A White Victory

Stenkarazin · Sep 27, 2012

Hi everybody.

I’ve recently discovered this forum and I’ve read some really amazing TL. Hence, before throwing myself into the fray with my own project, I would rather ask:

Is there somewhere in the depths of this forum an Alternate History wherein the Whites win the Civil War?

There is the of course the excellent Ungern-Sternberg TL (don’t remember the exact title), but this is not quite what I’m looking for. I’m thinking about a victory of straight Russian anti-Bolsheviks forces:

- Either during the summer 1918 (Denikin decides to go North and join with Komoutch-Czech forces instead of going for a second Kuban campaign in the South).

- Or in the Autumn 1919 (the all-out offensive launched by the same Denikin is victorious, for some reasons. Maybe Ioudenitch manages to seal a deal with Mannerheim’s Finland).

- Or we can even go for an earlier turning point, with Kornilov not dying in the winter 1918 and turning into some kind of dictator after winning the Civil. (But I actually don't see exactly how Kornilov alive would turn decisively the outcome. It's more just to have the guy in the TL).

Either option would obviously have a lot of consequences on Russia’s history.

So, what do you people think about that ? If there is already a similar TL, I would be pleased to read it in order not to plagiarise it unknowingly. If not, I’m of course welcoming suggestions and advices!

Stenka Razin

yourworstnightmare · Sep 27, 2012

I think the reason so few people write White victory scenarios is
a) they are hard to pull of, the whites had several problems such as:
- no real political unity
-no working unified command, most generals did their own thing
-depending too much on the Allies from WW1
-problems getting allies from neighbouring nations due to unwillingness to recognize secessionists
-no real peasant support (and the peasants were the key to Russia)

b) people don't really know what to do with a White Russia, there are so many possibilities, like:
- Social Democrat Republic
- Uber Corrupt Cleptocracy
-Return of Czarism
-Authoritarian Regime
-Quasi Fascism
-Warlord Chaos

Stenkarazin · Sep 27, 2012

a) they are hard to pull of, the whites had several problems such as:
- no real political unity
-no working unified command, most generals did their own thing
-depending too much on the Allies from WW1
-problems getting allies from neighbouring nations due to unwillingness to recognize secessionists
-no real peasant support (and the peasants were the key to Russia)

Yes. That means that, in case of victory, the Whites' Russia will be hamstrung by partizanchtchina, peasants revolts and secessionists issues (Ukraine and Cossacks revendications will be particularly annoying for White generals). The task of rebuilding Russia will be way more difficult than it was for the Soviets.

people don't really know what to do with a White Russia, there are so many possibilities, like:
- Social Democrat Republic
- Uber Corrupt Cleptocracy
-Return of Czarism
-Authoritarian Regime
-Quasi Fascism
-Warlord Chaos

I'm actually considering a double-power system, with a junta of generals and a Right SR/Kadet provisional government as the most realistic outcome. With the convocation of a new Constituent Assembly, the junta would gradually transfer its power to the civilian institutions...

I can't see another course of events which would have any chance (however small it can be) to prevent Russia from falling into total chaos.

MSZ · Sep 27, 2012

Welcome to the board!

Stenkarazin said:
Is there somewhere in the depths of this forum an Alternate History wherein the Whites win the Civil War?

I'm quite sure there are, even if they are not very long or in the old board archive; though I don't recall any at the moment. You can try googling some out, just use the "site:alternatehistory.com" function if the board Search doesn't work for you.

Stenkarazin said:
- Either during the summer 1918 (Denikin decides to go North and join with Komoutch-Czech forces instead of going for a second Kuban campaign in the South).

This isn't too good, as the Konuch wasn't a power at all, barely able to control their city at all and having about zero influence at all. The Czechoslovak legion isn't a great ally either, as they have no reason to fight the bolsheviks; their main interest was going home, the RCW wasn't their war.

Stenkarazin said:
- Or in the Autumn 1919 (the all-out offensive launched by the same Denikin is victorious, for some reasons. Maybe Ioudenitch manages to seal a deal with Mannerheim’s Finland).

