Germany's strategy in 1917-1918 if Russia somehow completely avoids revolution and civil war

[WolfBear]

What would Germany's strategy in 1917-1918 have been if Russia somehow completely avoids revolution and civil war during these two years? What exactly would Hindenburg and Ludendorff have done in such a scenario once it would have become clear that their USW gamble would have failed to actually pay off for Germany? Any hope of a negotiated peace before it's too late for Germany? Or would the Allies refuse to accept any negotiated peace, insisting on a complete and total victory for them? And how exactly would Woodrow Wilson and Russian Tsar Nicholas II have dealt with each other at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference?

Any thoughts on this? @sillygoose

 

[sillygoose]

What would Germany's strategy in 1917-1918 have been if Russia somehow completely avoids revolution and civil war during these two years? What exactly would Hindenburg and Ludendorff have done in such a scenario once it would have become clear that their USW gamble would have failed to actually pay off for Germany? Any hope of a negotiated peace before it's too late for Germany? Or would the Allies refuse to accept any negotiated peace, insisting on a complete and total victory for them? And how exactly would Woodrow Wilson and Russian Tsar Nicholas II have dealt with each other at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference?

Any thoughts on this? @sillygoose

Are we assuming the Kerensky offensive? How is the revolution/civil war being avoided? These are rather important issues to answering your questions.

 

[WolfBear]

Are we assuming the Kerensky offensive?


How is the revolution/civil war being avoided? These are rather important issues to answering your questions.

If it is, it's being launched by the Russian Tsar instead.

More capable handling of the domestic situation, possibly?

 

[sillygoose]

If it is, it's being launched by the Russian Tsar instead.

More capable handling of the domestic situation, possibly?

The Czar? He was deposed by this point, for good reason, what is going to change ITTL?

Nicholas II of Russia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Grand Duke who he abdicated for didn't want the job unless he was voted in (he was not):

Abdication of Nicholas II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You'd need huge changes prior to 1917 to save the Czar.

 

[WolfBear]

The Czar? He was deposed by this point, for good reason, what is going to change ITTL?

Nicholas II of Russia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Grand Duke who he abdicated for didn't want the job unless he was voted in (he was not):

Abdication of Nicholas II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You'd need huge changes prior to 1917 to save the Czar.

Yeah, I was thinking of the Tsar avoiding getting deposed. Perhaps having him stay in Petrograd in 1915 instead of having him assume personal command of the Russian military might be a good start in regards to this? And also have Alexei die at the same time so that Rasputin can finally be banished from the Russian court?

 

[sillygoose]

Yeah, I was thinking of the Tsar avoiding getting deposed. Perhaps having him stay in Petrograd in 1915 instead of having him assume personal command of the Russian military might be a good start in regards to this? And also have Alexei die at the same time so that Rasputin can finally be banished from the Russian court?

Not a bad idea, but mr. arch conservative emperor probably was told to leave for a good reason.

 

[WolfBear]

Not a bad idea, but mr. arch conservative emperor probably was told to leave for a good reason.

The thing is, though, that having him leave made things even worse since it:

1. Made Nicholas II directly responsible for the Russian Army's defeats in the eyes of the Russian epople
2. Allowed Alexandra and Rasputin to play musical chairs with Russia's various government ministers

 

[sillygoose]

The thing is, though, that having him leave made things even worse since it:

1. Made Nicholas II directly responsible for the Russian Army's defeats in the eyes of the Russian epople
2. Allowed Alexandra and Rasputin to play musical chairs with Russia's various government ministers

Sure, but fighting with the Duma and letting the people that were responsible for the Great Retreat continue on in their job would be a problem too. What options did he have? Kind of damned if he did or didn't. Maybe the abdication comes later, but that still doesn't fix the underlying problems of defeat and economic collapse at home, which he could still keep making worse by listening to Alexandra and Rasputin, as he largely did anyway; he gets associated with that instead and of course doing nothing about the poor leadership of the army.

 

[WolfBear]

Sure, but fighting with the Duma and letting the people that were responsible for the Great Retreat continue on in their job would be a problem too. What options did he have? Kind of damned if he did or didn't. Maybe the abdication comes later, but that still doesn't fix the underlying problems of defeat and economic collapse at home, which he could still keep making worse by listening to Alexandra and Rasputin, as he largely did anyway; he gets associated with that instead and of course doing nothing about the poor leadership of the army.

