Additional *realistic* post-1800 cases of nations acquiring Lebensraum (living space)?

[Stephen_Rynerson]

In contrast, with a "point of departure" of 1800, China's acquisition of Mongolia appears to have come 103 years too early for it to count for this question of mine.

It seems to me that this depends heavily on how you're defining "acquisition" and "Lebensraum." While the Qing dynasty claimed the territories of Tannu Tuva and Outer Mongolia prior to 1800, they weren't legally considered provinces of the empire (the local nobles had substantial domestic autonomy) and the Qing generally barred Han Chinese from migrating into those territories. In effect, there was the potential for a Lebensraum-like policy prior to 1800, but the Qing didn't act on it. It's only post-1800 that the Qing start realizing their mistake of having restrained Han Chinese migration rather that treating it as a resource for extending their power.

[Futurist]

In contrast, with a "point of departure" of 1800, China's acquisition of Mongolia appears to have come 103 years too early for it to count for this question of mine.

It seems to me that this depends heavily on how you're defining "acquisition" and "Lebensraum." While the Qing dynasty claimed the territories of Tannu Tuva and Outer Mongolia prior to 1800, they weren't legally considered provinces of the empire (the local nobles had substantial domestic autonomy) and the Qing generally barred Han Chinese from migrating into those territories. In effect, there was the potential for a Lebensraum-like policy prior to 1800, but the Qing didn't act on it. It's only post-1800 that the Qing start realizing their mistake of having restrained Han Chinese migration rather that treating it as a resource for extending their power.

I certainly agree with you that your example here would count in a broad sense. However, I would like to point out that immediate outright annexation certainly isn't necessary for a territory to be considered to be Lebensraum. For instance, the various Israeli settlements in the West Bank can already be considered to be Lebensraum in spite of the fact that most of them aren't annexed to Israel right now. Thus, I think that it would be better and more accurate to treat the beginning of a Lebensraum phase as being the point in time when a specific country began controlling a specific area rather than the point in time when this country actually outright annexed this area.

Indeed, any thoughts in regards to this, Stephen (and other people here)?

[Futurist]

Yes; correct! In turn, this is why exactly both Poland and Ukraine should be given a lot of autonomy and self-rule.

It wouldn't work. Those people wouldn't be grateful, they would be offended - for them even a lot would not be enough. And then the Pilsudskies would arrive with their guns and bombs. Like it happened in Ireland.
Actually the Russians did exactly that, they gave autonomy and self-rule to the Poles, and received in exchange a few country wide anti-Russian uprisings.
As they say offer them a finger, and they will bite a hand off up to the elbow.

Are you sure that having independence (while simultaneously being forced to have a defensible alliance with Germany and to allow Germany to station military bases on their territory) wouldn't be good enough for both the Poles and the Ukrainians, though? After all, isn't German military protection necessary to prevent Russia from reconquering Poland and especially Ukraine at some future point in time?

Wouldn't having Russia sponsor Ukrainian nationalism be counterproductive to Russia's own historical mentality, though? After all, a Ukrainian nationalism which is very strong is probably going to significantly decrease the possibility of Russia re-annexing Ukraine in the future.

Probably, it would be a desperate response to a desperate situation.

OK; fair enough, I suppose.

How about simply letting keep Poland keep the Polish Border Strip instead, though? After all, there appears to be almost no reason as to why exactly a victorious Germany must annex the Polish Border Strip.

They needed it for security reasons, the border was too close to Berlin.

If all of Poland is a German ally, though, then wouldn't the location of the German-Polish border be completely irrelevant?

False analogy; after all, railroads certainly didn't exist back in Napoleonic times.

And they barely existed in 1918, even in the forties they were insufficient to support millions-strong German Army. They barely managed using trucks, the 1918 German Army had very few of them.

You appear to be correct in regards to this to an extent. Basically, my point here is that having Germany conquer both Petrograd and Moscow should sufficiently cripple Russia's transportation and supply networks to make Russia collapse and capitulate (relatively) shortly afterwards. Frankly, for the time being, I still stand by this statement of mine. After all, my educated guess is that even 1910s Russia would certainly be extremely crippled by the loss of its railroads and thus the loss of its transportation and supply networks.

Of course, maybe I am missing something here, and if so, then you are certainly welcome to try enlightening me in regards to this, wm!

I'm not so sure about that. After all, a Russia which descends into revolution, civil war, and anarchy certainly isn't going to be able to resist Germany very effectively.

The anarchy was rather short lived.

Several years is short-lived?

The Russian Provisional Government wanted to continue the war and would regain full control if not for the meddling Bolsheviks.

Yes; correct! However, that was in real life--when Russia had both Britain and the U.S. to help it fight Germany (on the Western Front). In contrast, a Germany which wins World War I is probably going to have both Britain and the U.S. remain neutral throughout all of World War I. In turn, this is probably going to mean that even a non-Bolshevik Russia isn't going to want to continue the war against Germany when it (Russia) is clearly being defeated by Germany.

And the Bolsheviks were a nasty piece of work. They had good and capable leaders, and supporters/fellow travelers all around the world, especially in Germany. As enemies they would be even worse.

A victorious Germany probably isn't going to have the Bolsheviks as enemies for very long--if at all. After all, a victorious Germany can probably shoot and kill all of the top/major Bolsheviks in some corridor.