Better. You could have a PoD with Denikin winning at Orel by not splitting his forces (which he did OTL due to Machno's rebellion; this can be prevented by severing the Trotsky-Machno connection or a Poland-Whites alliance). A deal between Yudenich and Mannerheim has the problem of Yudenich not having the competence to do so (he supposedly wanted to accept Finnish independence in return for an alliance against the Soviet, but Kolchak vetoed that on the basis that he had no right to surrender the territories of the Russian empire to anyone, thus preventing any alliance of the whites with the Okrainas).

Stenkarazin said:
- Or we can even go for an earlier turning point, with Kornilov not dying in the winter 1918 and turning into some kind of dictator after winning the Civil. (But I actually don't see exactly how Kornilov alive would turn decisively the outcome. It's more just to have the guy in the TL).

Actually, Kornilov surviving could be a great boon to the whites, as his persona itself could be one behind which the whites could rally, allowing them to become more united; lack of unity being one of the main problems they experienced OTL. Rather than having Denikin and Kolchak squabble over who is in charge, Lvov sitting idly in Paris without a government to represent, the "one and undivided Russia" monarchists blocking any alliance with the Okrainas or promise of reforms to the peoples of Russia, Kornilov was the man who said he was willing to sacrifice 3/4th of Russia to save the rest and had a reputation among the soldiers. Place him in charge, and he would have the authority to secure a deal with Finland, Poland, the Baltic states; give Lvov a country to represent in Versailles; unite the military structure of the white armies.

Clandango · Sep 27, 2012

Have the Bolsheviks purge as many as they can right off the bat.

DrakonFin · Sep 27, 2012

Stenkarazin said:
- Or in the Autumn 1919 (the all-out offensive launched by the same Denikin is victorious, for some reasons. Maybe Ioudenitch manages to seal a deal with Mannerheim’s Finland).

There are problems with the Finnish intervention. In addition to having a deal with the White Russians (including support for Finnish independence and adding much of Eastern Karelia to Finland) Mannerheim himself considered strong Western (read Anglo-French) support for an attack against St. Petersburg necessary, both in military and economic terms. That could not be negotiated IOTL.

And let's add to that the fact that it wasn't "Mannerheim's Finland" anymore by fall 1919. For one thing, Mannerheim was only Regent until Ståhlberg was elected Finland's first President in late July. And Ståhlberg opposed the intervention. Even if Mannerheim won the election, the new constitution accepted in the summer of 1919 made it impossible for the president to declare war without the support of the parliament. So by the fall Mannerheim's window had passed, unless he wanted to make a direct military coup in order to facilitate the intervention.

Stenkarazin · Sep 27, 2012

Thanks for your reactions.

@ MSZ: You're totally right about the weakness of the Komouch. However tempting it is to close the RCW as early as 1918, I have to admit that it wouldn't work.

Concerning the 1919 turning point: I'm aware of the Ioudenitch quandary, but we could imagine that he just decides to get rid off Kolchak's approval. After all, at that point, after the last counter-attacks of Dietricks, the Eastern front was falling apart at fast pace, and so was Kolchak leadership over the White movement.

It "just" supposes Ioudenitch to be less the arch-typical old school tsarist officer.

As for the Polish-White alliance, the same objections could be raised: would Denikin (which his notorious stubbornness when it comes to give up the One and Indivisible Russia) recognize Poland and actually work with them ?

Actually, Kornilov surviving could be a great boon to the whites, as his persona itself could be one behind which the whites could rally, allowing them to become more united; lack of unity being one of the main problems they experienced OTL. Rather than having Denikin and Kolchak squabble over who is in charge, Lvov sitting idly in Paris without a government to represent, the "one and undivided Russia" monarchists blocking any alliance with the Okrainas or promise of reforms to the peoples of Russia, Kornilov was the man who said he was willing to sacrifice 3/4th of Russia to save the rest and had a reputation among the soldiers. Place him in charge, and he would have the authority to secure a deal with Finland, Poland, the Baltic states; give Lvov a country to represent in Versailles; unite the military structure of the white armies.

