Well no, Lenin wasn't the paranoid mass-murderer Stalin was and I don't think he would have unbalanced the Soviet economy quite so heavily away from consumer goods and towards military industries. But Lenin was much worse for Russia's economy, taken in the round, than Stalin was. War Communism nearly destroyed Russian industry. By 1929 Russia's industrial economy was only back to 1914 levels and there was some industrial growth between 1914-17 mainly in heavy industry. So Lenin left Russia a less economically developed country than he found it. Doesn't matter if the SRs/Provisional Government go more slowly than Stalin did, they don't have a 60% reduction in the size of the industrial economy to contend with and are starting from a higher initial base. They may be climbing the ladder more slowly but they didn't fall off the ladder and have to start again at the bottom.In other words, there's no reason that state-communists can't replicate the feat if and when the Stalinist problem is removed, though they may slow down slightly to avoid the OTL social upheaval.
That's the issue with such rapid industrialization--either you use Stalin-level repression to keep things under control or you accept massive instability ultimately leading to a 1905 and a 1917. If you allow democratization, pushes for workers rights etc. slows your progress.
There would be ongoing political unrest yes if any of those groups come to the top but there wouldn't actually be economic shrinkage as OTL. And all of those groups are military modernisers. No matter how reactionary, they all want to build tanks, armoured cars, machine guns, battleships and submarines and want field radios for their troops. They aren't about to reimpose serfdom. Civil and industrial unrest will die down post war because peace and bread (if not land) will still be delivered. Yes, probably some pogroms and forced emigration but no Great Purges. There was plenty of anti-Semiticism in the OTL USSR and a friend brought up there told me that there were also quite a few incidents that would be characterised as race riots in the West in the Caucaus, Kazakhstan and Siberia - they just weren't reported in the Soviet media. The "Hard White" will be ruthless and hold life cheap but they would I think represent the best of Stalin rather than the worst. They wouldn't be ideologically paranoid, nor would they be as pathologically personally paranoid and would have no political objections to bankers and non-Marxist economists. Or to overseas trade and external investment. And while they might censor the press they are unlikely to waste huge resources on ensuring that scientific journals or a beekeeper's magazine display the right level of ideological purity. National rights wouldn't be great I agree but the main drivers for woman's rights in the twentieth century are still there - the typewriter, the need for skilled machinery operatives and the need for increasingly highly trained nurses.1. The Whites win, and a second round of unrest happens. The military conservatives/tsarists/protofascists come out on top. Basically, you get all the worst of Stalin with none of the progress on women's rights/national rights and an added dose of pogroms.
Again, you are unduly pessimistic about a "Soft White" victory. Yes there would be analogies with Weimar (though Weimar wasn't as unstable as its detractors often claim and would have had a fighting chance of survival with a President other than Hindenburg). But, unlike Weimar, you wouldn't have had somewhere between 45%-50% of the population wanting the monarchy back. Unlike the Hohenzollerns the Romanovs had managed to discredit themselves with at least 70% of the Russian people. Russia had no War Guilt clause and no repariation payments. They might well want Poland, Finland and the Baltics back but no (even arguably) ethnic Russian territories had been lost (unlike Danzig, Saarland, Silesia or the Polish corridor). And whoever gets to rule at the point where the automobile, tractor, sewing machine and radio become widely affordable will pick up a certain amount of popularity. And the lack of an insistence on autarky and consequent foreign trade will bring in imported consumer goods. And no food shortages and a moderately efficient service sector.The Whites win, and a very fragile democracy emerges. The White democrats didn't have the military power to completely suppress the conservatives, so the best comparison I can think of is essentially Weimar Germany--and we all know how well that turned out. It is of course possible that Hitler/WWII are butterflied, but I think that there's enough resentment against the West in Germany that a Russia specific POD won't change this. This Russia will ally with the French most likely so...Russia won't have a good time. Of course, without the Purge things might go better than IOTL, but on the flip side a government that doesn't fully trust the military will have disastrous effects. This, possible pogroms which the gov't can't stop, and less liberal reform lead to a 20th century that while *arguably* could turn out better than OTL is not IMO the best outcome, which is:
Well no, Lenin wasn't the paranoid mass-murderer Stalin was and I don't think he would have unbalanced the Soviet economy quite so heavily away from consumer goods and towards military industries. But Lenin was much worse for Russia's economy, taken in the round, than Stalin was. War Communism nearly destroyed Russian industry. By 1929 Russia's industrial economy was only back to 1914 levels and there was some industrial growth between 1914-17 mainly in heavy industry. So Lenin left Russia a less economically developed country than he found it. Doesn't matter if the SRs/Provisional Government go more slowly than Stalin did, they don't have a 60% reduction in the size of the industrial economy to contend with and are starting from a higher initial base. They may be climbing the ladder more slowly but they didn't fall off the ladder and have to start again at the bottom.
