OCR Specification focus:
‘The First World War and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk reshaped nationalities.’
The First World War and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk dramatically transformed Russia’s relationship with its nationalities, redrawing borders, redefining identities, and reshaping imperial control.
The First World War and Nationalities in the Russian Empire
Nationalities in the Russian Empire Before 1914
Before the outbreak of the First World War (1914–1918), the Russian Empire was a vast and diverse multi-ethnic state encompassing over 100 different nationalities.
Ethnographic map of the Russian Empire at the end of the nineteenth century, showing the distribution of major peoples such as Poles, Finns, Baltic and Caucasian groups. It illustrates the empire’s diversity, which framed wartime nationalism and later fragmentation. Some regions extend beyond the areas discussed in this subsubtopic. Source
These included Poles, Finns, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Georgians, Armenians, and Central Asian peoples, among others. Many of these groups had distinct languages, religions, and cultural traditions, and their relationship with the central Russian state was often marked by tension and coercion.
Russification: A policy pursued by the Russian Empire to assimilate non-Russian nationalities by promoting Russian language, culture, and Orthodox Christianity, often at the expense of local traditions and autonomy.
Prior to 1914, Russification policies intensified under Alexander III and Nicholas II, generating resentment among non-Russian peoples and fostering nationalist movements. By 1914, these tensions remained unresolved and would be exacerbated by the strains of total war.
Impact of the First World War on Nationalities
Military Strain and National Discontent
The First World War placed immense pressure on the Russian Empire’s administrative, economic, and social structures. The mobilisation of millions of men disrupted local economies, while food shortages and military defeats eroded confidence in the state. These conditions intensified nationalist aspirations, as many non-Russian groups saw the weakening of imperial authority as an opportunity to seek greater autonomy or independence.
Baltic peoples (Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians) sought independence from Russian rule as German forces advanced into the region.
Finns and Poles intensified demands for self-government, encouraged by the collapse of imperial control.
Ukrainian nationalism grew as political societies and cultural organisations flourished amidst wartime instability.
The February and October Revolutions of 1917
The February Revolution of 1917 overthrew the autocracy and established the Provisional Government, which initially promised greater self-determination for national minorities. However, its continuation of the war alienated many groups.
The October Revolution brought the Bolsheviks to power, and they immediately faced the challenge of holding together a disintegrating empire. Lenin and the new government issued the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia in November 1917, proclaiming equality, self-determination, and the right to secession. This policy was both ideological and pragmatic — an attempt to secure support among national minorities and stabilise Bolshevik authority during a period of upheaval.
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918)
Context and Signing
Following their seizure of power, the Bolsheviks were determined to end Russia’s involvement in the First World War. The exhausted army was disintegrating, and continued participation threatened the survival of the new regime. Negotiations with the Central Powers led to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed on 3 March 1918.
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: A peace treaty between Soviet Russia and the Central Powers that ended Russia’s involvement in the First World War, resulting in substantial territorial losses.
Terms of the Treaty
The treaty imposed extremely harsh terms on Soviet Russia:
Map highlighting lands detached from Russia by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, including Finland, Poland, the Baltic provinces, and Ukraine. It underscores the abrupt contraction of the empire’s borders and population. Place names slightly exceed the subsubtopic focus but aid geographic orientation. Source
Russia lost over 1 million square miles of territory.
Independence was recognised for Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine.
The Caucasus region and parts of Belorussia were ceded.
Around 62 million people, a third of the empire’s population, were removed from Russian control.
The treaty deprived Russia of significant industrial and agricultural resources.
These terms represented a massive contraction of the Russian Empire and a fundamental reshaping of its national composition.
Effects of Brest-Litovsk on Nationalities
National Independence and Shifting Borders
The treaty dramatically altered the political landscape of Eastern Europe and the former Russian Empire:
A 1919 map depicting borders and boundary changes for Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, and Ukraine. It contextualises how wartime collapse and peace settlements altered sovereignty and national space. The map also shows surrounding regions and infrastructure beyond the subsubtopic’s core, which you may ignore. Source
Finland declared independence in December 1917, quickly establishing itself as a sovereign state.
Poland re-emerged as an independent nation after over a century of partition.
The Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — gained independence under German influence, though they would later become contested territories during the Russian Civil War.
Ukraine briefly became a nominally independent state under a German-backed government.
Regions of the Caucasus, including Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, also proclaimed independence amid the power vacuum.
For many of these nationalities, independence was tenuous and contested, but Brest-Litovsk nonetheless marked a decisive break from imperial rule.
Bolshevik Ideology vs. Geopolitical Reality
The Bolsheviks had ideologically supported self-determination, yet the harshness of Brest-Litovsk highlighted the tension between ideology and political necessity. Lenin accepted the treaty as a “breathing space” to consolidate Bolshevik power, despite widespread opposition within the party and among the population.