They certainly don't need to conquer everything, though. Rather, they simply need to conduct regime change in Petrograd or Moscow and then withdraw from most of Russia after they find suitable Russian politicians to put in power in Russia and to sign a peace deal with.

I'm afraid like in 1939 Poland their only choice would be between unsuitable politicians and very unsuitable politicians.

Well, the Germans simply need someone in Russia to sign a peace deal with. Afterwards, the Germans will simply use military force to make future Russian governments honor this peace deal if regime change will occur in Russia at some point after this peace deal (with Germany) is signed.

Yes; correct! However, other than Latvia and Estonia, Germany certainly shouldn't subsidize these territories very much. Rather, it should allow these territories to conduct their own affairs in exchange for signing a military alliance with Germany and allowing Germany to place military bases on their territory (in order to help protect them from Russia in the event of a new war with Russia).

Actually it was in the plan, an ethnic cleansed buffer zone and buffer client states. Too ambitious I would say.

First of all, the ethnic cleansed buffer zone (presumably the Polish Border Strip, no?) certainly shouldn't have been in the plan in the first place. After all, ethnically cleansing the Polish Border Strip (or any other areas and territories, for that matter) is certainly extremely atrocious! Plus, I certainly want the German Kaiser in this scenario to be a (very) decent man.

Secondly, why exactly would the creation of buffer client states be too ambitious for Germany? Completely serious question, for the record.

Yes; correct! However, in spite of this, some/many politicians in various countries (such as U.S. President Woodrow Wilson) did accept the principle of national self-determination when in regards to territorial revision.

Not quite, the actual rule they used was woe to the defeated. They won the war so they made rules as they wished. But the rules were for the defeated, they weren't applicable anywhere else, especially in their own colonial territories.

But a victorious Imperial Germany would likewise write the same rules in this scenario. After all, in this scenario, France and Russia would be the defeated while Germany and the other Central Powers would be the victors. In turn, this explains why exactly Russia is going to be stripped of many of its non-Russian-majority territories after the end of World War I in this scenario while Germany is going to be allowed to keep all of its non-German-majority territories (such as Posen Province) after the end of World War I in this scenario.

An international law to be valid must be accepted by a supermajority of states.

Yes, this might very well be correct/accurate.

What exactly do you mean by "inside job" here, though?

The USSR was dismembered by insiders, top ranking Soviet leaders who noticed at some point of time that they represented a real political power and had millions of followers at their disposal. And that it's much nicer to be the leader of a real country than to tow the Soviet line with others.

To some extent? Yes, of course! However, if the Ukrainian people would have voted against independence in that December 1991 referendum of theirs, then the Soviet Union probably would have survived. Thus, your statement here only appears to be partially correct.

That would probably only be true if British entry into World War I was inevitable in any case, though.

The French stopped the Germans without much helped from the British. There were 39 French divisions and only 6 British divisions against 27 German divisions at Marne. And the state of military art at that time strongly favoured those on the defense.

Yes, France would probably hold out in 1914 without Britain and the United States. However, I am certainly extremely skeptical that France would be able to hold out for years without Britain and the United States. For instance, imagine how much harder and tougher it would have been for France to hold out at Verdun in 1916 if Britain would have still been neutral in World War I at that point in time (which in turn means no Battle of the Somme, no British troops on the Western Front, et cetera).

Yes; after all, as far as I know, in real life, the Baltic Barons (the ethnically German nobility of Latvia and Estonia) offered to give up/donate one-third of their total estates and lands so that these lands can be used for ethnic German settlement. Thus, it looks like the German government certainly wouldn't need to spend any of its own money on this.

I really doubt that those barons were going to give away their land, most likely they wanted rent-paying settlers, modern serfs working on leased land - for their benefits.

The information on page 208 of this book appears to contradict what you wrote here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=y37zY ... 22&f=false

However, if you have any information which contradicts the information in the book above, then please let me know!

Can the Kiel Canal help deal with this issue/problem, though?

The problem is a country with direct access to the Atlantic Ocean hasn't many uses for the Baltic. The Kiel Canal was mainly needed by the Imperial German Navy.

Germany doesn't need to have many uses for the Baltic, though. Rather, Germany simply needs to be able to ship large amounts of supplies (including by sea) to Latvia and Estonia.

You were saying?

This is a single crappy line to nowhere. In comparison Danzig was at the mouth of a large river which with its tributaries gave it an easy access to the entire Polish territory. No railway line could compete with this.

Good point! However, couldn't the Dvina River likewise have a lot of potential considering how far and deep into Russia it goes? :



Indeed, isn't the Riga metropolitan area the largest metropolitan area in the Baltic countries right now (in real life, that is)?

Both Riga and Reval (Tallinn) have a better connection to Russia than both Danzig and Hamburg have, though.

But the Russian would refuse to cooperate...

Probably not forever, though.

And Saint Petersburg - a major port, thanks to the Neva river, the Volga–Baltic Waterway, railway links had a much better connection anyway.

Exactly what "much better connection" for railway links are you talking about here, though?

Also, though, didn't Riga have a lot of Jews in the early 20th century? If so, couldn't some of these Jews have become wealthy and helped Riga industrialize after Germany would have given them full civil rights and legal equality?

