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

[wm]

Indeed, both Riga and Tallinn (Reval) look like suitable places to create a massive urban metropolis there if enough people will move and (permanently) settle there. After all, there will certainly be enough living space (Lebensraum) in these two places for this.

A metropolis on the shore of a large puddle the Baltic is. I would say the German ocean shipping ports would make such a metropolis unsustainable - unless the Russians would use it and they rather wouldn't.

The Germans were more interested in building a defensive Chinese wall on their Eastern border - the so called Polish border strip than expanding their possessions into hard to defend territories, and, God willing, making Latvia and Estonia their puppet states.

Their Lebensraum was going to be the ethnic cleansed Polish territories comprising the border strip.

1. Couldn't Germany have successfully encouraged ethnic Germans from Russia and maybe from certain parts of Austria-Hungary to settle in the Baltic states?

They were doing that but it required money, and they didn't have that much money.
It was all about money, after the Great War no sane person in Europe would want to endure the life of the 19th century American settlers.

[Futurist]

Indeed, both Riga and Tallinn (Reval) look like suitable places to create a massive urban metropolis there if enough people will move and (permanently) settle there. After all, there will certainly be enough living space (Lebensraum) in these two places for this.

A metropolis on the shore of a large puddle the Baltic is.

I'm sorry, but can you please rephrase this part? After all, I unfortunately can't understand what you are saying here.

Also, both Latvia and Estonia appear to have a lot of Lebensraum for metropolitan expansion around Riga and Tallinn (Reval):

I would say the German ocean shipping ports would make such a metropolis unsustainable - unless the Russians would use it and they rather wouldn't.

How exactly do ocean shipping ports make such metropolises unsustainable, though? Completely serious question, for the record.

The Germans were more interested in building a defensive Chinese wall on their Eastern border - the so called Polish border strip than expanding their possessions into hard to defend territories, and, God willing, making Latvia and Estonia their puppet states.

Settling ethnic Germans in Latvia and Estonia certainly doesn't preclude doing any of these other things, though.

Their Lebensraum was going to be the ethnic cleansed Polish territories comprising the border strip.

In real life? Yes. However, a different, more rational German Kaiser might have preferred to use the more sparsely populated Latvia and Estonia as Lebensraum than to expel millions of ethnic Poles and Jews from the Polish Border Strip.

1. Couldn't Germany have successfully encouraged ethnic Germans from Russia and maybe from certain parts of Austria-Hungary to settle in the Baltic states?

They were doing that but it required money, and they didn't have that much money.

Couldn't World War I reparations by France and Russia provide the money for this, though?

It was all about money, after the Great War no sane person in Europe would want to endure the life of the 19th century American settlers.

What about ethnic German peasants from Russia (such as from the Volga area/region), though? Wouldn't many of them have been willing to move to and to permanently settle in Latvia and Estonia if Germany would have actually given them sufficient incentives to do this? Completely serious question, for the record.

[Futurist]

Also, though, it is worth noting that both Latvia and Estonia would actually probably be pretty easy for Germany to defend after the end of World War I if Germany will significantly weaken Russia's military power by stripping Russia of both Ukraine (and all of its potential manpower, obviously) and oil-rich Baku.

[wm]

It seems we are going to take away from the Russian bear a few things he really likes. And he is three times our size. This really looks like a risky business.
The Russian could have grudgingly accepted the new countries which took away "their" territories - Poland, Latvia and Estonia, because they actually had some rights to do that. But a totally foreign power, especially in Baku - no way. This would be a recipe for a new war, and then another, and another till the desired outcome would be reached. Of course with the full support of the other defeated nations; Britain, France, the US.

Similarly, the Ukrainians could have grudgingly accepted a Polish or Russian rule - at least for some time, but a true foreign occupant would be unacceptable for their elites. And in the twenties/thirties their independence movement was quite strong and becoming stronger every day.

What about ethnic German peasants from Russia (such as from the Volga area/region), though? Wouldn't many of them have been willing to move to and to permanently settle in Latvia and Estonia if Germany would have actually given them sufficient incentives to do this? Completely serious question, for the record.

