AHC:better 20th century for Russia

Their military and policing was bad but those executions numbers are probably more even with each other if you count pogroms deaths. That something the USSR did do good at stopping. One thing I give the USSR they usually killed most people equally. Most victims were usually political opponents. I see a Tsarist or White regime being more fond of ethnic cleansing. In the USSR you could stay alive if you made yourself look loyal to communism and the USSR. They usually aren’t killing you for being a certain ethnic group like other regimes.
Certainly the lower level of death sentences in late Tsarist Russia has to be offset by deaths of people exiled to Siberia and as you say by pogroms. But the USSR also exiled many people to Siberia of whom a good number died. And the death rate in pogroms was relatively low - more people died in any one Stalinist purge or in the political executions under Lenin than in all pogroms during Tsar Nicholas' reign.
 
What you said is a great example of why a Tsar regime isn’t better then a Soviet one. I don’t know why so many people think the Tsar and whites would have been a better alternative over the reds. No matter the regime Russia and leaders usually always eventually do some very brutal stuff.

Pretty much. Kruschev and Gorbachev are the only *arguable* exceptions I can think of and even then...

But more generally I think that any POD to fulfill the OP has to either butterfly Barbarossa or make the Russians do better than OTL. If the Nazis fully implement the Final Solution and the Hunger Plan the 20th century will be much worse for the Russian people. And honestly, I don't think a White victory would do either. Hitler had plenty of animosity on which to take power even without the CCCP next door, and the Whites would be very unlikely to work with any self called German "socialist" after the sealed train. Meanwhile, divisions in the White movement mean that IMO they won't have the same brutal efficiency in building heavy industry that the Reds had, meaning that they will be even less prepared for the German onslaught. Thus, even if pre 1941 White Russia does better than the OTL CCCP, things will...go downhill after Barbarossa.

Thus we need a POD in the Soviet period that makes this industrialization have less of a human cost. I propose that as mentioned someone else succeeding Lenin with Lenin living slightly longer--probably Sverdlov if he lives longer, otherwise Rykov or possibly (especially) Sokolnikov--would do much better at organising the Soviet industrialisation without its OTL human costs, or at least to much smaller degree. Trotsky was too unliked by much of the party to have a real shot at the top post and furthermore not the best option.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much. Kruschev and Gorbachev are the only *arguable* exceptions I can think of and even then...

But more generally I think that any POD to fulfill the OP has to either butterfly Barbarossa or make the Russians do better than OTL. If the Nazis fully implement the Final Solution and the Hunger Plan the 20th century will be much worse for the Russian people. And honestly, I don't think a White victory would do either. Hitler had plenty of animosity on which to take power even without the CCCP next door, and the Whites would be very unlikely to work with any self called German "socialist" after the sealed train. Meanwhile, divisions in the White movement mean that IMO they won't have the same brutal efficiency in building heavy industry that the Reds had, meaning that they will be even less prepared for the German onslaught. Thus, even if pre 1941 White Russia does better than the OTL CCCP, things will...go downhill after Barbarossa.

Thus we need a POD in the Soviet period that makes this industrialization have less of a human cost. I propose that as mentioned someone else succeeding Lenin with Lenin living slightly longer--probably Sverdlov if he lives longer, otherwise Rykov or possibly (especially) Sokolnikov--would do much better at organising the Soviet industrialisation without its OTL human costs, or at least to much smaller degree. Trotsky was too unliked by much of the party to have a real shot at the top post and furthermore not the best option.
I could agree with but I think Lenin would have been better if he lived a lot longer and had Trotsky as a general.
 
I could agree with but I think Lenin would have been better if he lived a lot longer and had Trotsky as a general.

True but even then Lenin was older than many Bolsheviks.

The best precedent would be Lenin stepping down after another bout of strokes in 1926 to 27--peaceful transfer of power for something other than death of the leader does amazing things for democracy building such as Soviet democracy might have became.
 

samcster94

Banned
True but even then Lenin was older than many Bolsheviks.

The best precedent would be Lenin stepping down after another bout of strokes in 1926 to 27--peaceful transfer of power for something other than death of the leader does amazing things for democracy building such as Soviet democracy might have became.
How exactly would a hybrid regime form(one that isn't a democracy but not a full dictatorship)?
 
