Discussion:
PC/WI: The Western Ukrainian People's Republic survives in 1919?
(too old to reply)
WolfBear
2018-03-28 23:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Would it have been plausible for the Western Ukrainian People's Republic to survive in 1919?

Also, if so, what would the consequences of this have been?
David Tenner
2018-03-29 07:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by WolfBear
Would it have been plausible for the Western Ukrainian People's Republic
to survive in 1919?
No. The Poles--for whom the territory was an integral part of Poland--were
too strong for it to survive without allies. And there really are no such
plausible allies:

(1) The Soviets of course would want to incorporate it into the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic.

(2) If the Whites won the Civil War, it would be part of One and Indivisible
Russia if the Whites defeated Poland--or part of Poland if they did not.

(3) The Ukrainian People's Republic would also ideally like to annex it (and
indeed the two republics were fomally "united"" in January 1919), but if that
weren't possible--and it wasn't, the UPR itself having only dim chances of
sutvival--Petliura was willing to sacrifice Western Ukraine to the Poles in
return for an alliance with the Poles against the Bolsheviks.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
WolfBear
2018-03-29 20:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Tenner
Post by WolfBear
Would it have been plausible for the Western Ukrainian People's Republic
to survive in 1919?
No. The Poles--for whom the territory was an integral part of Poland--were
too strong for it to survive without allies. And there really are no such
(1) The Soviets of course would want to incorporate it into the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic.
Agreed.
Post by David Tenner
(2) If the Whites won the Civil War, it would be part of One and Indivisible
Russia if the Whites defeated Poland--or part of Poland if they did not.
Agreed.
Post by David Tenner
(3) The Ukrainian People's Republic would also ideally like to annex it (and
indeed the two republics were fomally "united"" in January 1919),
You mean annex the rest of Ukraine, correct?
Post by David Tenner
but if that
weren't possible--and it wasn't, the UPR itself having only dim chances of
sutvival--Petliura was willing to sacrifice Western Ukraine to the Poles in
return for an alliance with the Poles against the Bolsheviks.
OK.

Also, out of curiosity--how much of Ukraine did Petliura ideally want to acquire? All of Ukraine up to the Donbass? Or only Ukraine up to the Dneipr (including Kiev, of course)?

In addition to this, what about this scenario--Alexander Kerensky is smart enough to avoid launching any offensives in 1917--deciding to wait until 1918 when large numbers of U.S. troops would already be on the Western Front. The lack of a Kerensky Offensive and Kornilov putsch attempt butterflies away the Bolshevik Revolution in this TL and allows democratic Russia to emerge on the winning side in World War I (after all, even if its 1918 offensive against Germany wouldn't be very successful, the success of the Western Allies on the Western Front during this time would make it clear that the Allies are winning the war). After the end of World War I, the socialists in the Russian Provisional Government will refuse to annex any territories without a plebiscite, and when they will hold a plebiscite in western Ukraine, the result ends up being a majority in favor of independence--thus resulting in the creation of the West Ukrainian People's Republic.

Anyway, how exactly does this scenario sound? Does it sound realistic?
Post by David Tenner
--
David Tenner
David Tenner
2018-03-30 00:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by WolfBear
Also, out of curiosity--how much of Ukraine did Petliura ideally want to
acquire? All of Ukraine up to the Donbass? Or only Ukraine up to the
Dneipr (including Kiev, of course)?
Ideally, everything from the Caucasus to the Carpathians, as on this map:
https://tinyurl.com/y7nzpsd5

Even Pilsudski's more modest (exppressed) goal doesn't seem partiularly
realistic:

"Pilsudski's own explanation to Wasilewski was that "we shall oppose the
Ukraine of Petliura to the Ukraine of Rakovskii" and "let the Ukrainians
decide for themselves." He added that he would demand a neutralization of
Kiev and a constituent assembly for all Ukraine. Belorussia, however, was to
be a purely Polish concern. (Quoted in Piotr S. Wandycz, *Soviet-Polish
Relations, 1917-1921*, p. 170.) Of course if the Poles were strong enough to
demand all this, one wonders why they wouldn't just go all the way to Moscow
as in 1610... "

