WI: Independent Kingdom of Ukraine post-ww1?

What if Pavlo Skoropadskyi and/or Archduke Wilhelm had become more prominent in building a Ukrainian nation? What if an independent Kingdom of Ukraine could be established during or after the First World War? What would it look like?
 
Skoropadsky's regime is going to be an unpopular one with everyone but the landowners and capitalists and will have to be propped up by German bayonets. Skoropadsky will blame all his opposition on the Bolsheviks--and they will indeed be trying to undermine him (assuming a victorious Germany allows Bolshevik Russia to survive at all). But his unpopularity was hardly limited to Bolsheviks:

"From the very beginning, the Hetman regime was opposed by most Ukrainian organizations (see, eg, the All-Ukrainian Union of Zemstvos). Ukrainian nationalists criticized it for the following reasons: its pro-Russian orientation; its reliance on Russians, including individuals closely identified with the tsarist regime and members of the Constitutional Democratic (kadet) party and the Octobrist party, to staff important positions in the government and military; its indifference to Ukrainianization of the government and to Ukrainian autonomy; and its reliance on the German army (see Germany), which oppressed the population and exploited Ukraine economically. Socialists, meanwhile, criticized its reactionary policies, particularly its repressiveness, condoning of the landlords' terrorization of the peasantry, and unwillingness to effect comprehensive land reforms, as well as its support by the Russian capitalist Union of Industry, Trade, Finance, and Agriculture. The peasants reacted to the regime's excesses with numerous rebellions and guerrilla warfare (eg, that directed by Nestor Makhno and Yurii Tiutiunnyk), arson, and assassinations (eg, of Hermann von Eichhorn)…" http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\H\E\Hetmangovernment.htm

In fairness to Skropadsky, he did have certain achievements; he did get the largely Russified upper classes to accept the idea of an independent Ukrainan state, and to a certain extent he did continue the cultural Ukrainaization that socialist Rada had begun.
 
Skoropadsky's regime is going to be an unpopular one with everyone but the landowners and capitalists and will have to be propped up by German bayonets. Skoropadsky will blame all his opposition on the Bolsheviks--and they will indeed be trying to undermine him (assuming a victorious Germany allows Bolshevik Russia to survive at all). But his unpopularity was hardly limited to Bolsheviks:

"From the very beginning, the Hetman regime was opposed by most Ukrainian organizations (see, eg, the All-Ukrainian Union of Zemstvos). Ukrainian nationalists criticized it for the following reasons: its pro-Russian orientation; its reliance on Russians, including individuals closely identified with the tsarist regime and members of the Constitutional Democratic (kadet) party and the Octobrist party, to staff important positions in the government and military; its indifference to Ukrainianization of the government and to Ukrainian autonomy; and its reliance on the German army (see Germany), which oppressed the population and exploited Ukraine economically. Socialists, meanwhile, criticized its reactionary policies, particularly its repressiveness, condoning of the landlords' terrorization of the peasantry, and unwillingness to effect comprehensive land reforms, as well as its support by the Russian capitalist Union of Industry, Trade, Finance, and Agriculture. The peasants reacted to the regime's excesses with numerous rebellions and guerrilla warfare (eg, that directed by Nestor Makhno and Yurii Tiutiunnyk), arson, and assassinations (eg, of Hermann von Eichhorn)…" http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\H\E\Hetmangovernment.htm

In fairness to Skropadsky, he did have certain achievements; he did get the largely Russified upper classes to accept the idea of an independent Ukrainan state, and to a certain extent he did continue the cultural Ukrainaization that socialist Rada had begun.
What about Archduke Wilhelm?
 

Deleted member 94680

Not with a White victory (unless the inverted commas indicates such exhaustion that fighting ceases at front lines with a peace based on 'have what you hold')

The Whites saw Ukraine as part of "Russia, One and Indivisible"
 

Deleted member 94680

There was only one “if”.

Maybe as you wrote it, but bound up in that;

  • IF the Whites win the War
  • IF the Whites do not want Ukraine back to being part of the Russian Empire
  • IF the Whites are so exhausted they cannot do anything about Ukraine
  • IF Ukraine is unified
  • IF the unified Ukraine supports a Monarchy
  • IF the Ukrainian Kingdom's borders do not encourage their neighbours to attack

Let’s say there’s a White victory in the Russian Civil War - do you think Ukraine could remain independent?

I don't believe so, but I suppose it depends on which faction within the Whites is in the leadership position come the end of the Civil War. Any of the Monarchist factions would want Ukraine back, as would a fair few of the "Republican" factions as well. Then, as you say, if the Whites are in a position to do anything about it, even depending on who is in charge. But, OTL, the Reds were pretty exhausted come the end of the CW and they put an end to an independent Ukraine pretty quickly.