It makes a lot of sense, but there is still a problem at root. If he had not died the 13 of april 1918, Kornilov would have launch a new offensive on Ekaterinodar. According to Figes, this offensive would have been a utter failure like the previous one, and maybe the Volunteers Army would have been destroyed as early as spring 1918. But this is maybe a wild guess of Figes. I should check in Mawsley and Kenez. If there is a way for Kornilov to remain alive and lead the Whites to Moscow, I will grab it.

And actually, when Kornilov was talking about "sacrifice 3/4th of Russia to save the rest", he was not talking about surrendering territories. It was literally meant: killing 3/4th of Russia's people to save the country

@ Drakonfin:

And let's add to that the fact that it wasn't "Mannerheim's Finland" anymore by fall 1919. For one thing, Mannerheim was only Regent until Ståhlberg was elected Finland's first President in late July. And Ståhlberg opposed the intervention. Even if Mannerheim won the election, the new constitution accepted in the summer of 1919 made it impossible for the president to declare war without the support of the parliament. So by the fall Mannerheim's window had passed, unless he wanted to make a direct military coup in order to facilitate the intervention.

Thanks for that. I don't have a good knowledge of Finnish internal situation at the time. I assumed that the recognition of Finland by the Whites would be enough for Mannerheim to throw his country into a swift move against Petrograd.

Concerning a 'Red' PoD:

Let's imagine that Lenin dies in the Left SR attempt of 1918. Squabble and infighting follow. Stalin and his allies take power against Trotsky in the midst of RCW. Violent, massive purges begin. Bonch-Bruevich and other high-ranked trotskist officers are ousted. The (relatively) well-disciplined Red Army of Trotsky, with its former tsarist officers and Spets, is naturally affected and fails in the critical days of Orel and Voronej.

Stenkarazin · Sep 27, 2012

I have found this thread:

http://ns1.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=132184

Some points are interesting:

- They seemed to consider a Constitutional Monarchy as a plausible outcome, which is quite surprising, given than none of the White leaders has even declared for Monarchy, and the Monarchist cause had about no support at all in the main political parties nor among the people.

- Fall of parliamentarism and rise of a Russian Fascism in the 30's are nearly unavoidable.

- The only point with which I agree: Poland will play a key-role in this alternate history.

MSZ · Sep 27, 2012

Stenkarazin said:
I have found this thread:

http://ns1.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=132184

Some points are interesting:

- They seemed to consider a Constitutional Monarchy as a plausible outcome, which is quite surprising, given than none of the White leaders has even declared for Monarchy, and the Monarchist cause had about no support at all in the main political parties nor among the people.

Huh? It was quite the opposite - most of the main White leaders had very monarchical views, Kolchak and Denikin most importantly. Heck, they wanted Russia to return to be an absolute monarchy even. The constitutional part being assumed as a necessary limitation as the monarchy was bankrupt at the time with little to no support among the population - but also not having a super-powerful opposition (it had a strong one - but most of the Russian population was simply oblivious and uninterested in the entire politics thing, the ideological fight being not so much for the masses, but for the small parts of society willing to take stand and fight). The idea is basically that the non-Russian minorities on the territories whites held OTL (Ukraine, the caucasus, the far east) could be persuaded to join the fight against the bolsheviks if offered freedoms through a constitution (rather than just the word of the tzar).

Stenkarazin said:
- Fall of parliamentarism and rise of a Russian Fascism in the 30's are nearly unavoidable.

Yeah, a White Russia is almost certain to experience the negative effects of the Great Depression and follow suit with the other countries of Europe. Given its traditions of despotism, the entire "Good Tzar, Bad Bureaucrats" mentality and such, democratic reforms are unlikely to last.

Stenkarazin said:
- The only point with which I agree: Poland will play a key-role in this alternate history.

It was a military power at the time, willing to take action and the only country in history to defeat the Red Army in conventional warfare. Makes sense that they would be important in a "defeat the Red Army" scenario.