Many of the Russian Jews were wealthy already, and thanks to their wealth enjoyed more rights than the rabble around.

Weren't many Russian Jews poor and forced to live in Shtetls (sp?), though?

And they were mostly rabidly pro-Russian as far as I know.

Mostly? Indeed, I certainly find that extremely had to believe considering that the emigrated from Russia by the [/b]millions[/b]! Heck, just take a look at the data here:

http://www.friends-partners.org/partner ... /39-4.html

Are you seriously offering legal equality with some lousy peasant for example to the Jewish Kronenberg family that owned multitude of banks, mines, railway lines, sugar mills, newspapers and lots of other businesses. Not to mention palaces and a few demesnes. Nobles by the grace of the Czar, and personally decorated by him with the The Order of Saint Vladimir?

Legal equality? Yes. However, such a Jewish family would certainly be much, much wealthier than these peasants are.

I'm afraid you've offended them, and for this your stay in Siberia will be particularly long one.

Deporting the victorious German Kaiser (myself ) to Siberia certainly wouldn't be a very good move on Russia's part, though.

And yes, they could have done it too.

Who exactly could have done what? Indeed, I just want you to clarify this part.

What about turning both Riga and Reval (Tallinn) into major transportation hubs due to their location between Berlin and Petrograd, though?

What about shipping the goods directly?

By "major transportation hubs," I meant "major railroad hubs." After all, weren't railroads extremely important and extremely widespread in Europe in the early 20th century?

Did Latvia and/or Estonia also have minerals and/or cute seals and whales, though?

They didn't have any Falun mine that could supply the entire Europe for a millennium. Or any Kiruna mine - largest in the world.

OK. That's true for Sweden. However, what about for Finland, Denmark, and Norway?

And didn't have an easy access to the Arctic where all the cuteness lived, it should be remembered that the nineteenth century largely depended on products flensed from those cute seals/whales. It sucks to have access to a lousy, almost landlocked sea and nothing else

OK. That's true for Norway. However, what about Finland and Denmark?

You've said we need a nicer, gentler Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany for this. But a nicer Willy wouldn't be brutal to Nicky - his own cousin.

"Brutal" in exactly what sense, though? After all, wanting to weaken and to tame Russia certainly isn't being brutal to Russian Tsar Nicholas II on a personal level.

[Futurist]

In addition to this, out of curiosity--if a victorious Imperial Germany would have allowed both Latvians and Estonians (well, all of the law-abiding ones) to immigrate to Germany proper without any restrictions (and with an eventual path to citizenship), how many Latvians and Estonians do you think would have actually chosen to immigrate to Germany proper over the next century (as in, from the late 1910s to the late 2010s)? Several hundred thousand? Less than that?

[wm]

Are you sure that having independence (while simultaneously being forced to have a defensible alliance with Germany and to allow Germany to station military bases on their territory) wouldn't be good enough for both the Poles and the Ukrainians, though? After all, isn't German military protection necessary to prevent Russia from reconquering Poland and especially Ukraine at some future point in time?

Poland, without the territories annexed by the Germans and without access to sea wouldn't be worth much, and Germany was not going to return them. The Poles wouldn't like this, at all.

If all of Poland is a German ally, though, then wouldn't the location of the German-Polish border be completely irrelevant?

Would be very relevant. The Poles was/would be fermenting unrest among the millions of Poles living in the annexed territories all the time. This was another reason for the Strip - to prevent this by denying access.

You appear to be correct in regards to this to an extent. Basically, my point here is that having Germany conquer both Petrograd and Moscow should sufficiently cripple Russia's transportation and supply networks to make Russia collapse and capitulate (relatively) shortly afterwards. Frankly, for the time being, I still stand by this statement of mine. After all, my educated guess is that even 1910s Russia would certainly be extremely crippled by the loss of its railroads and thus the loss of its transportation and supply networks.

That guy, Hitler counted on this too and did a lot of crippling. It didn't end well

Several years is short-lived?

The October Revolution happened at the end of 1917. Two and a half year later their army almost reached Germany. And it was a large and quite capable army.

Yes; correct! However, that was in real life--when Russia had both Britain and the U.S. to help it fight Germany (on the Western Front). In contrast, a Germany which wins World War I is probably going to have both Britain and the U.S. remain neutral throughout all of World War I. In turn, this is probably going to mean that even a non-Bolshevik Russia isn't going to want to continue the war against Germany when it (Russia) is clearly being defeated by Germany.

It would be nice to defeat France first. This was unlikely.

A victorious Germany probably isn't going to have the Bolsheviks as enemies for very long--if at all. After all, a victorious Germany can probably shoot and kill all of the top/major Bolsheviks in some corridor.

At that time the Bolsheviks were rather unkillable, especially after they had grabbed power. Half of the world rooted for them. And they were very adaptable as the NEP and their cooperation with American plutocrats like Ford shows.

Well, the Germans simply need someone in Russia to sign a peace deal with. Afterwards, the Germans will simply use military force to make future Russian governments honor this peace deal if regime change will occur in Russia at some point after this peace deal (with Germany) is signed.

Well the Poles conquered and hold Moscow for a few years. Brought with them a suitable Russian big fish to rule the place for them and still it didn't end well.
It seems the Russians dislike foreign invaders for some reasons.