The Great Retreat was not that bad for Russia since Russia's East Slavic core remained intact. It was presumably no worse for Russia than the loss of northeastern France and its industries and coal fields was for the French in 1914. In any case, even if Grand Duke Nicholas needed to be replaced as the commander of the Russian Army, he could always be replaced by another Russian Grand Duke rather than by Nicholas himself.

 

[sillygoose]

The Great Retreat was not that bad for Russia since Russia's East Slavic core remained intact. It was presumably no worse for Russia than the loss of northeastern France and its industries and coal fields was for the French in 1914. In any case, even if Grand Duke Nicholas needed to be replaced as the commander of the Russian Army, he could always be replaced by another Russian Grand Duke rather than by Nicholas himself.

Most of the territory lost was disproportionately economically developed, plus it was a massive shock to morale. There is a reason the Czar reacted so strongly to it. The loss of Northeastern France was extremely bad for them, they just benefited from British and US help, without which they would have collapsed as a result.
True about the other grand dukes, but who would want that poison pill? Seeing how his brother Michael reacted they could refuse.

 

[WolfBear]

Most of the territory lost was disproportionately economically developed, plus it was a massive shock to morale. There is a reason the Czar reacted so strongly to it. The loss of Northeastern France was extremely bad for them, they just benefited from British and US help, without which they would have collapsed as a result.
True about the other grand dukes, but who would want that poison pill? Seeing how his brother Michael reacted they could refuse.

The territory was disproprotionaly economically developed, but Russia ended up losing it anyway after the end of WWI and yet still managed to survive and even thrive when it wasn't busy killing its own people en masse. As for morale, morale could recover if Russia will win victories elsewhere, such as in the Ottoman Empire.

As for who'd want to take that poison pill, well, there were something like 30 other Grand Dukes, weren't there? Surely one of them could be persuaded to accept this job, especially if it would have been accompanied with generous financial and/or other compensation?

 

[sillygoose]

The territory was disproprotionaly economically developed, but Russia ended up losing it anyway after the end of WWI and yet still managed to survive and even thrive when it wasn't busy killing its own people en masse.

Proportionately the USSR was quite a bit weaker than the Russian Empire for a long time after taking power:

The Soviet economy, 1917-1991: Its life and afterlife

Russia’s Soviet era was distinguished not by economic growth or human development, but by the use of the economy to build national power. On the centenary of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, this column shows that while the education of women and better survival rates of children improved...

voxeu.org

Figure 2 Real GDP per head, 1885 to 2008: the US and Russia/the Soviet Union compared with the world (international dollars and 1990 prices)

Thrive is a strong word for the USSR. Soviet propaganda about the 'workers paradise' was just that.
They managed to survive is about all that can be said.

As for morale, morale could recover if Russia will win victories elsewhere, such as in the Ottoman Empire.

They did historically and that wasn't enough. They were kicking ass in the Caucasus until 1918.

As for who'd want to take that poison pill, well, there were something like 30 other Grand Dukes, weren't there? Surely one of them could be persuaded to accept this job, especially if it would have been accompanied with generous financial and/or other compensation?

No idea to be honest. Russian royalty is not my area of expertise.

 

[WolfBear]

Proportionately the USSR was quite a bit weaker than the Russian Empire for a long time after taking power:

The Soviet economy, 1917-1991: Its life and afterlife

Russia’s Soviet era was distinguished not by economic growth or human development, but by the use of the economy to build national power. On the centenary of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, this column shows that while the education of women and better survival rates of children improved...

voxeu.org

Figure 2 Real GDP per head, 1885 to 2008: the US and Russia/the Soviet Union compared with the world (international dollars and 1990 prices)

Thrive is a strong word for the USSR. Soviet propaganda about the 'workers paradise' was just that.
They managed to survive is about all that can be said.


They did historically and that wasn't enough. They were kicking ass in the Caucasus until 1918.


No idea to be honest. Russian royalty is not my area of expertise.

The fact that the Soviet Union's economy underperformed Tsarist Russia's was due to its Communist economy, not because it lost Poland.