With sufficient incentives everything is possible but Germany was as rich then (using GDP p/c) as today's Cuba or Honduras. They really didn't have that much money to burn.
The territories maybe were sparsely populated but there was no free land there as far as I know. Its owners would have to be pay off or cleansed.

Couldn't World War I reparations by France and Russia provide the money for this, though?

They would have lots of internal problems which would badly need that money; their economy was in tatters, internal debt, unemployment, veterans. For this reason I would say even the Germans themselves wouldn't support this project.

A metropolis on the shore of a large puddle the Baltic is.

I meant a metropolis needs an economy to support it. The Baltic is the world's boondocks, unsuitable for larger ships to boot. I major shipping center, metropolis is not going to happen there. Any European exporter would preferred a port with a direct access to main shipping lanes every time.

New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego are such ports and simultaneously gates to something. But this metropolis would be a gate to nowhere.

[Futurist]

First of all, I would like to mention the fact that I strongly enjoy this conversation with you, wm! Anyway, though, here goes:

It seems we are going to take away from the Russian bear a few things he really likes. And he is three times our size. This really looks like a risky business.

Actually, if Russia will be reduced to its Brest-Litovsk borders, then Russia's population advantage over Germany should decrease from almost 3 to 1 (as in, about 180 million to about 65 million) to about 1.5 to 1 (about 100 million to about 65 million). In turn, this means that managing the threat of Russia will probably become much easier for Germany.

The Russian could have grudgingly accepted the new countries which took away "their" territories - Poland, Latvia and Estonia, because they actually had some rights to do that.

You mean just like the Russians "accepted" the results of the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum (where over 90% of Ukrainians voted in favor of independence) in real life by trying to reincorporate and reintegrate Ukraine afterwards?

But a totally foreign power, especially in Baku - no way.

First of all, from the perspective of national self-determination, Russia certainly has no more of a claim to Baku than the Ottoman Empire has. Indeed, one can argue that the Ottoman Empire actually has a more legitimate claim to Baku than Russia has due to the fact that, unlike Russia, both the Ottoman Empire and Baku have a Muslim-majority population.

Secondly, Germany needs to strip Baku from Russia (and, if necessary, to give Baku to its ally the Ottoman Empire afterwards) in order to reduce Russia's access to Baku's extremely large oil reserves. After all, less oil from Baku probably means less industrial might and less military might for Russia.

Now, is Russia actually going to be happy about the loss of oil-rich Baku? Hell No! However, if the Ottoman Empire's new border with Russia will be made along the Greater Caucasus Mountains, then Russia probably isn't going to be able to do anything about its loss of Baku for an extremely long time :



After all, a new Russo-Ottoman border along the Greater Caucasus Mountains is very likely going to be extremely defensible for the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, the Greater Caucasus Mountains appear to be just as good of a defensible border as the Alps are.

This would be a recipe for a new war, and then another, and another till the desired outcome would be reached.

Let me say this--in 1918, after the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, some Western (I think American) magazine predicted that Russia will never permanently tolerate the loss of both the Baltic states and Ukraine. However, 98 years later, in 2016, Russia appears to have very much come to tolerate the loss of virtually all of these territories (indeed, even Crimea and the Donbass are only a very small part of Ukraine).

Thus, while Russia is certainly going to initially be extremely angry at the loss of some/most/all of these territories, it will almost certainly eventually get over the loss of all or at least virtually all of these territories.

Of course with the full support of the other defeated nations; Britain,

If Britain enters World War I in this scenario, that is. After all, a more rational German Kaiser might have been less provocative towards Britain in the pre-World War I years and might have rejected the Schlieffen Plan and thus caused Britain to remain neutral in World War I.

France,

The thing is, though, that the loss of resource-rich Briey and Longwy combined with crippling reparations to Germany and crippling restrictions on the size of France's military is probably going to permanently cripple France and thus is probably going to permanently ensure that France will never become a threat to Germany ever again.

the US.

The U.S. will remain neutral throughout all of World War I in this scenario, though. After all, Germany certainly cannot win World War I if the U.S. enters World War I on the side of the Entente/Allies.

Similarly, the Ukrainians could have grudgingly accepted a Polish or Russian rule - at least for some time, but a true foreign occupant would be unacceptable for their elites. And in the twenties/thirties their independence movement was quite strong and becoming stronger every day.

