WI: No Kerensky offensive: Russia's provisional government makes peace and survives 1917

Oddly enough, I'm one degree of separation from Kerensky because of one of my History professors at LSU. The late (much too soon) Dr. Mark Carleton completed his doctorate at Stanford, met Kerensky and was able to have him come to one of his classes as a guest speaker...

what Kerensky basically said was he should have made peace and gotten rid of Lenin...
 

trajen777

Banned
I don't know where the 400,000 figure comes from but the Wikipedia 60,000 casualties very much does not account for the untold hundreds of thousands that used the chaos as an oppourtunity to desert

I think the 60,000 is a "typo or ?? Anyway here is a better number, also under Wiki ::: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusilov_Offensive
Russian Losses :
440,000 dead or wounded
60,000 prisoners
500,000 total casualties[2]

Total: 500,000–1,000,000 casualties
 

trajen777

Banned
Best bet would be :
1. Kerensky as a key minister in May convinces the gov that peace is the only options (this is better to time it a bit later when he visited the troops) after meeting the various divisions and realizing the war was lost.
2. When he takes power he signs a treaty with the CP in July (the Russian losses would have been much lighter)
3. He announces a Democratic government ( in alliance with general Komilov).
4. Here is where it gets tricky -- does the extra time (July 1917) allow for Germany to move forces west for a faster offensive to end the war (or gain enough to get a strongly positive CP victory?) Perhaps with less prep time the German forces take Amiens and GB withdraws the majority or all of their forces from France.
5. Anyway with a negotiated peace, a Democratic Russia (quasi ) MIGHT have received support from the USA to keep it right center.
6. Russia if it focused on land reform, transportation, and ag would have done well till the 30's. As the rest of the world became more mechanized the ag exports would have also added oil exports.
7. Then it comes down to good gov or corruption for the future to unfold.
 
What does Russia look like by 1937?
Like 1937 China.
Does pre-emptying the Bolshevik mean no Nazi takeover in Germany?
No. Nazi takeover was driven by internal German politics and Great Depression, neither dependent on anything happening in Russia.
Does Germany win WWI given an earlier peace on the eastern front?
No. They can't even loot the place - Russian railway system was broken by the end of 1916. You may even see earlier American entry into the war.
Is there still a WWII?
Yes.
 
Like 1937 China.

Quite possibly.


No. Nazi takeover was driven by internal German politics and Great Depression, neither dependent on anything happening in Russia.

But many of Hitler's financial backers were motivated by fear of communism - a fear which will be much less if there is no SU.


No. They can't even loot the place - Russian railway system was broken by the end of 1916. You may even see earlier American entry into the war.

Why? It would not cause USW to be introduced any sooner than OTL. And w/o that, US intervention won't happen.
 
Kerensky was a failure that would ultimately end it catastrophe anyway. He embodied all weaknesses of governments that came before him and after him (tsar and bolsheviks), and none their strengths. He claimed legitimacy on grounds of democracy, but didn't have elections (most likely he was afraid people would vote for pacifist parties, whereas he was a warmonger). He demanded constitutional assembly, but he abolished monarchy by executive decree, and not popular vote. He was unable to either take control over army, nor cooperate with it. He backstabbed Kornilov who supported him, but released Bolshevik prisoners who ended up turning against him. He gave people freedom of speech and press, but no elections, bread, or land, so all problems that were accumulating over time exploded now that everyone could openly talk about them.

imperial bureaucrats never controlled the countryside more than superficially: the number of imperial bureaucrats in the countryside were in the 10ks, there were over 100 million+ people living there by the late 1800s/early 1900s

the weakness of the tsarist system was precisely that it never had real control over the countryside but rather relied on the squires and landed aristocracy to govern it for them

That's kind of myth really. Even since Alexander II set up Obshchina village communes, bureaucracy meant to manage it kept bloating. Before that fiasco of reform there might've been only 10k bureacrats in the countryside, after that it was a lot more.