Again, you are unduly pessimistic about a "Soft White" victory. Yes there would be analogies with Weimar (though Weimar wasn't as unstable as its detractors often claim and would have had a fighting chance of survival with a President other than Hindenburg). But, unlike Weimar, you wouldn't have had somewhere between 45%-50% of the population wanting the monarchy back. Unlike the Hohenzollerns the Romanovs had managed to discredit themselves with at least 70% of the Russian people. Russia had no War Guilt clause and no repariation payments. They might well want Poland, Finland and the Baltics back but no (even arguably) ethnic Russian territories had been lost (unlike Danzig, Saarland, Silesia or the Polish corridor). And whoever gets to rule at the point where the automobile, tractor, sewing machine and radio become widely affordable will pick up a certain amount of popularity. And the lack of an insistence on autarky and consequent foreign trade will bring in imported consumer goods. And no food shortages and a moderately efficient service sector.
1) The Whites actually should have won the Civil War and fairly quickly too, if they had been even halfway competent. They controlled the food producing regions and the Reds the food consuming ones. Madrid didn't really last very long once it was cut off from outside sources of supply and Moscow, Petrograd or Tsaritsyn/Volgograd wouldn't have either.But by what TL/POD are you proposing a White victory *without* the negative effects of War Communism, which IOTL was ended in 1921? A White victory seems to me like it would take longer than a Red one, given that the Reds control a unified territory and are not going to surrender--probably until 1923-24 or so--and thus the region between Moscow and Petrograd will be even more devastated than IOTL. Thus, you still have all the impact of War Communism, just different people in charge of putting the pieces back together. Or are you proposing something like a successful Kornilov affair, which IMO could well result in the Provisional Government and the SRs who folded into the Bolsheviks forming a united front against the far-right dictator?
Also, do your figures take into account the loss of territory/population in Poland and the Baltics after WWI? IIRC a very great deal of Russian industry was in land lost to Poland at/after Brest-Litovsk.
Furthermore, you seem to act under the assumption that there won't be purges/ideological pressure ITTL. However, I'm almost sure that there will be anti-Bolshevik/anti-Communist purges, which will affect universities especially and thus adversely impact science. Furthermore, if emigration is in any way possible, it seems likely to me that many scientists will leave of their own accord. Pogroms also IMO could likely get much worse; IOTL death figures exploded exponentially during the Civil War and it seems to me that anti-Semitic whites would use the anti-Red crackdown as an excuse to continue this.There's also the fact that, ITTL, the Bolsheviks will likely appear as martyrs to a burgeoning, highly oppressed Russian urban proletariat (which it will be as part of anti-Communist activity spilling into anti-union policy). All it would take is one post-Bolshevik terror cell--a twentieth-century equivalent of Narodnaya Volnya--assassinating someone high up in government to trigger a parallel to OTL Great Purge.
Well it depends on whether there is a shorter or no Civil War but Russia already has scientists, engineers and businessmen. Yes, just like Lenin under NEP and pre-war Stalin, they will have to increase their grain, fruit, oil and mineral exports but that won't stop them industrialising even if they continue to service their debts (as they even managed to do under Lenin and Stalin. If you can industrialise under those pair of lunatics then you can industrialise under a liberal socialist or a thuggish military dictator. And not failing to service debts opens up the possibilities of additional credit. And licencing technologies, taking up patents and buying lathes and machine tools from abroad. And their Depression won't be ours -if Russia is integrated into the global market, paying back old loans and taking out new ones the world market is larger and the market saturation leading to the Depression will occur a couple of years later on -probably 1931 or 32 in the US and 1934 or 5 in Europe (as opposed to 1929 and 1931 OTL). Droughts don't usually cause famines in a developed economy which can borrow money and doesn't regard emergency grain imports from overseas as a source of shame or ideological reproach. Stalin actively made political use of/encouraged the Holodomor and the Bengal Famine was due to WW2 being given priority and the neighbouring rice producing states being under enemy occupation. And the Bay of Bengal a war zone.On the flip side, a Russia more integrated with the world economy will by necessity be one more focused on exports of raw materials, considering that however you slice it with a post-1917 POD Russian industry will be negatively impacted by the war and food and minerals will likely be the only available source of wealth. This will not be good when the Depression hits, and there's no reason to butterfly the naturally occurring droughts that escalated into a famine due to Stalin's mismanagement. If anything, depending on the philosophies of people in government, it might worst case scenario be mismanaged into something resembling An Gorta Mor IOTL, certainly not doing much for the Russian economy or social stability regardless. And, due to the fact that the Whites would likely not be in a diplomatic position to repudiate their war debt to France and the UK, I doubt that they will be able to engage in much of a stimulus policy, further slowing recovery.
