January 1918 German-Soviet Peace Agreement

[Jackson Lennock]

On December 27, 1917, the Germans (Hoffman specifically) demanded from the Soviets that Poland, Lithuania, and Courland (which the Germans occupied) be separated from Russia on the basis of self-determination. On New Year's Day, Hoffman made clear that Germany's annexation of Polish territory would be minor - to the chagrin of Hindenburg and Ludendorff who were aghast at the idea of not annexing more. The Soviets (Trotsky especially) said no, angry at the idea of surrendering large chunks of territory and "optimistic" at the prospect of simply waiting for the workers of Germany and Austria to rise up themselves.

Anyways - what if a jolt of reality had hit Trotsky in the head and the Soviets accepted the loss of Poland, Lithuania, and Courland in January?

 

[History Learner]

Probably significant impacts on World War I, as serious reinforcements didn't begin to arrive until after the start of the Spring Offensive; IIRC, around June is when the majority started to arrive. Likewise, occupying Ukraine alone consumed 20 German divisions, so on the whole this frees up more forces and sooner. If both Hazebrouck and Amiens fall in the beefed up Spring Offensive, the BEF is knocked out of the war and the French war industry collapses; not even the arrival of American divisions can make up for this, particularly since the French supplied most of their heavy weapons and air-power.

So, a Central Powers victory scenario.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

Going off of this thread, the impression I get is that the BEF wouldn't actually be knocked out and unless French troops lose all morale, the French would hold out in time for the Americans to arrive. It would push things into 1919 though. If that happens, perhaps Germany would negotiate. The average German was down to 1000 calories a day after 1916. Emperor Karl's ideas for negotiating a peace separate from Germany also could bear fruit.


What effect would this have on the Russian Civil War? At a minimum, the Estonian declaration of independence is butterflied away. The Latvian national movement was terrified of a German-Soviet partition of Latvia (German Courland, Soviet Latvalia-Livonia) The Soviets had control of Kyiv at the time of negotiations, but lost it to the Germans. Here that would not happen and the South Russian Army would not have an opportunity to seize control of that additional territory. I also think that a rump West Ukrainian state could be propped up by the Germans.

 

[History Learner]

Going off of this thread, the impression I get is that the BEF wouldn't actually be knocked out and unless French troops lose all morale, the French would hold out in time for the Americans to arrive. It would push things into 1919 though. If that happens, perhaps Germany would negotiate. The average German was down to 1000 calories a day after 1916. Emperor Karl's ideas for negotiating a peace separate from Germany also could bear fruit.

The BEF's own planning documents called for the destruction of 85% of their equipment and evacuation from above the Somme in the event both Hazebrouck and Amiens are lost in a 1918-style Dunkirk. In the event of the loss of either city, the French lose access to the Bethune coal mines and see their industrial production collapse by roughly 75%.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

The BEF's own planning documents called for the destruction of 85% of their equipment and evacuation from above the Somme in the event both Hazebrouck and Amiens are lost in a 1918-style Dunkirk. In the event of the loss of either city, the French lose access to the Bethune coal mines and see their industrial production collapse by roughly 75%.

View attachment 72846

Surely some sizable portion of that 75% could be shipped in from the US and UK though.

That's also the thesis which the others in the thread I linked to cast some skepticism of. They were of the impression that the French would reinforce the British in the short-term to slow the evacuation and the British would dig in elsewhere along a shorter line. Definitely a gut punch to the western allies, but not terminal unless French soldiers mutiny.

 

[boomhauer]

Surely some sizable portion of that 75% could be shipped in from the US and UK though.

That's also the thesis which the others in the thread I linked to cast some skepticism of. They were of the impression that the French would reinforce the British in the short-term to slow the evacuation and the British would dig in elsewhere along a shorter line. Definitely a gut punch to the western allies, but not terminal unless French soldiers mutiny.

No, they lacked shipping for that. They were already pretty tight due to the convoy system and Uboats.

 

[History Learner]

Surely some sizable portion of that 75% could be shipped in from the US and UK though.

Eventually, yes, but U.S. planning and industrial production timetables suggested they wouldn't be self sufficient until sometime in 1919. They could delay making their own forces ready in order to revive the BEF sooner, but that means no American formations in Europe on a large scale until 1920. I can't see the Anglo-French lasting that long on their own at this point.

That's also the thesis which the others in the thread I linked to cast some skepticism of. They were of the impression that the French would reinforce the British in the short-term to slow the evacuation and the British would dig in elsewhere along a shorter line. Definitely a gut punch to the western allies, but not terminal unless French soldiers mutiny.

I know it's not your argument per se, so please don't take me as attacking you, but the logistics aren't in place for that:

 

[Jackson Lennock]

If France lost all that coal though, how long would it proceed to take the Germans to move on Paris afterward? Ludendorff IIRC was a man who thought more in terms of "more of my color on the map" than "this given patch on the map is more important that that patch on the map."

And would the BEF be completely destroyed, or would they just retreat to a little bridgehead around the channel ports with a shorter, more easily supplied, and more defensible line? The other thread brought up what seemed like the fair possibility that Lloyd George would overrule Haig, at least a little bit.

The reason I ask these things is because I'm wondering how long the British and French could hold on by their fingernails until some of the yanks show up. Maybe the CPs don't lose, but the terms of a negotiated settlement would play out differently. And if things hold out until, say, October 1918, then you have the internal problems of Austria coming to a boil after Karl I proclaims that Austria will be a union of five peoples (Germans, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Czechs, and Croatians/Yugoslavs).


XXXXXXXXXX


I also wonder what this means for the borders on other fronts. Haifa and Amman fell in September 1918, Damascus on October 1, and Aleppo of October 25, and Mosul-Kirkuk not until after the Armistice of Mudros.


The Germans may still recognize (or tacitly support) the Ukrainian People's Republic. The Soviets also had Kyiv at that point. But a West Ukrainian state west of the Dnieper (with a Hapsburg monarch?) seems possible.

Finland had already declared independence, so there could be German support there.

I don't think German public opinion would be eager for continuing any sort of war in the east after a western surrender though. The Reichstag was far more moderate in its political goals than Hindenburg and Ludendorff were. But supporting their new clients (like Lithuania and Courland) taking up arms to grab lands, and supporting independence movements (Finland, Caucasus, Estonia) seem possible.