How well would Russia be capable of fighting a 1940s revanchist war against a Germany that won WWI?

[Futurist]

How well would Russia be capable of fighting a 1940s revanchist war against a Germany that won World War I pretty late, such as in 1918 (no US entry into WWI, no unsecured US loans to the Entente, and a pro-German compromise peace in 1918 where Germany gets a free hand in the East--essentially Brest-Litovsk--while returning to a status quo ante bellum in the West, perhaps sweetened by a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine, which can be sacrificed now that Germany has a free hand in the East). Russia in this scenario can be either Communist or White-led (and possibly right-wing authoritarian) depending on who wins the Russian Civil War--that's up to you to decide. But I do want whoever is in charge of Russia to aggressively industrialize the country as quickly as reasonably possible, similar to what Joseph Stalin did in real life. But ideally this should be done without massive famines or massive purges, including of the Russian military. So, this might be easier to do in a White-led Russia, possibly one that eventually becomes Fascist under the strong hand of some right-wing dictator. I would think that Russia in this scenario would have still eventually developed the concept of deep operations, though again this is up to you to decide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation

Deep operation (Russian: Глубокая операция, glubokaya operatsiya), also known as Soviet Deep Battle, was a military theory developed by the Soviet Union for its armed forces during the 1920s and 1930s. It was a tenet that emphasized destroying, suppressing or disorganizing enemy forces not only at the line of contact but also throughout the depth of the battlefield.

The term comes from Vladimir Triandafillov, an influential military writer, who worked with others to create a military strategy with its own specialized operational art and tactics. The concept of deep operations was a national strategy, tailored to the economic, cultural and geopolitical position of the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of several failures or defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, First World War and Polish–Soviet War, the Soviet High Command (Stavka) focused on developing new methods for the conduct of war. This new approach considered military strategy and tactics, but also introduced a new intermediate level of military art: operations. The Soviet Union was the first country to officially distinguish the third level of military thinking which occupied the position between strategy and tactics.[1]

Using these templates, the Soviets developed the concept of deep battle, and by 1936, it had become part of the Red Army Field Regulations. Deep operations had two phases: the tactical deep battle, followed by the exploitation of tactical success, known as the conduct of deep battle operations. Deep battle envisaged the breaking of the enemy's forward defenses, or tactical zones, through combined arms assaults, which would be followed up by fresh uncommitted mobile operational reserves sent to exploit the strategic depth of an enemy front. The goal of a deep operation was to inflict a decisive strategic defeat on the enemy's logistical abilities and render the defence of their front more difficult, impossible—or, indeed, irrelevant. Unlike most other doctrines, deep battle stressed combined arms cooperation at all levels: strategic, operational, and tactical.

Anyway, let's say that the victorious Central Powers are able to maintain the Brest-Litovsk settlement until the 1940s or so, at which point a newly industrialized Russia, whether Communist or White-led/Fascist, decides to spark a revanchist war:



Anyway, what would Russia's odds of success in such a 1940s revanchist war have been and would the British and/or the Americans actually be willing to provide a lot of Lend-Lease-style aid to Russia in this scenario in the hope that Russia will give Germany a bloody nose? I would presume that the Brits and/or the Americans would still be angry at Germany for their World War I loss, after all--albeit not actually up to the point of them being willing to send their own troops to help Russia fight Germany in a 1940s revanchist war.

The reason that I became so interested in this question is because the Soviet Union was still able to inflict decisive victories on the Germans and to fight effectively against them even when its World War II military situation was even worse than the situation that the Communists faced at the time of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty--other than in the Caucasus, of course:



If the Soviet Union could lose so much territory, people, industries, and natural resources to the Nazis (even if they managed to evacuate some of it/them beforehand) and still continue fighting effectively against the Nazis with a lot of Lend-Lease aid, I'm wondering if the same could have also been true for Russia in a 1940s revanchist war against Germany in a scenario where the Central Powers won World War I, especially very late in the war.

Thoughts?

[Futurist]

FWIW, the conversation between Snake Featherston and B_Munro here is also where I helped get the idea for this question of mine:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/ ... 885/page-2

[Carl Schwamberger]

The variables here overwhelm me.

[Futurist]

The variables here overwhelm me.