Stenkarazin · Sep 27, 2012

Huh? It was quite the opposite - most of the main White leaders had very monarchical views, Kolchak and Denikin most importantly. Heck, they wanted Russia to return to be an absolute monarchy even.

I beg to disagree. Neither Denikin nor Kolchak nor Wrangel ever issued a statement stating that their goal was to restore Monarchy. Sure, they were often surrounded by staunch reactionaries, and it is absolutely true that these men were nostalgic of the tsarist era, but they were not active monarchists. They declared to fight for the restoration of the Constituent, and Denikin in particular associated closely with KD politicians.

So, even though I reckon they would long for monarchy after the victory, I don't think they would actively try to enforce it. They would have a lot of more pressing issues to deal with. I don't really see Denikin taking on himself to restore unilaterally the Monarchy in the first days of his victory.

My more immediate concern remains: how to get a White victory in 1919. I really like the Finnish connection as the easiest way to do it, but if you guys tell me it is implausible, I will go for 'Lenin's death' (which, incidentally, has the advantage of evacuating the fate of Lenin falling in White hands).

MerryPrankster · Sep 27, 2012

I did some research on the Russian Civil War and apparently many White leaders didn't think any kind of social change could be permitted until they called a "constituent assembly."

(I think they expected this assembly would choose a new Czar, or something like that.)

However, I did most of that reading in high school, so I might not be remembering it properly.

Killer300 · Sep 27, 2012

MerryPrankster said:
I did some research on the Russian Civil War and apparently many White leaders didn't think any kind of social change could be permitted until they called a "constituent assembly."

(I think they expected this assembly would choose a new Czar, or something like that.)

However, I did most of that reading in high school, so I might not be remembering it properly.

Which is really the problem. The Whites have no way of gaining support with the Peasants, making their victory virtually impossible.

Stenkarazin · Sep 27, 2012

I did some research on the Russian Civil War and apparently many White leaders didn't think any kind of social change could be permitted until they called a "constituent assembly."

(I think they expected this assembly would choose a new Czar, or something like that.)

However, I did most of that reading in high school, so I might not be remembering it properly.

Just right. And that misplaced legalism/passeism was one of the main causes of their defeat. The Bolsheviks just let the peasants take the land, while the Whites lost themselves (and the peasants) in legal circumlocutions about reporting the Land Question (and about every other politic issue) to the Constituent Assembly to-be.

They saw the RCW as a pure classic war, without seeing that in a civil struggle ideas and the way you propagate them are as essential as battles (and they even influence them, since the more you get popular by the people, the more you get motivated soldiers: this is one of the striking facts of the RCW that, in the very days of Denikin's victories, his armies were experiencing a lot of desertions, while on the other side peasants were going back to the Red Army en masse).

MerryPrankster · Sep 27, 2012

Killer300 said:
Which is really the problem. The Whites have no way of gaining support with the Peasants, making their victory virtually impossible.

Maybe, maybe not. History is not a math problem.

MerryPrankster · Sep 27, 2012

Here's another idea for a White victory that ties into our conversations about peasant support.

Have Kolchak NOT overthrow the Social Revolutionaries in Omsk. You don't have to make him LIKE them, but instead he can decide to "deal with them later."

One of the books I saw on Amazon that supported the "revisionist" school of the Cold War said the West supported the White generals instead of the Socialist Revolutionaries, the only ones who (the author thought) could have defeated the Bolsheviks.

If the SRs can be brought on board (perhaps they go along with the "constituent assembly" thing, thinking they'll win it), that might change things.

Killer300 · Sep 27, 2012

MerryPrankster said:
Maybe, maybe not. History is not a math problem.

It is about ideological battles frequently though, something the Whites didn't understand. If you don't get support from that part of the populace, one fails.

M. Adolphe Thiers · Sep 27, 2012

Stenkarazin said:
My more immediate concern remains: how to get a White victory in 1919. I really like the Finnish connection as the easiest way to do it, but if you guys tell me it is implausible, I will go for 'Lenin's death' (which, incidentally, has the advantage of evacuating the fate of Lenin falling in White hands).

