AH challenge: Fascist Russia

Firstly, you failed to respond to much of the gristle of my argument, instead picking at details.

Well, the Bolsheviks managed to mobilise a rather good deal more people. It was brutal of them to kill people, but not necessarily stupid in the long run.

Well, for one thing, you were generalising about the whites. See my definition of the White movement in the last post. Unlike the Reds, the whites had no unified organisation or policy (that's why they lost), and so no one battalion, forgetting about front commander, could really be judged by the actions of the others.

For another, the Bolsheviks mobilised more people because they had seized control of the state organisation in the most valuable part of Russia (a deformed circle with its centre between Moscow and St.Petroleningrad, more or less) and thus had far better resources available to them under very able direction. The whites lacked the permanent territory, organisation, and planning to effectively mobilise people. It wasn't a matter of popular support, which was very hard to gauge, varied from place to place, swung back and forth, and of course counted for nothing compared to munitions factories.

Well, on the contrary. Siberia is better than Ukraine. Less nationalists, a working railroad, a fair amount of industry in the Urals, and all those interventionists if they wanted to stick around.

Okay, while I admit that I am not glancing at my vintage Imperial Russian railroad map, as I lack one (alas...), I'm fairly certain there were multiple railroads in 1918 Ukraine.

Pretty much anywhere in Dniepr Ukraine is nice and close to major ports to receive interventionist aide, whereas central Siberia is actually really far from Vladivostok. And why do the interventionists like Kolchak so much?

My point was that once the Whites have prevailed using their magical space unicorn or whatever it is, Denikin and Yudenich and associates will have European Russia, Moscow, Petrograd, the industrial and population heartland of the country. The interventionists will leave, their home nations will likely back Denikin, the Urals are within striking distance... really, Kolchak is even less likely to take over Russia than the other White generals, and that's a pretty high standard.

And fascism, or something like it, managed to arise in all the pro-Japanese puppets along the railway. Why would Siberia be different?

I want sources, please. From what I was aware, Japan only penetrated as far as the Amur Oblast, and had one puppet which didn't really exist long enough to develop an ideology other than "The reds are coming! The reds are coming!"

I think your definition of fascism is a bit elastic.

Banana republic, sure. That's the best-case scenario.

Being most unlikely to involve either totalitarianism or mass humanitarian disaster, it sure beats Stalinism and Fascism.

It's easy to see him as some kind of kind dictator; but this seems to me like the Trotskists saying how nice Trotsky was because he criticised Stalin once he lost power. Well, Trotsky wasn't very blood-averse, as you know.

Dictatorships are not kind and I do not endorse them. It is my opinion that Denikin would have been a South-American style strongman and Trotsky would not have been nearly so bad as Stalin. Doesn't mean I'm a huge fan of either, but neither of them are fascists and that's good enough for this debate.

Same deal with all the "white" dictators. They were all very exemplary in Paris, but they killed people by the tens of thousands in Crimea. Even if Denikin wasn't a Black Hundredist himself, he sure couldn't control those that were under his command.

There was a war on. That does not, of course, justify the mutual brutality that was everywhere in the RCW, but it does explain why the Russian people were dropping like flies. Wars kill soldiers. The soldiers were peasant conscripts and their families are destitute now. The harvest is pathetic and the surviving soldiers steal it. It was one fucked up situation, but neither side displayed the trademarks of Hitler and Stalin: totalitarian control, industrial brutality. They both desired to establish a dictatorship and both used brutality to do it. Doesn't mean they'd have made a fascist system out of these things on coming to power.


In summary:

-The Russian Civil War was a tragedy for the Russian people.

-Both sides behaved terribly.

-Both sides were led by ruthless men who intended to become dictators.

-Neither side was fascist.

-White victory does not gurantee fascism later.

-Fascism is actually a specific thing and you can't just throw the word around. I call this Orwell Syndrome, after George Orwell's famous comment on how meaningless the word had become.
 
Couldn't you take another route and have Germany create a puppet Russian state after victory in world war 2 and after it's settlement plans failed.
 