I tried to make the variables here flow naturally from the results of a 1918 CP WWI victory, but maybe you can say that things can go in so many different ways here that it's hard to give a clear answer to this question?

[Terry Duncan]

Can we try to narrow down the options on this scenario? Things such as what type of government is in place in Russia is going to play a big part in the attitude of various other nations one way or another? Does Russia work with Germany between the wars? How industrialised has Russia become? How much control over the people does the government have? Is the regime pretty safe in its position or is it already tottering on the edge of revolution just as the Tzars was?

There are way too many variables here at present for any focused discussion.

Terry

[Futurist]

Can we try to narrow down the options on this scenario? Things such as what type of government is in place in Russia is going to play a big part in the attitude of various other nations one way or another? Does Russia work with Germany between the wars? How industrialised has Russia become? How much control over the people does the government have? Is the regime pretty safe in its position or is it already tottering on the edge of revolution just as the Tzars was?

There are way too many variables here at present for any focused discussion.

Terry

Let's say that Russia has a Fascist government, that Russia is hostile to Germany between the wars due to Brest-Litovsk, that Russia has become as industrialized as the Soviet Union has become by the 1940s minus the Soviet Union's western territories (Ukraine, etc), that Russia's government has as much control over its people as Mussolini or Hitler did over their people, and that the Russian regime is VERY safe from revolution and brutally suppresses any dissenting voices, just like Mussolini and especially Hitler did, such as with his Night of the Long Knives. But let's also say that Russia will avoid its 1930s military purges in this scenario. Mussolini and Hitler did not severely purge their own militaries until 1944, after all.

[nuyt]

If (still Imperial) Germany wants to keep Russia in a corner and not have it as an ally, then it will be war. But without Ukraine and without ports on the Black Sea, Russia will be a minor power, dependent on the goodwill of others and easy to choke by blocking maritime access. They also lack the historical military cooperation with Germany that helped the Soviets with the build up of their airforce, tank and artillery parks. Russia now builds copies of Schneider guns and Renault tanks.
Russia's main targets could be Finland, like historically, and Ukraine like, well, these days. First they conquer the Cossacks (and seaport Rostov) and head into the Kuban. Then they engineer an ethnic Russian resurrection in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. They want Kiev and all lands east of the Dniepr.
But the Germans and their Ukrainian, Ottoman and Romanian allies can see this coming for years ahead and in case of war they have far better positions than in WW2 historically. They deploy troops forward to the Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltics plus Finland. They can go and invade Russia or keep the Russians back and settle for a stalemate, with some small gains for Russia in Russian speaking Eastern Ukraine after a plebiscite. Instead Russia's aggressive energy is then directed against the East and Germany. The goal of Germany would not be Lebensraum like historically, but to push the Russians away and divert them, use them as informal allies.
So I cant see a big war between Germany and Russia in this scenario.

[Futurist]

If (still Imperial) Germany wants to keep Russia in a corner and not have it as an ally, then it will be war. But without Ukraine and without ports on the Black Sea, Russia will be a minor power, dependent on the goodwill of others and easy to choke by blocking maritime access. They also lack the historical military cooperation with Germany that helped the Soviets with the build up of their airforce, tank and artillery parks. Russia now builds copies of Schneider guns and Renault tanks.

Is there any other country with whom Russia could cooperate in Germany's place? Britain, perhaps?

The USSR was temporarily deprived of most of its Black Sea coastline in 1942 and yet it was still capable of continuing to fight and even managed to inflict a decisive victory against the Axis in Stalingrad.

One more thing worth keeping in mind is that even with less foreign military cooperation, Russia's military is unlikely to be purged anywhere near as thoroughly in the 1930s as Stalin purged them in real life.

Russia's main targets could be Finland, like historically, and Ukraine like, well, these days. First they conquer the Cossacks (and seaport Rostov) and head into the Kuban. Then they engineer an ethnic Russian resurrection in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. They want Kiev and all lands east of the Dniepr.

The Finns would put up one heck of a fight, no?

But Yeah, Ukraine would definitely be target #1 for Russia, along with the Caucasus (especially oil-rich Baku). I suspect that Russia might not aim for a total victory but simply for a partial victory that would ideally result in a peace settlement that would leave Russia stronger after it than it was before it. And of course Russia could also target Belarus if it won't control it already.