Secondly, why exactly would the creation of buffer client states be too ambitious for Germany? Completely serious question, for the record.

Germany was a relatively small country with limited resources. The buffer states would be enormous territories full of dynamic and young nationalists having access to easily manipulated, living in grinding poverty masses. The entire region would be a structural powder keg.

To some extent? Yes, of course! However, if the Ukrainian people would have voted against independence in that December 1991 referendum of theirs, then the Soviet Union probably would have survived. Thus, your statement here only appears to be partially correct.

The nationalists would turn on their efforts to eleven and get their independence. The naive and politically "virgin" people there were easy to manipulate.

Yes, France would probably hold out in 1914 without Britain and the United States. However, I am certainly extremely skeptical that France would be able to hold out for years without Britain and the United States.

The French didn't merely held out, they were incessantly attacking, paying with millions of casualties for that. The Germans were welcomed to reverse roles. In the end they probably would have to conquer Moscow with their child-soldiers . In France those on the defense had a huge advantage.
Additionally without Belgium the attack would be much less effective.

The information on page 208 of this book appears to contradict what you wrote here:

Not quite, the author didn't elaborate what "ceding" entailed. I can't quite imagine a group of loosely connected rich people voluntarily giving away one third of their wealth for some idealistic reasons. Especially this easily could have led to bankruptcy considering all mortgages /loans they were most likely burdened with.

Good point! However, couldn't the Dvina River likewise have a lot of potential considering how far and deep into Russia it goes? :

Probably, still St. Petersburg was much better for this.

Indeed, isn't the Riga metropolitan area the largest metropolitan area in the Baltic countries right now (in real life, that is)?

Half a million people doesn't sound too metropolitan to me. And this after decades of Soviet large investments there.

Exactly what "much better connection" for railway links are you talking about here, though?

Moscow and St. Petersburg were the Russians' pride and joy. By definition everything was better there.

Weren't many Russian Jews poor and forced to live in Shtetls (sp?), though?

They were allocated a territory to live, and not that small - probably Germany and France together would fit there with spare. They weren't allowed to dwell in villages. Although I can imagine why anybody would want to.

Mostly? Indeed, I certainly find that extremely had to believe considering that the emigrated from Russia by the [/b]millions[/b]! Heck, just take a look at the data here:

According to those numbers it was a trivial 47,000 per year. More Poles emigrated from their small country. Grinding poverty really ground too fine for many people's taste in this parts of Europe.

And I didn't have in mind the poverty stricken masses - because they didn't care, but rather the Jewish elites.

Who exactly could have done what? Indeed, I just want you to clarify this part.

I meant the Jewish elites, especially plutocrats like Kronenbergs had all the rights they needed thanks to their wealth. You couldn't offer them equal rights with peasants because you would have to rob them of their wealth first.

But the plan, that the Jews should have ruled entire Eastern Europe for the benefit of their German masters (as it seems you proposed) really existed. It was submitted to the German Government by a prominent Jewish politician Max Bodenheimer in 1914. It was called the League of East European States.

What about turning both Riga and Reval (Tallinn) into major transportation hubs due to their location between Berlin and Petrograd, though?

Inland and sea transport was much cheaper if was available. And I don't quite fathom what they could have transported between Petrograd and Berlin. Maybe communism

OK. That's true for Norway. However, what about Finland and Denmark?

Denmark was part of Norway, or rather in union. Finland was part of Sweden.

"Brutal" in exactly what sense, though? After all, wanting to weaken and to tame Russia certainly

Germany and Russia were friends but the non-nice Kaiser blew it. There was no need to tame Russia.

The main problem with such grandiose plans is that it's quite likely something will go wrong, and then it all will go to hell in a handbasket.
The non-nice Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini have a few observations to share on this I think. And Americans with their grandiose planning in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

[Futurist]

Are you sure that having independence (while simultaneously being forced to have a defensible alliance with Germany and to allow Germany to station military bases on their territory) wouldn't be good enough for both the Poles and the Ukrainians, though? After all, isn't German military protection necessary to prevent Russia from reconquering Poland and especially Ukraine at some future point in time?

Poland, without the territories annexed by the Germans and without access to sea wouldn't be worth much, and Germany was not going to return them. The Poles wouldn't like this, at all.

Couldn't Germany give Poland transit rights to the sea through its own (Germany's) territory, though?

If all of Poland is a German ally, though, then wouldn't the location of the German-Polish border be completely irrelevant?

Would be very relevant. The Poles was/would be fermenting unrest among the millions of Poles living in the annexed territories all the time. This was another reason for the Strip - to prevent this by denying access.

Well, if there is enough political will, then a rational German government can simply transfer most or all of Posen Province to Poland and eliminate this problem that way. Indeed, I certainly think that it was a mistake for Prussia to annex Posen Province back in 1848 in the first place!

You appear to be correct in regards to this to an extent. Basically, my point here is that having Germany conquer both Petrograd and Moscow should sufficiently cripple Russia's transportation and supply networks to make Russia collapse and capitulate (relatively) shortly afterwards. Frankly, for the time being, I still stand by this statement of mine. After all, my educated guess is that even 1910s Russia would certainly be extremely crippled by the loss of its railroads and thus the loss of its transportation and supply networks.