And extent to which whole system wasn't bureaucratized, it was the feature, not a bug.
I am sure some Soviets said that USA had "no real control over its territory" because it didn't micromanage every single farm and workshop. "Look comrade how weak those yankees are, they can't even torture kulaks children to get them to turn over the hidden grain! Hahaha!"
Just because something doesn't work the way someone think it should work, doesn't mean it doesn't work the way it's meant to work.
 
But many of Hitler's financial backers were motivated by fear of communism - a fear which will be much less if there is no SU.
Hitler's financial backers were motivated by fear for their pockets, a fear which wouldn't go anywhere due to Great Depression, Soviet Union or no. In any case, big business would swoon over Hitler's plans to essentially subsidize them from state budget, ban trade unions and severely limit internal competition, de-facto creating oligopoly in large swaths of economy. With Hindenburg essentially senile and conservative politicians surrounding him very willing to promote Hitler, Nazi coup and seizure of power was inevitable regardless of anything happening in Russia.
Why? It would not cause USW to be introduced any sooner than OTL. And w/o that, US intervention won't happen.
By 1917 US entry was not a question of if but when. Just like in 1941, US would enter the war one way or another - and soon. With earlier ceasefire in the East seemingly threatening brittle stalemate in the West, it might be just the little push to speed things along.
 

longsword14

Banned
By 1917 US entry was not a question of if but when. Just like in 1941, US would enter the war one way or another - and soon.
Care to support this statement with some text? Why exactly would the Americans be brought in ?
Supporting a potential loser for no gain does not make sense.
 
That's kind of myth really. Even since Alexander II set up Obshchina village communes, bureaucracy meant to manage it kept bloating. Before that fiasco of reform there might've been only 10k bureacrats in the countryside, after that it was a lot more.

And extent to which whole system wasn't bureaucratized, it was the feature, not a bug.
I am sure some Soviets said that USA had "no real control over its territory" because it didn't micromanage every single farm and workshop. "Look comrade how weak those yankees are, they can't even torture kulaks children to get them to turn over the hidden grain! Hahaha!"
Just because something doesn't work the way someone think it should work, doesn't mean it doesn't work the way it's meant to work.

The Russian system prvided what the central government needed: recruits and taxes and allowed for local control over local issues. It was a very good one. Political game theory is that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. Who knows better if a teacher is competent- the Tsar in St. Petersburg or the village elders?

Taxes should be raised and spent locally- which is how things were done from the beginning of time. The nightwatchmen kept the village from burning, the teacher taught and the elders settled disputes among the members. What more do people want from Government?

The system not only provided good government, it did so cheaply. When the Russians drove the Swedes from the Baltics, they were astonished to find it cost the Swedes more to govern a province than it cost Russia to administer an Empire
 

RousseauX

Donor
The Russian system prvided what the central government needed: recruits and taxes and allowed for local control over local issues. It was a very good one. Political game theory is that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. Who knows better if a teacher is competent- the Tsar in St. Petersburg or the village elders?

Taxes should be raised and spent locally- which is how things were done from the beginning of time. The nightwatchmen kept the village from burning, the teacher taught and the elders settled disputes among the members. What more do people want from Government?

The system not only provided good government, it did so cheaply. When the Russians drove the Swedes from the Baltics, they were astonished to find it cost the Swedes more to govern a province than it cost Russia to administer an Empire
The problem is that because the government's control over the countryside was weak, when 1905 and 1917 came along a lot of the peasants were simply able to murder their landowners without the government being able to stop them.

local self-governing and autonomy are admirable governing principles, the problem is that when your control is so weak that the monopoly on the use of violence easily slips from the government's hands
 