The thing is, though, that a sufficiently smart German Kaiser (such as if German Kaiser Wilhelm II dies young) can only use both Latvia and Estonia as Lebensraum (on historical grounds--after all, both Latvia and Estonia were previously successfully conquered by the ethnically German Teutonic Knights and both Latvia and Estonia have a mostly ethnic German nobility even as late as the early 20th century) while allowing other newly liberated countries such as Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine to mostly/largely run and manage their own affairs on the condition that they agree to establish both close military ties and close economic ties with Germany.

What about ethnic German peasants from Russia (such as from the Volga area/region), though? Wouldn't many of them have been willing to move to and to permanently settle in Latvia and Estonia if Germany would have actually given them sufficient incentives to do this? Completely serious question, for the record.

With sufficient incentives everything is possible but Germany was as rich then (using GDP p/c) as today's Cuba or Honduras. They really didn't have that much money to burn.

Wouldn't large-scale World War I reparations from France and Russia have resulted in Germany having much more money to burn, though?

The territories maybe were sparsely populated but there was no free land there as far as I know. Its owners would have to be pay off or cleansed.

Actually, it states this here:

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

(On page 208 of the book above.)

"To strengthen their ethnic base, Baltic Barons agreed to cede a third of their land for German settlement."

If you are curious, the Baltic Barons were the ethnically German nobility of both Latvia and Estonia.

Couldn't World War I reparations by France and Russia provide the money for this, though?

They would have lots of internal problems which would badly need that money; their economy was in tatters, internal debt, unemployment, veterans.

Wouldn't a lack of a British blockade (if Britain remains neutral throughout all of World War I in this scenario) have resulted in a much better German economic situation in both the late 1910s and the 1920s in comparison to real life, though?

For this reason I would say even the Germans themselves wouldn't support this project.

What about poor landless German peasants from southern Germany, though? After all, I seem to recall that Michael Mills previously mentioned that the German government wanted to settle such German peasants in Livonia and Estonia in 1918 (and afterwards, but Germany ended up losing World War I and thus losing both Livonia and Estonia).

Also, though, what about German World War I veterans? Indeed, couldn't many German World War I veterans want to get rewarded for their military service during World War I with some free (or at least extremely cheap) land in Latvia and/or in Estonia?

A metropolis on the shore of a large puddle the Baltic is.

I meant a metropolis needs an economy to support it.

Couldn't large-scale industrialization in both Latvia and Estonia create such an economy, though?

The Baltic is the world's boondocks,

And Scandinavia isn't likewise the world's boondocks?

unsuitable for larger ships to boot.

Do you have a source for this, please?

Also, though, I would like to point out that a victorious Germany can use the railroads in both Poland and Lithuania to ship/transfer people and goods to both Latvia and Estonia.

I major shipping center, metropolis is not going to happen there. Any European exporter would preferred a port with a direct access to main shipping lanes every time.

Is Paris and/or Madrid a major shipping center, though? Also, is London and/or Berlin a major shipping center?

New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego are such ports and simultaneously gates to something. But this metropolis would be a gate to nowhere.

Is Chicago such a port and a major shipping center, though?

[Futurist]

Also, for the record, here is current population data for various metropolises in Scandinavia (which appears to be similar to the Baltic states in terms of climate, et cetera):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _in_Europe

Copenhagen Denmark 1,881,000[7] 1,893,010 3,900,000[8][9]

Helsinki Metropolitan Area Finland 1,285,000 1,532,309 1,800,000

Greater Oslo Norway 1,037,000 1,144,883 1,700,000

Metropolitan Stockholm Sweden 2,171,000 2,034,354 2,200,000

Indeed, we are looking at a combined population of about 6-9 million people for these four Scandinavian metropolitan areas combined. Heck, even if "just" 3 million (as in 2-3 times less people than for these four Scandinavian metropolitan areas combined) ethnic Germans will settle in Latvia and Estonia (combined), then it should already be enough to make both Latvia's and Estonia's population ethnic German-majority.