That guy, Hitler counted on this too and did a lot of crippling. It didn't end well

Adolf Hitler never succeeded in capturing either Leningrad (formerly known as Petrograd) or Moscow, though. Plus, the Soviet Army in the early 1940s was certainly much stronger than the Tsarist Army in the 1910s was.

Several years is short-lived?

The October Revolution happened at the end of 1917. Two and a half year later their army almost reached Germany. And it was a large and quite capable army.

They almost reached Germany in 1920 because they didn't face any effective military competition from anyone other than the Poles and the Baltic peoples, though.

Yes; correct! However, that was in real life--when Russia had both Britain and the U.S. to help it fight Germany (on the Western Front). In contrast, a Germany which wins World War I is probably going to have both Britain and the U.S. remain neutral throughout all of World War I. In turn, this is probably going to mean that even a non-Bolshevik Russia isn't going to want to continue the war against Germany when it (Russia) is clearly being defeated by Germany.

It would be nice to defeat France first. This was unlikely.

Strongly disagreed--specifically for the time period between 1916 and 1918.

A victorious Germany probably isn't going to have the Bolsheviks as enemies for very long--if at all. After all, a victorious Germany can probably shoot and kill all of the top/major Bolsheviks in some corridor.

At that time the Bolsheviks were rather unkillable, especially after they had grabbed power. Half of the world rooted for them. And they were very adaptable as the NEP and their cooperation with American plutocrats like Ford shows.

Half of the world rooted for them? Source, please?

Well, the Germans simply need someone in Russia to sign a peace deal with. Afterwards, the Germans will simply use military force to make future Russian governments honor this peace deal if regime change will occur in Russia at some point after this peace deal (with Germany) is signed.

Well the Poles conquered and hold Moscow for a few years. Brought with them a suitable Russian big fish to rule the place for them and still it didn't end well.
It seems the Russians dislike foreign invaders for some reasons.

As I said, though--Germany only needs to occupy Russia for a little bit of time. Afterwards, the Russians can launch as many revolutions as they would like.

Secondly, why exactly would the creation of buffer client states be too ambitious for Germany? Completely serious question, for the record.

Germany was a relatively small country with limited resources.

How much resources did Imperial Germany have in comparison to France, Britain, Italy, and Russia, though?

The buffer states would be enormous territories full of dynamic and young nationalists having access to easily manipulated, living in grinding poverty masses. The entire region would be a structural powder keg.

Maybe ... maybe. However, Germany can certainly actively try appeasing some or even most of these nationalists.

To some extent? Yes, of course! However, if the Ukrainian people would have voted against independence in that December 1991 referendum of theirs, then the Soviet Union probably would have survived. Thus, your statement here only appears to be partially correct.

The nationalists would turn on their efforts to eleven and get their independence. The naive and politically "virgin" people there were easy to manipulate.

Germany would already give them independence, though. Indeed, the only thing that Germany would expect of them would be a military alliance and military cooperation (with Germany).

Yes, France would probably hold out in 1914 without Britain and the United States. However, I am certainly extremely skeptical that France would be able to hold out for years without Britain and the United States.

The French didn't merely held out, they were incessantly attacking, paying with millions of casualties for that. The Germans were welcomed to reverse roles.

Yes, but after September 1914, all of these French attacks appear to have miserably failed for the next 3.5 years or so.

In the end they probably would have to conquer Moscow with their child-soldiers .

The Germans?

In France those on the defense had a huge advantage.

Except the Germans would be the ones on the defense in this scenario--specifically in Alsace-Lorraine.

Additionally without Belgium the attack would be much less effective.

Except Germany is going to play defense on the Western Front in this scenario until after Russia is defeated and capitulates.

The information on page 208 of this book appears to contradict what you wrote here:

Not quite, the author didn't elaborate what "ceding" entailed. I can't quite imagine a group of loosely connected rich people voluntarily giving away one third of their wealth for some idealistic reasons. Especially this easily could have led to bankruptcy considering all mortgages /loans they were most likely burdened with.

Frankly, I have just created a thread in another section of this forum in order to discuss this exact information. Indeed, please feel free to comment on that thread, wm!

Good point! However, couldn't the Dvina River likewise have a lot of potential considering how far and deep into Russia it goes? :

Probably, still St. Petersburg was much better for this.

Exactly why so, though?

Indeed, isn't the Riga metropolitan area the largest metropolitan area in the Baltic countries right now (in real life, that is)?

Half a million people doesn't sound too metropolitan to me.

What about 1.1 million people, though? :

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

And this after decades of Soviet large investments there.

Yes; correct! However, unlike a victorious Imperial Germany, the Soviet Union was actually pretty poor for a European country.

Exactly what "much better connection" for railway links are you talking about here, though?

Moscow and St. Petersburg were the Russians' pride and joy. By definition everything was better there.

OK; understood, I suppose.

Weren't many Russian Jews poor and forced to live in Shtetls (sp?), though?

They were allocated a territory to live, and not that small - probably Germany and France together would fit there with spare. They weren't allowed to dwell in villages. Although I can imagine why anybody would want to.

OK. Also, though, weren't at least most Russian Jews legally discriminated against?

