WI: Early Bolshevik Victory in the Russian Civil War

Hey everyone! I wanted to ask as to the potential effects of an even earlier Red victory in the Russian Civil War. To me, it seems that it was the revolt of the Czechoslovak Legion along the Trans-Siberian Railway that truly set the White Movement going, nearly leading to the destruction of the Bolshevik regime, as the Bolsheviks had conquered almost all of Russia by mid-1918 when the revolt occurred and would not retake this for another year and a half. If the Bolsheviks do not also have to spare as many troops fighting the now-last remnants of the Russian Republic, they will likely succeed in their 1918 westward offensive to capture the Baltics, Ukraine, and Belarus, and I could also see them capturing Poland sometime in 1919. I would also like to pair this up with a Red victory in the Finnish Civil War a few months before the POD, as the Finnish Civil War was rather close and I feel that if you could come up with a secondary POD such as C. G. E. Mannerheim dying in combat during WWI that the Reds would have a much better chance at winning, seeing as no man in the White Finnish leadership was as capable as him. A Red Finland would also mean that the Finnish volunteers fighting in the Estonian War of Independence for the White Estonians would now be fighting alongside the Estonian Red Riflemen as well. As a last thought, the South Caucasus would also be subdued much earlier, with the Soviets keeping control of Kars and the Baku Commune continuing to exist, and perhaps an invasion of Iran could lead to new SSRs created from Iranian Azerbaijan, Gilan, Khorasan, and Mazandaran.

Thoughts? Would the Bolsheviks consolidate their position or would they choose the more likely option of attempting a conquest of the rest of Europe?
 
Last edited:
A good POD could be that the Bolsheviks accept the original German peace proposal of Brest-Litovsk in January 1918.
 
A good POD could be that the Bolsheviks accept the original German peace proposal of Brest-Litovsk in January 1918.
Yes. I believe that one of the issues with the Finnish campaign was that Leon Trotsky broke off negotiations with the Central Powers when he believed Red Finland was on the verge of victory, so the Germans then invaded Helsinki in response. If this does not happen, Red Finland’s chances drastically increase.
 
Yes. I believe that one of the issues with the Finnish campaign was that Leon Trotsky broke off negotiations with the Central Powers when he believed Red Finland was on the verge of victory, so the Germans then invaded Helsinki in response. If this does not happen, Red Finland’s chances drastically increase.

The back of the Finnish Reds was broken when the Whites won at Tampere. This happened at the same time as the Germans were advancing on the southern coast and before they took Helsinki. Without the German intervention, the Whites would very likely have still won at Tampere. After that, without serious additional support by the Russian Reds for the Finnish Reds, the Whites would win and eventually take Helsinki, even if considerably slower and after bloodier battles than IOTL.

I believe you got the timeline the wrong way around, as well. The German intervention into Finland happened entirely after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. The first Germans landed on the Finnish mainland a full month after the peace treaty was signed. If anything, the Germans were using such troops in the intervention that had been freed up in the east exactly because they were not needed against Russia anymore.
 
Last edited:
The back of the Finnish Reds was broken when the Whites won at Tampere. This happened at the same time as the Germans were advancing on the southern coast and before they took Helsinki. Without the German intervention, the Whites would very likely have still won at Tampere. After that, without serious additional support by the Russian Reds for the Finnish Reds, the Whites would win and eventually take Helsinki, even if considerably slower and after bloodier battles than IOTL.

I believe you got the timeline the wrong way around, as well. The German intervention into Finland happened entirely after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. The first Germans landed on the Finnish mainland a full month after the peace treaty was signed. If anything, the Germans were using such troops in the intervention that had been freed up in the east exactly because they were not needed against Russia anymore.
From what I understand, Tampere was a close battle, with heavy casualties for both sides. Had the Reds won, they could regain the momentum and begin an advance into Central Finland.

Also, I got that from another post on the Finnish Civil War on this forum, I'm pretty sure. Anyway, my point still stands that that wouldn't make sense, as peace with the Bolsheviks should mean peace with the Finnish Reds as well.
 
From what I understand, Tampere was a close battle, with heavy casualties for both sides. Had the Reds won, they could regain the momentum and begin an advance into Central Finland.

I think the battle of Tampere might look superficially closer than it actually was. The truth is that the Whites had the momentum and initiative on their side, and enjoyed several benefits over the Reds. They had actual military professionals in charge, and even some trained, experienced soldiers and NCOs among their ranks. Comparatively, the Reds were pure militia, mostly just "armed civilians". The Whites also enjoyed better morale among their troops. They were advancing, while the Reds were falling back. The Reds had, arguably, better weaponry and more men. But then better weapons don't help if most of your men can't properly use them, and bigger numbers mean little if you can get less than half of your men come out of their hiding places to actually fight.