[Futurist]

In addition to this, though, I would like to point out that both Tallinn (Reval) and Riga can certainly be great midway points/stops for a railroad from Petrograd (St. Petersburg) to Berlin (in the event of a Russian-German rapprochement, that is):



Indeed, just imagine how much traffic (both railroad and road) would have traveled through both Riga and Tallinn (Reval) in the event of a Russian-German rapprochement in this scenario.

[BDV]

Is Chicago such a port and a major shipping center, though?

You see, we have this thing called "Great Lakes" in North America and Chicago is the most important shipping center on these lakes.

[Futurist]

Is Chicago such a port and a major shipping center, though?

You see, we have this thing called "Great Lakes" in North America and Chicago is the most important shipping center on these lakes.

Yes; correct! However, couldn't cities such as Riga and Tallinn (Reval) have become major shipping centers on the Baltic Sea? After all, Stockholm, Helsinki, Danzig (Gdansk), and Copenhagen all appear to have successfully done this!

[Futurist]

Also, couldn't the military importance and strategic importance of the Baltic states have caused a victorious Imperial Germany to try colonizing both Latvia and Estonia (such as by offering free or at least extremely cheap land there to any ethnic German who wanted to settle there)? Indeed, I am thinking of the Ottoman Turkish colonization of Bulgaria, the German colonization of the Banat, and the Pashtun colonization of Afghan Turkestan as inspirations for such a German colonization project in both Latvia and Lithuania. Plus, such a German colonization project, if successful, might very well ensure that both Latvia and Estonia will permanently remain under German rule--if not an outright part of Germany.

[Futurist]

After all, a victorious Germany could have encouraged the ethnic Germans in Russia to settle in the Baltic states as well as to encourage ethnic Germans from Germany proper to settle in cities and suburbs in the Baltic states.

The problem is the Germans were facing de-Germanisation of their eastern provinces - because Germans didn't want to live there. They wouldn't like the life in the Baltic states even more.

Also, out of curiosity--how expensive was it for an ordinary German person to purchase land in the eastern parts of Germany?

Indeed, I know that the Baltic Barons (in Latvia and Estonia) offered to give up one-third of their lands for German settlement and colonization, which in turn would have probably meant that ethnic Germans who would have settled in Latvia and Estonia would have gotten either free or extremely cheap land.

[wm]

I'm afraid we are going to create another Czechoslovakia here
Greater Germany with the German minority living together with a large group of restless non-Germans; Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians. I think this is going to slowly deteriorate to Northern Ireland troubles like conditions.
Polish and Ukrainian independence movements were well developed at the end of the Great War. With time they could only have got stronger, especially with the Russians on their side, supporting and providing with weapons and money.
This is why the Germans wanted to ethnically cleanse the Polish strip they didn't want any troublesome minorities on their territory.

Additionally, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was only reluctantly signed by the Bolsheviks - mainly because they were afraid they wouldn't survive without it. The non-communist Russians wouldn't surrender like that, and like in Napoleonic times they could afford it, but the Germans - not quite.
The more territories they would conquer the more costly their occupation would be. It should be remembered those territories were much poorer than Germany proper. So a Greater Germany would be actually poorer than the actual Germany (as measured by GDP p/c).

Actually, if Russia will be reduced to its Brest-Litovsk borders, then Russia's population advantage over Germany should decrease from almost 3 to 1 (as in, about 180 million to about 65 million) to about 1.5 to 1 (about 100 million to about 65 million). In turn, this means that managing the threat of Russia will probably become much easier for Germany.

This would make the Germans a minority in their own country.

You mean just like the Russians "accepted" the results of the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum (where over 90% of Ukrainians voted in favor of independence) in real life by trying to reincorporate and reintegrate Ukraine afterwards?

The Ukrainians are the main ethnic group there, the "owners" of Ukraine so it was a quite different situation from accepting a German occupation. Russian nationalism doesn't easily lend itself to supporting naked aggression. So the will of the people living there was an obstacle to the Russian reincorporation efforts.

First of all, from the perspective of national self-determination, Russia certainly has no more of a claim to Baku than the Ottoman Empire has. Indeed, one can argue that the Ottoman Empire actually has a more legitimate claim to Baku than Russia has due to the fact that, unlike Russia, both the Ottoman Empire and Baku have a Muslim-majority population.