But the Germans and their Ukrainian, Ottoman and Romanian allies can see this coming for years ahead and in case of war they have far better positions than in WW2 historically. They deploy troops forward to the Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltics plus Finland.

Would they have enough troops to do all of this?

They can go and invade Russia or keep the Russians back and settle for a stalemate, with some small gains for Russia in Russian speaking Eastern Ukraine after a plebiscite.

I think that Russia would be prepared for any German invasion of Russia. It would have 20+ years to prepare for this, after all. And Yeah, if Russia can get plebiscites in at least some of the disputed territories, this would certainly be a huge benefit to it. I'm honestly wondering just how popular a German-backed Ukrainian regime is going to be after 20+ years in power. Will it be corrupt and dysfunctional like, say, South Vietnam or the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was or will it actually be more competent than this?

Instead Russia's aggressive energy is then directed against the East and Germany. The goal of Germany would not be Lebensraum like historically, but to push the Russians away and divert them, use them as informal allies.
So I cant see a big war between Germany and Russia in this scenario.

Are you suggesting that Germany will push to have Russia expand to the south in this scenario in an attempt to provoke a war between the Russians and the British?

[nuyt]

1. Is there any other country with whom Russia could cooperate in Germany's place? Britain, perhaps?

2. The USSR was temporarily deprived of most of its Black Sea coastline in 1942 and yet it was still capable of continuing to fight and even managed to inflict a decisive victory against the Axis in Stalingrad.

3. One more thing worth keeping in mind is that even with less foreign military cooperation, Russia's military is unlikely to be purged anywhere near as thoroughly in the 1930s as Stalin purged them in real life.

4. The Finns would put up one heck of a fight, no?

5. But Yeah, Ukraine would definitely be target #1 for Russia, along with the Caucasus (especially oil-rich Baku). I suspect that Russia might not aim for a total victory but simply for a partial victory that would ideally result in a peace settlement that would leave Russia stronger after it than it was before it. And of course Russia could also target Belarus if it won't control it already.o all of this?

6. I think that Russia would be prepared for any German invasion of Russia. It would have 20+ years to prepare for this, after all. And Yeah, if Russia can get plebiscites in at least some of the disputed territories, this would certainly be a huge benefit to it. I'm honestly wondering just how popular a German-backed Ukrainian regime is going to be after 20+ years in power. Will it be corrupt and dysfunctional like, say, South Vietnam or the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was or will it actually be more competent than this?

7. Are you suggesting that Germany will push to have Russia expand to the south in this scenario in an attempt to provoke a war between the Russians and the British?

1. Another country as ally depends on what regime Russia has. An ad hoc alliance with the SU was allright, but not a long term one.

2. OK, but that was a successful but very costly defensive action, not an offensive one. and it received lots of foreign help, which is not sure in this scenario.
Look, we are not talking about Nazi Germany here, but imperial Germany that had a growing democracy. I would guess that in a post WW1 scenario Germany turns to some proto-EU like mega state, doing the "good thing, promoting economic cooperation and peace and democracy. Britain may not have liked this, but would also not antagonize it by allying itself for decades to an openly hostile Russia..

4. Sure. I wasnt saying that Russia would win, instead I said it chances of success were quite low. We are saying the same thing.

6. Weak and corrupt but dependent on Germany.

And yes, Germany and its allies would have the troops. Why not, they would see it coming for decades. They would have air power in place and Panzer Divisions ready. Ottomans to the southeast.

7. Not specifically, but I was thinking more about the Far East, China, Japan. The latter would also be a great threat to Russia and might even have taken advantage of Russian's WW1 collapse and occupy/colonize parts of Siberia. Then the Russians are choked off completely. End of story, no chance for them. Only option is emigrate to the West/US/South America/Spain. Millions will go like in the nineteenth century.

[Futurist]

1. Is there any other country with whom Russia could cooperate in Germany's place? Britain, perhaps?

2. The USSR was temporarily deprived of most of its Black Sea coastline in 1942 and yet it was still capable of continuing to fight and even managed to inflict a decisive victory against the Axis in Stalingrad.

3. One more thing worth keeping in mind is that even with less foreign military cooperation, Russia's military is unlikely to be purged anywhere near as thoroughly in the 1930s as Stalin purged them in real life.

