willing to extend credit. But the key thing isn't that the UK and France are contemplating peacing out, it is that the Tsar THINKS they're doing so.

2. If there's a Russian Revolution, but it doesn't have Lenin, it's very conceivable that the Tsar might initially be deposed but restored by some of his faithful generals. One of those generals gives him the 'Peace and Bread' formulation (one short of Lenin's triad), and he runs with it. Perhaps the general also implies 1) strongly.
1. Why would they be more war weary and why would the US be more rigorously neutral and less welling to extend credit. And on that ‘The Tsar thinks they’re doing so’, I agree.
2. I agree.
 
I
As the others stated, it depends on the caveats or premises you use. The Central Powers preferred to get Russia out of the war first, even in OTL. They made multiple truly generous peace offers, that boiled down to near status quo ante. If such an offer is accepted, is the deciding question.

Scenario 1A: Russia accepts a generous peace offer: Some minor border corrections or shifts. Nothing drastic. As Lieven ably demonstrated in his works, as long as the Tsarist regime holds the loyalty of the elites, they would prevail. With a generous peace settlement and the likely story of being left alone and betrayed by their allies, it could be possible for them to retain their station. Nikolaus, in a rare moment of brilliance, abdicates and makes way for his brother, who institutes a system more in line to the A-H and German one. Democratic elements, with a strong executive under the nominal control of the Tsar. No civil war or anything more destabilizing. Any harmful or disturbing unrest is quelled either through concession or force.

Scenario 1B: Russia accepts a generous peace offer: This leads towards the elites making an ultimatum to the Tsar, they want a say and Nikolaus, as the bumbling idiot he was, answers with violence. Order breaks down and the regime faces a revolution. The Republic shortly contemplates to declare the peace treaty void and listen to the whispers from the Entente of the great spoils of victory, but sounder heads prevail. The Russian Republic then faces civil war with Tsarist loyalists and depending on the actions of the Entente and CP powers, one side or the other wins.

Scenario 2A: Russia rejects peace offers: Without some of the great successes of OTL and a quicker and worse crumbling of their front, the army is in a horrible state. The complete dissolution they suffered after the initial negotiations for Brest-Litovsk were abandoned by the Soviets would likely happen. Essentially, allowing Central Power forces to advance by train without a fight. In a follow-up, having lost massive prestige and standing among the elites and loyalists, Nikolaus is couped out. Considering how his brother did not have the aspirations or ambitions towards such an act, it would likely be a revolution to create a republic. Following the popular sentiment, they want to make peace and get a decent one, not generous, but significantly less than OTL Brest-Litovsk. Essentially a modified offer that was made to the Soviets OTL, on which Trotsky walked out.

Scenario 2B: Russia rejects peace offers: OTL happens earlier. Lenin is sent earlier and from there a similar line of events happens, but CP throws it support behind the White Forces after they got their peace. Considering Trotsky's move in OTL it would likely end with a treaty in line with Brest-Litovsk. With CP support and likely direct help, it is unlikely that the Soviets would carry the day.

PS: I know it is Tsar Nicholas.
I fully agree, but which scenario is the most probable.
 
1. Why would they be more war weary and why would the US be more rigorously neutral and less welling to extend credit. And on that ‘The Tsar thinks they’re doing so’, I agree.
2. I agree.
The reason why they're more war weary and the US more neutral is because the propaganda is of lower quality in this TL's WW1. Why?

1. The evil Huns didn't invade Belgium or the Netherlands or even Luxembourg. That means no good 'rape of Belgium' propaganda.
2. The UK declares war anyway, because their centuries old algorithm (PREVENT any single power from gaining hegemony over Europe) is being threatened. But the people don't like it, and accordingly have a much lower casualty budget than OTL.
3. There is very little of a feeling of progress, the war stays very close the the boundaries pre-war. Thus there's no desperate feeling that France has to be liberated for the French. Just huge casualties.
4. The feeling in the US is more of a 'pox on both your houses'. Only the historic connection between the US/UK/France prevents the US from feeling sympathies for Germany. The US government recognizes that 'when you owe someone a little money, you have a problem, but when you owe someone a TON of money, THEY have a problem' and accordingly strictly limits lending to belligerents because of the governance hazard that such can create. Historically they had Entente sympathies which overcame this reluctance.
 
The reason why they're more war weary and the US more neutral is because the propaganda is of lower quality in this TL's WW1. Why?