Agreed, which is why I'm going for it in "Fight and Be Right". You need the Tsar really, at least as a figurehead, but I think a good model to follow whould be Spain under Franco- deeply conservative, religious with a technocratic streak, lots of 'disappeared' and the like, but also determined to attract foreign investment. Not the most pleasant place in the world, and still lots of prison camps, but rather more pragmatic than Nazi Germany or OTL's USSR. Lower bodycounts too.

Agreed again, which is why I nicked your idea. :D

I have a few main problems with the other ideas. One is the whole "Whites are fascists!" nonsense I have written on extensively. One is that people are pointing to modern and emigre organisations because these are very recognisably fascist in ideology and trappings, but this doesn't really help since these movements could never hold power. What you have to do, what you're doing with FaBR, is to go back to well before fascism and change events to let something like it arise, something which will not be yet another knockoff of Hitler but instead a unique regime, closer, as you say, to that of Franco. This is a lot more interesting, plausible, and difficult.

...Now I want my FabR fix. :(

Couldn't you take another route and have Germany create a puppet Russian state after victory in world war 2 and after it's settlement plans failed.

Unlikely. Even though the settlement plan were unworkable, Germany will still rule Russia (for so long as it does) colonially. We never settled India and yet we never felt compelled to establish a puppet state. Nazi-ism would never allow Russians the trappings of nationhood.
 
What if a POD of Stalin's death brought about a corporate-fascist Russia? WWII leaves the country in ruins, and in the grip of a deep, deep financial crisis. In such a situation, Stalin dies. Khrushchev succeeds. He denounces Stalin and tries to undo his excesses and pull the country out of the quagmire it's in, but it's too little, too late. General dissatisfaction, fueled by bitter Red Army generals like Marshall Zhukov and clandestinely aided by the US, spirals out of country and the country is plunged into another civil war.

It ends with the overthrow of the Communists, and Zhukov, or perhaps a younger leader, taking charge. The new leader slowly, but surely, steers the country towards a corporatist structure, complete with siloviki, nationalized oil- and gas-monopolies, disdain for political freedom, ultranationalist rhetoric to whip up popular sentiment, and a heavy-handed attitude towards its neighbors. Not fascist outright, because Operation Barbarossa is relatively recent, but fascist-like, much like Putin's Russia.

Kaushik
 
...and so no one battalion, forgetting about front commander, could really be judged by the actions of the others.

Absolutely applicable to any fighting force ever, on a moral level. 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.

For another, the Bolsheviks mobilised more people because they had seized control of the state organisation in the most valuable part of Russia (a deformed circle with its centre between Moscow and St.Petroleningrad, more or less) and thus had far better resources available to them under very able direction. The whites lacked the permanent territory, organisation, and planning to effectively mobilise people. It wasn't a matter of popular support, which was very hard to gauge, varied from place to place, swung back and forth, and of course counted for nothing compared to munitions factories.
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. 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.

My point was that once the Whites have prevailed using their magical space unicorn or whatever it is, Denikin and Yudenich and associates will have European Russia, Moscow, Petrograd, the industrial and population heartland of the country. The interventionists will leave, their home nations will likely back Denikin, the Urals are within striking distance... really, Kolchak is even less likely to take over Russia than the other White generals, and that's a pretty high standard.
If you require a magical space unicorn to begin with, Kolchak has an equal or better chance anyway. He doesn't have Makhno and the Ukrainian separatists to deal with, for one. He has strategic depth. If he takes the Volga region and from there Moscow, Ukraine is not going to matter one bit.

The comparison is not Siberia vs. the rest of the country, but Ukraine vs. Siberia. Siberia is probably marginally better given how things worked out, actually, but not anything much compared to the Russian heartland.


....unlikely to involve either totalitarianism or mass humanitarian disaster, it sure beats Stalinism and Fascism.
What are you referring to and why not? 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. Unlikely to be as bad as Stalin, maybe, but most of hardline bolsheviks put together were unlikely to be as bad as Stalin either.

...and very likely to make Spanish/Italian fascism look benign if body count is what matters, actually.

There was a war on. That does not, of course, justify the mutual brutality that was everywhere in the RCW, but it does explain why the Russian people were dropping like flies.
....and certain non-Russian people were undergoing spontaneous pogroms with systematic frequency. 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.


In summary:

-The Russian Civil War was a tragedy for the Russian people.