How exactly would a hybrid regime form(one that isn't a democracy but not a full dictatorship)?

OTL Cuba is the best example I can think of.

Basically, for better or worse, intraparty instead of interparty democracy.

Edit: another interesting though not 1 to 1 comparison would be the USA during the era of good feelings.
 
Last edited:
True but even then Lenin was older than many Bolsheviks.

The best precedent would be Lenin stepping down after another bout of strokes in 1926 to 27--peaceful transfer of power for something other than death of the leader does amazing things for democracy building such as Soviet democracy might have became.
If you democratized too rapidly your country can fall apart like the USSR in the 80s. Lenin liberalization policies were smart. Sadly Stalin reversed many of them. Lenin focused on making socially liberal laws and not ones that would liberalized the still young and not fully calm new government system. Lenin Soviet Union had the most liberal laws regarding women’s rights. I think they were first country to legalize abortion and had easy divorce laws. Women also got better educated and more freedom. He also tried to create good welfare laws to help people. You can’t go from absolute tyrant to a elected leader in a day or even a year
 
If you democratized too rapidly your country can fall apart like the USSR in the 80s. Lenin liberalization policies were smart. Sadly Stalin reversed many of them. Lenin focused on making socially liberal laws and not ones that would liberalized the still young and not fully calm new government system. Lenin Soviet Union had the most liberal laws regarding women’s rights. I think they were first country to legalize abortion and had easy divorce laws. Women also got better educated and more freedom. He also tried to create good welfare laws to help people. You can’t go from absolute tyrant to a elected leader in a day or even a year

Firstly, I don't think that the late CCCP is the best comparison. In 1989, the Union was "the man"--those pushing for more radical change wouldn't be satisfied with it, and those pushing for less radical change, well, the center could not hold. This will also be true in the '20s--but here, the Union is the new thing, thus, that radicalism will quite possibly strengthen rather than weaken it.

Secondly, even if you don't go from dictator to democracy immediately, that doesn't mean that some form of democracy isn't a good end goal. Lenin holding power for ~10 years and then laying it down for reason of ill health is a great point from which to arrive at a very genuine democracy 20, 30 years down the line, especially given how much positive impact the other reforms you mentioned will have in the interim--public confidence in the government will be at a very high point if people more moderate, intelligent, and tactful than Stalin are in control and don't push the envelope on collectivization whilst keeping other positive reforms.

I would likely offer minor incentives to collectivize from the bottom up--it's easier to get people to work with their trusted next-door-neighbor in many cases--and even then not collectivize completely (at least in practice) but rather declare that your surplus output is split into 3 portions--one for you to spend at your discretion, one that goes to the state as tax, and one that goes to a communal fund for social insurance and communal projects. Thus, people become more adapted to a collective mindset whilst still having an incentive to improve their land, and can't egregiously hide food etc. without cheating their neighbors--and small-group shaming and social consequences are much more effective punishments than the long hand of the law. Likewise, allow for small scale markets and even a few factories within an NEP-like system. This process, though it will not produce as much short term revenue for industrialization, will be much more sustainable, and furthermore with a more functioning Soviet democracy people like Sokolnikov who actually know what they're doing can prevent things from getting to the point in 1933 where Stalin felt that he had to export massive quantities of grain to keep the Rouble in control, to the point where the 1933 famines and Holodomor happened. The Great Depression will be bad enough overall that if the Soviets can avoid the worst of the troubles they can still look like a very attractive place for investment; I would pass laws saying that factories built by foreign investors formally belong to the state but are leased indefinitely to said investors. These investors must pay off the cost of land, labor, resources with a portion of output but from there keep generous portions of their profit. With confidence in the legal system and a Soviet state that can offer the proper incentives this will look very attractive during the height of the Depression. Using the proceeds and/or tax revenue, the Soviets can from there build many more state-owned factories, and Soviet democracy enables experimentation with collectives. Meanwhile, labor protections and state-backed unions will let the Reds save face--indeed, proving to the capitalists that they could still function in the socialist system can be justified as a foreign PR move.

So, overall, with better management the Soviets should be able to industrialize nearly as much as IOTL, whilst building much more public confidence and achieving an even higher standard of living.

