You're rambling, still picking and choosing my arguments, and I really don't think you're sure what fascism is.
Absolutely applicable to any fighting force ever, on a moral level.
Only to a much, much more limited extent. Individuals need to be held accountable for their actions, but a system whereby the policy of one unit would have caused another unit to throw up (the latter type being in the minority) is hardly "absolutely applicable", or are we going to claim that the existence of a few honourable Germans and a few vile Americans made those armies morally equal during the war?
On a historical level, the whites were not a good alternative precisely for the reasons you described: couldn't get their act together, couldn't get the extremists in their midst under control, didn't have enough people to start with.
You speak asthough they were one organisation. They didn't put their act together because they were actually many simultaneous acts. They couldn't get the extreminists under control because the extremists were altogether differant acts, and also, if the Reds kept extremism under control, I have to inquire what the heel Felix Dzhersinsky and, uh, Lenin were doing.
The Bolsheviks started with a band of putschists. What of it?
You're making a nonsensical assertation that the whites were one movement with one agenda to enforce on Russia and then making ever more nonsensical comparisons to the Bolsheviks.
Notice how I never said anything about Bolshevik Popular Support or any such. They just mobilised the most populous and industrialised part of the country.
By taking it over. That meant they deserves Russia?
They could afford to carry out their plans in a rough manner in the long run. The whites couldn't but did anyway. That's not smart.
The whites had no plan, owing to their non-existence as a unified force. But honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. How did the Bolshevik's "plan roughly"? Why is ruthless cunning now the best way to choose rulers of Russia?
If you require a magical space unicorn to begin with, Kolchak has an equal or better chance anyway.
Sympathetic extraterrestrials are needed to defeat the Reds. They can take their UFOs right home once the Reds are finished off and the Volunteers have taken the Russian heartland.
He doesn't have Makhno and the Ukrainian separatists to deal with, for one.
Ah yes, because pseudo-ideological banditry was very rare during the RCW. Kolchak never had to deal with any, let alone Lenin.
Why are the Ukrainians such a tremendous threat? I'd write an essay on Ukrainian national feeling in the period, but I don't actually know what misconception I'm supposed to be refuting.
It's like Alex 1 said. "Even if I have to retreat to Kamchatka!"
Yeah, strategic depth which happens to be even more Siberia never one anyone a war.
If he takes the Volga region and from there Moscow, Ukraine is not going to matter one bit.
He takes it why?
The comparison is not Siberia vs. the rest of the country, but Ukraine vs. Siberia.
The Volunteers weren't even restricted to Ukraine, you know.
Siberia is probably marginally better given how things worked out, actually, but not anything much compared to the Russian heartland.
Just as well the Volunteers have that then, eh?
Seriously. Denikin was much closer to Moscow at his closest, and Yudenich, he would join team Denikin, threatened Petrograd. Those are the defining points of the heartland. The whole question is academic anyway, since the Whites basically can't win, but I honestly don't understand why you're so determined that Kolchak will prevail. Are you determined that any White victory must be as bad as Stalin?
What are you referring to and why not?
Industrial attrocities. My point was the the RCW was a terrible time because of the vagaries of war, but that doesn't mean everyone wanted to create the sustained horrors of Stalinism.
Warlord China is in my mind a good comparison to White Russia, actually. Still millions upon millions of dead and no stability for at least a decade more.
...Why?
Once again, it's an academic question, but assuming the whites have won, why do they find it necessary to kill millions of people?
Unlikely to be as bad as Stalin, maybe, but most of hardline bolsheviks put together were unlikely to be as bad as Stalin either.
We're not playing the Stalin card, we're playing the
Hitler card! Keep up! That is to say, we're arguing about fascism. I think we've established that fascism is a possible but unlikely outcome of White victory. Stop your death-grip defence of Bolshevism and admit you were wrong about some things (railroads, for instance) and we can all move on.
...and very likely to make Spanish/Italian fascism look benign if body count is what matters, actually.
In body count, today in India probably made fascism in multiple small Balkan countries look humanitarian. Curse you, Indian democracy! Curse you!
Do you know what proportion is?
....and certain non-Russian people were undergoing spontaneous pogroms with systematic frequency.
The above sentences abridged.
Spontaneous systematic pogroms.
That is actually a pretty good sign there's some fascist element in the mix, and that the commanders can't/won't control them.
No, it's not.
I hope I don't have to explain why xenophobia isn't fascism.
On that I agree.
White victory doesn't guarantee a fascist Russia, but it could well produce a Warlord Russia, some of whom could be fascists in all but formal ideology while others might be a bit more palatible. Still, that's not what the OP was looking for, I imagine.
Fascism is an ideology. To be fascist in all but ideology is to not be a fascist. In this particular case it is, in fact, to be a ruthless warlord.