What if, after entering World War I, the US actively endorses the Russian Provisional Government's peace push? A full peace with "no annexations and indemnities" is unlikely to work, but maybe the US could propose to hold plebiscites in any disputed areas as well as to otherwise push for a restoration of the status quo ante bellum?

For what it's worth, I am specifically thinking of the US refusing to commit its own grounds troops to Western Europe in this scenario (in spite of the US previously already entering World War I) unless the European Great Powers actually agree to make peace on its own terms. The crucial question is, of course: Could such a peace push actually work? Without US troops on the Western Front, the Entente is unlikely to actually be capable of winning a decisive victory in World War I, so would this make them more willing to negotiate? What about the Central Powers themselves, especially Germany? I suspect that Kaiser Karl of Austria-Hungary WOULD be willing to negotiate, but any attempt on his part to deviate from the German line might result in a forcible German attempt at regime change in Austria-Hungary. And of course I wonder if the Russian soldiers, peasants, and workers would actually be discouraged from supporting the Bolsheviks had the US along with the Russian Provisional Government actually actively engaged in such a peace push.

Anyway, what do all of you think about this?

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:17:20 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
> What if, after entering World War I, the US actively endorses the Russian Provisional Government's peace push? A full peace with "no annexations and indemnities" is unlikely to work, but maybe the US could propose to hold plebiscites in any disputed areas as well as to otherwise push for a restoration of the status quo ante bellum?
>
> For what it's worth, I am specifically thinking of the US refusing to commit its own grounds troops to Western Europe in this scenario (in spite of the US previously already entering World War I) unless the European Great Powers actually agree to make peace on its own terms. The crucial question is, of course: Could such a peace push actually work? Without US troops on the Western Front, the Entente is unlikely to actually be capable of winning a decisive victory in World War I, so would this make them more willing to negotiate? What about the Central Powers themselves, especially Germany? I suspect that Kaiser Karl of Austria-Hungary WOULD be willing to negotiate, but any attempt on his part to deviate from the German line might result in a forcible German attempt at regime change in Austria-Hungary. And of course I wonder if the Russian soldiers, peasants, and workers would actually be discouraged from supporting the Bolsheviks had the US along with the Russian Provisional Government actually actively engaged in such a peace push.
>
> Anyway, what do all of you think about this?

Of course, I suspect that in such a scenario Republican US politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge are likely to call Woodrow Wilson a weak-willed appeaser and whatnot, but he can simply ignore them, no?

On 6/5/21 5:17 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> What if, after entering World War I, the US actively endorses the
> Russian Provisional Government's peace push? A full peace with "no
> annexations and indemnities" is unlikely to work, but maybe the US
> could propose to hold plebiscites in any disputed areas as well as to
> otherwise push for a restoration of the status quo ante bellum?
The US has entered the war to defeat Germany, which has grievously
offended the US. Russia had the excuse of being exhausted and badly
hurt. The US has no claim to dictate policy to the other Allied
powers; in particular to make them spare Germany what most Americans
had come to think Germany deserved.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

>> Anyway, what do all of you think about this?
>
> Of course, I suspect that in such a scenario Republican US politicians such as
> Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge are likely to call Woodrow Wilson a weak-willed appeaser and whatnot, but he can simply ignore them, no?

Although Germany should accept these terms, Germany was winning then, so I
doubt they would accept these terms.

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/5/21 5:17 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > What if, after entering World War I, the US actively endorses the
> > Russian Provisional Government's peace push? A full peace with "no
> > annexations and indemnities" is unlikely to work, but maybe the US
> > could propose to hold plebiscites in any disputed areas as well as to
> > otherwise push for a restoration of the status quo ante bellum?

> The US has entered the war to defeat Germany, which has grievously
> offended the US. Russia had the excuse of being exhausted and badly
> hurt. The US has no claim to dictate policy to the other Allied
> powers; in particular to make them spare Germany what most Americans
> had come to think Germany deserved.
>

Were Americans actually willing to have hundreds of thousands of their young men die in the trenches on the Western Front if another alternative to this was actually available, though?

