White Army Victory in Russian Civil War

So I am working on a White Army victory alt-hist and I've done some research but I was wondering under what circumstances this would be possible? I understand the outcome wouldn't be much better, if at all, compared with the Red victory which we got OTL, but thought it would be a good thought experiment.

EDIT: typos, and I thought I'd give more context, in the form of a list of major changes ITL:
- Takes place around mid-1922
- White Army Victory
- Successful League w/ USA and James M. Cox elected in 1920
- German Empire retains Schleswig + Memel, loses South Germany to a "South German Confederation" (different Treaty of Versailles)
- More faithful Sykes-Picot carving of the Near East
- Ottomans quash Young Turks before a civil war erupts
 
Last edited:
Off the top of my head, Nikolai Yudenich's bizarre coalition* succeeds in taking St. Petersburg in 1919. IOTL his troops (which to my understanding were fairly well equipped by RCW standards, they even had British Tanks) failed to cut the Petrograd-Moscow railway and timely reinforcements saved the cradle of the revolution.

Its loss would be a big blow to Bolshevik morale and pretty much erase the Red's industrial advantage.

*Tsarists and Socialists (both Mensheviks and SRs) lol
 
A White Victory in the Russian Civil War would have been a lot worse for Russia, if not the world, than what happened in OTL (let alone a Red Victory in general).

Chances of a burgeois-democratic Russia after the civil war are remote to non-existent. The Bolsheviks and Left-SRs had the absolute majority of the people on their side, even before the civil war began. And their popularity only increased as the war progresed. Therefore, had the White Movement really established a burgeois-democracy after their victory, the Bolsheviks and Left-SRs would have won the first election by a landslide (which was, of course, unacceptable to the ruling class). Not even to speak of ethnic minorities and seperatism. Even if the new white regime had somehow gained popular support after some years (and thats a big if), it would still not allow the Bolsheviks and national liberation groups to agitate freely, fearing another revolution. A ban on unions and strikes (1. They violate the direct economic interst of the bourgeoisie. 2. Look what role strikes played in the October Revolution) would be very good for the ruling class, too. Moreover, the russian ruling class would definetly try to reconquer the "lost territories" (i.e. everything that belonged to Tsarist Russia in 1914), and while major aggressive wars are possible under a burgeois-democracy, a more authoritarian form of government would definetly facilitate the economic and psychological preparations for war. And let's also not foget that many of those who fought in the white movement opposed the very idea of democracy (not only the tsar loyalists). Last but not least, a burgeois-democracy would've been hardly able to cope with the post-war devastation (from the ruling classes perspective, strikes and protests against long working hours, high land taxes and the white regime as a whole would be less than ideal in the post-war recovery). Most of the russian ruling class would prefer a fascist or at least very reactionary dictatorship for these reasons.

You can be sure that in the 1920s there wouldn't be an 8 hour working day, a brief legalization of homosexuality, an indigenization pollicy towards minorities and a period of indirect soviet democracy from 1917 to 1936.

As allready mentioned, the Bolsheviks and Left-SRs (later the Bolsheviks alone) had the support of the absolute majority of the people (actually the Bolsheviks alone had won the absolute majority of seats in the Second All Russian Congress of Soviets in October of 1917), and it's doubtfull that the whites would try to integrate their enemies into the new society the way the Bolsheviks did in OTL (many white soldiers were given amnesty and the post-civil war purges were actually very limited compared to how they could have been). It's likely that millions of suspectes bolsheviks and bolshevik sypathizers would be murdered or worked to death in Siberian labour camps.

And thats only where things start to go downhill. It's unlikely that the new white regime would be able to pacify the countryside as it would severely lack popular support, at least in the first decade (I know I've mentioned it two times allready but again, the Bolsheviks had the majority of the people on their side. And even many of those that didn't support the Bolsheviks would have opposed a reactionary, potentially military, dictatorship). Bolshevik and ethnic minority insugencies would remain a problem for the Petrograd government for years if not decades to come. More bloody purges would follow in order to suppress these insurgencies, but their effect would likely be limited. Russia is huge and if the people don't support you it's hard to project power beyond the urban regions.

