A White victory - a better Russia(and world)?

[cex]

In that case, Belarus would probably be an almost powerless nation. It does have some natural resources, but it pales in comparison to Ukraine.

I reckon it'll be reduced to a satellite by either the Polish or Russians.

It was probably inevitable that an independent Belarus was going to be a satellite state post-war, whether at the hands of a victorious Germany or Poland.

However, even a nominally independent state would have had a more positive impact for Belarusian national identity than the continued Russian yoke.

I don't think the ideological differences are sufficient to maintain this division in her medium term and when they reunify any forms of independence acquired by Ukraine or Belarus would be under severe threat.

Why? The Left and Right SRs were unable to re-unify despite the fact that a unified SR Party/Komuch could have handily defeated the Bolsheviks in 1917-1918.

In this particular scenario would Nicholas II and his family avoid being murdered by Bolshevik fanatics in a basement and how much of the Russian aristocracy/upper-class would survive?

If he survives, the Whites will probably pay him to leave the country, considering his unpopularity.

I think that would be very unlikely to succeed, as this white Russia would be very revanchist, and very uninterested in dying on behalf of France and Britain, again.

OTOH, the Whites would have supported France against Britain in the post-war Versailles disputes, so we could see a new cordon sanitaire against Germany.

 

[CHKeeley]

I have a hard time conceiving why there would be a permanent partition of Russia into three ways? A few years of tense stand-off between ostensibly allied factions who are really intriguing for the top job? Absolutely. But a static situation in which three men with armies who all desire an indivisible and united Russia and portray themselves as simple military men above politics deciding to just remain with purely regional power bases? Highly doubt. I see no reason why don’t coalesce under a more integrated power sharing agreement or even outright coup d’etat (unlikely with the personalities we have here tbh) which would break the stalemate.

 

[cex]

I have a hard time conceiving why there would be a permanent partition of Russia into three ways? A few years of tense stand-off between ostensibly allied factions who are really intriguing for the top job? Absolutely. But a static situation in which three ambitious men with armies who all desire an indivisible and united Russia and portray themselves as simple military men above politics deciding to just remain with purely regional power bases? Highly doubt. I see no reason why don’t coalesce under a more integrated power sharing agreement or even outright coup d’etat (unlikely with the personalities we have here tbh) which would break the stalemate.

Why believe attempts to break the stalemate will certainly be successful here? Fengtien, KMT and Zhili all claimed to be the *legitimate* government of China, yet were unable to agree what exactly it would be.

 

[CHKeeley]

Why believe attempts to break the stalemate will certainly be successful here? Fengtien, KMT and Zhili all claimed to be the *legitimate* government of China, yet were unable to agree what exactly it would be.

The problem is that China is in a very different context politically, socially, and geographically. The warlord armies and the system which created personal loyalties between troops and regional leaders had its origins in Qing era practice whereby governors would raise private armies to combat internal rebellion. There was no coordinated national army of any coherence even in the late imperial period, and armies remained regional and idiosyncratic. Cliques of regional officers and commanders were formed which raised soldiers from local areas to fight. This meant that when the system imploded after the Xinhai revolution, there were hundreds of armed cliques which could take over control of territory, confederate or disband, and fight against one another for control. In a country as diverse in culture and geography, this sets conditions for chaotic warlordism in which a centralized state cannot exert effective control. China also had comparatively poor infrastructure and relatively few railroads. The country was no coherently linked together, which made it easy for localized power based to maintain effective control.

Little of this is true for the former Russian Empire post-1917. Did the country experience a collapse of state control and the rising up of a dizzying array of factions? Definitely. But over time, these anarchic conditions gave way to just a few very powerful military forces who fought on a wide front to wrest control from rivals. By 1919-1920, the tens of factions had been reduced to the binary of white and red, with the Bolsheviks exerting effective and highly-coordinated control over its territory through a bureaucracy inherited from the Tsarist state while the white factions formed a loose coalition under an acknowledged leader (Kolchak). Even these Tsarist armies on the periphery still had effective state capacities and did not experience the splintering of armies into individuals cliques. The only place where there’s an exception is Siberia, and that’s mainly due to the poor infrastructure, vast distances, and sparse populations. White armies remained within effective top-down command under the former Tsarist military system of discipline and control. There were no local cliques and regional governors making independent policy within the broader unit. Railroads and cities connected all of western Russia in such a way that any fighting between white factions after the defeat of the Bolsheviks basically guarantees the triumph of a single faction over others. Very few of the conditions that gave rise to warlordism in China are present in post-revolutionary Russia.

 

[Oda]

Well if Poland ends up controlling Vilnius in this scenario I'd say that we'd see the recreation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with the question being would it be a republic or a monarchy?