Also, I got that from another post on the Finnish Civil War on this forum, I'm pretty sure. Anyway, my point still stands that that wouldn't make sense, as peace with the Bolsheviks should mean peace with the Finnish Reds as well.

I believe you might be working under a mistaken understanding about the relationship between the Russian Bolsheviks and the Finnish Reds. These two groups were de facto allied and many individual persons among them had close personal connections. But then even while they were heavily supported and influenced by the Bolsheviks in Petrograd, the Finnish Reds were practically and de jure an independent side.

At Brest-Litovsk, the Germans and the Bolsheviks had agreed that Finland would be detached from Russia. The Bolshevik government had recognized Finnish independence already before that. The Germans making peace with the Russian Bolshevik government then had nothing directly to do with their relations with the Finnish Red government, the so-called People's Deputation in Helsinki - an independent group fighting a civil war for the control of Finland against the Finnish White forces led by the so-called Vaasa Senate. Like the OTL events showed, after the Germans made peace with the Bolsheviks, they could full well join the Finnish Whites, their minor ally, to fight side by side to defeat the Finnish Reds. This action did not in itself violate the terms of their peace treaty with the Russians.
 
Last edited:
I think the battle of Tampere might look superficially closer than it actually was. The truth is that the Whites had the momentum and initiative on their side, and enjoyed several benefits over the Reds. They had actual military professionals in charge, and even some trained, experienced soldiers and NCOS among their ranks. Comparatively, the Reds were pure militia, mostly just "armed civilians". The Whites also enjoyed better morale among their troops. They were advancing, while the Reds were falling back. The Reds had, arguably, better weaponry and more men. But then better weapons don't help if most of your men can't properly use them, and bigger numbers mean little if you can get less than half of your men come out of their hiding places to actually fight.




I believe you might be working under a mistaken understanding about the relationship between the Russian Bolsheviks and the Finnish Reds. These two groups were de facto allied and many individual persons among them had close personal connections. But then even while they were heavily supported and influenced by the Bolsheviks in Petrograd, the Finnish Reds were practically and de jure an independent side.

At Brest-Litovsk, the Germans and the Bolsheviks had agreed that Finland would be detached from Russia. The Bolshevik government had recognized Finnish independence already before that. The Germans making peace with the Russian Bolshevik government then had nothing directly to do with their relations with the Finnish Red government, the so-called People's Deputation in Helsinki - an independent group fighting a civil war for the control of Finland against the Finnish White forces led by the so-called Vaasa Senate. Like the OTL events showed, after the Germans made peace with the Bolsheviks, they could full well join the Finnish Whites, their minor ally, to fight side by side to defeat the Finnish Reds. This action did not itself violate the terms of their peace treaty with the Russians.
Then take out the military professionals. C. G. E. Mannerheim was the dominant force of intelligent planning in the Finnish White forces. Have him die fighting in WWI, in which he saw action against Austria-Hungary, and Red Finland's chances are probably greatly strengthened. And nonetheless, how well did Brest-Litovsk hold up in a year? The German Empire had fallen and the Bolsheviks made a concerted effort to retake all of the lost Czarist land. I see no reason that Red Finland would not join the Soviet Union when it formed in 1922.

While you're at it, kill off Pilsudski too and Poland's chances probably shoot down much further as well.
 
Then take out the military professionals. C. G. E. Mannerheim was the dominant force of intelligent planning in the Finnish White forces. Have him die fighting in WWI, in which he saw action against Austria-Hungary, and Red Finland's chances are probably greatly strengthened.

Getting rid of Mannerheim would not be enough. There were several Finnish officers from the Russian military that could have led the Whites. Without Mannerheim, men like Martin Wetzer, Ernst Löfström, Karl Wilkman or Kaarlo Kivekäs could have filled the top spot in the Finnish White army and enjoy enough success to win the war. The Whites had more options in this regard than the Reds did. The Finnish Red leadership had precious little military experience by comparison.


And nonetheless, how well did Brest-Litovsk hold up in a year? The German Empire had fallen and the Bolsheviks made a concerted effort to retake all of the lost Czarist land. I see no reason that Red Finland would not join the Soviet Union when it formed in 1922.

The subject of discussion was the Finnish civil war and winning it in the spring of 1918. Anything could happen later, of course, and as long as the Bolsheviks win in Russia then they can always come back to have another go at Finland. All that I am saying is that making the Reds win the OTL Finnish civil war is, IMO, a more difficult exercise than just knocking out a White officer or two, or having the Reds enjoy a bit more luck at Tampere. There were shall we say structural issues that worked against the Reds, and on balance I'd say that they would have needed a lot more direct help from the Bolsheviks than IOTL to have a decent chance at winning.


you're at it, kill off Pilsudski too and Poland's chances probably shoot down much further as well.

Knock out a "great man", and a new "great man" may well rise to fill a similar role. The graveyards are full of indispensable men, after all.
 
Last edited:
Top