3rd March 1918 - Russia ends involvement in WW1

Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

Russia on 3rd of March 1918 ended its involvement in WW1 as its Bolshevik Government had enough of its own Internal problems.

Russia ceded interest in Baltic states and also allowed Poland / Ukraine and Finland to come into being .

Russia still had its own internal Civil war against the Whites with US / UK and many other countrys providing military assistance to the White against the reds.
 


McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,009
Twitter
No
It's the treaty we know so little about, and when people read about barbarossa in 1941 they are always reminded about napoleon in 1812. But this was the rare exception, russia losing a land war.

The corollary in germany was that the people could say, "wow, we beat russia, next it's france". This gave a false sense of confidence that quickly turned into despair when their attacks on france failed in mid-1918.

The corollary in russia is that the defeat of 1918 led to ukraine, the baltics etc, slipping away from their true allegiance to russia. Reversed in 1945, and again in 1990, this is all seen by hardliners as unfinished business caused by hostile outsiders.

So 1918 lives on.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
For Russia, WW1 was a monumental disaster. No plan, no leadership, no clue. And enormous costs in both material and human beings.

And the misery was only begining when Russia got out of WW1. A trajectory of cruelty, vindictiveness, relentless planning, strongman leadership, and even less of a clue followed.

US Historian Richard wrote an excellent account of Lenin, based on material from the USSR archives, and from first hand accounts of survivors of who grew up in the era, and second hand accounts of relatives of who observed the events.

[video=youtube;EZ0Sqk4bSeU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ0Sqk4bSeU[/video]

This is probably one of the most insightful accounts of Lenin, how he became a revolution, what drove him, how he trusted Stalin, and how Lenin rule (often on a whim, incidentally).
 
Last edited:

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
54,500
They tried a reconquest of the Baltic States and Poland which failed. The reconquest of Ukraine succeeded.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,560
The Soviets had little choice than to cut a deal with Germany at the time

"Peace, Bread, and Land'' was the slogan that appealed to the Masses

- and that's what they went with...
 

APettigrew92

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
2,700
It's the treaty we know so little about, and when people read about barbarossa in 1941 they are always reminded about napoleon in 1812. But this was the rare exception, russia losing a land war.

The corollary in germany was that the people could say, "wow, we beat russia, next it's france". This gave a false sense of confidence that quickly turned into despair when their attacks on france failed in mid-1918.
The Germans had fair reason to believe that they were in a position to beat the Allies at the start of 1918. The Americans had not begun to arrive in serious numbers, the Romanians and Serbians were crushed, the Italians and the French were on the verge of mutiny and they could, in theory, have circumvented the blockade by utilizing the fertile lands in their new Eastern sphere of influence to supplement their dwindling food supplies.

Ludendorff also received almost a million men who were freed up from the Eastern Front. The Germans had essentially been on the defensive in the West since 1914. The only exception to this was Verdun, which was a strategic blunder in itself.

Ludendorff had to capture Amiens in order for there to have been any serious threat to ending the war in the West. The Northern Regions of France contain a series of major railhubs - Arras, Lille and Amiens - and if all three were secured, then the Allied effort in that region would face serious supply problems. The Germans held or threatened two of the three in 1918.

Ultimately they failed for a myriad of reasons. A reason held up by many authors is the lack of manpower.

This was no doubt hampered by the huge number of seasoned German soldiers who were on occupational duty in the former Russian territory acquired in Brest-Litovsk. The numbers left there were more than had been committed at the end of 1914.
 

Windowshopper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
8,704
While I usually condemn whataboutery an interesting example is that defenders of Versailles have pointed to the Brest-Litovsk as an example that the Germans would be as, if not more punitive if they had won the war.
 

Degeneration X

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
7,270
It's the treaty we know so little about, and when people read about barbarossa in 1941 they are always reminded about napoleon in 1812. But this was the rare exception, russia losing a land war.

The corollary in germany was that the people could say, "wow, we beat russia, next it's france". This gave a false sense of confidence that quickly turned into despair when their attacks on france failed in mid-1918.

The corollary in russia is that the defeat of 1918 led to ukraine, the baltics etc, slipping away from their true allegiance to russia. Reversed in 1945, and again in 1990, this is all seen by hardliners as unfinished business caused by hostile outsiders.

So 1918 lives on.
The Ukraine was brought back into the "near abroad" fold long before 1945! It is interesting though the current Western Borders of the Russian Federation are very similar to the borders as outlined at Brest-Litovsk.
 
Last edited:

Degeneration X

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
7,270
They tried a reconquest of the Baltic States and Poland which failed. The reconquest of Ukraine succeeded.
Also the re-conquest of the Caucasus, Siberia and Central Asia. They also failed to get Finland back both during the Finnish Civil War and the Winter War 1939-40.
 

Degeneration X

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
7,270
While I usually condemn whataboutery an interesting example is that defenders of Versailles have pointed to the Brest-Litovsk as an example that the Germans would be as, if not more punitive if they had won the war.
Romania was also treated very harshly by the Central Powers when it Capitulated. Ironically the Romanians later re-joined the war on the side of the allied and entente powers and came out of the Paris Peace Conference as huge winners.
 

APettigrew92

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
2,700
Romania was also treated very harshly by the Central Powers when it Capitulated. Ironically the Romanians later re-joined the war on the side of the allied and entente powers and came out of the Paris Peace Conference as huge winners.
They also deliberately ignored Allied High Command orders to avoid invading Hungary and precipitating a Communist revolution.

They were then required to go and crush exactly that in Budapest. There is also an accusation by the Hungarians that that was a pretext to loot Budapest as revenge for...the Romanians invading Hungary in 1915. Hmm.

Part of the motivation for the Romanians receiving Banat and Transylvania was mainly because they outright refused to remove their troops from the region and no power, be it Central or Allied, was in any mood or ability to stop them.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,009
Twitter
No


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top