The Lithuanians aren’t interested the Ukrainians are sus and piss at the poles. Something needs to changed… a lot of something actually

 

[cex]

The problem is that China is in a very different context politically, socially, and geographically. The warlord armies and the system which created personal loyalties between troops and regional leaders had its origins in Qing era practice whereby governors would raise private armies to combat internal rebellion. There was no coordinated national army of any coherence even in the late imperial period, and armies remained regional and idiosyncratic. Cliques of regional officers and commanders were formed which raised soldiers from local areas to fight. This meant that when the system imploded after the Xinhai revolution, there were hundreds of armed cliques which could take over control of territory, confederate or disband, and fight against one another for control. In a country as diverse in culture and geography, this sets conditions for chaotic warlordism in which a centralized state cannot exert effective control. China also had comparatively poor infrastructure and relatively few railroads. The country was no coherently linked together, which made it easy for localized power based to maintain effective control.

Little of this is true for the former Russian Empire post-1917. Did the country experience a collapse of state control and the rising up of a dizzying array of factions? Definitely. But over time, these anarchic conditions gave way to just a few very powerful military forces who fought on a wide front to wrest control from rivals. By 1919-1920, the tens of factions had been reduced to the binary of white and red, with the Bolsheviks exerting effective and highly-coordinated control over its territory through a bureaucracy inherited from the Tsarist state while the white factions formed a loose coalition under an acknowledged leader (Kolchak). Even these Tsarist armies on the periphery still had effective state capacities and did not experience the splintering of armies into individuals cliques. The only place where there’s an exception is Siberia, and that’s mainly due to the poor infrastructure, vast distances, and sparse populations. White armies remained centralized and disciplined under the former Tsarist military system of discipline and control. There were no local cliques and regional governors making independent policy within the broader unit. Railroads and cities connected all of western Russia in such a way that any fighting between white factions after the defeat of the Bolsheviks basically guarantees the triumph of a single faction over others. Very few of the conditions that gave rise to warlordism in China are present in post-revolutionary Russia.

Judging from the warlord map, which faction is the likeliest to win? Also, would Kolchak or whoever won in Siberia have recognised Ungern-Sternberg's Great Khanate or attempted to suppress him after the Bolsheviks collapsed?

 

[CHKeeley]

Judging from the warlord map, which faction is the likeliest to win? Also, would Kolchak or whoever won in Siberia have recognised Ungern-Sternberg's Great Khanate or attempted to suppress him after the Bolsheviks collapsed?

I’m not really sure they fight at all. IOTL, we didn’t get far enough to really see what cooperation would look like between Denikin and Kolchak for example, but on the surface I see no reason for a white-on-white civil war. It wasn’t like any of the major factions had serious political differences - all were “apolitical military men” with a slight liberal inclination with fierce anti-communism. All were committed to one Russia indivisible. All worked with the Allies under the banner of Kolchak as Supreme Leader, and Kolchak aided men like Yudenich through funds and arms. And, most importantly, none of them seem to be political opportunists. In fact, to a man most of the white officer class seemed uncomfortable in politics. They were poor decision makers without a realistic conception of the post-revolutionary world. I don’t see any of them as strivers and pole climbers who would start a second civil war for political power. Other men? Sure. But in later circumstances. If political intrigue does happen, it’ll happen in a reconstituted Russia rather than a duking it out between the factions on a massive military scale in my opinion.

 

[Garrison]

A divided Russia in the hands of the ultra conservative Whites is going to be a very tempting target for Germany, even if you don't wind up with Hitler in charge. Reinstating Brest-Litovsk would probably become an objective, even if not stated publicly and if Russia starts to look towards its old expansionist goals, i.e. trying to get control of the Bosporus, then it won't be long before they thoroughly alienate the former entente. A fractured Russia might be the only way you get a successful German campaign in the east.

 

[cex]

A divided Russia in the hands of the ultra conservative Whites is going to be a very tempting target for Germany, even if you don't wind up with Hitler in charge.

The most likely result of a weakened White Russia is Poland detaching Belarus and Ukraine from Russia, which would have by all measures been better for the peoples of Eastern Europe, and would have meant a stronger Little Entente against Germany.

Reinstating Brest-Litovsk would probably become an objective, even if not stated publicly and if Russia starts to look towards its old expansionist goals, i.e. trying to get control of the Bosporus, then it won't be long before they thoroughly alienate the former entente.

With Poland in charge of Belarus and Ukraine, the Brest-Litovsk territories would have been firmly in the hands of a French ally. With a stronger Little Entente, appeasement would have been a non-starter.

A fractured Russia might be the only way you get a successful German campaign in the east.

A fractured and desiccated Russia would have strengthened Poland, not Germany.