And I suppose that this raises the question: What should the Entente have encouraged Russia to do? Aggressively crack down on military discipline while also telling Russia to adopt an exclusively defensive posture for fear of triggering another revolution on the home front if Russian boys and young men will continue to be sent to their deaths?

> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 21:38:32 -0500, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net>
wrote:

>The US has entered the war to defeat Germany, which has grievously
>offended the US. Russia had the excuse of being exhausted and badly
>hurt. The US has no claim to dictate policy to the other Allied
>powers; in particular to make them spare Germany what most Americans
>had come to think Germany deserved.

"grievously offended" = 'has sunk numerous US ships with US loss of
life'

Somewhat like how the US was grievously offended on Sept 11, 2001

On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 9:44:57 AM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 21:38:32 -0500, Rich Rostrom <rros...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >The US has entered the war to defeat Germany, which has grievously
> >offended the US. Russia had the excuse of being exhausted and badly
> >hurt. The US has no claim to dictate policy to the other Allied
> >powers; in particular to make them spare Germany what most Americans
> >had come to think Germany deserved.
> "grievously offended" = 'has sunk numerous US ships with US loss of
> life'
>
> Somewhat like how the US was grievously offended on Sept 11, 2001

Couldn't the US have tried putting its ships out of harm's way beforehand, though?

On 6/6/2021 1:35 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 9:44:57 AM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 21:38:32 -0500, Rich Rostrom <rros...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> The US has entered the war to defeat Germany, which has grievously
>>> offended the US. Russia had the excuse of being exhausted and badly
>>> hurt. The US has no claim to dictate policy to the other Allied
>>> powers; in particular to make them spare Germany what most Americans
>>> had come to think Germany deserved.
>> "grievously offended" = 'has sunk numerous US ships with US loss of
>> life'
>>
>> Somewhat like how the US was grievously offended on Sept 11, 2001
>
> Couldn't the US have tried putting its ships out of harm's way beforehand, though?
>

How, aside from "not putting to sea", which wasn't an option for the
Factory of the World, do you suggest they manage THAT?

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 3:32:24 PM UTC-7, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 6/6/2021 1:35 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 9:44:57 AM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 21:38:32 -0500, Rich Rostrom <rros...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> The US has entered the war to defeat Germany, which has grievously
> >>> offended the US. Russia had the excuse of being exhausted and badly
> >>> hurt. The US has no claim to dictate policy to the other Allied
> >>> powers; in particular to make them spare Germany what most Americans
> >>> had come to think Germany deserved.
> >> "grievously offended" = 'has sunk numerous US ships with US loss of
> >> life'
> >>
> >> Somewhat like how the US was grievously offended on Sept 11, 2001
> >
> > Couldn't the US have tried putting its ships out of harm's way beforehand, though?
> >
> How, aside from "not putting to sea", which wasn't an option for the
> Factory of the World, do you suggest they manage THAT?
>

Not putting them in the Atlantic Ocean?

> --
> Chrysi Cat
> 1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
> Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
> Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

> Factory of the World,

That is the point. The US was starting its military build-up. France and
the UK, and as it turned out, Germany were all on their last legs.

The other issue is that the Germans preferred to deal with the US than
France or the UK, thinking that a liberal like Wilson would give them
better terms.

Both these points gave the US a major influence in the peacemaking process
when it began in ww1.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:15:55 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> wrote:

>> Factory of the World,
>
>That is the point. The US was starting its military build-up. France and
>the UK, and as it turned out, Germany were all on their last legs.
>
>The other issue is that the Germans preferred to deal with the US than
>France or the UK, thinking that a liberal like Wilson would give them
>better terms.

Well yes - the Germans were silly enough to believe that despite
strong UK and French pressure to the contrary America would actually
push through a peace based on the Fourteen Points.

Possibly in 1914 but by 1918 there was no chance of that at all and
the German government was more naive than I really believe they were
if they seriously thought they had a chance of achieving a peace on
those terms. Especially after Ebert telling the troops on 11 December
1918 they had not been defeated then scuttling the Grand Fleet at
Scapa Flow.