4. The Finns would put up one heck of a fight, no?

5. But Yeah, Ukraine would definitely be target #1 for Russia, along with the Caucasus (especially oil-rich Baku). I suspect that Russia might not aim for a total victory but simply for a partial victory that would ideally result in a peace settlement that would leave Russia stronger after it than it was before it. And of course Russia could also target Belarus if it won't control it already.o all of this?

6. I think that Russia would be prepared for any German invasion of Russia. It would have 20+ years to prepare for this, after all. And Yeah, if Russia can get plebiscites in at least some of the disputed territories, this would certainly be a huge benefit to it. I'm honestly wondering just how popular a German-backed Ukrainian regime is going to be after 20+ years in power. Will it be corrupt and dysfunctional like, say, South Vietnam or the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was or will it actually be more competent than this?

7. Are you suggesting that Germany will push to have Russia expand to the south in this scenario in an attempt to provoke a war between the Russians and the British?

1. Another country as ally depends on what regime Russia has. An ad hoc alliance with the SU was allright, but not a long term one.

2. OK, but that was a successful but very costly defensive action, not an offensive one. and it received lots of foreign help, which is not sure in this scenario.
Look, we are not talking about Nazi Germany here, but imperial Germany that had a growing democracy. I would guess that in a post WW1 scenario Germany turns to some proto-EU like mega state, doing the "good thing, promoting economic cooperation and peace and democracy. Britain may not have liked this, but would also not antagonize it by allying itself for decades to an openly hostile Russia..

4. Sure. I wasnt saying that Russia would win, instead I said it chances of success were quite low. We are saying the same thing.

6. Weak and corrupt but dependent on Germany.

And yes, Germany and its allies would have the troops. Why not, they would see it coming for decades. They would have air power in place and Panzer Divisions ready. Ottomans to the southeast.

7. Not specifically, but I was thinking more about the Far East, China, Japan. The latter would also be a great threat to Russia and might even have taken advantage of Russian's WW1 collapse and occupy/colonize parts of Siberia. Then the Russians are choked off completely. End of story, no chance for them. Only option is emigrate to the West/US/South America/Spain. Millions will go like in the nineteenth century.

1. Assume that Russia's regime is right-wing authoritarian--possibly Fascist--rather than Communist in this scenario.

2. The Soviet Union was also capable of successfully engaging in some offensive actions back then, though--for instance, Operation Uranus.

And will Imperial Germany have a growing democracy? Or would it have a veneer of democracy but actually be dominated by right-wing authoritarians and/or demagogues--similar to, say, Putin's Russia? Because as real life showed, Germany had democracy in the 1920s only to later drift back towards authoritarianism and even outright totalitarianism. Italy was the same way, and it was actually on the winning side in World War I. Heck, in real life, by 1938, all Eastern European, Central European, and Southern European countries other than Czechoslovakia have already become dictatorships of some sort--and some of those countries were perceived as being winners in World War I, such as Romania, Yugoslavia, and Poland.

4. OK.

6. Yes, but just how much aid will Germany actually be willing to provide to it on a long-term basis? Because in Vietnam, for instance, the US eventually became fed up and thus left the Vietnamese to their own devices.

And would the Ottomans be capable of defending Baku by themselves? The Caucasus is a great defensive line, of course, but the topography right to the north of Baku (low elevation) could theoretically give the Russians an opening. Though the Ottomans might also be willing to guard this part of their new border with Russia ESPECIALLY aggressively.

Interestingly enough, if I recall correctly, Ludendorff was angry at the Ottomans for taking Baku, but I don't know how a post-WWI German civilian government would actually feel about this. They might decide that the alliance with the Ottomans is sufficiently import to allow the Ottomans to keep Baku.

7. In real life, Japan didn't permanently keep any parts of Russia after the Russian Civil War, not even northern Sakhalin. And Russia was at its utmost point of weakness back then. And Japan also didn't attack Russia in late 1941 in real life. Russia just wasn't that interesting for Japan, apparently. Manchuria was the main prize for Japan in that part of the world, no? The other desirable gains were further south, if I recall correctly.

And few Slavs other than Poles actually emigrated from Russia in the pre-World War I years and decades. Other than Poles, it was primarily minorities such as Jews, Finns, Armenians, Balts, Germans, et cetera who were doing most of the emigrating from Russia during this time.