 

[lukedalton]

A quick victory of the white in the civil war mean that the Biennio Rosso in Italy will be very different, the maximalist will not have so much power and the moderate will have much more influence and there is less fear of any real revolution in Italy and so less support by the enstablishment for Benny and co.
There will be more debate at Versailles if the russian delegation has more influence and i image a lot of diplomatic fight between them and Wilson regarding the Baltic, Poland and Finland and naturally the caucasus nation, maybe the incrased effort will cause a premature death by Wilson or Italy will have a little more leeway due to the attention that the east now need.
In any case, France will be in a better position, i doubt that the white will pubblically renege the foreign debt giving Paris a better economic situation and the continued existence of Russia as a strategic patner mean that that the French don't need to base every decision on keeping the British alliance or obtaining an Anglo-American security guarantee

 

[Seandineen]

I’m not really sure they fight at all. IOTL, we didn’t get far enough to really see what cooperation would look like between Denikin and Kolchak for example, but on the surface I see no reason for a white-on-white civil war. It wasn’t like any of the major factions had serious political differences - all were “apolitical military men” with a slight liberal inclination with fierce anti-communism. All were committed to one Russia indivisible. All worked with the Allies under the banner of Kolchak as Supreme Leader, and Kolchak aided men like Yudenich through funds and arms. And, most importantly, none of them seem to be political opportunists. In fact, to a man most of the white officer class seemed uncomfortable in politics. They were poor decision makers without a realistic conception of the post-revolutionary world. I don’t see any of them as strivers and pole climbers who would start a second civil war for political power. Other men? Sure. But in later circumstances. If political intrigue does happen, it’ll happen in a reconstituted Russia rather than a duking it out between the factions on a massive military scale in my opinion.

I think Denkin has the best shot of bringing unity. Just get rid of the Anti Semitic folk, around him, He could have done business with Mannerheim, warrior to warrior, thus keeping the fins on side.

 

[CHKeeley]

Just get rid of the Anti Semitic folk, around him

Wouldn’t happen - anti-semitism was baked into the very culture of the Volunteer Army and it only got more intense as the civil war dragged on. Pogroms and anti-semitic violence were seen as part and parcel of fighting Bolshevism and in the minds of many officers and soldiers, Jews were considered indistinguishable from Bolshevik agitators and combatants. Denikin tolerated anti-semitism within his army despite his official distaste for the lack of discipline in caused in the men, and in order for him to uproot it he would have to cleanse his army root and stem. I think anti-semitic violence would have gotten far worse if the Volunteer Army had been allowed to crash into the industrial heartland of Russia. The cradle of Bolshevism so to speak. So I don’t see that being much of a possibility really. It was a deep rooted sentiment and it only benefitted Denikin politically to ignore it.

He could have done business with Mannerheim, warrior to warrior, thus keeping the fins on side.

Denikin and his political entourage espoused a policy of an indivisible Russia. The Volunteer Army was inflexible in its dealings with separatism and foreign nationalisms. Its track record with making pragmatic policy in regards to former imperial provinces is not good. With that being said, I’m not so sure the Finns would get along easily with the new Russian regime. The same fundamental tensions that underlied the rocky Finnish-Soviet relations exist here, and I don’t think the shared bond of anti-communism was enough to paper over it. At least not with the officer class of the white guard.

 

[Seandineen]

You make important points. I think Mannerhiem's service in the imperial army, could have been a starting point. As regards the crime of history called anti semitism, Denkin was a protege of Witte. Witte while hardly a Zionist, wanted to avoid crude acts of discrimination. Cleamanseu despite his background had a great respect for Denkin, a confab about let's not stain our honor, we are civilised Europeans might help.

 

[RedSword12]

Judging from the warlord map, which faction is the likeliest to win? Also, would Kolchak or whoever won in Siberia have recognised Ungern-Sternberg's Great Khanate or attempted to suppress him after the Bolsheviks collapsed?

Wrangel/Denikin would almost certainly win, due to being in control of the bulk of Russian industry (a major reason for the Bolshevik victory IOTL).

 

[Scorpius72]

Since in this timeline the Bolsheviks have been neutralised which would no doubt result in Nicholas II and his family not being murdered a basement on the outskirts of Yekaterineberg would George V accept their request for asylum in the UK? I hope that in OTL George V felt guilty about their murders by Bolshevik extremists when the news broke knowing that he could've saved them. Now what about the Russian nobility and upper-class? What is likely to happen to them in TTL?

 

[LNSS]

Depends on wether the Nazis or someone similar to them rise, because if they do, your "better world" is a Germany spanning from the Rhine to the Urals. And the desire of that was already there before the Nazis, hence Mitteleuropa.

 

[thezerech]

Who knows, the Whites were generally not good people. Would they be better than the Bolsheviks? Who knows, maybe, maybe not, depends on who gets into power, if WWII happens, etc.

For the non-Russians of the Empire, it's likewise just as hard to say. Neither option is good, determining which is worse is essentially impossible.