1. The evil Huns didn't invade Belgium or the Netherlands or even Luxembourg. That means no good 'rape of Belgium' propaganda.
2. The UK declares war anyway, because their centuries old algorithm (PREVENT any single power from gaining hegemony over Europe) is being threatened. But the people don't like it, and accordingly have a much lower casualty budget than OTL.
3. There is very little of a feeling of progress, the war stays very close the the boundaries pre-war. Thus there's no desperate feeling that France has to be liberated for the French. Just huge casualties.
4. The feeling in the US is more of a 'pox on both your houses'. Only the historic connection between the US/UK/France prevents the US from feeling sympathies for Germany. The US government recognizes that 'when you owe someone a little money, you have a problem, but when you owe someone a TON of money, THEY have a problem' and accordingly strictly limits lending to belligerents because of the governance hazard that such can create. Historically they had Entente sympathies which overcame this reluctance.
I agree, but I think that for the Tsar to make peace with the Centrals, he need to have concrete indications from France and Britain that they will stop with the war. So, which could be these concrete indications?
 

kham_coc

Kicked
I agree, but I think that for the Tsar to make peace with the Centrals, he need to have concrete indications from France and Britain that they will stop with the war. So, which could be these concrete indications?
Or, he needs to be convinced that they won't make progress in AL.
 
As the others stated, it depends on the caveats or premises you use. The Central Powers preferred to get Russia out of the war first, even in OTL. They made multiple truly generous peace offers, that boiled down to near status quo ante. If such an offer is accepted, is the deciding question.

Scenario 1A: Russia accepts a generous peace offer: Some minor border corrections or shifts. Nothing drastic. As Lieven ably demonstrated in his works, as long as the Tsarist regime holds the loyalty of the elites, they would prevail. With a generous peace settlement and the likely story of being left alone and betrayed by their allies, it could be possible for them to retain their station. Nikolaus, in a rare moment of brilliance, abdicates and makes way for his brother, who institutes a system more in line to the A-H and German one. Democratic elements, with a strong executive under the nominal control of the Tsar. No civil war or anything more destabilizing. Any harmful or disturbing unrest is quelled either through concession or force.

Scenario 1B: Russia accepts a generous peace offer: This leads towards the elites making an ultimatum to the Tsar, they want a say and Nikolaus, as the bumbling idiot he was, answers with violence. Order breaks down and the regime faces a revolution. The Republic shortly contemplates to declare the peace treaty void and listen to the whispers from the Entente of the great spoils of victory, but sounder heads prevail. The Russian Republic then faces civil war with Tsarist loyalists and depending on the actions of the Entente and CP powers, one side or the other wins.

Scenario 2A: Russia rejects peace offers: Without some of the great successes of OTL and a quicker and worse crumbling of their front, the army is in a horrible state. The complete dissolution they suffered after the initial negotiations for Brest-Litovsk were abandoned by the Soviets would likely happen. Essentially, allowing Central Power forces to advance by train without a fight. In a follow-up, having lost massive prestige and standing among the elites and loyalists, Nikolaus is couped out. Considering how his brother did not have the aspirations or ambitions towards such an act, it would likely be a revolution to create a republic. Following the popular sentiment, they want to make peace and get a decent one, not generous, but significantly less than OTL Brest-Litovsk. Essentially a modified offer that was made to the Soviets OTL, on which Trotsky walked out.

Scenario 2B: Russia rejects peace offers: OTL happens earlier. Lenin is sent earlier and from there a similar line of events happens, but CP throws it support behind the White Forces after they got their peace. Considering Trotsky's move in OTL it would likely end with a treaty in line with Brest-Litovsk. With CP support and likely direct help, it is unlikely that the Soviets would carry the day.

PS: I know it is Tsar Nicholas.
Oh and still, do you have an example of those peace offers?
 
I

I fully agree, but which scenario is the most probable.
Depends on the victory scenario and how much the Entente power seem to ignore Russia or refuse to help out. How quick can the CP powers bring the war to a close? Does Italy join or Romania? You know, the little details are kind of needed for a more precise answer. At least for me.

Nicholas was falling for the gambler's mentality. They were promised so much and as long as he remains at the "table" he has a chance at getting the reward. If he stands up, the reward will be lost. Ignoring sunk cost fallacy and the possible further losses. So for him to agree to a peace, he really needs the Entente to be on its worst behavior. Else, I see it as more likely for the boiling point to be reached before he would go for it.
Oh and still, do you have an example of those peace offers?
Do you mean a source or the exact text? For source, the most recent was in Holger Afflerbachs "Auf Messers Schneide". Will have to look if I can find an English one.
 
Top