We should have let Germany and Austria-Hungary keep their Eastern European lands after WWI (WW2, war)

[GSPNative]

Wouldn’t the 20th century have turned out better if Germany and its allies had been able to keep the Eastern European lands that they won from Russia during World War I?

In 1918, Germany won the Baltic States, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine from Russia. Germany installed puppet monarchs over most of those lands and would have treated them as vassals.

Yes, that’s not ideal. But if that arrangement had lasted:

1. Surely World War II wouldn’t have happened.

2. Just as Germany was a semi-democratic state with some freedoms, those countries would have been somewhat democratic. That would have been better than the alternative: Communism in Belarus and Ukraine from about 1919 until about 1991, dictatorships starting in the 1930s elsewhere, followed by Communism starting in the 1940s until 1989.

3. Those lands would have been better off economically. Communism stunted the region’s development (look, for example, at GNPs per capita of Bulgaria and Greece, or Czechia and Austria, today; they were similar before Communism but are now very different. Being tied to prosperous Germany would have been better than being tied to the USSR.

So if Germany had kept those lands, they would have been freer and richer than they turned out to be in the 20th century, and surely WWII wouldn’t have happened.

What am I missing?

[ukrkoz]

The entire purpose of the WW1 was to destroy the old empires, like Austro-Hungary, German empire, Russian empire, Ottoman empire. British empire was destroyed after WW2.
So the war served its purpose and sorry, those who designed all this forgot to ask a young country, like the US, about its opinion.

[GSPNative]

Originally Posted by ukrkoz

The entire purpose of the WW1 was to destroy the old empires, like Austro-Hungary, German empire, Russian empire, Ottoman empire. British empire was destroyed after WW2.
So the war served its purpose and sorry, those who designed all this forgot to ask a young country, like the US, about its opinion.

True, those old empires were destroyed and we had to deal with a Nazi empire first and a Soviet empire second, which were far worse than semi-democratic pre-1918 Germany and Austria-Hungary.

[NJ Brazen_3133]

Or the allies could have simply treated Germany, and Austro Hungary with more magnanimity, and then everyone combine their forces to stop the Bolsheviks in Russia. But apparently there were political actors that wanted their share of blood.

I am not even sure why the Allies did not crush the Bolsheviks. It should have been easy. Even if the Baltic State, Poland, Ukraine, and Romania wanted independence, should not have been an issue. The Baltics, Polish, Ukrainians, Romanians, and Russians just did not want to live under Communism.

The Allies sent expeditions to Archangelsk, Vladivostok, and I believe the Crimea. But the effort just petered out leaving the Russians stranded.

[LINative]

Originally Posted by GSPNative

Wouldn’t the 20th century have turned out better if Germany and its allies had been able to keep the Eastern European lands that they won from Russia during World War I?

In 1918, Germany won the Baltic States, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine from Russia. Germany installed puppet monarchs over most of those lands and would have treated them as vassals.

Yes, that’s not ideal. But if that arrangement had lasted:

1. Surely World War II wouldn’t have happened.

2. Just as Germany was a semi-democratic state with some freedoms, those countries would have been somewhat democratic. That would have been better than the alternative: Communism in Belarus and Ukraine from about 1919 until about 1991, dictatorships starting in the 1930s elsewhere, followed by Communism starting in the 1940s until 1989.

3. Those lands would have been better off economically. Communism stunted the region’s development (look, for example, at GNPs per capita of Bulgaria and Greece, or Czechia and Austria, today; they were similar before Communism but are now very different. Being tied to prosperous Germany would have been better than being tied to the USSR.

So if Germany had kept those lands, they would have been freer and richer than they turned out to be in the 20th century, and surely WWII wouldn’t have happened.

What am I missing?

"So if Germany had kept those lands, they would have been freer and richer than they turned out to be in the 20th century, and surely WWII wouldn’t have happened".

The problem is that we don't know if that is true. Suppose the Nazis and Hitler still came to power, but now they have a head start by occupying all of Poland and the Baltic States as you propose? History might very well be worse then.

I get it, you are thinking of somehow we could have contained or weakened the Soviet Union. But in 1918, they were primarily thinking of weakening a powerful Germany, not leaving her with additional territories.

Sometimes there is no perfect answer in foreign policy, only different choices where the eventual outcome is unclear.

[easthome]

I'm not sure exactly who the 'we' refers to in the question 'we should have let Germany Austro-Hungry keep...etc' but surely that decision is not up to the 'we' though is it?

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by GSPNative

Wouldn’t the 20th century have turned out better if Germany and its allies had been able to keep the Eastern European lands that they won from Russia during World War I?

Imagine this conversation, circa 1918:

"Hey, guys, let's let Germany off the ropes because if we don't then pretty soon they're gonna conquer Poland and France and exterminate millions of Jews and defeating them will result in a Russia that has bombs that can travel from the steppe to London and New York in a few minutes and vaporize those cities in an instant."

"Um... okay, those are some weird predictions... but if Germany is going to to do all those bad things, why take out boot off their throat now?"

"Because then they'll be our friends and only do stuff we like, such as snuffing out the Bolsheviks."

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by GSPNative

In 1918, Germany won the Baltic States, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine from Russia. Germany installed puppet monarchs over most of those lands and would have treated them as vassals.