The right of national groups and religious groups to self-determination wasn't then, and isn't even today accepted as a valid international rule. Although it has been frequently used as an justification for territorial claims.

After all, a new Russo-Ottoman border along the Greater Caucasus Mountains is very likely going to be extremely defensible for the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, the Greater Caucasus Mountains appear to be just as good of a defensible border as the Alps are.

The mountains on the Turkish side are much more extensive and formidable, and a serious logistic problem for any country trying to support its army on the other side. I suppose both Germany and Turkey weren't able to project their power so far from their borders.

Let me say this--in 1918, after the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, some Western (I think American) magazine predicted that Russia will never permanently tolerate the loss of both the Baltic states and Ukraine. However, 98 years later, in 2016, Russia appears to have very much come to tolerate the loss of virtually all of these territories (indeed, even Crimea and the Donbass are only a very small part of Ukraine).

To a foreign power, but the loss was an "inside job".

If Britain enters World War I in this scenario, that is. After all, a more rational German Kaiser might have been less provocative towards Britain in the pre-World War I years and might have rejected the Schlieffen Plan and thus caused Britain to remain neutral in World War I.

I suppose an all out, unprovoked attack on Russia and France would be provocative too.
The Schlieffen Plan was implemented for a reason, it was the only and very slim chance to win the war.

The thing is, though, that a sufficiently smart German Kaiser (such as if German Kaiser Wilhelm II dies young) can only use both Latvia and Estonia as Lebensraum (on historical grounds--after all, both Latvia and Estonia were previously successfully conquered by the ethnically German Teutonic Knights and both Latvia and Estonia have a mostly ethnic German nobility even as late as the early 20th century) while allowing other newly liberated countries such as Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine to mostly/largely run and manage their own affairs on the condition that they agree to establish both close military ties and close economic ties with Germany.

Maybe, but as both countries are mere specks on the map of Europe the question is why to wage a World War for such pointless territorial gains.

Wouldn't a lack of a British blockade (if Britain remains neutral throughout all of World War I in this scenario) have resulted in a much better German economic situation in both the late 1910s and the 1920s in comparison to real life, though?

Unlikely, the British wouldn't remain neutral for long, an aggressive continental Empire, with Napoleonic ambitions was a direct threat to their interests.

Also, though, what about German World War I veterans? Indeed, couldn't many German World War I veterans want to get rewarded for their military service during World War I with some free (or at least extremely cheap) land in Latvia and/or in Estonia?

Rewarded with gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? Wouldn't all the millions of German veterans demand similar gifts for them too?

Couldn't large-scale industrialization in both Latvia and Estonia create such an economy, though?

And who is going to finance this? There were large parts of Germany waiting for their turn to be industrialized at that time...

Do you have a source for this, please?

It's called Baltimax today, and there are many local "maxima" too.
e

Also, though, I would like to point out that a victorious Germany can use the railroads in both Poland and Lithuania to ship/transfer people and goods to both Latvia and Estonia.

There weren't any railroads worth mention in that direction. The Polish (or rather Jewish - becasue the economy was largely in their hands) preferred Danzig and Hamburg because of their fast and cheap connections with the entire world and with Central Europe.
And both Danzig and Hamburg would be very disappointed that their money are spent against them...

Is Paris and/or Madrid a major shipping center, though? Also, is London and/or Berlin a major shipping center?

These are world political and economic centers, in comparison the cities or rather towns in Latvia and Estonia were centers of nothing.

Is Chicago such a port and a major shipping center, though?

In the nineteenth century it was the transportation hub of the United States, thanks to its railroads and canals.

And Scandinavia isn't likewise the world's boondocks?

They got rich thanks to minerals (copper, iron, coal) and the cute seals and whales - they slaughtered them all for profit. They didn't need the Baltic for this.

[Futurist]

I'm afraid we are going to create another Czechoslovakia here

Let's certainly hope not, though.

Greater Germany with the German minority living together with a large group of restless non-Germans; Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians. I think this is going to slowly deteriorate to Northern Ireland troubles like conditions.

Actually, No, I don't think so due to the fact that, if I were the German Kaiser, then I would certainly give most of these peoples/ethnic groups a lot of autonomy and self-rule.