Last edited:
Why exactly would the Americans be brought in? Supporting a potential loser for no gain does not make sense.
Unless potential loser owes you big buck.
There was a reason why UK was still paying war debt to US more than a decade after the war - American loans to Entente were huge, shooting over 2 billions by 1917 IIRC, while American loans to Germany were basically pocket change. Supporting a potential loser who owes you a fuckton of money makes perfect sense - if you don't support him, he'll lose, and all those IOUs he gave you will cost less than the paper they were printed on. Victorious Entete would de-facto determine the fate of the world (as it did), and having a huge debt to US would mean that US would have Entente's balls in a vice (as it did). If Entente wins, US can expect at least partial repayment of debt as well as a lot of opportunities to pressure indebted powers. Victorious Germany on the other hand would owe US nothing (any be quite angry due to US' not so subtle support of Entente) and defeated Entente powers would most probably default on war debt like Russia did, meaning no repayment and no influence. By 1917 any course but supporting Entente was simply unfeasible.
 
In my opinion, if we are to prevent the Kerensky Offensive and make the russian PG more willing to make peace immediately, then the best POD would be having the previous year's Brusilov Offensive be more of a failure.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Unless potential loser owes you big buck.
There was a reason why UK was still paying war debt to US more than a decade after the war - American loans to Entente were huge, shooting over 2 billions by 1917 IIRC, while American loans to Germany were basically pocket change. Supporting a potential loser who owes you a fuckton of money makes perfect sense - if you don't support him, he'll lose, and all those IOUs he gave you will cost less than the paper they were printed on. Victorious Entete would de-facto determine the fate of the world (as it did), and having a huge debt to US would mean that US would have Entente's balls in a vice (as it did). If Entente wins, US can expect at least partial repayment of debt as well as a lot of opportunities to pressure indebted powers. Victorious Germany on the other hand would owe US nothing (any be quite angry due to US' not so subtle support of Entente) and defeated Entente powers would most probably default on war debt like Russia did, meaning no repayment and no influence. By 1917 any course but supporting Entente was simply unfeasible.

All US Debt was fully secured by Assets inside the USA until after the USA joins the war.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
In my opinion, if we are to prevent the Kerensky Offensive and make the russian PG more willing to make peace immediately, then the best POD would be having the previous year's Brusilov Offensive be more of a failure.

If you ignore butterflies. Since this battle was either the most important or the second most important battle of WW1, and arguably the 20th century, then the butterflies are massive by one year out. So let's sketch an ATL.


  • POD. Austrians decided to stay on the defensive versus Italy. If you have another POD, we can discuss other impacts.
  • Austrians finish 3 trench system. At least it is better. Probably some planned Austrian offensives, but they are small or preempted by the Russian offensives.
  • What we call the Brusilov Offensive was a diversionary attack. The main attack was planned against the Germans, north of the swamp. Impacts: Much lower Austrian losses, somewhat higher German losses. Medium increase in Russian losses. We have to deal with.
  • Does Falkenhayn lose his job.
  • If not, do we even have USW, part II.
  • If not, do we have a Turnip Winter.
  • If not, what is 1917 land strategy for Germany. Hindenburg and Falkenhayn did not make decision the same way.
  • A-H is not broken as an offensive power, so we have to plan the 1917 A-H offensive.
  • A-H has more food due to not losing 100 miles of farm land over summer. Have to adjust.
  • We changed Russian food production. Not sure which way.
  • And I am sure I am leaving out a bunch of stuff.
 
By 1917 US entry was not a question of if but when. Just like in 1941, US would enter the war one way or another - and soon. With earlier ceasefire in the East seemingly threatening brittle stalemate in the West, it might be just the little push to speed things along.


As of Jan 1917, US relations with the Entente (and esp with GB) were if anything worse than with Germany. SoS Lansing - far more pro-Entente than Wilson - was deeply disturbed by the President's failure to take any action over the sinkings of armed British merchantmen. He had sent Wilson two memos on this w/o getting a reply, and was in the middle of a third when Ambassador Bernstorff arrived with the German note announcing USW. Only then did the slide to war begin, and even so it took two more months, several American ships going down, and the Zimmermann Note to bring about a DoW. W/o it Wilson would almost certainly never have sought one, and Congress wouldn't have passed it even if he had.
 
Top