Mostly? Indeed, I certainly find that extremely had to believe considering that the emigrated from Russia by the [/b]millions[/b]! Heck, just take a look at the data here:

According to those numbers it was a trivial 47,000 per year. More Poles emigrated from their small country. Grinding poverty really ground too fine for many people's taste in this parts of Europe.

47,000 per year is actually pretty significant considering that the total Jewish population in the Russian Empire was about 5 million people, though. Indeed, at that rate and without any natural growth, the Russian Empire would have been completely emptied out of Jews in a little over a century!

And I didn't have in mind the poverty stricken masses - because they didn't care, but rather the Jewish elites.

Didn't the poverty-stricken masses want better lives, though? Also, didn't many poverty-stricken Jews and/or their descendants eventually become extremely well-off?

Who exactly could have done what? Indeed, I just want you to clarify this part.

I meant the Jewish elites, especially plutocrats like Kronenbergs had all the rights they needed thanks to their wealth. You couldn't offer them equal rights with peasants because you would have to rob them of their wealth first.

OK. Also, though, didn't many poverty-stricken Jews and/or their descendants eventually become extremely well-off?

But the plan, that the Jews should have ruled entire Eastern Europe for the benefit of their German masters (as it seems you proposed) really existed. It was submitted to the German Government by a prominent Jewish politician Max Bodenheimer in 1914. It was called the League of East European States.

Thanks for sharing this link with us!

However, I would like to point out that I was talking about Jews investing in Eastern Europe (especially in both Latvia and Estonia) rather than about Jews ruling Eastern Europe here, though.

What about turning both Riga and Reval (Tallinn) into major transportation hubs due to their location between Berlin and Petrograd, though?

Inland and sea transport was much cheaper if was available.

What exactly would be a much cheaper inland transport route between Berlin and St. Petersburg, though?

And I don't quite fathom what they could have transported between Petrograd and Berlin. Maybe communism

What about various raw materials and manufactured goods?

OK. That's true for Norway. However, what about Finland and Denmark?

Denmark was part of Norway, or rather in union. Finland was part of Sweden.

What about after both Denmark and Finland became independent countries, though?

"Brutal" in exactly what sense, though? After all, wanting to weaken and to tame Russia certainly

Germany and Russia were friends but the non-nice Kaiser blew it. There was no need to tame Russia.

But Russia would have eventually significantly dominated Europe if it wouldn't have been tamed!

The main problem with such grandiose plans is that it's quite likely something will go wrong, and then it all will go to hell in a handbasket.
The non-nice Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini have a few observations to share on this I think. And Americans with their grandiose planning in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

And yet the Korean War went pretty well for us Americans.

[wm]

Couldn't Germany give Poland transit rights to the sea through its own (Germany's) territory, though?

This would change nothing, Poland still would be a client state. The rights would be subjected to whims of a hostile power.

Well, if there is enough political will, then a rational German government can simply transfer most or all of Posen Province to Poland and eliminate this problem that way.

The first German politician who agreed with this statement was the "rational" Adolf Hitler.
And I'm pretty sure the "Posen" Germans would tear apart, limb from limb, members of such a German government with their bare hands. Usually a war is needed for such drastic borders changes.

Adolf Hitler never succeeded in capturing either Leningrad (formerly known as Petrograd) or Moscow, though. Plus, the Soviet Army in the early 1940s was certainly much stronger than the Tsarist Army in the 1910s was.

And the Wehrmacht was much stronger and capable than the Imperial German Army.

They almost reached Germany in 1920 because they didn't face any effective military competition from anyone other than the Poles and the Baltic peoples, though.

Earlier they were fighting their various enemies almost continuously for over two years. This shows their staying power wasn't bad.

Half of the world rooted for them? Source, please?

Socialist ideas were enormously popular around the world at that time. And the communists were basically socialists, and socialists were everywhere a serious political force from Poland to Germany/GB/France.

How much resources did Imperial Germany have in comparison to France, Britain, Italy, and Russia, though?

Britain, Germany, Russia were more or less equal, France maybe 2/3 weaker than Germany, Italy was 2/3 of France. Of course the British fleet was a nice force multiplier.

Except Germany is going to play defense on the Western Front in this scenario until after Russia is defeated and capitulates.

The problem with this is nobody really knew/expected that such a long and effective defense was possible. They assumed in a few months the war would be over. They couldn't put into the plan ideas they weren't aware of.

Exactly why so, though?

Saint Petersburg was the center of Russia. A major port, waterways, railroads. Everything was there in place already.

What about 1.1 million people, though? :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riga_Planning_Region

They divided their country into planning regions for some reason. It's a bureaucracy in action not a metropolis.

Yes; correct! However, unlike a victorious Imperial Germany, the Soviet Union was actually pretty poor for a European country.

In the fifties the USSR was almost three times wealthier than the 1913 Imperial Germany, in the eighties eight times.

OK. Also, though, weren't at least most Russian Jews legally discriminated against?

Yes, they were - unless they were wealthy. Although I suspect the masses didn't care, it was something that made the Jewish middle class mad.

47,000 per year is actually pretty significant considering that the total Jewish population in the Russian Empire was about 5 million people, though. Indeed, at that rate and without any natural growth, the Russian Empire would have been completely emptied out of Jews in a little over a century!