-Both sides behaved terribly.

-Both sides were led by ruthless men who intended to become dictators.

-Neither side was fascist.

-White victory does not gurantee fascism later.

-Fascism is actually a specific thing and you can't just throw the word around. I call this Orwell Syndrome, after George Orwell's famous comment on how meaningless the word had become.
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.
 
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.

He has strategic depth.

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.

:confused:

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.
 
You're rambling, still picking and choosing my arguments, and I really don't think you're sure what fascism is.

And you've no arguments except an ad hominem left, so there, I win. It's about winning, isn't 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.

No, I'm merely asserting that not only is a volunteer/kolchakist victory ASB, they will also never get along, and one of the outcomes could well be a radical right-wing dictatorship. Which could model itself after European fascism in time.

But honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. How did the Bolshevik's "plan roughly"?

One of the reasons why you have no idea what I'm talking about is the fact that you seemingly can't read. Illustration, above.

Ah yes, because pseudo-ideological banditry was very rare during the RCW. Kolchak never had to deal with any, let alone Lenin.

I think you underestimate Makhno, that's all.

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?

It was a largely spurious argument showing that Denikin had no chance, at all. If him, why not Kolchak? Ignore that part if you want.

Once again, it's an academic question, but assuming the whites have won, why do they find it necessary to kill millions of people?

Because the vagaries of war would continue, for starters. And we don't know who would win; you are gunning for a best-case scenario that I see as unlikely, so you must therefore call me a bolshevik.

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.

I was ready to move on after the last post. I really don't see anything else that needs discussing here.

Do you know what proportion is?

Absolutely.

Unfortunately, the Whites both in Siberia and Crimea have pretty bad records despite having control over a much smaller population for a very short time. Better than Hitler, however, no doubt. I just don't see why you assume they would suddenly change once the war is over. They still have plenty of enemies to eliminate, after all.

Spontaneous systematic pogroms.

Yes, that is deliberate. I put meaning into that.

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.

In that case Russia cannot go "Fascist" until a classical European fascist party takes over somewhere else and a domestic dictator imitates it. At least a few candidates to do that during a white victory, none otherwise. But it doesn't have to be the civil war, and there we agree.

Anyway, if you want another victory, you can have it. You sure are racking them up today.
 
And you've no arguments except an ad hominem left, so there, I win. It's about winning, isn't it?

Argumentum ad Hominem is making an irrelevant personal attack on someone rather than making valid points. Regardless of whether you agree with them, I made points in my post and therefore I certainly have arguments left.

Argumentum ad Hominem is not when you make proven criticisms of the other person's debating style. I say "proven", because you're still skipping bits of my post that you presumably can't respond to.

No, I'm merely asserting that not only is a volunteer/kolchakist victory ASB, they will also never get along, and one of the outcomes could well be a radical right-wing dictatorship. Which could model itself after European fascism in time.

I'm asserting that since by definition, determination to resist Bolshevism was their only unifying factor, the Whites will not turn on each other (which they very likely will) until the Reds have been mysteriously dealt with and this definately puts Denikin in a better physical and political position.

One of the reasons why you have no idea what I'm talking about is the fact that you seemingly can't read. Illustration, above.

That verged on being an argumentum ad hominem. Now be a sport and rephrase what you said and I failed to properly understand.

I think you underestimate Makhno, that's all.

If he can interfere with Denikin's control of Moscow and St.Petersburg, I've underestimated the man a great deal.

It was a largely spurious argument showing that Denikin had no chance, at all. If him, why not Kolchak? Ignore that part if you want.

Because while it can be helpful to explore a scenario which is not actually plausible for hypothetical reasons, we should only make one deviation from reality or we might as well start striking people we don't like with cosmic rays. Therefore while we can, for hypothetical purposes, allow the Whites to win Civil War One, I see no reason why Kolchak, from his inferior position should be allowed to win Civil War Two. Except of course that someone has a wierd animosity fo the Whites and wants their worst leader, who was actually ill-placed to rule Russia to be as likely to prevail as any other.

Because the vagaries of war would continue, for starters. And we don't know who would win; you are gunning for a best-case scenario that I see as unlikely, so you must therefore call me a bolshevik.