All of this doesn't take into account the other Great Powers, either.
 

Deleted member 94680

It’s only possible with a German victory in World War 1.

Would you see a German victory Ukrainian Kingdom as truly independent though? Or would it be a German vassal state, heftily populated with Heer troops and bound to ship grain and stores to where Berlin demanded?
 
I don't think what the Whites see will matter if Ukraine is actually unified and can defend against an exhausted White Russian Army.

Actually, in OTL Skoropadsky did attempt to come to terms with the White generals after the German defeat, stating he would be willing to make Ukraine part of a Russian federation, but it was all in vain; without the Germans to back him up, Skoropadsky was defeated within a month by the nationalist/socialist Directory, supported by peasant partisans and by the Bolsheviks. (As one might expect, the Directory-Bolshevik alliance did not last long.) The Whites were in no position to help Skoropadsky, and even if they had been, there is no way they would have recognized him as the leader of an independent state:

"With Skoropads'kyi's abdication, the tenuous ties that had begun to emerge between the conservative government in Kyiv and the VA [Volunteer Army] were terminated. It is doubtful that they could have solidified into an alliance even if the hetman had been able to survive the nationalist uprising. [my emphasis--DT] Denikin never trusted Skoropadslyi, who, it was brought to the VA's attention, only a week before the edict on federation advised his Council of Ministers: 'in all relations, with both our close neighbors and all other states of the world, we stand and shall stand on the principle of an independent and sovereign Ukrainian state.' Even for the insignificant exchange of messages between Kyiv and Ekaterinodar, the VA apologetically explained to the Entente that 'having set before itself the task of gathering together the Russian land, the Volunteer Army Command had reason to believe that the hetman's government, in view of its internal difficulties, had remembered at last its filial obligations to a common motherland and would conduct in the future policies of complete unification.' The hetman's idea of a loose federation implied in the edict of 14 November by no means conformed to the VA's understanding of the future Russian state..." Anna Procyk, Russian Nationalism and Ukraine: The Nationality Policy of the Volunteer Army During the Civil War (Edmonton and Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press 1995), p. 77. https://books.google.com/books?id=irWQQCXwhwwC&pg=PA77

Incidentally, the moderates among the Whites were especially opposed to any reconciliation with Skoropadksky; they objected not only to his Ukrainian "nationalism" but to his reactionary policies which had made him very unpopular: "'In Kyiv the hetman is so unpopular that any identification of the Volunteer Army with his name would be detrimental to the prestige of the Volunteer Army in leftist circles,' noted a report from Kyiv to Denikin." Procyk, p. 78. https://books.google.com/books?id=irWQQCXwhwwC&pg=PA78
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Would you see a German victory Ukrainian Kingdom as truly independent though? Or would it be a German vassal state, heftily populated with Heer troops and bound to ship grain and stores to where Berlin demanded?
It would be independent in the same sense that Warsaw Pact states were independent, and yes, it would be expected to supply Germany with grain. Still better than being an SSR.
 
IMO any independent Ukraine after World War I is likely to be a client state either of Germany (Skorpadsky if Germany had won) or Poland (Petliura if the Polish offensive of 1920 had been successful--which is unlikely, since it was clearly overextended when it briefly took Kiev).

Ukraine is just too important for any Russia, Red or White, to voluntarily give it up (not to mention that to the Whites "Little Russia" was an integral part of Russia and Kiev indeed was the "mother of Russian cities" [1]). And it is too weak to defend itself from Russia without being the client of some more powerful state.

[1] And actually it wasn't just the Whites who felt this way. When the Poles occupied the "mother of Russian cities," there was a widespread rallying to the Bolsheviks as the defenders of Russia's independence, and Zinoviev admitted "We never thought Russia had so many patriots." https://books.google.com/books?id=xtt7DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA257
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
What about Archduke Wilhelm?
The same really. Ukraine is a new concept, which is actually stronger in East Galizia (still part of Austria- Hungary in a CP victory scenario) than in territories that would be part of Ukraine. And the landowners would be the ones making deals with Berlin and Vienna to have a authoritarian regime where they can keep all their land and privilegies. And yes, it would be a regime under constant threat by Liberals and Social Democrat who want democratic reforms and modernization, Revolutionary Socialists who wants, well, revolution and the Anarchists who want their own brand of revolution. And there would be lingering Russian loyalties that also is not going to make it any easier.

And of course the other big question is where the border is drawn.
 
Top