There would be no state led industrialization and collectivization (at least not on the OTL scale). Best case is that Tsarist growth rates of around 2 to 3 percent more or less continue, though not even that is given, considering the massive devastation of the war (had the whites gotten the upper hand, the civil war would at least have gone way into 1925). It's not even clear how (or if at all) the new regime would have attacked the remainders of the feudal nobility. It's very possible that feudal or at least semi-feudal relations in the countryside persist way into the 50s and 60s (like in India or Nationalist China).

Now to the treatment of the various ethnicities: The white movement massively propagated great russian chauvinism (you know "Russia Unified, Great and Indivisible") and it is allmost innevitable that russia's ruling class continues the pollicy of russification. It would very likely double down on these efforts, way more than the Tsarist regime ever did (the October Revolution and Civil War had clearly proven the "disloyalty" of ethnic minorities to the White Movement. Moreover, as allready mentioned, ethnic minority insugencies would continue to be a problem for the white regime. Therefore it is only logical that the Petrograd government would increase the cultural assimilation efforts). Massive deportations would take place in non-russian territories (the scale depends on which territories the whites are able to get control over. Deportations in a white Russia with Ukraine for example would be very different from deportations in a white Russia without Ukraine). Vocal minorities would be sent to labour camps in Siberia, where they'd be worked to death. Russian would be the official language and it's very likely that the use of other languages would get baned (Ems Ukaz writ large and all over the empire with dracoic punishment in case of "violation". Unlike the Ems Ukaz, these pollicies would most likely also concern the spoken word. Immagine someone in Karkov reporting his neigbour to the Okhrana, because he ostensibly heard the man speak ukrainian to his wife while taking a smoke).

These pollicies might have shown good results in some areas, and might have bread massive resentment in others. More insurgencies would basicly be guaranteed. On the jews, there would be massive anti-semitism. During the civil war of OTL, Denikins forces murdered an estimated 150.000 unarmed jews in Ukraine and Southern Russia alone. A proclamation by one of Denikin's generals incited people to "arm themselves" in order to extirpate "the evil force which lives in the hearts of Jew-Communists". Anti-semitism in white Russia would not be late Stalin era "some jews cooperate with our enemy Israel so all of them are under suspicion". It would be "The jews betrayed Jesus - now we kill them!". Russias jewish population would be either directly murdered or worked to death in Siberia. It's doubtfull wheater even a fraction of the jewish minority would have survived these purges at all.

Science and education would be very limited compared to OTL. Mass alphabetization would not taken place. People only have to be able to read if thats neccessary for the production process. In the cities, purely russian schools would likely be established. But the peasants wouldn't need to read, if they could they would only get bad ideas. The russian orthodox church would have a lot of influence in society, non-orthodox faiths would be brutally suppressed.

Without mechanization of agriculture, Russia would remain a country of constant famine every 5 years or so. It would remain the prisonhouse of nations and one of the poorest countries in Europe if not the world.

Ok so, now to foreign pollicy:

As allready mentioned, White Russias fascist/reactionary regime would try to regain the "lost territories" (i.e. everything that belonged to Tsarist Russia in 1914, maybe even more) very aggressivly. Expect wars in Finland, Ukraine (if it's independent), the Baltics and what's left of Central Asia.

Russia would be heavily economically dependent on France and Britain. In OTL 1913, foreign corporations held 49,7% of the russian governments debt and owned nearly 100% of all petrolium fields, 90% of mines, 50% of chemicals and 40% of metallurgical industries. As the war progressed, the Russian Empire became more and more heavily indebted so that, in 1917, Russia had a total debt of 538 to 568 million pounds to the UK, 3,573 million francs to France and 147 million US dollars (converted) to Japan. The white regime, wanting to keep good relations with the other capitalist powers in order to secure trade, would inherit these debts. France and Britain would most likely continue to massively export capital to Russia in the 20s and 30s, increasing Russias economic dependence on those countries even more. Looking at the numbers above, and taking into account that the level of dependence would increase even more, Russia could end up as a virtual pupet state of France and Britain. French and british corporations would continue to extract value from Russia, the russian people would see very little from their countries incredible riches.