If I'm not mistaken in such a large population at least 200,000 babies were born per year, so no, the Russian Jews weren't going to die off like the dinosaurs did.

Didn't the poverty-stricken masses want better lives, though? Also, didn't many poverty-stricken Jews and/or their descendants eventually become extremely well-off?

Of course, but it removing the restrictions imposed on them wouldn't make them well-off or even gave them better lives. It would be like granting them the right to buy the newest Benz Patent Motorwagen.

OK. Also, though, didn't many poverty-stricken Jews and/or their descendants eventually become extremely well-off?

Well, a good example is Mr Leon Trotsky.
Many famous and/or rich Americans were/are former Russian Jews. After all someone had to be the author of Fiddler on the Roof.

What exactly would be a much cheaper inland transport route between Berlin and St. Petersburg, though?

Something went wrong with that my sentence. I meant the sea route would be cheaper, after all it was Berlin was far away, and German and Russian railways were/are incompatible.

What about after both Denmark and Finland became independent countries, though?

A rich country usually stays this way.

But Russia would have eventually significantly dominated Europe if it wouldn't have been tamed!

Russia and Germany were comparable in wealth, and it rather was not going to change, and not-Communist Russia would be like Czechoslovakia on steroids with lots of internal problems. The 1991 could have happened much earlier there.

[Futurist]

Couldn't Germany give Poland transit rights to the sea through its own (Germany's) territory, though?

This would change nothing, Poland still would be a client state. The rights would be subjected to whims of a hostile power.

True, but Poland would essentially be able to run its own domestic affairs how it sees fit.

Well, if there is enough political will, then a rational German government can simply transfer most or all of Posen Province to Poland and eliminate this problem that way.

The first German politician who agreed with this statement was the "rational" Adolf Hitler.

What about Gustav Stresemann, though?

And I'm pretty sure the "Posen" Germans would tear apart, limb from limb, members of such a German government with their bare hands. Usually a war is needed for such drastic borders changes.

Yep, unfortunately. Indeed, the Prussian government certainly shouldn't have annexed Posen back in 1848.

Adolf Hitler never succeeded in capturing either Leningrad (formerly known as Petrograd) or Moscow, though. Plus, the Soviet Army in the early 1940s was certainly much stronger than the Tsarist Army in the 1910s was.

And the Wehrmacht was much stronger and capable than the Imperial German Army.

Relative to Russia/the Soviet Union? I certainly don't think so!

They almost reached Germany in 1920 because they didn't face any effective military competition from anyone other than the Poles and the Baltic peoples, though.

Earlier they were fighting their various enemies almost continuously for over two years. This shows their staying power wasn't bad.

Their enemies generally appear to have been very weak, though.

Half of the world rooted for them? Source, please?

Socialist ideas were enormously popular around the world at that time. And the communists were basically socialists, and socialists were everywhere a serious political force from Poland to Germany/GB/France.

You appear to be forgetting the fact that not all socialists supported mass murder, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism, though. Indeed, socialists such as the German Social Democrats certainly supported democracy--something that was anathema to the Bolsheviks!

How much resources did Imperial Germany have in comparison to France, Britain, Italy, and Russia, though?

Britain, Germany, Russia were more or less equal, France maybe 2/3 weaker than Germany, Italy was 2/3 of France. Of course the British fleet was a nice force multiplier.

Do you have a source for all of this, please?

Except Germany is going to play defense on the Western Front in this scenario until after Russia is defeated and capitulates.

The problem with this is nobody really knew/expected that such a long and effective defense was possible. They assumed in a few months the war would be over. They couldn't put into the plan ideas they weren't aware of.

What about Moltke the Elder, though? Wasn't he prepared for this possibility?

Exactly why so, though?

Saint Petersburg was the center of Russia. A major port, waterways, railroads. Everything was there in place already.

OK.

What about 1.1 million people, though? :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riga_Planning_Region

They divided their country into planning regions for some reason. It's a bureaucracy in action not a metropolis.

You'll still have about 1 million total people in the Riga metropolitan area even if you'll remove both Limbaži District and Tukums District from the equation, though.

Yes; correct! However, unlike a victorious Imperial Germany, the Soviet Union was actually pretty poor for a European country.

In the fifties the USSR was almost three times wealthier than the 1913 Imperial Germany, in the eighties eight times.

I meant relative to its neighbors and on a per capita basis here, though.

OK. Also, though, weren't at least most Russian Jews legally discriminated against?

Yes, they were - unless they were wealthy. Although I suspect the masses didn't care, it was something that made the Jewish middle class mad.

Didn't a sizable part of the masses immigrate to other countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a result of this, though?

47,000 per year is actually pretty significant considering that the total Jewish population in the Russian Empire was about 5 million people, though. Indeed, at that rate and without any natural growth, the Russian Empire would have been completely emptied out of Jews in a little over a century!

If I'm not mistaken in such a large population at least 200,000 babies were born per year, so no, the Russian Jews weren't going to die off like the dinosaurs did.

That's why I wrote "without any natural growth" here, though.

Didn't the poverty-stricken masses want better lives, though? Also, didn't many poverty-stricken Jews and/or their descendants eventually become extremely well-off?

Of course, but it removing the restrictions imposed on them wouldn't make them well-off or even gave them better lives. It would be like granting them the right to buy the newest Benz Patent Motorwagen.