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/HW48eJB3B-w/7AHbt_C1bkIJ
Post by WolfBear
In addition to this, what about this scenario--Alexander Kerensky is
smart enough to avoid launching any offensives in 1917--deciding to wait
until 1918 when large numbers of U.S. troops would already be on the
Western Front. The lack of a Kerensky Offensive and Kornilov putsch
attempt butterflies away the Bolshevik Revolution in this TL and allows
democratic Russia to emerge on the winning side in World War I (after
all, even if its 1918 offensive against Germany wouldn't be very
successful, the success of the Western Allies on the Western Front
during this time would make it clear that the Allies are winning the
war). After the end of World War I, the socialists in the Russian
Provisional Government will refuse to annex any territories without a
plebiscite, and when they will hold a plebiscite in western Ukraine, the
result ends up being a majority in favor of independence--thus resulting
in the creation of the West Ukrainian People's Republic.
Anyway, how exactly does this scenario sound? Does it sound realistic?
I think that Russia's moderate socialists would find self-determination
sufficiently served by giving Ukraine *as a whole* (including Western
Ukraine) federal relations with Russia. That was also the position of the
Ukrainian Rada in 1917; its leaders (themselves moderate socialists) always
denied they wanted separation from Russia. The Rada only declared indpeeence
in 1918, when the Bolshevik invasion destroyed any hope of an "autonomist"
solution.

--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
WolfBear
2018-03-30 01:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Tenner
Post by WolfBear
Also, out of curiosity--how much of Ukraine did Petliura ideally want to
acquire? All of Ukraine up to the Donbass? Or only Ukraine up to the
Dneipr (including Kiev, of course)?
https://tinyurl.com/y7nzpsd5
Even Pilsudski's more modest (exppressed) goal doesn't seem partiularly
"Pilsudski's own explanation to Wasilewski was that "we shall oppose the
Ukraine of Petliura to the Ukraine of Rakovskii" and "let the Ukrainians
decide for themselves." He added that he would demand a neutralization of
Kiev and a constituent assembly for all Ukraine. Belorussia, however, was to
be a purely Polish concern. (Quoted in Piotr S. Wandycz, *Soviet-Polish
Relations, 1917-1921*, p. 170.) Of course if the Poles were strong enough to
demand all this, one wonders why they wouldn't just go all the way to Moscow
as in 1610... "
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/HW48eJB3B-w/7AHbt_C1bkIJ
Hang on--I'm confused--Pilsudski wanted to let the Communists keep Ukraine east of the Dneipr in order to make Petliura's western Ukraine more dependent on Poland?
Post by David Tenner
Post by WolfBear
In addition to this, what about this scenario--Alexander Kerensky is
smart enough to avoid launching any offensives in 1917--deciding to wait
until 1918 when large numbers of U.S. troops would already be on the
Western Front. The lack of a Kerensky Offensive and Kornilov putsch
attempt butterflies away the Bolshevik Revolution in this TL and allows
democratic Russia to emerge on the winning side in World War I (after
all, even if its 1918 offensive against Germany wouldn't be very
successful, the success of the Western Allies on the Western Front
during this time would make it clear that the Allies are winning the
war). After the end of World War I, the socialists in the Russian
Provisional Government will refuse to annex any territories without a
plebiscite, and when they will hold a plebiscite in western Ukraine, the
result ends up being a majority in favor of independence--thus resulting
in the creation of the West Ukrainian People's Republic.
Anyway, how exactly does this scenario sound? Does it sound realistic?
I think that Russia's moderate socialists would find self-determination
sufficiently served by giving Ukraine *as a whole* (including Western
Ukraine) federal relations with Russia. That was also the position of the
Ukrainian Rada in 1917; its leaders (themselves moderate socialists) always
denied they wanted separation from Russia. The Rada only declared indpeeence
in 1918, when the Bolshevik invasion destroyed any hope of an "autonomist"
solution.
That makes sense. That said, though, would the Ukrainians in eastern Galicia have been in favor of such a solution?
Post by David Tenner
--
David Tenner
David Tenner
2018-03-30 02:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by WolfBear
Post by David Tenner
Post by WolfBear
Also, out of curiosity--how much of Ukraine did Petliura ideally want
to acquire? All of Ukraine up to the Donbass? Or only Ukraine up to
the Dneipr (including Kiev, of course)?
Ideally, everything from the Caucasus to the Carpathians, as on this
map: https://tinyurl.com/y7nzpsd5
Even Pilsudski's more modest (exppressed) goal doesn't seem partiularly
"Pilsudski's own explanation to Wasilewski was that "we shall oppose
the Ukraine of Petliura to the Ukraine of Rakovskii" and "let the
Ukrainians decide for themselves." He added that he would demand a
neutralization of Kiev and a constituent assembly for all Ukraine.
Belorussia, however, was to be a purely Polish concern. (Quoted in
Piotr S. Wandycz, *Soviet-Polish Relations, 1917-1921*, p. 170.) Of
course if the Poles were strong enough to demand all this, one wonders
why they wouldn't just go all the way to Moscow as in 1610... "
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/HW48eJB3B-
w/7AHbt_C1
Post by WolfBear
Post by David Tenner
bkIJ
Hang on--I'm confused--Pilsudski wanted to let the Communists keep
Ukraine east of the Dneipr in order to make Petliura's western Ukraine
more dependent on Poland?
I don't think it's that so much as simply a realization that--barring a
complete collapse of the Bolshevik regime--the Dnieper was as far as the
Polish tropps could go. Indeed, it was soon to be obvious that they were
overextended there.
Post by WolfBear
Post by David Tenner
Post by WolfBear
In addition to this, what about this scenario--Alexander Kerensky is
smart enough to avoid launching any offensives in 1917--deciding to
wait until 1918 when large numbers of U.S. troops would already be on
the Western Front. The lack of a Kerensky Offensive and Kornilov
putsch attempt butterflies away the Bolshevik Revolution in this TL
and allows democratic Russia to emerge on the winning side in World
War I (after all, even if its 1918 offensive against Germany wouldn't
be very successful, the success of the Western Allies on the Western
Front during this time would make it clear that the Allies are
winning the war). After the end of World War I, the socialists in the
Russian Provisional Government will refuse to annex any territories
without a plebiscite, and when they will hold a plebiscite in western
Ukraine, the result ends up being a majority in favor of
independence--thus resulting in the creation of the West Ukrainian
People's Republic.
Anyway, how exactly does this scenario sound? Does it sound
realistic?
I think that Russia's moderate socialists would find self-determination
sufficiently served by giving Ukraine *as a whole* (including Western
Ukraine) federal relations with Russia. That was also the position of
the Ukrainian Rada in 1917; its leaders (themselves moderate
socialists) always denied they wanted separation from Russia. The Rada
only declared indpeeence in 1918, when the Bolshevik invasion destroyed
any hope of an "autonomist" solution.
That makes sense. That said, though, would the Ukrainians in eastern
Galicia have been in favor of such a solution?
Ptobably, yes, given that the realistic alternative would be rule by a
Polish government which would be less likely to make concessions to
Ukrainian autonomy than a Russian government led by moderate socailists.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Eric Van De Hey
2018-04-02 05:58:49 UTC
Permalink
I agree with the consensus. Even if it is POSSIBLE, it certainly is not plausible for the reasons mentioned above. The West Uk P R was founded almost completely to ensure Ukrainian self government over Galicia, and especially Lviv/Lwow. Unfortunately, like Vilnius Lviv is majority Polish and on the chekc list of an emerging, expansionist, and generally ambitious Polish state and one of the FEW things Pilsudski's clique and the Endeks can agree on.