The rise of fascism in Germany had little to do with the USSR. Granted, a socialist state to the east was important to the nazis OTL propaganda, but fascism in Germany rose because the ruling class wanted to regain what was lost in the Great War, and even more. Additionally they wanted to get rid of the archievements of the november revolution (like basic workers rights). So Germany would become fascist in this scenario, aswell. The details could differ from OTL, but it would still happen.

How this scenario's WW2 would develope is uncertain, and everything I could say now would be pure speculation. What is certain however, is that white Russia could never survive an OTL-like german attack. Without the industrialization of OTL, they would neither be able to build their tanks nor to power them. There would be waaay less of anything, guns, planes, trucks, mines, amuntion, etc.

Another aspect is how the Bolsheviks and USSR affected the western leftist and workers movement. Many were impressed by the successes of socialism, especially during the great depression when the USSR was basicly the only country not affected. Without that (or with only the memories of 1917 to 1925) the western socialist and workers movement would be weakened. Thats also true for trade unions.

To sum it all up, Russia would be a very poor, economicly dependent, warmongering, famine-stricken, racist and murderous reactionary dictatorship. It would be a secondary power at best and nowhere near OTL in terms of development. Even if the white regime eventually falls to a homegrown revolution, say in the 50s or 60s, Russia would not be a world power today. Not even close. A white Russia would not have two sides - it would just be absolutely horrible.

This might sound very pesimistic but thats the way the white army was and planed to be in OTL, and thats what would happen in this TL.

Maybe this scenario would even end with a German Reich from the Elsace to the Urals, but again, thats speculation.
 
Last edited:
In July 1919, Anton Denikin began his Advance on Moscow. By September 24th, the Bolsheviks were panicking and they were even planning to go underground, with government agencies evacuating to Vologda. However, by this time, Nestor Makhno, commander of the Black Army, had won the Battle of Peregnovka and had advanced 600 kilometres towards Denikin's headquarters and began harassing his supply lines, forcing Denikin to send some of his best troops to push back the Black Army. At the same time, the Soviets had concluded an armistice with Poland and the Ukrainian People's Army, two factions which Denikin despised, and that enabled the Soviets to send troops from those fronts to protect Moscow.

Of course, the Whites were suffering their own issues. They had overstretched themselves and just like their fellow Whites in Siberia, were suffering from defections and desertions. But if Makhno hadn't been threatening Denikin's supply lines then maybe he could've reached Moscow. But, in regards to Poland and Ukraine, you might as well knife Denikin in the back and get someone else to replace him, because Denikin was devoutly Orthodox and virulently anti-Semitic, so I doubt he would tolerate Poland or Ukraine long enough to take Moscow.

Even if Denikin couldn't take Moscow, his forces could achieve one thing that could damage the Bolsheviks: executing Leon Trotsky.

On August 18th, General Malentov's cavalry captured the city of Tambov. Trotsky fled just before they arrived, but if they executed him, the Bolsheviks would've lost the man who de facto founded the Red Army and that would've been both a blow to morale and to the organization of their forces.
 
The rise of fascism in Germany had little to do with the USSR. Granted, a socialist state to the east was important to the nazis OTL propaganda, but fascism in Germany rose because the ruling class wanted to regain what was lost in the Great War, and even more. Additionally they wanted to get rid of the archievements of the november revolution (like basic workers rights). So Germany would become fascist in this scenario, aswell. The details could differ from OTL, but it would still happen.
This isn't even remotely true. The rise of Nazi Germany wasn't inevitable and was largely motivated by a red scare that was induced by the massive unemployment of the Great Depression. Without the specter of the USSR and their crony KPD, the perception of an urgent need for reaction against Communism simply wouldn't be there. A military dictatorship would be possible but not inevitable, and an "Operation Barbarossa" would be very unlikely, given the sheer insanity of it.
 

Deleted member 96212

Ok so, now to foreign pollicy:

Quick question, what about Japan? Assuming Japanese militarism takes off as it did largely IOTL Japan could far more easily go toe to toe with Russia in this scenario, but at the same time would have less reason to since communism hasn't taken off.
 