Wouldn't it give them more economic/financial, job, and educational opportunities, though?

OK. Also, though, didn't many poverty-stricken Jews and/or their descendants eventually become extremely well-off?

Well, a good example is Mr Leon Trotsky.
Many famous and/or rich Americans were/are former Russian Jews. After all someone had to be the author of Fiddler on the Roof.

OK; indeed, that's what I thought.

What exactly would be a much cheaper inland transport route between Berlin and St. Petersburg, though?

Something went wrong with that my sentence. I meant the sea route would be cheaper, after all it was Berlin was far away, and German and Russian railways were/are incompatible.

What about making German and Russian railways compatible, though?

What about after both Denmark and Finland became independent countries, though?

A rich country usually stays this way.

OK.

But Russia would have eventually significantly dominated Europe if it wouldn't have been tamed!

Russia and Germany were comparable in wealth,

On a per capita basis? Indeed, I certainly find that extremely hard to believe!

and it rather was not going to change, and not-Communist Russia would be like Czechoslovakia on steroids with lots of internal problems. The 1991 could have happened much earlier there.

Would a non-Bolshevik Russia have actually been willing to accept the secession of territories such as Ukraine, though?

[Futurist]

In addition to this, out of curiosity--if a victorious Imperial Germany would have allowed both Latvians and Estonians (well, all of the law-abiding ones) to immigrate to Germany proper without any restrictions (and with an eventual path to citizenship), how many Latvians and Estonians do you think would have actually chosen to immigrate to Germany proper over the next century (as in, from the late 1910s to the late 2010s)? Several hundred thousand? Less than that?

Any thoughts on this question of mine, wm (and other people as well)?

[wm]

From Poland, in the last half-century before the Great War 10% of the population emigrated. It seems both countries were nicer places so most likely it would be less.

[Futurist]

From Poland, in the last half-century before the Great War 10% of the population emigrated. It seems both countries were nicer places so most likely it would be less.

Perhaps Posen would be a better analogy to this, though. After all, Imperial Germany certainly didn't allow unrestricted and unlimited immigration from Poland, correct?

[Futurist]

Also, can you please respond to this question of mine here, wm (and other people as well)? :

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=222179

[wm]

Perhaps Posen would be a better analogy to this, though. After all, Imperial Germany certainly didn't allow unrestricted and unlimited immigration from Poland, correct?

But Posen was in Germany...

[wm]

True, but Poland would essentially be able to run its own domestic affairs how it sees fit.

No sane German politician would allow that...

What about Gustav Stresemann, though?

too busy trying to implement his inane socialism to think about it...

Relative to Russia/the Soviet Union? I certainly don't think so!

The 1939 Wehrmacht or 1939 Soviet Army would simply roll over the 1914 Imperial German Army. All the tanks, planes, trucks, better artillery, radios they had would make this certain.

Their enemies generally appear to have been very weak, though.

Or rather they lack support among the masses...

You appear to be forgetting the fact that not all socialists supported mass murder, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism, though.

The Bolsheviks, the Soviets didn't support either, their next mutation - the Stalinists did.

Indeed, socialists such as the German Social Democrats certainly supported democracy--something that was anathema to the Bolsheviks!

Democracy is pointless without freedom. Social Democrats in 1920:

Now, in order to obtain a production directed towards social ends, society must control production absolutely, that is to say "the ownership and control of the industries and services essential for the satisfaction of the people's needs" should pass from the capitalists to the community.

The general rule that all the means of production should pass to the community.

Nationalization of the great public services, such as transport, mines, the production of electricity and gas, is admitted at the present time even by a number of people who cannot exactly be called socialists. The expropriation by the community of other industries has the almost unanimous support of the socialist world.

The ownership of the soil should be national, whatever may be the system by which agricultural production is secured.

[As] to artisans working on their own account and to independent intellectual workers [...] there is our necessary condition, that production should be carried on without the employment of the labour of others.

Do you have a source for all of this, please?

It's from Maddison Project Database.

What about Moltke the Elder, though? Wasn't he prepared for this possibility?

I suppose he would have to have hotline to God for this. It wasn't a single development but many, enormously advancing the art of war.

I meant relative to its neighbors and on a per capita basis here, though.

It doesn't matter how rich your individual soldiers are, but the GDP of the entire country is really important.

Didn't a sizable part of the masses immigrate to other countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a result of this, though?

Certainly, although they emigrated in large numbers from territories where the regime was nice to them too. An entire emigration industry existed, they would convince a dead man to emigrate to make a quick buck.

Wouldn't it give them more economic/financial, job, and educational opportunities, though?

You can't give away things you don't have. A regime change doesn't increase GDP rather decrease it.

On a per capita basis? Indeed, I certainly find that extremely hard to believe!

Per capita is useful to investigate quality of life. If you want war with your neighbour you should rather check his GDP.

Would a non-Bolshevik Russia have actually been willing to accept the secession of territories such as Ukraine, though?

Rather impossible...

[Futurist]

Perhaps Posen would be a better analogy to this, though. After all, Imperial Germany certainly didn't allow unrestricted and unlimited immigration from Poland, correct?

But Posen was in Germany...

Yes, but it (specifically Posen Province) was Polish-majority.