Add this to the fact that essentially all of the state's neighbors are stronger than it (including the main Ukrainian state to the East), AND they are almost all its enemies. Including the Post-Brest/Versailles states that I'd normally turn to as being the most likely to foster independent nations trying to escape the Russian Pale. The Central European Entente of Romania, Poland (duh), and t (to a lesser extent) Czechoslovakia are all hostile to it and their greater power, precedence, and compatibility with other policy planks mean they are probably going to drag Western Allied leanings over to them.

In addition, Hungary is quite hostile (under BOTH nationalist and Bolshevik flavors, no mean feat). And of course, all flavors of Russian Imperialist want them dead. That adds up to problems. Big Ones that the Republic does not have the power to withstand by itself, especially when they get cut off from the Czechoslovak border and as a result lose the only neighbor that is even willing to *sell them munitions.* Which goes back to the lack of economic self-sufficiency they have in a modern war.

Ironically, in many ways I think the possibilities of an independent (or independent-ish) Galician Ukrainian state are better if the Central Powers win WWI...or at least win the Eastern Front earlier and more decisively than they did in history. Thus giving maybe a couple years or so to try and figure out how the hell they are going to divvy up and administer all this territory, and thus possible room for this rump Galician Uk statelet to take form, gain some support (likely within a union with the Habsburgs), and just maybe persuade Ludendorff and the other strongmen controlling Imperial policy to let it happen and START developing the infrastructure- especially military resources- to try and feed the Greater German Empire's needs before it falls.