And then the Nazis invade. But this time, the Soviets aren't fool enough to trust them, and Commissar of Military and Naval Affairs Lev Trotsky and Marshal of the Soviet Union Mikhail Tukhachevsky are ready to cast them back to the hell from whence they came. The unpurged Red Army is a brutally effective fighting machine, and the Soviet people--much more confident than IOTL in their government--back the Army to the hilt. By 1944, the Red Army is on the Rhine, having singlehandedly liberated Eastern and Central Europe from German Tyranny. Soon afterwards, having seen the people's loyalty, much more political reform is introduced, further fulfilling the promises of Soviet Democracy...

(or so the propaganda would claim)
 
Firstly, I don't think that the late CCCP is the best comparison. In 1989, the Union was "the man"--those pushing for more radical change wouldn't be satisfied with it, and those pushing for less radical change, well, the center could not hold. This will also be true in the '20s--but here, the Union is the new thing, thus, that radicalism will quite possibly strengthen rather than weaken it.

Secondly, even if you don't go from dictator to democracy immediately, that doesn't mean that some form of democracy isn't a good end goal. Lenin holding power for ~10 years and then laying it down for reason of ill health is a great point from which to arrive at a very genuine democracy 20, 30 years down the line, especially given how much positive impact the other reforms you mentioned will have in the interim--public confidence in the government will be at a very high point if people more moderate, intelligent, and tactful than Stalin are in control and don't push the envelope on collectivization whilst keeping other positive reforms.

I would likely offer minor incentives to collectivize from the bottom up--it's easier to get people to work with their trusted next-door-neighbor in many cases--and even then not collectivize completely (at least in practice) but rather declare that your surplus output is split into 3 portions--one for you to spend at your discretion, one that goes to the state as tax, and one that goes to a communal fund for social insurance and communal projects. Thus, people become more adapted to a collective mindset whilst still having an incentive to improve their land, and can't egregiously hide food etc. without cheating their neighbors--and small-group shaming and social consequences are much more effective punishments than the long hand of the law. Likewise, allow for small scale markets and even a few factories within an NEP-like system. This process, though it will not produce as much short term revenue for industrialization, will be much more sustainable, and furthermore with a more functioning Soviet democracy people like Sokolnikov who actually know what they're doing can prevent things from getting to the point in 1933 where Stalin felt that he had to export massive quantities of grain to keep the Rouble in control, to the point where the 1933 famines and Holodomor happened. The Great Depression will be bad enough overall that if the Soviets can avoid the worst of the troubles they can still look like a very attractive place for investment; I would pass laws saying that factories built by foreign investors formally belong to the state but are leased indefinitely to said investors. These investors must pay off the cost of land, labor, resources with a portion of output but from there keep generous portions of their profit. With confidence in the legal system and a Soviet state that can offer the proper incentives this will look very attractive during the height of the Depression. Using the proceeds and/or tax revenue, the Soviets can from there build many more state-owned factories, and Soviet democracy enables experimentation with collectives. Meanwhile, labor protections and state-backed unions will let the Reds save face--indeed, proving to the capitalists that they could still function in the socialist system can be justified as a foreign PR move.

So, overall, with better management the Soviets should be able to industrialize nearly as much as IOTL, whilst building much more public confidence and achieving an even higher standard of living.

And then the Nazis invade. But this time, the Soviets aren't fool enough to trust them, and Commissar of Military and Naval Affairs Lev Trotsky and Marshal of the Soviet Union Mikhail Tukhachevsky are ready to cast them back to the hell from whence they came. The unpurged Red Army is a brutally effective fighting machine, and the Soviet people--much more confident than IOTL in their government--back the Army to the hilt. By 1944, the Red Army is on the Rhine, having singlehandedly liberated Eastern and Central Europe from German Tyranny. Soon afterwards, having seen the people's loyalty, much more political reform is introduced, further fulfilling the promises of Soviet Democracy...

(or so the propaganda would claim)
The Soviets did avoid the worst of the depression because they didn’t trade much with other countries in the 30s because no one really would. Most issues at the time was self inflicted because they relied on their resources within the USSR
 

samcster94

Banned
OTL Cuba is the best example I can think of.

Basically, for better or worse, intraparty instead of interparty democracy.

Edit: another interesting though not 1 to 1 comparison would be the USA during the era of good feelings.
Post-Castro Cuba is an interesting system(even if not likely a long-term one).
 
