White Russians win the russian civil war
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Anaxagoras
Banned
The 20th Century would be so different as to be unrecognizable.
For one thing, the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy, and Spain might not happen, or at least not to the same extent, because there would be no Communist bogeyman for them to rhetorically exploit.
For one thing, the rise of fascism in Germany, Italy, and Spain might not happen, or at least not to the same extent, because there would be no Communist bogeyman for them to rhetorically exploit.
Depends on which of the White factions wins. The "Whites" were always more of an umbrella group then a united opposition to the "Reds".
A White Russian victory butterflies the near-entirety of the 20th Century. It's not possible to say what could have become.
We can only speculate as to the nature of the resultant Russian regime, given the general chaos and intrigue rife among the Whites' ranks even as they did battle with the Bolsheviks. A monarchist restoration is not imminent - despite a preponderance of disgruntled aristocrats within the leadership, all of whom looked destined to drop their radical leftist sponsors the minute they saw power beyond the most inhospitable reaches of Russia, the Romanovs are an afterthought by this point, an archaic embarrassment clinging to their absolutist pretensions even as their former Empire burns around them. Nevertheless, I could see them hosted lavishly in Petrograd; after a generation or two, some astute members of the family might even be conceded a little political leverage behind the scenes, such as the French Republic permitted its own royalty in the late-19th Century.
Also off the cards, unfortunately, is a situation remotely resembling that of the Weimar Republic in its best days. This has little to do with any public disinclination at the time towards liberal or social democratic elements - as illustrated by 1917's Constituent Assembly elections, the opposite was true. Russian democracy, in the aftermath of a White victory, simply isn't going to be given breathing space. After a brief, awkward, mostly fallacious flirtation with popular government, dominated by a host of closet reactionaries ready to lend occasional lip-service to the big issues, the Russian Republic is going to come out looking a strange blend of paternalistic dictatorship and coalition government, with a dysfunctional coterie of blue-bloods, nationalists, militarists and classical liberals, concentrated around a commanding personality (Admiral Kolchak springs to mind), holding down power at the expense of virtually everybody else.
The Russian state is going to be a culturally, politically and economically retarded entity. Say what you will about the genocidal excesses of the Soviet leadership, they DID elevate Europe's most backward established power to a position of prestige and tremendous geopolitical influence. Though the Whites may have counted many acute, deviously pragmatic men as leaders, they lacked both drive and ambition, united by no grand ideological vision but a desire to to see the social status quo preserved and proliferated. I've noticed many on here seem to draw an equivalence between the ethic of the Whites and the fascist movements of Mussolini and Hitler, but even that's probably giving them credit - a White state would be more along the lines of a tinpot South American dictatorship than the ostentatious affairs of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, with little internal consistency and absolutely no direction. The society it presides over will be an essentially agricultural one - attempts to industrialize Russia pre-1914 had resulted in a situation where peasants flocked to the cities as a means of making an extra buck when they weren't attending the fields, not the establishment of a stable working class, and I see no reason why the Whites would object to enduring down this path. Whether it will be much generally poorer than the Russia we know is debatable, but it definitely won't be wealthier, and much of the landmass (Siberia, in particular) will remain underdeveloped and unsettled, even by contrast with today's circumstances.
On the international stage, things become hazy. It's dangerous to consider the presence of a 'Red Menace' in Eurasia the primary driving force behind the rise of reactionary rightism in the early-20th Century, but, with Russia emasculated and insular-looking, no-frills conservatives of the Hindenburgian variety are likely to dominate politics in Italy, Germany and elsewhere - without the prominence of Marxism, there will be no need for a conscious rightist effort to synthesize socialist ideas with their own values. These will likely be dry movements, at the very least a touch more rational than the demagogic projects we saw IOTL, whom may, ironically, look to White Russia as an enviable model of government and society. In Germany, there may be establishment yearnings for the acquisition of new territories in the East, or even the reclamation of lost colonies overseas; at any rate, expansionism will manifest as an exercise in realpolitik, not the harebrained initiative of a death cult driven by quasi-religious ideological fervor. Taking the USSR out of the picture also eliminates much of the urgency that accelerated drives towards welfare reformism in Western Europe; Britain and France are going to be a lot more quintessentially conservative societies, closer to the United States in terms of their institutions and attitudes. IOW, the Western political landscape of the 20th Century will come to resemble that of the 19th Century, with power politics and unabashed imperialism trumping intellectualism and ideological snobbery.
We can only speculate as to the nature of the resultant Russian regime, given the general chaos and intrigue rife among the Whites' ranks even as they did battle with the Bolsheviks. A monarchist restoration is not imminent - despite a preponderance of disgruntled aristocrats within the leadership, all of whom looked destined to drop their radical leftist sponsors the minute they saw power beyond the most inhospitable reaches of Russia, the Romanovs are an afterthought by this point, an archaic embarrassment clinging to their absolutist pretensions even as their former Empire burns around them. Nevertheless, I could see them hosted lavishly in Petrograd; after a generation or two, some astute members of the family might even be conceded a little political leverage behind the scenes, such as the French Republic permitted its own royalty in the late-19th Century.