I did not call you a Bolshevik. I said you seem to be endeavouring to whitewash them out of a determination not to admit that the Whites, for all their faults, were probably the better option. I can call someone a whatever-apologist without calling them a whatever, and I have evidence. You implied that the Reds "kept their extremists under control". That's ridiculous. Dzerzinsky was an extremist. Lenin was an extremist. Bolshevism was an extremist movement, for God's sake!

I was ready to move on after the last post. I really don't see anything else that needs discussing here.

I'd like you to respond to my posts in full, to admit when you are wrong or can't respond to my arguments, and to apologise to accuse me of illiteracy on no grounds whatever, thank you.

Absolutely.

Then why did you feel it was necessary to make a ludicrous comparison of absolute figures and make yourself look terrible at statistics?

Unfortunately, the Whites both in Siberia and Crimea have pretty bad records despite having control over a much smaller population for a very short time. Better than Hitler, however, no doubt. I just don't see why you assume they would suddenly change once the war is over. They still have plenty of enemies to eliminate, after all.

I refer again to there being a war on.

I think we've pretty much established that Denikin was a fairly moderate banana-republican. I'm not a fan of Galtieri either, but I'd pick him over Bolshevik Argentina, thank you.

For comparison, War Communism. Callous, ruthless measure to secure victory. Killed thousands. Called off at the end of the war.

Yes, that is deliberate. I put meaning into that.

Care to explain that meaning?

In that case Russia cannot go "Fascist" until a classical European fascist party takes over somewhere else and a domestic dictator imitates it. At least a few candidates to do that during a white victory, none otherwise. But it doesn't have to be the civil war, and there we agree.

That's not the case at all. What I mean by "fascism is an ideology" is that it has a definate system, whoever ill-defined, and is not just ruthless pragmatism (warlordism). When one doesn't have an ideology, a definate system and is just ruthlessly pragmatic, one is not a fascist, one is merely a warlord.

You claimed that someone could be "fascist in all but ideology". This is a clear contradiction in terms.

Anyway, if you want another victory, you can have it. You sure are racking them up today.

I want an apology now. Thanks for calling me an illiterate rather than responding to a valid criticism (picking and choosing), old bean.
 
@ IBC -

1. If anyone has to apologise, that's you, since you started and escalated it.
2. I don't feel that talking to you is worth my time any more. Here's why:

2a. You don't take time to read
2b. You put words in my mouth
2c. You ascribe nefarious implications to words that you put in my mouth
2d. You declare victory based on 2c.

3. Here's why this ARGUMENT is not interesting to me anymore:

3a. While you think we have ever so much to disagree about, we really don't. The Civil War is not ideal as a start to develop a Fascist Russia.
3b. I can see your position, you can see mine, if you're still unconvinced, there's little I can do or say.
3c. All I'm seeing is a lot of uncertainty following an ASB White victory with a decent possibility of some kind of national-unity, xenophobic dictatorship arising out of whatever factions survive the infighting which may well look indistinguishable from European fascists when looking at it 80 years down the road, which may still not be good enough for the exercise.

What set me off in the first place was "wooly and consensual". While it hardly applies to real fascists, I have reasonable doubts it would apply to the victorious whites, either. However, I did not start out using the words "nonsense" or "Orwell syndrome" or whatever nor did I make continuous insinuations about how much more you could learn etc.

So here how it is - you can now:

a. Apologise to me for setting up a pretty classic flamefest, and I will nod my head and go away from this happy, or
b. You can continue trying to win, in which case I will simply go away and you can claim victory by default.

In either case, I'm quite done with this thread.
 
@ IBC -

1. If anyone has to apologise, that's you, since you started and escalated it.

This is a site dedicated to historical debate. Debates are not grounds for apologies. Poor conduct such as calling someone illiterate is.

2. I don't feel that talking to you is worth my time any more. Here's why:

2a. You don't take time to read

I read all your posts carefully and responded to them as I understood them. I myself am sometimes, often guilty of writing things which make sense in my head but become rambles in text. In such cases I clarify, I don't accuse the other person of illiteracy.

2b. You put words in my mouth

Which words? I have made all my accusations towards you reasonably specific. Cite somewhere you feel I have put words in your mouth so that I can respond, please.