The Soviets did avoid the worst of the depression because they didn’t trade much with other countries in the 30s because no one really would. Most issues at the time was self inflicted because they relied on their resources within the USSR

Indeed but even with Stalin in control they managed to attract some investment and buy some machinery. Likely they can do better ITTL.

Edit: It'll help if the Rouble is kept high without leading to Holodomor level famine, which is more possible with more competent people involved.
 
Last edited:
They were ruthless in their tactics and methods but that isn’t uncommon among leaders especially in Russian history. Also they were not as insane or as paranoid as Stalin. They were brutal at times but smart in many regards. They knew how to do their jobs even those many don’t agree with their methods. Lenin lived his ideology and was a hard worker. Trotsky knew how to run the military first hand. I rather have Trotsky running the military over Stalin any day if the Nazis invaded. Trotsky and Lenin would not purge the military like Stalin or mismanage collectivization and industrializations programs like Stalin did. These programs might be imposed in a harsh matter from a moral perspective but they would be done in a more economically productive matter if Trotsky or Lenin ran it. It is not economically smart to kill large numbers of your people like Stalin did. Stalin stole a lot of Trotsky and Lenin plans for the USSR but didn’t implement them in the best ways. We aren’t always talking about moral character when we talk about leaders. Some of the best leaders in history are terrible people. We also have to look closely at Russian history when talking about this. The Tsar regime was arguably more brutal and oppressive in many ways compared to the Soviets. Many Eastern Jews and some Russian women back then would say that. The Tsar used gulags too. A white regime could be a continuation of the Tsar rule in many ways. That could honestly leave Russia behind in industrialization and probably weaker military wise in the long run which hurts them very badly if the Nazis or Germans still invade them in this world. The communist have the benefit of not dealing with the old elites unlike the whites. Once the communist won they could do any radical ideas or program they thought was needed which is helpful when your industry is far behind and you need to catch up fast because you don’t have the old elites trying to stop or hinder it. A communist regime is probably better politically too because a communist nation in theory at least is supposed to be racially and ethnically unbiased which helps a diverse nation the Soviet Union had. Stalin was Georgian. Trotsky was Jewish. A white regime probably be less accepting of that which means more possible unrest and less utilization of their population. The whites probably would not arm non-Russians, non-Slavs, or women as much as the Soviets did if the mainland was invaded. I don’t even agree with communism but I think it was the best choice for Russia if Stalin didn’t take control.
Sorry, I cannot agree. The worst damage inflicted upon the Russian economy was by the Civil War and War Communism during 1917-21. See the points I have made below in other discussion threads on Fascist Russia and White Russia:-

I think you might be better avoiding the Bolsheviks taking power at all. They were a bad role model which led virtually all socialists (even the much more moderate) to adopt state capitalism as the best or only model for building socialism and drowned out a lot of more interesting if less dramatic (and potentially viable) ideas around worker representation on company boards, co-operatives and syndicalism. Also, it wasn't the Great War that really screwed the Russian industrial economy which was based around St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev and Tsaritsyn -none of which were in the firing line. It was the civil war and War Communism (Lenin might have finally realised it wasn't working but not until he had thoroughly wrecked the industrial economy) in 1917-21 that really set back Russian industrialisation. The NEP allowed for some recovery but USSR economy seems to have only recovered to about 1914 levels by 1929/30 at which point Stalin starts to screw things up again! Kerensky surviving might be a better bet or Lenin perishing back in the 1910s and a totally different Bolshevik leadership in 1917.


Depending on how accomplished the Fascist leader would be, but assuming he was not a White Stalin or more than a casual anti-Semitist , probably stronger than Stalin's Russia. Engineers and railwaymen unlikely to be purged, aircraft designers not going to be imprisoned for a critical year in the late nineteen thirties. No purges of intelligence services and the Vozhd might even listen to them! No ideological communist agents so Western penetration not as good but Russians always historically have been good at spying so probably balanced by more use of bribery and blackmail and better analysis (Fascists are as ideologically driven as Communists but their ideology is more opportunistic than deterministic so probably not going to get things as badly wrong as USSR did on occasion OTL.). At the very least are unlikely to be fixated on the notion that the Western Powers want to invade and overthrow their regime. This wasn't a practical position or proposition from 1930 on OTL but Stalin never realised that.
Zworykin, Seversky and Sikorsky et al probably not emigres but working away in Russia. Army, Air Force and Navy not purged and, with at least a mixed economy, more efficient allocation of economic resources. More Tsarist experts retained (and Tsarist Russia wasn't doing a bad job of building itself an Army, Navy and infrastructure or educating itself scientists and engineers whatever its other faults may have been) and no forced collectivisation. More qualified managers and entrepreneurs and more foreign trade so opportunities to buy in what could not domestically be produced. Probably better public health measures than OTL.
Then it would also depend on their foreign policy -Reckless adventurism (unite the rest of Europe against them), Cautious expansionism (like OTL USSR - unite the rest of Europe in a defensive alliance) or an Oswald Mosley style "we will protect and defend our Empire" defensive fascism?

