Should Russia have made a separate peace with Germany sometime between 1915 and 1917?

Should Russia have made a separate peace with Germany sometime between 1915 and 1917?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,181
Sydney
Up to the Brusilov offensive , things could be considered as "good enough"
the rot set in with a serie of scandals , rasputin's being only one ,on top of the total neglect of the population needs
the indifference of the czar toward his people made his overthrow richly deserved

a better management of the situation could have avoided the revolution of February
on the military front , a more passive posture would maybe have allowed Russia to hold till the end
I say "maybe" because the Germans offensive in the Baltic was a pretty strong challenge to handle
 
Likes: Futurist

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
Maybe I assume that when I use a shorthand phrase that others take it to mean precisely what I take it to mean.

So, I guess when I used the phrase Eastern Question, I am accustomed to making connections to several specific events, and here I am referring to "concrete" factual historical events.

The emphasis on the word "demise" indicates that the shorthand phrase Eastern Question has quite separate, quite dissimilar meanings for us.

By the way, I appreciate the reply.
could you elucidate?
 
Aug 2014
103
New York, USA
Hindsight 20/20, the first thing the Provisional government should've done would be to give out death sentences to Bolshevik traitors Ulyanov, Dzhugashvili, Muranov, Trotsky, and co.
Hold a nominal defense against the Germans, with tactical retreats if necessary, and let the Americans, British, and French win the war.
Meanwhile conduct political and economic domestic reforms.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,621
In hindsight, the Czar should have made peace, but it was difficult to admit defeat, betray allies, etc. The Provisional Government really needed to make peace by the summer, when it was clear the army was disintegrating, At that point, they had negotiating leverage, and could gotten way better terms than Brest Litovsk.

I don't agree that the Provisional Government represented liberal democracy. It was based on the Duma, which was elected weighted toward the middle and upper classes. This was used by the Bolsheviks, who appealed to workers etc., but really didn't represent much of anyone. It was called a provisional government, and without the Bolshevik coup, it isn't clear what sort of government would have resulted longer term.

It was also a huge mistake by Germany not to try to make peace in the west at the same time as in the east. The result was good for Poland and Finland, which became independent.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
Hindsight 20/20, the first thing the Provisional government should've done would be to give out death sentences to Bolshevik traitors Ulyanov, Dzhugashvili, Muranov, Trotsky, and co.
Hold a nominal defense against the Germans, with tactical retreats if necessary, and let the Americans, British, and French win the war.
Meanwhile conduct political and economic domestic reforms.
That I agree with, but I fear that even this might not have been enough as long as the Petrograd Soviet's Order No. 1 remains in force.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
In hindsight, the Czar should have made peace, but it was difficult to admit defeat, betray allies, etc. The Provisional Government really needed to make peace by the summer, when it was clear the army was disintegrating, At that point, they had negotiating leverage, and could gotten way better terms than Brest Litovsk.

I don't agree that the Provisional Government represented liberal democracy. It was based on the Duma, which was elected weighted toward the middle and upper classes. This was used by the Bolsheviks, who appealed to workers etc., but really didn't represent much of anyone. It was called a provisional government, and without the Bolshevik coup, it isn't clear what sort of government would have resulted longer term.

It was also a huge mistake by Germany not to try to make peace in the west at the same time as in the east. The result was good for Poland and Finland, which became independent.
The Russian Provisional Government could have held elections for a Constituent Assembly early on if it would have wanted to do this. The Bolsheviks did this, but ultimately refused to recognize the results of this election.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
As for Germany, I'm not sure that Britain and France would have agreed to any German peace offers after the U.S. had already entered the war. After all, why make a compromise peace when you can likely win if you will hold out long enough?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
Also, I want to make an additional point here--if Russia had made peace and Germany would have restarted the war in the East after winning in the West, would Germany have actually been as ambitious as it was at Brest-Litovsk or would Germany have been willing to demand less from Russia?

Basically, if Russia is allowed to keep the East Slavic core of its empire as well as Baku, then it can certainly survive any territorial losses with a lot of comfort and room to spare.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,621
The Provisional Government may have had the opposite situation as with the Czar. It was a coalition of different parties with no one clearly in charge. There was a leader who could make peace. For members of the government to support peace would probably seem disloyal / treasonous and would show weakness in the government.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
The Provisional Government may have had the opposite situation as with the Czar. It was a coalition of different parties with no one clearly in charge. There was a leader who could make peace. For members of the government to support peace would probably seem disloyal / treasonous and would show weakness in the government.
You mean "wasn't a leader who could make peace", correct?