2c. You ascribe nefarious implications to words that you put in my mouth

I accused you of being a Bolshevik apologist from what I had observed: you said that the Whites "were not a good alternative" because they "failed to control their extremists" asthough this was a point in favour of the Reds, whereas of course the Reds were led by a man more extreme than several White generals, and the Whites were a loose alliance and hardly able to "control" their sudordinates as much as the Reds, who were still just as bad.

Possibly I misunderstood you. Misunderstanding is not poor conduct in a debate. If you think I have misread your position and am accusing you falsely, say so.

2d. You declare victory based on 2c.

Where did I do this?

3. Here's why this ARGUMENT is not interesting to me anymore:

3a. While you think we have ever so much to disagree about, we really don't. The Civil War is not ideal as a start to develop a Fascist Russia.

I actually don't. I'm criticising details more than the thrust of your position. However, those details are issues which tend to set me off, most particularly what I perceived as Bolshevik apologism.

If I misunderstood you on that, then we can agree to disagree. After you apologise.

3b. I can see your position, you can see mine, if you're still unconvinced, there's little I can do or say.

You could apologise for calling me an illiterate, and explain why you have consistantly refused to respond to my arguments in full.

3c. All I'm seeing is a lot of uncertainty following an ASB White victory with a decent possibility of some kind of national-unity, xenophobic dictatorship arising out of whatever factions survive the infighting which may well look indistinguishable from European fascists when looking at it 80 years down the road, which may still not be good enough for the exercise.

I don't fully agree, but I don't consider this to be what the debate was about. I defended my position from a rebuttal which was hardly looking for common ground, and then began to attack what I believed to be historical misconceptions in your posts.

What set me off in the first place was "wooly and consensual". While it hardly applies to real fascists, I have reasonable doubts it would apply to the victorious whites, either. However, I did not start out using the words "nonsense" or "Orwell syndrome" or whatever nor did I make continuous insinuations about how much more you could learn etc.

I made accusations based on what I believed was evidence. One can hardly expect to couch your arguments in the same terms as you did. I am, afterall, arguing with you.

So here how it is - you can now:

a. Apologise to me for setting up a pretty classic flamefest, and I will nod my head and go away from this happy, or

I didn't open the thread, nor did I flame, nor did I raise an adnormally contentious issue. I don't see what you're accusing me of.

b. You can continue trying to win, in which case I will simply go away and you can claim victory by default.

In either case, I'm quite done with this thread.

Third option: I can say that if you feel I have become overly venomous in my attacks, unwilling to compromise, and quick to accuse, I'm sorry to have offended you; agree that neither side is going to be convinced; assert that "victories by default" are the last thing I want and in fact drive me up the wall; and maintain that you should apologise for insulting me.
 
Well, had the Whites won the Civil War, we might have seen the birth of a Fascist movement, but it could well have stayed in the opposition.

Maybe Denikin comes to power, as an Allied puppet of sorts, your russian Batista if you like. National Solidarism arises as a traditionalistic opposition against foreign economic, cultural and political domination.

It's almost the same thing that happened in Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics, Yugoslavia and Hungary, where fascists were heavily repressed by nonetheless authoritharian right-wing governments, and came to power only with nazi occupation.

Hell, Gombos, there in the Baltic Sea, was elected dictator to STOP Fascism !!

Or they could be just a wing of the White elite, marginalized but vocal like Polish, Spanish and Portuguese fascists.
 