But of course, this state would not only not be the West Ukrainian Peoples' Republic but also would have to deal with the double trouble of being under the overbearing yoke of the Central Powers and (if they were defeated) the stigma of being a pro-German statelet. This isn't strictly FATAL, Finland managed it. But it's not an advantage.

If we're talking about the actual WUPR, I think the best chances are really threading a needle. Having Poland and preferably its nearby allies get beaten up and mauled worse by somebody (Bolsheviks, Germans) enoughto make it harder to crush them, but at the SAME TIME not making them so weak that the Bolsheviks can just sweep Westwards trampling over everything like they did in the rest of Ukraine.

This probably requires the defeat of th WUPR to be postponed in some way, either with an earlier, larger Bolshevik push West or a later Polish conquest (maybe form the conflicts in Posen and Silesia with the Germans escalating).

Then you're probably going to want to do EVERYTHING they can to try and persuade the Western Allies to at least tolerate the state and preferably aid it, and try to get the assorted Whites to at least accept it. No Easy Feat. But hopefully when the Bolsheviks rip through Ukraine in 1919 and so it will weaken the larger Ukrainian state to the East enough to prevent the WUPR from being absorbed....but THEN You have to deal with how the hell you are going to stop Trotsky's troops.

I get the feeling that one of the better possible outcomes (at least in terms of raw probability) would likely be the WUPR giving up as much as it needs- if need be anything short of direct annexation- to Poland in order to try and cash in on Pilsudski's ideas of a Federation. But considering why the state was formed in the first place I find this somewhat unlikely.
Also, out of curiosity--how much of Ukraine did Petliura ideally want to >acquire? All of Ukraine up to the Donbass? Or only Ukraine up to the Dneipr >(including Kiev, of course)?
I don't know and I'm not entirely sure he did. Probably "as much as he could take", but given Ukraine's status he had enough trouble fighting for his very life.
In addition to this, what about this scenario--Alexander Kerensky is smart >enough to avoid launching any offensives in 1917--deciding to wait until 1918 >when large numbers of U.S. troops would already be on the Western Front. The >lack of a Kerensky Offensive and Kornilov putsch attempt butterflies away the >Bolshevik Revolution in this TL and allows democratic Russia to emerge on the >winning side in World War I
The problem is that this wouuld only butterly away the Bolshevik Revolution *as it happened in our time line*, but it would NOT change the nature of the Bolshevik party or how it was committed to overthrowing the Republic by coup and could count on massive support from the Central Powers to do just that.

It probably makes the coup Less Likely To Succeed and harder to pull off (what with less demoralization throughout the military, the lack of the devastating split between the Cabinet and the Military Leadership, and Kerensky deciding not to hand out firearms to any Petrograd militia willing to fight Kornilov leading to a lot of them going into Bolshevik hands). But it doesn't erase it altogether.

And you also have the X Factor. The probability the enemy (in this case the Central Powers) will douche with plans. It's likely that the failure of Russia to implode like IOTL in 1917 will lead to Ludendorff and co to try and ratchet up the pressure- likely launching their own offensives- to try and force the issue. Along with or alternatively further supporting the Bolsheviks and other anti-Republican factions.

And even if we assume this all works, that doesn't explain how the heck Kerensky and co would deal with the conflicting petty statelets and self-determination declarations out West, like the fight between the WUPR and the Polish community in Lviv that led to the war kicking off in the first place.
WolfBear
2018-03-29 20:08:20 UTC
Permalink
To my knowledge, socialists in Russia (and in other countries as well) during World War I often spoke of peace in terms of "no annexations and no indemnities." Thus, I do consider it very possible for a victorious democratic Russia--one which is ruled by moderate socialists--to refuse to annex any territories unless a plebiscite is held there beforehand and results in a majority vote in favor of Russian rule.

That said, though, does everyone here (including David Tenner) agree with my analysis here?
WolfBear
2018-03-29 22:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by WolfBear
To my knowledge, socialists in Russia (and in other countries as well) during World War I often spoke of peace in terms of "no annexations and no indemnities." Thus, I do consider it very possible for a victorious democratic Russia--one which is ruled by moderate socialists--to refuse to annex any territories unless a plebiscite is held there beforehand and results in a majority vote in favor of Russian rule.
That said, though, does everyone here (including David Tenner) agree with my analysis here?
Of course, there is another factor to consider here--weren't both Subcarpathian Ruthenia and the Lemko Republic pro-Russian? If so, wouldn't even a democratic Russia insist on annexing Galicia so that it would have access to both Subcarpathian Ruthenia and the Lemko Republic (so that it could annex both of these territories)?
Loading...