Also off the cards, unfortunately, is a situation remotely resembling that of the Weimar Republic in its best days. This has little to do with any public disinclination at the time towards liberal or social democratic elements - as illustrated by 1917's Constituent Assembly elections, the opposite was true. Russian democracy, in the aftermath of a White victory, simply isn't going to be given breathing space. After a brief, awkward, mostly fallacious flirtation with popular government, dominated by a host of closet reactionaries ready to lend occasional lip-service to the big issues, the Russian Republic is going to come out looking a strange blend of paternalistic dictatorship and coalition government, with a dysfunctional coterie of blue-bloods, nationalists, militarists and classical liberals, concentrated around a commanding personality (Admiral Kolchak springs to mind), holding down power at the expense of virtually everybody else.
The Russian state is going to be a culturally, politically and economically retarded entity. Say what you will about the genocidal excesses of the Soviet leadership, they DID elevate Europe's most backward established power to a position of prestige and tremendous geopolitical influence. Though the Whites may have counted many acute, deviously pragmatic men as leaders, they lacked both drive and ambition, united by no grand ideological vision but a desire to to see the social status quo preserved and proliferated. I've noticed many on here seem to draw an equivalence between the ethic of the Whites and the fascist movements of Mussolini and Hitler, but even that's probably giving them credit - a White state would be more along the lines of a tinpot South American dictatorship than the ostentatious affairs of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, with little internal consistency and absolutely no direction. The society it presides over will be an essentially agricultural one - attempts to industrialize Russia pre-1914 had resulted in a situation where peasants flocked to the cities as a means of making an extra buck when they weren't attending the fields, not the establishment of a stable working class, and I see no reason why the Whites would object to enduring down this path. Whether it will be much generally poorer than the Russia we know is debatable, but it definitely won't be wealthier, and much of the landmass (Siberia, in particular) will remain underdeveloped and unsettled, even by contrast with today's circumstances.
On the international stage, things become hazy. It's dangerous to consider the presence of a 'Red Menace' in Eurasia the primary driving force behind the rise of reactionary rightism in the early-20th Century, but, with Russia emasculated and insular-looking, no-frills conservatives of the Hindenburgian variety are likely to dominate politics in Italy, Germany and elsewhere - without the prominence of Marxism, there will be no need for a conscious rightist effort to synthesize socialist ideas with their own values. These will likely be dry movements, at the very least a touch more rational than the demagogic projects we saw IOTL, whom may, ironically, look to White Russia as an enviable model of government and society. In Germany, there may be establishment yearnings for the acquisition of new territories in the East, or even the reclamation of lost colonies overseas; at any rate, expansionism will manifest as an exercise in realpolitik, not the harebrained initiative of a death cult driven by quasi-religious ideological fervor. Taking the USSR out of the picture also eliminates much of the urgency that accelerated drives towards welfare reformism in Western Europe; Britain and France are going to be a lot more quintessentially conservative societies, closer to the United States in terms of their institutions and attitudes. IOW, the Western political landscape of the 20th Century will come to resemble that of the 19th Century, with power politics and unabashed imperialism trumping intellectualism and ideological snobbery.
Probably.
The left would likely still be active, but even without that power hungry men would prop up the socialist bogey to scare middle class voters. Hitler could continue with playing the race issue, the Versailles disatisfaction, the economy, and the SA beating up political opponents.
Lets assume for a moment that the nazi regime does arise in Germany & things play out OTL to the Cezch Crisis. With a non communist regime in Russia there is a lot less reason for Chamberlains government to reject a active alliance against Germany. So, in 1938 Germany could be faced with a large enemy in both directions.
The disunited Whits could lead to at least a independent Urkraine, and perhaps even a Beylo Russia as a separate state. Polands eastern boundary might be further out.
This thing can crawl off in so many different directions.
King Thomas
Banned
I doubt that the Whites would be as unpleasant to their subjects as Stalin but Russia won't be a good country to live in at least in the short term.
I don't think the Russians would let a Brit lead them. Besides, there were plenty of Russians that could lead.
Here's an OTL map of the Russian Civil war, for every day of the battle.
Thought it'll be quite interesting to look at while discussing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGIZ0iGlrno
Thought it'll be quite interesting to look at while discussing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGIZ0iGlrno
You learn something new every day.I can say this: there would be a fair number of butterflies, for sure-the Nazis might never come to power, without Stalin, or even Lenin, as a boogeyman; even Mussolini might never get into power, at least not as he did IOTL.....so some good would come out of it. And there wouldn't have been the initial stigmas against leftist reforms that did exist before 1950 IOTL in Western Europe, so France and Britain, at least, are likely to become more liberal than OTL, especially economically, and especially compared to before, oh, say, 1970 or so. (And much the same may hold true for the U.S.; without a Communist bogeyman to point sticks at, there's probably less opposition to the *New Deal, or it's equivalent, and any Southern attempts to squash it or water it down, will be much more challenged, than they were IOTL. And Civil Rights is liable to progress earlier as well.)