Scenarios,

Scenario 1: Trotsky seizes power instead of Stalin, Hitler comes early to his attention for his anti-communism.
In 30-31 Germany his forces causes increased violences against the NSDAP, leading the KPD to be dissolved by the reichtag, which is blown-upp in early 32.
Hitler seizes power in the 32 elections, Soviet-Union start industrialising massively but trotsky realises he still needs to strike first.
Poland signs a peace treaty with Germany in 1933, Soviet-Union attacks and invades Poland, then goes for Germany.
Romania declared war in support of Poland and is joined by Italy and Hungaria, Bulgaria. Mussolini accept annexation of Austria in latter 33, Hitler delas withe the SA.
1934, trotskist SU invades eastern Germany, at one time encircles Berlin and fires artillery shells at Hamburg.
The Central Alliance (Germany-Italian-Romania-Bulgarian-Hungarian) defeats Trotsky in Germany but cannot prevent the invasion of the Czech state and from the SU to seize the Skoda works, thoroughly loot occupied Germany.
In such dire situation, Hitler forms a Russian Liberation Army, which recieves many defectors from the trotskist armies. Hitler organise the counter-attack of the Central Alliance in Romania and SS paratroopers recaptures the Ploesti oilfields before they can be sabotaged.
Many years of war later, the Central Alliance dominates the former soviet-union and western China, Hitler have retired and is replaced by Goering, Japan have finally made eastern china it´s colonie and join the Central Alliance.
Central Alliance change it´s name to Eastern Alliance afterward.
The Russian Liberation Army first forme a military dictatorshipe, then a faschistic, totalitarian regime. By the 1960s, it is the greatest power in the Eastern Alliance and in the 1970s, the supreme HQ of the Eastern Alliance is moved to the Urals.

Scenario 2: Within months of operation Barbarossa, much of the soviet-union faces a revolution, great majority of the communists are lucky if they are found by the Germans and shot.
Tojo, Heydrich and Himmler convinces Hitler to installe a puppet governement in the former Russian SSR.
Tojo want new grounds to strike at China, Heydrich and Goeringh believes a client state instead of outright occupation would be usefull, Himmler doesn´t want to waste troops occupying the whole of the former soviet-union when gypsies and jews are still around to need special attention.
After the latter argument, Hitler agrees, though he want plans should the puppet state move toward the allies. Japan does not attack Pearl Harbour as oil exports from europe will solve their oil shortage problems.
Following year, the UK is forced to sue for peace, Churchill is outed. After the peace, the UK still re-armes and formalise an alliance with the USA.
In WW3, much of western and northern Germany is devastated, Japanese survivors are in bomb shelters.
The Russian National Coalition see it´s territories relatively intact, some attempted bomber attacks on Leningrad are defeated. Muramsk and Arkangelsk where evacuated before several small bombs ruined them.
The USA faces nuclear attacks of its own and relents, england is introduced to VX gas and radioactive "snow" spread by suicide-jets.
Both sides continues re-arming, Russia distances itself from the axis while playing both sides against each other (now, the US have a "liberated" China in the east).
In WW4, the US destroys much of the remaining axis population with missile attacks launched from the former UK (nothing more than a hellish military outpost after the war).
Axis retaliation hovewer destroy all the major North American cities and into China too, China breakes appart.
Russia remains and many from the axis and allied military flee to Russia to avoid the hard life in their own countries.
The Coalition grows corrupt and incompetent, fascist parties begin to rise in power.
In the east, a warlord unites China, then asia and unites the dispersed allied fleets in the pacific to invade the USA itself and loot it´s ruined cities.
The faschists gain support from the military, when the Russian governement decide to turn west, the military launch a coup. The Great Defensive War aka WW5 is about to begin.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
This is actually one of my favorite topics, and it always adds spice when IBC gets on the warpath. And believe you me, it's much better to watch him argue than be on the opposing side :p

For the record, I agree that a fascist Russia will more resemble a blend of Franco's Spain and Antonescu's Romania than Nazi Germany or even Mussolini's Italy. Anyways, here's a repost of mine from another thread that dealt with a similar "White Victory Turns Fascist" sort of scenario.

The idea that the Whites couldn't win the Russian Civil War is one of those irritating myths that just will not disappear from this board. The Whites could very well have won the Civil War, period. There was no sort of divine mandate saying "The Reds Shall Win, the Whites Shall Fail."

The most likely POD would be the if Denikin had managed to take Moscow in 1919 (which he would have had he been victorious at the rather close Battle of Oryol), the Reds would have lost. I'm not saying that whatever state the Whites hammered out would be pretty (since, as you pointed out, there were so many competing factions) but the White Movement (not "Army," "Movement";)) could have won.

This is a quote from The Russian Civil War by Evan Mawdsley:

"White veterans later maintained that it was the removal of half a dozen regiments from an already overstretched Volunteer Army that allowed the Reds to turn its open flanks at Orel [Oryol] and begin the counterattack."