 

[sillygoose]

The fact that the Soviet Union's economy underperformed Tsarist Russia's was due to its Communist economy, not because it lost Poland.

It was due to a variety of factors including the mass death of young men (workers) in the fighting, destruction from the wars from 1914-23, mass starvation in the wars, flight of the upper class of the country with a bunch of wealth, and of course the loss of major economic territories like Poland, the Baltics states, parts of Belarus, and Ukraine.

 

[WolfBear]

It was due to a variety of factors including the mass death of young men (workers) in the fighting, destruction from the wars from 1914-23, mass starvation in the wars, flight of the upper class of the country with a bunch of wealth, and of course the loss of major economic territories like Poland, the Baltics states, parts of Belarus, and Ukraine.

FWIW, Communist countries have underperformed everywhere, so the Soviet Union is not alone in regards to this. For instance, Czechoslovakia was as wealthy as the Mediterranean countries in the 1930s but fell behind them by the time that Communism collapsed:

 

[sillygoose]

FWIW, Communist countries have underperformed everywhere, so the Soviet Union is not alone in regards to this. For instance, Czechoslovakia was as wealthy as the Mediterranean countries in the 1930s but fell behind them by the time that Communism collapsed:

The Czechs are a bad example. You're forgetting the ethnic cleansing of 3 million Germans from the population, which meant a huge drop in the workforce especially among skilled workers. That and IIRC the Soviets looted quite a bit from the country. Certainly communist management didn't help, but there were a lot of other factors at play.

 

[WolfBear]

The Czechs are a bad example. You're forgetting the ethnic cleansing of 3 million Germans from the population, which meant a huge drop in the workforce especially among skilled workers. That and IIRC the Soviets looted quite a bit from the country. Certainly communist management didn't help, but there were a lot of other factors at play.

Then compare Hungary vs. Greece or the Baltic countries vs. Spain.

 

[sillygoose]

Then compare Hungary vs. Greece or the Baltic countries vs. Spain.

I don't recall Greece being particularly economically successful. Of course Hungary was vastly more destroyed in WW2 than Greece was.

Same with the Baltic states vs. Spain. Spain only had their civil war to worry about and recovered earlier, they avoided WW1 and 2. Plus it was a larger country. That's the problem there really is no good or easy comparison to be made, too many variables between states.

 

[WolfBear]

I don't recall Greece being particularly economically successful. Of course Hungary was vastly more destroyed in WW2 than Greece was.

Same with the Baltic states vs. Spain. Spain only had their civil war to worry about and recovered earlier, they avoided WW1 and 2. Plus it was a larger country. That's the problem there really is no good or easy comparison to be made, too many variables between states.

Germany was also very heavily destroyed in WWII and lost a lot of its young men in this war and yet nevertheless managed to rapidly recover.

You can also compare Yugoslavia to Spain/Portugal.

BTW, my mistake. I was previously looking at the 1925 GDP per capita map here instead of the 1938 one.

 

[sillygoose]

Germany was also very heavily destroyed in WWII and lost a lot of its young men in this war and yet nevertheless managed to rapidly recover.

Rapid is not the right choice of words. Eventually recovered. Remember they went from the world's 2nd largest national economy to small than France and Italy until the 1960s. It took major investment by the US, millions fleeing East Germany, and millions of foreign immigrants, most prominently the Turks, to get Germany back into major economy territory some time in the 1960s and only really started getting close to being back on track in the 1990s after reunification and the EU's creation, but still they're stuck at 5th place last time I checked.

You can also compare Yugoslavia to Spain/Portugal.

Ok, but again Yugoslavia had both world wars that wrecked much of it and their male population. Much more than Spain and certainly much more than Portugal, which basically sat out the world wars but for some minor participation in WW1. Not only that, but both Spain and Portugal profited a lot from their war time exports and the bribes everyone paid to Franco and his buddies to curry favor. All this stuff is complicated to due to all the variables. I mean take Poland. Economically it was virtually a different country west of the Vistula vs. east of it and the east really dragged down the average.

BTW, my mistake. I was previously looking at the 1925 GDP per capita map here instead of the 1938 one.

Gotcha.