Yes, that’s not ideal. But if that arrangement had lasted:

1. Surely World War II wouldn’t have happened.

So now nationalist militarism in German just vanishes? Dolchstoss just never materializes? The scapegoating of Jews simply stops? Because Poland is a vassal (and Germany is apparently benighted in this alternate history) the lebensraum fantasy disappears? No hyperinflation? (which was caused more by Germany financing the war on credit than by reparations) No Great Depression?

Originally Posted by GSPNative

2. Just as Germany was a semi-democratic state with some freedoms, those countries would have been somewhat democratic. That would have been better than the alternative: Communism in Belarus and Ukraine from about 1919 until about 1991, dictatorships starting in the 1930s elsewhere, followed by Communism starting in the 1940s until 1989.

So Germany, on the ropes in 1918 and about to run into an economic buzzsaw as a result of their massive debt (which, again, exists outside of having to pay reparations), still remains not only 'semi-democratic' but has the means and will to garrison numerous eastern countries, to keep them democratic (are you forgetting that by the mid-30s, Poland and the Baltic states had all become authoritarian of their own volition?), and the power to fend off the inevitable attempts of a consolidated Bolshevik government from trying to bring them back under Moscow's thumb?

Originally Posted by GSPNative

3. Those lands would have been better off economically. Communism stunted the region’s development (look, for example, at GNPs per capita of Bulgaria and Greece, or Czechia and Austria, today; they were similar before Communism but are now very different. Being tied to prosperous Germany would have been better than being tied to the USSR.

This might well be so. But in order to get there you've arrayed a long list of assumptions without providing any argument for why they would result.

On the other hand, in 30 years Czechia has emerged from its communist stunting to achieve a per capita GDP greater than Spain, which went the nationalist militant route. And Greece, in eastern Europe but never falling into the Soviet clutches, ranks behind most of what was once the eastern bloc.

Of course, this all depends on perspective. Tens of millions who died in World War II and its aftermath might be willing to roll the dice. Obviously, some nations (Poland being the obvious example) fared worse than others. But for all we know, maybe your changes do result in a Germany that does better. Much better. Maybe it becomes a colossus, though still becomes an authoritarian one. But maybe it doesn't go down the insane racial rabbit hole, thereby retaining its Jewish physicists. And this means there are no effective British and American bomb programs, but there is a meaningful German one, and the communist threat has dissipated with a a mid-20s 'counter-revolution' and thus Germany is unchecked in the east. And on July 16, 1945, they test a device (code named Das Gerät) on a small island in the Baltic. So now it's Berlin, not Washington or London, who finds itself with nuclear weapons. To boot, Germany has most of the world's ballistic missile technology, and a secure eastern flank.

Suddenly, from a lot of perspectives, the 'alternate history' of not letting 1918 Germany have eastern Europe is looking better.

Would that happen? Probably not. But I see no reason to think it less likely than your laundry list of halcyon assumptions.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by GSPNative

Wouldn’t the 20th century have turned out better if Germany and its allies had been able to keep the Eastern European lands that they won from Russia during World War I?

In 1918, Germany won the Baltic States, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine from Russia. Germany installed puppet monarchs over most of those lands and would have treated them as vassals.

Yes, that’s not ideal. But if that arrangement had lasted:

1. Surely World War II wouldn’t have happened.

2. Just as Germany was a semi-democratic state with some freedoms, those countries would have been somewhat democratic. That would have been better than the alternative: Communism in Belarus and Ukraine from about 1919 until about 1991, dictatorships starting in the 1930s elsewhere, followed by Communism starting in the 1940s until 1989.

3. Those lands would have been better off economically. Communism stunted the region’s development (look, for example, at GNPs per capita of Bulgaria and Greece, or Czechia and Austria, today; they were similar before Communism but are now very different. Being tied to prosperous Germany would have been better than being tied to the USSR.

So if Germany had kept those lands, they would have been freer and richer than they turned out to be in the 20th century, and surely WWII wouldn’t have happened.

What am I missing?

You are missing the concept of "buffer states". Germany lost the war, but also Russia lost a significant amount of territory as they bailed out of the war. Germany and Russia had always historically been like cats and dogs. You needed a buffer between those two to prevent border conflicts. You also had Poland, which at various times had been split apart by Germany or Russia or Austria-Hungary. The Poles fought with the allies and suffered significant casualties, they earned the right of self-determination and reconstitution of it's country. The Second Polish Republic was by all account prosperous and stable until the late 30s, even winning a war against Russia.

Sure being more magnanimous to Germany after it's defeat could have prevented WWII...maybe...who knows, wars is Europe had been going on for centuries every few decades, it seems inevitable, and the only things that stopped it finally is that modern technology made wars too terrible. But anyways loss of territory is only part of the reason for Germany's resentment.

[Igor Blevin]

In 1918, communism was brand new. I don't believe anyone reasonable foresaw the damage communism would cause over the next 100 years.

In any event, Russia gave up the countries you listed. Communism didn't impact them until the USSR was created after WWII, and that would have happened even if Germany had controlled the intervening nations. Russia would have laid claim to them in any event, and they would have been subjected to post-war communism in any event.

I don't believe that WWII would have been avoided in any event. France would still bankrupt Germany, in any form, with WWI reparations. The Weimar hyperinflation that made Germany ripe for war and vengeance, would not have been avoided just because Germany made some territorial gains. WWII was act 2 of WWI It is almost one long event. The one was caused by the other.

[DKM]

That is correct Igor. Many people don't realize the antagonists running the 3rd Reich were personally involved in WW1 and were out for revenge. And revenge they got...