So basically, we have Denikin not remove those divisions. The Volunteer Army's offensive is not rolled back and Moscow falls to the Whites, beheading the Bolshevik war effort. Meanwhile, the lack of reinforcements freed up by Denikin's defeat at Oryol means that Petrograd will fall to Yudenich.


If/when the Whites win, they'd probably try to model the new Russia on the British system, with Grand Duke Nicholas chosen as the new Tsar. He would largely serve as a figurehead and a rubberstamp to a resurrected Duma.

However, the Duma would probably be fairly corrupt and divisive, and I can see the military and nobility trying to continue their dominance of playing a big role in the government, a la Weimar Germany, with the ever-present threat of a coup if things begin to get out of hand in their eyes.

Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak, Krasnov, and maybe Yudenich would probably dominate the early political scene, along with some people like Milyukov, Guchkov, Ryabushinsky, and some of the less-militant Mensheviks. Kolchak, however, is probably going to emerge as the figurehead for the far-right, sort of like Ludendorff in OTL's Weimar Germany.

This new regime will most likely be terribly unstable and corrupt, again like Weimar Germany but with the added chaos of Russian politics, which featured a lot more assassination of opponents. If we are talking post-WWI Soviet borders, you are going to see irredentism crop up big time, forming the core of some sort of fascist movement based on the principles of "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationalism" like the Mladorossi movement. Similar to a fusion of the Iron Guard and Mussolini's blackshirts, they would most likely be extremely xenophobic, outright reactionary, prone to mob attacks and riots, and extol some sort of corporatist platform (Mladorossi's slogan was "Tsar and the Soviets").

Chances are that once Nicholas III dies in 1929, Cyril becomes Tsar. He was a noted supporter of Mladorossi and other White Emigre groups that had fascistic bents.

So you'll probably see a collapse of parliamentarianism by the early '30s and the imposition of a fascist-like government with Tsar Cyril's sanction, probably figureheaded by Kolchak and administered by Kazembek, who was very popular and charismatic, though it would be more akin to Mussolini's Italy/Franco's Spain than Hitler's Germany.

There are of course huge butterflies given a Red defeat. We may very well not see Hitler rise without a communist bugbear to stir up crowds (anti-Semitism was a big part of the Nazi's platform, but anti-communism was a bigger vote/support getter).

Anyways, you'll probably see a really antagonistic relationship with Poland and the Baltics. If Hitler or some other right-winger does come to power in Germany, I can certainly see the two powers making plans to divide Poland along pre-WWI lines.

As for the Jews, I can certainly see them being left largely unmolested by the earlier administrations, but a long history of Russo-Ukrainian anti-Semitism isn't just going to disappear, especially since most of the populace blamed the Jews for near-everything, especially communism. IIRC, the phrase "Not every Communist's a Jew, but every Jew's a Communist" was popular in Russia or one of its former imperial provinces around the time of the Civil War. They'd probably be blamed for the Great Depression, too. They will probably suffer the same fate as their late-Weimar/early-Third Reich cousins; not extermination, but government-sponsored pogroms and discrimination, as bad as if not worse than that they experienced in the prerevolutionary era.
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Thinking about possible fascist leaders. Why not use one of the red ones, they could have become "reformed" during the 20s and 30s and seen the "light". Yezhov leading a creepy fascist movement would be an interresting TL.
 
It is actually very easy to integrate the traditional tzarist autoritationism into a totalitarian ideology . I have always considered the aphorism that entities like Russia or China, both being the hedgepodge of ethnic groups that they are, but with a distinct ruling majority/minority, with long historical tradition and national identities could only be run effectively by authoritative governments .
 
I don't think it is very likely that a fascist movement comes to power in Post tsarist Russia. Facsism only develops when there is a large middle class which is very dissatisfied with everything. And in Russia of, say 1918, there wasn't. The middle class was growing but still underdeveloped compared to Western European countries like Germany.
 
And with yet another aphorism which states that fascism is the illegitimate child (and inevitable conclusion of ) capitalism , citing post WWI Italy and Germany as the prime examples ,you come to the inevitable conclusion that a fascist post-bolshevik Russia was impossible? In my opinion, you could draw glaring similarities between stalinism and its german and italian analogues .
 
Top