Firstly, the depression wouldn't have happened in the same way if Russia had been connected to the world market because Russia would have been selling grains, minerals (including quite a lot of gold) and furs and buying (and selling) manufactured products on the world market. OTL everyone else paid the price of the USSR cutting itself off from the world market. Yes, there would have been a market saturation and downturn eventually but it wouldn't have been the Great Depression of OTL (probably wouldn't have hit until around 1933 or 34 for starters with a larger world market -by which time some new or improved products would be starting a fresh economic upturn). And, if Russia was a Fascist power by 1922, Britain and France would not have reduced their defence spending as much in the 1920s and raised it more in the early 1930s. So busier shipyards and fewer unemployed. No Jarrow Hunger March. And Russian debt probably not repudiated though quite probably renegotiated (so Britain and France have more fiscal breathing space). Earlier German and Hungarian rearmament likely tolerated by the Western powers plus much more German trade with Russia. And autobahns would have gone ahead without the Nazis (they took credit for decisions already taken) And Winston Churchill might not have been able to put Britain back on the Gold Standard in the 1920s (which made the British situation much worse). So probably the world economy TTL not a close analogue to OTL.
Secondly, someone once said that "the USSR is a geological scandal" - the Russian Empire would have huge mineral and oil reserves. They can buy in Western technology no matter what kind of regime they have, they aren't relying on the wheat harvest to pay for it. Can barter oil, gold, mineral ores, precious stones. Fascists less likely to be obstructed by other countries than the Bolsheviks (look at British and American trade with Nazis OTL) -Poles, Balts, Turks, Finns, Romanians, Hungarians wouldn't be terribly enthused by Russia's development but Americans, British, French though very wary of the great Power in the East wouldn't have any sense of it being an existential threat. Germans probably too focused on rebuilding their economy to have qualms. And Italians probably see them as allies.
Thirdly, it is a myth (largely based on doctored statistics from the old USSR and apologists for Stalin) that the Bolsheviks/CCCP were particularly efficient at industrialisation. They actually compare rather unfavourably to the last three Tsars. Under War Communism Russia actually deindustrialised. The New Economic Policy 1923-29 only restored Russia's industrial capacity to around 1914 levels. Stalin certainly delivered industrial production growth 1930-39 though the effects of forced collectivisation and the purges would have done as much or more damage to the economy than the Great Recession did in the West OTL. A White victory in 1921 or 22 would have started economic regeneration a year or two earlier and, being less ideologically blinkered and more open to trade and foreign loans delivered growth at least half a percentage point higher each year from 1923-1941. Not as good as avoiding the Bolsheviks altogether but around 10% larger than the 1941 economy of the OTL USSR at a conservative estimate (I am not making allowance for any White Russian Gustav Krupp, Alfred Nobel, Henry Ford, Giovanni Agnelli etc. who might kick that figure up by another 4 or 5%) And in a country as large as Russia there should be at least one or two such.
 
Avoiding the Bolsheviks altogether, even a moderate socialist regime would be at the level of development Stalin had planned for 1950 (prior to Barbarossa) by 1939. A more free market regime with higher growth rates would be sufficiently developed by 1939 that Germany would not even be contemplating provoking it.
 

samcster94

Banned
Sorry, I cannot agree. The worst damage inflicted upon the Russian economy was by the Civil War and War Communism during 1917-21. See the points I have made below in other discussion threads on Fascist Russia and White Russia:-
Do you know anything on Franco's Spain and industrialization(to name an OTL right wing regime)???
 