[nuyt]

And will Imperial Germany have a growing democracy? Or would it have a veneer of democracy but actually be dominated by right-wing authoritarians and/or demagogues--similar to, say, Putin's Russia? Because as real life showed, Germany had democracy in the 1920s only to later drift back towards authoritarianism and even outright totalitarianism. Italy was the same way, and it was actually on the winning side in World War I. Heck, in real life, by 1938, all Eastern European, Central European, and Southern European countries other than Czechoslovakia have already become dictatorships of some sort--and some of those countries were perceived as being winners in World War I, such as Romania, Yugoslavia, and Poland.

During Weimar, democracy with a lost war in the back of everyone's mind and a runaway economy was a recipe for disaster, but a victorious Germany might have become a more successful democracy, I reckon. Not a full post WW2 one, but an authoritarian one, with elections, an active opposition, but stable and fully controlled by its elites. Without the Holocaust, much more diverse, attracting talents, including Jewish ones. Great scientists, excellent technology, the best army in the world, admired and feared. Without a victorious US (that did not have the chance to join WW1 because it was over too soon), it would be the dominant Eurasian world power, with the rest of Europe powerless or allied, with developing colonies in Africa and Asia (no doubt enlarged after WW1 with parts of the defeated French and Belgian empires). Its influence would stretch along South American shores too and inside US business and political circles.
With its power Germany will be able to intervene elsewhere in Europe when needed, for instance to avoid a dictatorship by a vengeful and mad caporal-chef in France. It would make sure no one on the continent would challenge it, including Russia.

[Futurist]

Do you think that Germany would experience a lot of "brain gain" at the expense of other countries, who will experience a "brain drain"?

Also, if Germany will try challenging the US in the Western Hemisphere, then this is likely to make the US more, rather than less, fearful of Germany. And while the US doesn't have a huge army yet, it does have huge industrial potential that can be used to either build a large army of its own or to help other countries' armies and militaries.

But Yeah, I do suspect that a victorious World War I Germany might have a type of hybrid system. A quasi-authoritarian democracy, if you will. Maybe comparable to, say, Singapore, but with more parties and with more vibrant political discourse?

[nuyt]

Do you think that Germany would experience a lot of "brain gain" at the expense of other countries, who will experience a "brain drain"?

Yes.

Also, if Germany will try challenging the US in the Western Hemisphere, then this is likely to make the US more, rather than less, fearful of Germany. And while the US doesn't have a huge army yet, it does have huge industrial potential that can be used to either build a large army of its own or to help other countries' armies and militaries.

Germany wont challenge the US, but its influence will be accidental. So, no threat, just a possibility. Armies from all over Latin America were in full admiration of Germany historically. Now they will copy the goosestep, helmets and purchase weaponry even more. And trade more. And read German literature. And the Cohen families in New York, Nizni Nowgorod, Johannesburg and Sao Paulo send their sons to Berlin to study, welcomed by Germany's flourishing Jewish minority.

But Yeah, I do suspect that a victorious World War I Germany might have a type of hybrid system. A quasi-authoritarian democracy, if you will. Maybe comparable to, say, Singapore, but with more parties and with more vibrant political discourse?

That's what I tried to say, yes.

[Futurist]

Do you think that Germany would experience a lot of "brain gain" at the expense of other countries, who will experience a "brain drain"?

Yes.

Would that include a lot of Eastern European Jews (Ostjuden)?

Also, if Germany will try challenging the US in the Western Hemisphere, then this is likely to make the US more, rather than less, fearful of Germany. And while the US doesn't have a huge army yet, it does have huge industrial potential that can be used to either build a large army of its own or to help other countries' armies and militaries.

Germany wont challenge the US, but its influence will be accidental. So, no threat, just a possibility. Armies from all over Latin America were in full admiration of Germany historically. Now they will copy the goosestep, helmets and purchase weaponry even more. And trade more. And read German literature. And the Cohen families in New York, Johannesburg and Sao Paulo send their sons to Berlin to study, welcomed by Germany's flourishing Jewish minority.

What matters more is American perceptions of reality as opposed to reality itself.

But Yeah, I do suspect that a victorious World War I Germany might have a type of hybrid system. A quasi-authoritarian democracy, if you will. Maybe comparable to, say, Singapore, but with more parties and with more vibrant political discourse?

That's what I tried to say, yes.

Makes sense.