Lenin had the Devil's luck in near death experiences. He was once robbed by bandits disguised as road police while driving, but they didn't recognize him until after they had let him go. So, let's just say that one of the bandits just so happened to recognize him, and they shoot him in his car.

Killer300 · Sep 27, 2012

MerryPrankster said:
Here's another idea for a White victory that ties into our conversations about peasant support.

Have Kolchak NOT overthrow the Social Revolutionaries in Omsk. You don't have to make him LIKE them, but instead he can decide to "deal with them later."

One of the books I saw on Amazon that supported the "revisionist" school of the Cold War said the West supported the White generals instead of the Socialist Revolutionaries, the only ones who (the author thought) could have defeated the Bolsheviks.

If the SRs can be brought on board (perhaps they go along with the "constituent assembly" thing, thinking they'll win it), that might change things.

The problem I have with this is that,

A. The West wasn't, and for most of the Cold War, wasn't that pragmatic in regards to dealing with Socialist movements. If they were, Vietnam wouldn't have happened, and numerous coups wouldn't have.

B. The Whites themselves I don't see doing that, they're too reactionary at this point.

Even if they do, the SRs are going to have to offer something the Bolsheviks can't. Perhaps they can, but whatever that is, they'll to do something early to change things.

MSZ · Sep 27, 2012

Stenkarazin said:
I beg to disagree. Neither Denikin nor Kolchak nor Wrangel ever issued a statement stating that their goal was to restore Monarchy. Sure, they were often surrounded by staunch reactionaries, and it is absolutely true that these men were nostalgic of the tsarist era, but they were not active monarchists. They declared to fight for the restoration of the Constituent, and Denikin in particular associated closely with KD politicians.

That's because none of the White leaders ever stated what their goal was (apart from Wrangel in the late 1920 who called for a republic, though even that happened when he knew he was already defeated). They never issued a statement about introducing a republic, a parliament or restoring the constiuent or the provisional government either. Which leads many to believe for them status quo was God - and after the war, Russia would return to its pre-war, pre-revolutionary and pre-abdication status, that being a monarchy.

And in his corespondence with the other White leaders, Kolchak would write how he was not entitled to surrendering any territory to any allies in return for assistance, how that power belonged only to god and the tzar (or some kind of post-war assembly). Denikin would hold a similiar status, as would most of the other White leaders, not having the guts to do something like that and hiding behind the slogan of "only the tzar can..." or "one and undivided Russia". That leads to the conclusion on how a "constitutional monarchy" would a middle ground between the monarchists and the republicans.

Stenkarazin · Sep 27, 2012

Here's another idea for a White victory that ties into our conversations about peasant support.

Have Kolchak NOT overthrow the Social Revolutionaries in Omsk. You don't have to make him LIKE them, but instead he can decide to "deal with them later."

One of the books I saw on Amazon that supported the "revisionist" school of the Cold War said the West supported the White generals instead of the Socialist Revolutionaries, the only ones who (the author thought) could have defeated the Bolsheviks.

If the SRs can be brought on board (perhaps they go along with the "constituent assembly" thing, thinking they'll win it), that might change things.

Hmm... I do believe that, after a White victory, the (right and left) SRs will play a key-role in the new Constituent Assembly.

But, during the fight ? There attempt to create a 'People's Army' at Samara proved to be an utter failure. Well, let's say that it can ease the things to bring them on board, but it can hardly make the main difference in the RCW.

Lenin had the Devil's luck in near death experiences. He was once robbed by bandits disguised as road police while driving, but they didn't recognize him until after they had let him go. So, let's just say that one of the bandits just so happened to recognize him, and they shoot him in his car.

Yeah, I remember that story. What a pity ! It would have been so cheerful if this old kalmouk crook had been shot by some thugs.

We can also say that Fanny Kaplan aims better than in OTL and gives the bastard a clean death.