Polish and Ukrainian independence movements were well developed at the end of the Great War. With time they could only have got stronger,

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

especially with the Russians on their side, supporting and providing with weapons and money.

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.

This is why the Germans wanted to ethnically cleanse the Polish strip they didn't want any troublesome minorities on their territory.

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.

Additionally, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was only reluctantly signed by the Bolsheviks - mainly because they were afraid they wouldn't survive without it.

Yes; correct!

The non-communist Russians wouldn't surrender like that,

I don't think that they would have much choice, though.

and like in Napoleonic times they could afford it,

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

but the Germans - not quite.

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 more territories they would conquer the more costly their occupation would be.

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.

It should be remembered those territories were much poorer than Germany proper. So a Greater Germany would be actually poorer than the actual Germany (as measured by GDP p/c).

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, if Russia will be reduced to its Brest-Litovsk borders, then Russia's population advantage over Germany should decrease from almost 3 to 1 (as in, about 180 million to about 65 million) to about 1.5 to 1 (about 100 million to about 65 million). In turn, this means that managing the threat of Russia will probably become much easier for Germany.

This would make the Germans a minority in their own country.

Actually, No, it certainly wouldn't. After all, Germany would only annex Latvia, Estonia, and maybe the parts of Lithuania which border the Memel(land). Meanwhile, Germany would turn the rest of these territories into German satellite states with a large degree of internal autonomy.

You mean just like the Russians "accepted" the results of the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum (where over 90% of Ukrainians voted in favor of independence) in real life by trying to reincorporate and reintegrate Ukraine afterwards?

The Ukrainians are the main ethnic group there, the "owners" of Ukraine so it was a quite different situation from accepting a German occupation. Russian nationalism doesn't easily lend itself to supporting naked aggression. So the will of the people living there was an obstacle to the Russian reincorporation efforts.

What about having Germany create an independent Ukrainian state with a large degree of internal autonomy after a German victory in World War I, though?

First of all, from the perspective of national self-determination, Russia certainly has no more of a claim to Baku than the Ottoman Empire has. Indeed, one can argue that the Ottoman Empire actually has a more legitimate claim to Baku than Russia has due to the fact that, unlike Russia, both the Ottoman Empire and Baku have a Muslim-majority population.

The right of national groups and religious groups to self-determination wasn't then, and isn't even today accepted as a valid international rule. Although it has been frequently used as an justification for territorial claims.

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.

After all, a new Russo-Ottoman border along the Greater Caucasus Mountains is very likely going to be extremely defensible for the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, the Greater Caucasus Mountains appear to be just as good of a defensible border as the Alps are.

The mountains on the Turkish side are much more extensive and formidable, and a serious logistic problem for any country trying to support its army on the other side. I suppose both Germany and Turkey weren't able to project their power so far from their borders.

There does appear to be some territory with a low or with a relatively low elevation between Georgia and Azerbaijan for the Ottoman Empire to move its troops and supplies through, though :

Let me say this--in 1918, after the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, some Western (I think American) magazine predicted that Russia will never permanently tolerate the loss of both the Baltic states and Ukraine. However, 98 years later, in 2016, Russia appears to have very much come to tolerate the loss of virtually all of these territories (indeed, even Crimea and the Donbass are only a very small part of Ukraine).

To a foreign power, but the loss was an "inside job".

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

If Britain enters World War I in this scenario, that is. After all, a more rational German Kaiser might have been less provocative towards Britain in the pre-World War I years and might have rejected the Schlieffen Plan and thus caused Britain to remain neutral in World War I.

I suppose an all out, unprovoked attack on Russia and France would be provocative too.

Who exactly said "unprovoked" here, though?

The Schlieffen Plan was implemented for a reason, it was the only and very slim chance to win the war.

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

The thing is, though, that a sufficiently smart German Kaiser (such as if German Kaiser Wilhelm II dies young) can only use both Latvia and Estonia as Lebensraum (on historical grounds--after all, both Latvia and Estonia were previously successfully conquered by the ethnically German Teutonic Knights and both Latvia and Estonia have a mostly ethnic German nobility even as late as the early 20th century) while allowing other newly liberated countries such as Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine to mostly/largely run and manage their own affairs on the condition that they agree to establish both close military ties and close economic ties with Germany.