"White army" is an umbrella term. There was not THE White army, there were different anti-Bolshevik forces (and governments).
There is Supreme Ruler Kolchak who models himself as a benevolent dictator, in some ways progressive, in some ways proro-fascistic. Denikin is moderate in his political views and wants to transfer power to a civil government after victory, but his Cossack generals are anything but moderate. Yudenich is exteremely right-wing. And every one of them stands for "united and unseparable" Russia. They will not accept independence of Baltic states, Caucasus republics, Ukraine, or even Poland.
So, Bolsheviks lost, Soviet power erased, but Civil war continues. There are four centers of power, with separate governments. Yudenich controls Petrograd and his next aim is Riga. Denikin is in Moscow, gathering what's left of the Constitutional Assembly. Krasnov in the South tries to subjugate Caucasus and Ukraine. Kolchak controls Siberia and Ural (and maybe Volga). It's a matter of time before they clash with one another.
 
Quick question, what about Japan? Assuming Japanese militarism takes off as it did largely IOTL Japan could far more easily go toe to toe with Russia in this scenario, but at the same time would have less reason to since communism hasn't taken off.
Japan has seized "temporary" military and administrative control of the Far East. This was intended to aid the Whites and to ease things up, however the Japanese became far too invested and along with heavy Japanese immigration to the area, their claim has been solidified.
 
This isn't even remotely true. The rise of Nazi Germany wasn't inevitable and was largely motivated by a red scare that was induced by the massive unemployment of the Great Depression. Without the specter of the USSR and their crony KPD, the perception of an urgent need for reaction against Communism simply wouldn't be there. A military dictatorship would be possible but not inevitable, and an "Operation Barbarossa" would be very unlikely, given the sheer insanity of it.

So german revanchism was born in 1933?

So the "Lebensraum Ideologie" / "Drang nach Osten" thing was invented in 1933?

So parts of the ruling class didn't try to get rid of the Weimar parliamentary democracy before? There was no Kapp Putsch of 1920, or a Hitler-Ludendorff Coup of 1923?

It might not be the NSDAP, but some right wing force would most likely take over germany anyway. A military junta, a DNVP-Stahlhelm regime, a Freikorps regime, etc.

You don't think that they would invade their neighbouring countries to regain "lost territories" plus more? You don't think they would propagate "german superiority" and racism to legitimize their actions?

No the rise of fascism wasn't innevitable, but it had little to do with the USSR. "Evil Bolshevism" was an important scapegoat for the fascists, but it was far from the only one. Anti-french sentiments were just as important (if not more so. After all it was the "arch enemy"). And social demagogy was by far the most important factor. You don't care about Russia if you have nothing to eat as a german.

No, without the USSR Europe wouldn't be a completely friendly and peacefull place where everyone lived happily everafter.
 
Last edited:
It may sound somewhat bad, but the Red Army winning the Civil War was probably better. The White Army was divided into multiple factions. They could have easily spilled over into another civil war between the factions which would devastate Russia even more. Besides the level of Industrialization of OTL won't happen either.
 
Actually, I've had him set up a Mongolian state in outer Mongolian and Altai Krai, with "loose" allegiance to the Russian State.
Japan has seized "temporary" military and administrative control of the Far East. This was intended to aid the Whites and to ease things up, however the Japanese became far too invested and along with heavy Japanese immigration to the area, their claim has been solidified.
OK, full ASB. Whatever.
 
a period of indirect soviet democracy from 1917 to 1936

People forget this. It is arguable that workers influence continued into 1942 with the voluntary giving up of remaining factory power to stop a genocide in progress.

It's unlikely that the new white regime would be able to pacify the countryside as it would severely lack popular support

There is an understatement here, reimposing tax and tithe which the Bolsheviks *did not*. While a White regieme will not face a scissors crisis it will be regularly putting down mass tax and tithe revolts.

Bolshevik and ethnic minority insugencies would remain a problem for the Petrograd government for years if not decades to come.

Forgetting of course, SR (left) insurgencies, non-urban anarchist insurgencies, and new developing movements of insurgency with no "1917" faction label from the threshing floor upwards.