At one point the German government actually believed the Allies would
let them keep what they won at Brest-Litovsk!!! (Which is why there
were German intervention troops in Russia though they didn't stay
long)

>Both these points gave the US a major influence in the peacemaking process
>when it began in ww1.
>
>

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:15:55 +1000, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
>
> >> Factory of the World,
> >
> >That is the point. The US was starting its military build-up. France and
> >the UK, and as it turned out, Germany were all on their last legs.
> >
> >The other issue is that the Germans preferred to deal with the US than
> >France or the UK, thinking that a liberal like Wilson would give them
> >better terms.
> Well yes - the Germans were silly enough to believe that despite
> strong UK and French pressure to the contrary America would actually
> push through a peace based on the Fourteen Points.
>
> Possibly in 1914 but by 1918 there was no chance of that at all and
> the German government was more naive than I really believe they were
> if they seriously thought they had a chance of achieving a peace on
> those terms. Especially after Ebert telling the troops on 11 December
> 1918 they had not been defeated then scuttling the Grand Fleet at
> Scapa Flow.
>
> At one point the German government actually believed the Allies would
> let them keep what they won at Brest-Litovsk!!! (Which is why there
> were German intervention troops in Russia though they didn't stay
> long)
> >Both these points gave the US a major influence in the peacemaking process
> >when it began in ww1.
> >
> >

Ironically, having Germany keep its Brest-Litovsk gains would have certainly been better for the Ukrainians themselves.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 20:14:51 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear wrote:

> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:15:55 +1000, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Factory of the World,
>>>
>>>That is the point. The US was starting its military build-up. France and
>>>the UK, and as it turned out, Germany were all on their last legs.
>>>
>>>The other issue is that the Germans preferred to deal with the US than
>>>France or the UK, thinking that a liberal like Wilson would give them
>>>better terms.
>> Well yes - the Germans were silly enough to believe that despite
>> strong UK and French pressure to the contrary America would actually
>> push through a peace based on the Fourteen Points.
>>
>> Possibly in 1914 but by 1918 there was no chance of that at all and
>> the German government was more naive than I really believe they were
>> if they seriously thought they had a chance of achieving a peace on
>> those terms. Especially after Ebert telling the troops on 11 December
>> 1918 they had not been defeated then scuttling the Grand Fleet at
>> Scapa Flow.
>>
>> At one point the German government actually believed the Allies would
>> let them keep what they won at Brest-Litovsk!!! (Which is why there
>> were German intervention troops in Russia though they didn't stay
>> long)
>>>Both these points gave the US a major influence in the peacemaking process
>>>when it began in ww1.
>>>
>>>
>
> Ironically, having Germany keep its Brest-Litovsk gains would have certainly been better for the Ukrainians themselves.

Considering what happened YES

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:54:43 PM UTC-7, SolomonW wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 20:14:51 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:15:55 +1000, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Factory of the World,
> >>>
> >>>That is the point. The US was starting its military build-up. France and
> >>>the UK, and as it turned out, Germany were all on their last legs.
> >>>
> >>>The other issue is that the Germans preferred to deal with the US than
> >>>France or the UK, thinking that a liberal like Wilson would give them
> >>>better terms.
> >> Well yes - the Germans were silly enough to believe that despite
> >> strong UK and French pressure to the contrary America would actually
> >> push through a peace based on the Fourteen Points.
> >>
> >> Possibly in 1914 but by 1918 there was no chance of that at all and
> >> the German government was more naive than I really believe they were
> >> if they seriously thought they had a chance of achieving a peace on
> >> those terms. Especially after Ebert telling the troops on 11 December
> >> 1918 they had not been defeated then scuttling the Grand Fleet at
> >> Scapa Flow.
> >>
> >> At one point the German government actually believed the Allies would
> >> let them keep what they won at Brest-Litovsk!!! (Which is why there
> >> were German intervention troops in Russia though they didn't stay
> >> long)
> >>>Both these points gave the US a major influence in the peacemaking process
> >>>when it began in ww1.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > Ironically, having Germany keep its Brest-Litovsk gains would have certainly been better for the Ukrainians themselves.
> Considering what happened YES

Yep, no Holodomor, no Soviet purges, no Soviet terror, and no Holocaust.