Maybe, but as both countries are mere specks on the map of Europe the question is why to wage a World War for such pointless territorial gains.

Actually, Latvia and Estonia combined have a total area which is greater than the total area of present-day Austria (in real life) is. After all, 110,000 km^2 is certainly greater than 84,000 km^2 is.

Wouldn't a lack of a British blockade (if Britain remains neutral throughout all of World War I in this scenario) have resulted in a much better German economic situation in both the late 1910s and the 1920s in comparison to real life, though?

Unlikely, the British wouldn't remain neutral for long, an aggressive continental Empire, with Napoleonic ambitions was a direct threat to their interests.

The thing is, though, that I certainly don't want Germany to look aggressive during World War I in this TL.

Also, though, what about German World War I veterans? Indeed, couldn't many German World War I veterans want to get rewarded for their military service during World War I with some free (or at least extremely cheap) land in Latvia and/or in Estonia?

Rewarded with gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? Wouldn't all the millions of German veterans demand similar gifts for them too?

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.

Couldn't large-scale industrialization in both Latvia and Estonia create such an economy, though?

And who is going to finance this? There were large parts of Germany waiting for their turn to be industrialized at that time...

Well, if reparations (for World War I) from France and Russia aren't going to be enough to cover these costs (due to the need to spend these reparations on other things, et cetera), then how about trying to get Jewish bankers in Germany and in the West to help cover these costs? After all, Germany can portray itself as liberating the Baltic Jews from an oppressive and totalitarian regime.

Do you have a source for this, please?

It's called Baltimax today, and there are many local "maxima" too.

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

Also, though, I would like to point out that a victorious Germany can use the railroads in both Poland and Lithuania to ship/transfer people and goods to both Latvia and Estonia.

There weren't any railroads worth mention in that direction.

You were saying?

The Polish (or rather Jewish - becasue the economy was largely in their hands) preferred Danzig and Hamburg because of their fast and cheap connections with the entire world and with Central Europe.

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

And both Danzig and Hamburg would be very disappointed that their money are spent against them...

Wouldn't that be true of any city which wants funding which ends up going to another city instead, though?

Is Paris and/or Madrid a major shipping center, though? Also, is London and/or Berlin a major shipping center?

These are world political and economic centers, in comparison the cities or rather towns in Latvia and Estonia were centers of nothing.[/quote]

Both Riga and Reval (Tallinn) are "midway points"/"transit points" between Berlin and Petrograd, though.

Is Chicago such a port and a major shipping center, though?

In the nineteenth century it was the transportation hub of the United States, thanks to its railroads and canals.

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

And Scandinavia isn't likewise the world's boondocks?

They got rich thanks to minerals (copper, iron, coal) and the cute seals and whales - they slaughtered them all for profit. They didn't need the Baltic for this.

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

[Futurist]

Anyone?

China is the most obvious realistic instance I can think of where a country could have acquired "Lebensraum" through largely peaceful means -- had the Qing simply lifted restrictions on Han migration to Outer Mongolia and Tannu Tuva earlier, those territories would probably still be part of China today.

Also, I feel like I must point out that, technically speaking, China probably wouldn't qualify for this question of mine. Please don't get me wrong, though--after all, I am certainly extremely happy that you brought up China here. However, China probably wouldn't qualify for this question of mine in a technical sense due to the fact that it appears to have acquired all of this potential Lebensraum (Mongolia, Tannu Tuva, et cetera) before 1800. In contrast, I am interested in cases of countries which have not only settled/colonized Lebensraum after 1800, but also acquired this Lebensraum after 1800.

Indeed, does that make sense?

Also, to clarify, if the "point of departure" (from real life) for this question of mine was 1690 rather than 1800, then both Mongolia and Tannu Tuva probably would qualify for this question of mine due to the fact that China appears to have acquired both of these territories in 1697--seven years after 1690:



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.

[wm]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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; 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?
I'm afraid you've offended them, and for this your stay in Siberia will be particularly long one. And yes, they could have done it too.

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?

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.
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


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.