 

[Lalli]

Who knows, the Whites were generally not good people. Would they be better than the Bolsheviks? Who knows, maybe, maybe not, depends on who gets into power, if WWII happens, etc.

For the non-Russians of the Empire, it's likewise just as hard to say. Neither option is good, determining which is worse is essentially impossible.

Mostly White Generals weren't indeed very good people and surely not pro-democracy and pro-human rights but hard to see that they would had been anywhere as bad as Stalin. They are surely authotarian, oppressive, ruthless and murderous if needed but they hardly go that far as Stalin did. And probably they too keep their armies in some condition instead killing their best generals.

 

[thezerech]

Mostly White Generals weren't indeed very good people and surely not pro-democracy and pro-human rights but hard to see that they would had been anywhere as bad as Stalin. They are surely authotarian, oppressive, ruthless and murderous if needed but they hardly go that far as Stalin did. And probably they too keep their armies in some condition instead killing their best generals.

I mean, considering the tenor of the age, I don't see that we have any reasonable reason to suspect that Russia under the whites wouldn't go the route of Japan or Germany. The problems that beset the Soviet Union IOTL about non-Russian nations remain, and this time the Whites won't even give the brief korenizatsiia of the '20s. Would that be demonstrably worse than Stalin? Probably not, but who knows. Like I said, the government will probably be harsh and violent, and without the exacts we're basically guessing that where Stalin kills a million they'll kill 500,000? Is that better? Maybe, depends on how the inevitable WW2 shakes out.

Better for whom? Maybe more Poles die, but less Chechens? Etc. I don't fundamentally think we can even really answer this question with anything other than "it depends."

 

[cex]

Denikin and his political entourage espoused a policy of an indivisible Russia. The Volunteer Army was inflexible in its dealings with separatism and foreign nationalisms. Its track record with making pragmatic policy in regards to former imperial provinces is not good. With that being said, I’m not so sure the Finns would get along easily with the new Russian regime. The same fundamental tensions that underlied the rocky Finnish-Soviet relations exist here, and I don’t think the shared bond of anti-communism was enough to paper over it. At least not with the officer class of the white guard.

Denikin and Kolchak were willing in principle to recognize Poland's independence. The sticking point was Poland's borders with Russia. Both Denikin and Kolchak were vague on this, saying that those borders would have to be determined by a future constituent assembly. Even when he wanted Pilsudski's support, Denikin would not give adequate assurances on borders. "Denikin attached great value to Polish armed assistance against the Bolsheviks because it would make his advance on Moscow considerably easier. But he was not willing to make any territorial concession to Poland or other nationalities, and wanted to see the Polish state confined to the borders of former Congress Poland." https://books.google.com/books?id=2T9zYXqL56AC&pg=PA86 So it's hard for me to see a victorious Russian White regime could avoid a war with Poland, which would not voluntarily agree to such borders.

The Provisional Government had already recognized the independence of Poland on March 29, 1917, and I don't think the victorious Whites would go back on that--their soldiers would be in no mood for a war of conquest, and the Western Allies would strongly oppose such a war. But I also don't think the Whites would give up the borderlands without a struggle--so far as they were concerned the areas like Grodno, Volhynia, and eastern Galicia were "Russian" territory, and they would not see a fight for such territory as a war of conquest. Their refusal to concede such areas to Poland even when they badly wanted Pilsudski's help is significant.

Depends on wether the Nazis or someone similar to them rise, because if they do, your "better world" is a Germany spanning from the Rhine to the Urals. And the desire of that was already there before the Nazis, hence Mitteleuropa.

A weaker White Russia would almost certainly have been better for Eastern European politics than a stronger Bolshevist Russia: Pilsudski's 'Intermarium' of Belarus and Ukraine may have been a solid foundation for an anti-German alliance, one which France may have been tempted to join given the stronger Polish international position vis a vis Germany.

I mean, considering the tenor of the age, I don't see that we have any reasonable reason to suspect that Russia under the whites wouldn't go the route of Japan or Germany. The problems that beset the Soviet Union IOTL about non-Russian nations remain, and this time the Whites won't even give the brief korenizatsiia of the '20s. Would that be demonstrably worse than Stalin? Probably not, but who knows. Like I said, the government will probably be harsh and violent, and without the exacts we're basically guessing that where Stalin kills a million they'll kill 500,000? Is that better? Maybe, depends on how the inevitable WW2 shakes out.

Better for whom? Maybe more Poles die, but less Chechens? Etc. I don't fundamentally think we can even really answer this question with anything other than "it depends."

How would the Whites have governed Russia? Difficult to say, depends on a lot of contingent post-war factors. However, would the rest of the world have benefitted from the extermination of Bolshevism, especially in nations where Marxism-Leninism was imposed by force, not by any measure of popular consent? Certainly.