Unfortunately, however, this may not necessarily lead to a more peaceful world: for one, Russia was still very much involved in Great Game mode prior to the Empire's dissolution, and Britain's power was just beginning to wane. Guess which country was getting ready to, one day soon, take their place? None other than the United States.....and this leads me to my second point.
Sadly, it is rather likely that Russia and the United States *will*, at some point, be involved in a long, drawn out, shadow conflict similar to OTL's Cold War. It may not be quite as intense, that can be said, but that time will come where Russian and American interests clash on the world stage; it could be over China, or somewhere in the Middle East, or even in South America or Africa. But at least we're not likely to see any McCarthy type B.S. here in America, in this scenario, without the fear of revolutionary Communism.
Shadowwolf
Banned
If the US still sends aid to the Whites during the war like they did in OTL, then I could see a victorious White Russia continuing it's friendship with the US.
Recall that Russia sold US Alaska because the US was the only other major power it trusted.
Even during the American Civil War the Russians sent their navy to the US to prevent it from being bottled up in the Black Sea should Russia and Great Britain go to war again. Those ships were used to assist in the blockade of the South during the war.
So if I do not see a US/Russia rivalry, in fact a scenario could happen in which a US/Russia alliance would square off in a Cold War, or perhaps a Cool War, against a Great Britain/France alliance.
Recall that Russia sold US Alaska because the US was the only other major power it trusted.
Even during the American Civil War the Russians sent their navy to the US to prevent it from being bottled up in the Black Sea should Russia and Great Britain go to war again. Those ships were used to assist in the blockade of the South during the war.
So if I do not see a US/Russia rivalry, in fact a scenario could happen in which a US/Russia alliance would square off in a Cold War, or perhaps a Cool War, against a Great Britain/France alliance.
Last edited:
I wonder what the effects would be on decolonization? Obviously it wasn't just the dirty commies who gave the uppity natives notions of independence, but they were a major part of many of the armed independence movements which in of themselves received support from ideological allies. Would this cause a different ideological spectrum to be seeking independence in the colonies(the only one I'm really familiar with is Indochina, where the pre-communist independence movement was KMT-inspired and was the VNQDD, until it got ahead of itself and the French cracked down on it and the communist backed movement overtook it)? Or would it simply lead to a fragmentation of coalitions and less outside support for such movements?
Not to mention any WW2 happening differently/not happening influences.
Not to mention any WW2 happening differently/not happening influences.
Yes, but do realize, though, that this was a full 50 years before the Russian Civil War.....and under Alexander II, possibly the most liberal & reformist ruler the country had had to date. Things were rather different in OTL 1917 than in 1867.
Yes, but again, note the above.
I'm afraid this would be highly unlikely with the OTL circumstances, especially since Britain and France were allies of the U.S. during the Great War, and neither France or Britain really wanted the Leninists to win the Civil War, either.
Decolonization almost certainly would have proceeded on a pace roughly paralleling OTL, and there's not much stopping socialist and other leftist revolutionaries from still causing trouble.....and no Soviet Russia won't stop Communists from potentially trying to bring their fruits to labor in other nations-how about Germany, for instances?
Hitler, under a flag of national socialism, would be one of those bogeymen to middle class voters. In the absence of a genuinely socialist threat, and the clear example of a socialist regime slaughtering aristocrats and middle class farmers, they will have no reason to abandon the trusted elites. Part of the reason they abandoned them in our timeline is that the conservative elite were clearly failing to hold back socialism, and Hitler promised a harder line. In this timeline, that won't be the case.
I think there's next to no chance of a Nazi regime arising, and even if it did, it would be of a completely different character to our timeline. But even if we handwave that away and believe it does, then the opposite is true. Without the USSR on the scene, there's even less reason to coddle up to Hitler. Nazi sympathisers in the UK largely were of that persuasion because they felt he could be a bulwark against the USSR. In this timeline, we will have a Western-friendly Russian government so that fear does not exist.
The future of the socialist movement is an interesting one. It's worth bearing in mind that both Marx and Engels thought a peaceful transition to socialism was possible in places like Britain and the Netherlands. Without the success of a violent revolution in Russia, it's possible that this strain of thought could win out, with more countries being added to the "peaceful revolution" list. Meanwhile, the minority radicals who believe in violent overthrow, would likely keep going to Russia, as the new Russian government won't have complete authority, and pockets of resistance will likely continue for a long time.
No, the major forces within modern Russia are all operated by the Kremlin behind the scenes, incapable of independent action. In this scenario, they'd retain significant power and influence in their own right, enough to bargain and blackmail where they don't get their way.