Left Communists opposed the treaty as a betrayal of revolutionary ideals.
National minorities viewed the treaty as both an opportunity for liberation and a reflection of Russian weakness.
As the Russian Civil War (1918–1921) unfolded, the Bolsheviks sought to regain control over many of the territories lost at Brest-Litovsk, using the Red Army to reassert authority. By the early 1920s, much of the Caucasus, Ukraine, and Central Asia were reincorporated into the emerging Soviet Union, though Finland, Poland, and the Baltic states remained independent until the Second World War.
Nationalities and the Soviet State After Brest-Litovsk
New Approaches to Nationalities
The experience of war, revolution, and territorial loss forced the Bolsheviks to rethink their approach to nationalities. The early Soviet state adopted a policy of “korenizatsiya” (indigenisation) in the 1920s, promoting local languages and elites within the framework of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), established in 1922.
This policy aimed to reconcile nationalist aspirations with the centralised authority of the Communist Party, reflecting lessons learned from the upheavals following Brest-Litovsk. However, tensions persisted, and the balance between national self-expression and central control remained a central issue in Soviet governance.
FAQ
The harsh terms of Brest-Litovsk made the Bolsheviks determined to restore Russian influence over territories lost in 1918. This shaped a foreign policy focused on regaining control through diplomacy and force, visible in the Russian Civil War and subsequent expansion into Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.
It also encouraged the Soviets to adopt a federal structure in the USSR (1922), presenting union as voluntary while allowing Moscow to retain central authority. This approach sought to prevent future fragmentation while projecting an image of respect for national self-determination.
Lenin prioritised consolidating Bolshevik power over continuing the war. He argued Russia needed a “breathing space” to rebuild and defend the revolution internally.
Many Bolsheviks, particularly the Left Communists, wanted to reject the treaty and fight on, but Lenin feared this would lead to the collapse of the revolution. He successfully convinced the party that signing the treaty was a tactical retreat necessary for long-term survival and future expansion.
Germany sought to weaken Russia and secure resources by supporting new states on its eastern front. Under Brest-Litovsk:
Germany backed the creation of Ukraine as a nominally independent state to access grain supplies.
It supported Baltic independence to create buffer zones against Russia.
German occupation in these regions often limited real independence, with puppet governments installed under German influence.
These actions temporarily reshaped Eastern Europe’s political landscape and intensified nationalist aspirations, even after Germany’s defeat later in 1918.
The treaty both encouraged and complicated relations. On one hand, self-determination promises made the Bolsheviks attractive to some minority groups. On the other, the territorial concessions alienated nationalists who viewed the Bolsheviks as betraying their interests.
Tensions rose in areas like Ukraine, where Bolshevik forces clashed with nationalist governments. In the Baltic states, mistrust persisted as independence movements resisted Bolshevik attempts to reassert control during the civil war.
Yes. Many borders established or influenced by Brest-Litovsk shaped later geopolitical disputes. Although most of the treaty’s terms were annulled after Germany’s defeat, the independence of Finland, Poland, and the Baltic states persisted into the interwar period.
The treaty also provided a precedent for Soviet expansion during and after the Second World War, when the USSR sought to reclaim lost territories. Many of the shifting borders and contested national identities originating in 1918 continued to influence the region throughout the twentieth century.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Name two territories that gained independence from Russia as a result of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918).
Mark Scheme:
Award 1 mark for each correctly named territory.
Accept any two from: Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine.
Do not award a mark for regions that did not gain independence directly from Brest-Litovsk (e.g., Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan — unless specified as gaining independence amid the post-treaty power vacuum, which would not count here).
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain two ways in which the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk reshaped the nationalities of the former Russian Empire.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 3 marks for each well-explained point. Marks are awarded as follows:
1 mark for identifying a valid way the treaty reshaped nationalities.
1–2 additional marks for explanation and development showing understanding of how and why this occurred.
Examples of acceptable points:
Creation of independent states (up to 3 marks):
Identification (1 mark): The treaty granted independence to several nationalities such as Finland and Poland.
Development (1–2 marks): This transformed them from imperial subjects into sovereign nations, reshaping political identities and redrawing the map of Eastern Europe.
Loss of population and diversity in Russia (up to 3 marks):
Identification (1 mark): Russia lost around 62 million people, including many non-Russian nationalities.
Development (1–2 marks): This significantly reduced the empire’s ethnic diversity and altered the demographic balance, weakening Russia’s imperial structure and forcing the Bolsheviks to reconsider their nationalities policy.
Other valid points could include:
The rise of nationalist movements encouraged by independence.
The emergence of contested states like Ukraine, altering regional dynamics.
The ideological shift in Bolshevik nationality policy in response to territorial loss.
Maximum 6 marks: 3 + 3. Partial answers with identification but weak explanation should be capped at 2 marks per point.