It's very possible that feudal or at least semi-feudal relations in the countryside persist way into the 40s and 50s (like in India or Nationalist China).

Generous. Unless Russian fascism is put down, I'm thinking 1960s, or 1970s. French capital is *more than willing* to keep extracting from a colonial periphery.

Without that (or with only the memories of 1917 to 1925) the western socialist and workers movement would be weakened. Thats also true for trade unions.

There are two sides here, the "deliberately blind to conditions on the ground" which churned thousands and tens of thousands of activists through hysteric shithouse parties with no organisational capacities. And then there's the Big Bill Dies in Infamy syndrome. Without the example/chains of the Soviet Union the Italian, Greek, American, French, British, Australian lefts (for example) would be off the hook, developing new organisations. On the other hand the Chinese and Indian and Vietnamese proto-nomenklatura nationalists would lack organisational capacities. Korea is the best example of the multiplicity of workers independent organisation, and state dependence on the Soviet Union—leading to a *five way contest* amongst revolutionary factions *during war and revolution*. And the eventual Sork fascist dictatorship was utterly incompetent. We are talking about a five way fight about what "revolution" looked like, even *with* a Soviet Union, and *with* a Chinese nomenklatura.

Assuming the west is weakened is bullshit. Soviet Martyrs will feed ultralefts connection to the class like nothing else. Imagine Pankhursts being disciplined like the KAPD disciplined Sparts. Okay, that is perhaps too Engelsian. But imagine, for a moment, the ALP Left in NSW being in love with the IWW hards because of the heroic sacrifice of our dead foreign comrades.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Without the example/chains of the Soviet Union the Italian, Greek, American, French, British, Australian lefts (for example) would be off the hook, developing new organisations
For America, no Soviet Union could have butterflied away the First Red Scare.
 
For America, no Soviet Union could have butterflied away the First Red Scare.
So why was Emma Goldman expelled to the Soviet Union prior to the Soviet Union's success in the civil war against the whites? Why does Goldman in "Livining my life" criticise Petrograd organisation of basic heat procurement if she wasn't expelled?

Anti soviet conduct began prior to the triumph of the Soviet Union. The first Red Scare was predicated on anti-semitism; anti-IWW behaviour; and, anti-labour behaviour.

It isn't called the Seattle Soviet for nothing.

yours,
Sam R.
 
"White army" is an umbrella term. There was not THE White army, there were different anti-Bolshevik forces (and governments).
There is Supreme Ruler Kolchak who models himself as a benevolent dictator, in some ways progressive, in some ways proro-fascistic. Denikin is moderate in his political views and wants to transfer power to a civil government after victory, but his Cossack generals are anything but moderate. Yudenich is exteremely right-wing. And every one of them stands for "united and unseparable" Russia. They will not accept independence of Baltic states, Caucasus republics, Ukraine, or even Poland.
So, Bolsheviks lost, Soviet power erased, but Civil war continues. There are four centers of power, with separate governments. Yudenich controls Petrograd and his next aim is Riga. Denikin is in Moscow, gathering what's left of the Constitutional Assembly. Krasnov in the South tries to subjugate Caucasus and Ukraine. Kolchak controls Siberia and Ural (and maybe Volga). It's a matter of time before they clash with one another.
Yudenich's united and inseparable Russia came with an asterisk. He tried to pressure Kolchak into recognizing Finland's independence and formed an alliance with the Estonians, so he was definitely willing to compromise.

Pavel Bermondt-Avalov (who prioritized fighting the Baltic nationalists over fighting the Bolsheviks) seems like a better fit for uncompromising extreme rightist.
 
Avalov's division (which stormed Riga) was a part of Yudenich's forces.
They were supposed to be. However, Avalov refused orders to send his forces to join the Northwestern Army on the Narva Front and refused to accept the subordination of his forces to Yudenich's Northwestern Army (thus the establishment of the West Russian Volunteer Army), and the "West Russian Government" which he established was a direct competitor with the Regional Government of Northwest Russia (which Yudenich answered to), and moreover was in fact a German proxy force rather than even part of the mainstream White Movement (which was broadly Entente aligned).

So, no, not in anyway that mattered at least.
 
Top