Furthermore, you seem to act under the assumption that there won't be purges/ideological pressure ITTL. However, I'm almost sure that there will be anti-Bolshevik/anti-Communist purges, which will affect universities especially and thus adversely impact science. Furthermore, if emigration is in any way possible, it seems likely to me that many scientists will leave of their own accord. Pogroms also IMO could likely get much worse; IOTL death figures exploded exponentially during the Civil War and it seems to me that anti-Semitic whites would use the anti-Red crackdown as an excuse to continue this.
The SRs will be the main left wing group in Russia and will have say in the government because trying to purge them would probably start a second civil war.There's also the fact that, ITTL, the Bolsheviks will likely appear as martyrs to a burgeoning, highly oppressed Russian urban proletariat (which it will be as part of anti-Communist activity spilling into anti-union policy). All it would take is one post-Bolshevik terror cell--a twentieth-century equivalent of Narodnaya Volnya--assassinating someone high up in government to trigger a parallel to OTL Great Purge.
That's quite true. It'd still be a dictatorship(whether "White" or just the old monarchy) without Lenin taking over, but it'd have more "normal" relations(think Franco's Spain).We should remember about international context: Red Russia is feared, hated and isolated, is viewed as dangerous oddity, neighbours are dreaming about destroying it. Thus leadership of Red Russia must be paranoid and suspicious.
This could result in a major settlement wave towards the Russian far east as well. In Weimar World (w/o WW2) the Soviet Union sends millions of slavic settlers east, who eventually develop a distinctive national identity there by the post-communist period.Side note: A white or Tsar Russia would probably have a lot more Russians and people in general. I imagine under these systems Russia would stay more conservative. Probably super conservative by European stands. This could lead to a high birth rate among Russians. Parts of Central Asia could become majority Russian. I could also see a white or Tsar Russia becoming a mix of Franco's Spain, Portugal, and pre-communist China.
A white or Tsar Russia is going to have to depend settling unstable regions through demographic domination of the growing Russian population. Basically making other people minorities in their own homelands. A Soviet Russia will depend on creating a unified Soviet identify that replaces ethnic/regional ones and that most people within the country can accept as their own. Maybe something similar to different people in the United States considering themselves "American" even those they can be very different by region or background. A Soviet Union that can figure out how to copy and make a communist version of American assimilation can be very successful.This could result in a major settlement wave towards the Russian far east as well. In Weimar World (w/o WW2) the Soviet Union sends millions of slavic settlers east, who eventually develop a distinctive national identity there by the post-communist period.
A White Russia without collectivization, the famines, and barbarossa would probably have more people in Outer Manchuria and the far east.
I don't think this analysis makes sense, the Soviet Union was Austria-Hungary with diamonds and oil by its end. If it stayed together it would have lost an ethnic Russian majority by the 2000s, Barbarossa disproportionately impacted the western slavic populations in the union, increasing the relative weight of central asians and caucasians. The Russian provisional government was considering a federal arrangement modeled on the US that would provide substantial autonomy for minority groups, but wouldn't allow them the right to secede.A white or Tsar Russia is going to have to depend settling unstable regions through demographic domination of the growing Russian population. Basically making other people minorities in their own homelands. A Soviet Russia will depend on creating a unified Soviet identify that replaces ethnic/regional ones and that most people within the country can accept as their own. Maybe something similar to different people in the United States considering themselves "American" even those they can be very different by region or background. A Soviet Union that can figure out how to copy and make a communist version of American assimilation can be very successful.
So they’ll do exactly what the Soviets tried to do, but even more successfully because they won’t be starving said Russian population.A white or Tsar Russia is going to have to depend settling unstable regions through demographic domination of the growing Russian population. Basically making other people minorities in their own homelands.
This was the secondary approach they tried OTL and it failed. It’s a hell of a lot easier to assimilate immigrants cut off from their homeland than conquered peoples living in the same land for generations as a majority in that land. The Soviets would have to forcibly relocate all their minorities and disperse them throughout the Union Assyria-style if they wanted to have any hope of assimilating minorities. (And they did do this with some of the more troublesome minorities, but to do them with all the minorities at once would have such a massive death toll that it would rightfully be considered a genocide.)A Soviet Russia will depend on creating a unified Soviet identify that replaces ethnic/regional ones and that most people within the country can accept as their own. Maybe something similar to different people in the United States considering themselves "American" even those they can be very different by region or background. A Soviet Union that can figure out how to copy and make a communist version of American assimilation can be very successful.