White or Tsarist Russia would not be politically isolated, it would still be allied with France. No Barbarossa would happen, because even Hitler would be not mad enough to fight France and Russia at once.
 
Do you know anything on Franco's Spain and industrialization(to name an OTL right wing regime)???
Yes, though it wouldn't be a direct parallel as Spain had a totally different agricultural economy and a lower level of population and mineral resources and a devastating civil war 1936-39 and suffered from WW2 blockades and a distinct lack of sympathy from the victorious allies. But from 1953-75, Spain managed a 5% average annual rate of economic growth, second only to that of Japan.
 

I will point out that much of the industrialization in the 1890s and early 1900s was done essentially by the state or with massive state-owned subsidy.

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.

Which leaves us with a couple options. I don't think that a post 1900 POD can avert the Revolution, short of the OTL Revolution essentially happening in 1905 (which is still highly unlikely). So, after the Revolution and civil war, a few things can be your outcomes.

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.

2. 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:

3. what I and @Modern Imperialism described above.
 

samcster94

Banned
I will point out that much of the industrialization in the 1890s and early 1900s was done essentially by the state or with massive state-owned subsidy.

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.

Which leaves us with a couple options. I don't think that a post 1900 POD can avert the Revolution, short of the OTL Revolution essentially happening in 1905 (which is still highly unlikely). So, after the Revolution and civil war, a few things can be your outcomes.

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.

2. 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:

3. what I and @Modern Imperialism described above.
The "Lenin lives longer" Route???
 
The "Lenin lives longer" Route???

Indeed--but not just that. Lenin living longer, and crucially in my analysis especially stepping down due to ill health but not dying, sets the stage for genuine Soviet Democracy as it was imagined by many of the Bolsheviks to emerge, since Lenin can control his succession away from Stalin and towards Rykov (Rykov is most likely unless Sverdlov lives longer; best would be Sokolnikov but it's hard to get him into power). Stalin got incredibly lucky during the post-Lenin chaos by managing to suppress Lenin's condemnation of him, and after this the Revolution took a dark turn as we all know.

But IMO the more successful, non-Stalinist revolutionary Russia provides the best chance at continued economic development, social reform, and a reasonably democratic government which can actually survive the Nazis. Democratic White Russia will be too torn for the latter and likely will not be able to trust its military enough to ensure the operational flexibility it needed, or might even be overthrown resulting in a horrendous regime taking power. The worst aspects of collectivization can be avoided--it was only Trotsky and a few others who were diehard opponents of the NEP IIRC--and industrialization can proceed almost as much as OTL with social welfare programs and experiments in collectivization overcoming the issues that led to instability in 1905-17 without Stalinist repression. This is, IMO, the best outcome.

You're more than welcome to disagree with me, of course. And while I can't force you to reply I'd love to see you break down what you feel the possible negative consequences of this approach would be. It's possible that we're functioning on entirely different analyses of the Bolshevik leaders' and others' personalities, though, in which case I doubt either of us will change their approach.

And as for the prior post about a fascist Russia doing better than a Communist one, I think that it should be fairly obvious why this is worse for the Russian people, since the process of such a leader coming to power would likely involve massive pogroms to placate the antisemites in the military and I can't think of any Fascist states IOTL that gained much human capital--Russia wouldn't be any different. And a Russia integrated to the world economy as described likely wouldn't prevent the depression (even IOTL the Soviets exported plenty 1929 to 33) and would suffer more from it as extraction based economies tend to.

Edit: in re two-front war, the fact that Hitler declared war on the US proves that at a certain point he was willing to risk it. There's also the fact that a White Russia drastically changes the dynamic of eastern Europe for two decades, and France may be less inclined/able to resist things like the partition of Poland if Russia gets the share it wants. It's very hard to predict exactly how it might go down, but given the broader political history and the likelihood of some conflict breaking out I find it much likelier than not that Germany invades Russia at some point, especially considering that the Russian Army ITTL might never recover its reputation after the WWI debacle. Remember that many of the more effective Russian WWI generals like Brusilov fought for the Bolsheviks.
 
Last edited:
How Russia, that is not viewed as pariah state, had allies in the West, is not devasted by collectivisation and nazi invasion, could be worse than USSR? That is BS. Even if initially weaker (during first generation after Civil War) , white Russia would be in much better shape in the long run.
 
Top