Fascist Russia and/or Communist Germany?

Wolfpaw

Banned
Thing is, they would take Belarus and Ukraine. It's basically impossible for them to win anyway, but we'll forget that for a second. Ukraine was basically the home of the Volunteers. Neither it nor Belarus had a strong national identity at the time: that was a Bolshevik creation. The Entente would support a white government and would allow it to destroy Germany's creations, Belarus and Ukraine, and they would be largely integrated into Russia before long.

I only said "if" because that would only be relevant in a CP-victory TL; of course they would otherwise take the Ukraine and Belarus. And it was hardly impossible for them to win. 1919 was the turning point in the war; if Denikin had been able to take Moscow in October, the Bolsheviks would have had their head cut off. You must remember that by 1919, the Bolsheviks were losing on all fronts, morale was frightfully low, and their borders had been reduced to that of medieval Muscovy.

The Baltic states thing is basically strategic. They hold St.Petersburg in a pincer grip, which had to be broken. The Soviets attacked Finland with this as their main reason.

Correct on the Finland part, 50% on the Baltic part. The Russians had felt the Baltic coast was rightfully theirs since they first crossed swords with Sweden.


I'm willing to play devil's advocate for old Denikin. Nobody's ever prooved to me that he, the most important of the White leaders and the one by far the most likely (that is, still never happening) of taking over Russia, was "fiercely antidemocratic". I imagine him as a Russian Hindenberg, which is hardly fascist.

And I think it unlikely that Denikin would restore the monarchy. in the short term at least. "Saving the republic" was less controversial. Even if the Romanovs do somehow return, it's not like they'll be anything besides puppets to the generals, and the generals will probably run a South-American/Wilhelmine style military dictatorship with no interest in a lot of foamy-mouthed radicals.

Valid point with Denikin; I never thought he was so bad either. But Kolchak would probably have been able to outmaneuver him politically. The monarchy would probably have been restored with severely curtailed power; a Tsar would have served as a figurehead for a shattered nation to rally around, especially if they were a popular figure like Grand Duke Nicholas.


Nationalism and orthodoxy don't have to equal fascism by any means. Modern America is a very patriotic, religious country.

I never said they did. I am saying that fascist elements would co-opt them and the traditional philosophy of "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationalism" to further their own ends.


Mladorossi was an emigre organisation. It had a very specific constituency: white officers who had fled. You act like it was a leading party in the Duma or something.

I was just using them as a model. Any fascist group that sprung up in Russia would have more than likely followed their philosophy of corporatist Tsardom.
 
Of course it's an enormous butterfly. It's going to have changed the face of international relations well before a Nazi-Soviet pact is in the offing, since it may even butterfly away Nazi rule. But Communism Germany is out.
That depends a popular front is a more likely outcome rather an a directA German civil isnt out in that case the German army's fficer Cocrps was very conservative.

One thing that confuses me is that while you maintain insistently that the whites wanted a brutal dictatorship (which I'm arguing with only in terms of quantity, really), you completely ignore OTL's precedent of a brutal Russian dictatorship which took power in a coup, had to fight a bloody war to hold on to the nation, staid in powe by brutal repression, and still managed to crush dissent and dramatically build up the country's power. "The Communists", I believe they were called.
Eh? There was no chance of anything else the whites would've put in place brutal dictatorship. There's no doubt about that at all, at best you get the pre-1914 autocracy at worst, you get the type of dictator usually associated with Africa or Latin America.
communist takeover, but can shift over time...
The middle road would something like the KMT in China under Chiang Kai-shek, a shifting coalition of warlords would rule the empire with a ''top warlord'' in charge in Petrograd or Moscow. Aleksandr Kolchak would make a good ''Russian Chaing''

Democracy is out you’d need ASB for that to happen.

It's also probably true that some sort of revolution would’ve toppled the provisional government. Lenin just struck first, Russia was on the verge of disintegration by late 1917 civil in the various parts of the Empire was already brewing. (People tend to forget the ''Russian Civil War'' was a set of inter-linked struggle rather than a single war as such)

 
I only said "if" because that would only be relevant in a CP-victory TL; of course they would otherwise take the Ukraine and Belarus. And it was hardly impossible for them to win. 1919 was the turning point in the war; if Denikin had been able to take Moscow in October, the Bolsheviks would have had their head cut off. You must remember that by 1919, the Bolsheviks were losing on all fronts, morale was frightfully low, and their borders had been reduced to that of medieval Muscovy.


Hmm. You make a very good point about CP victory: it could be a potential starting point for this scenario.

But in 1919, even when things did look rather grim for the Reds, they did still bounce back, and I think you need to change something pretty dramatically, such as having the Poles go gallavanting in, to even think about knocking them off Russia's industrial heartland and thus the war.

Correct on the Finland part, 50% on the Baltic part. The Russians had felt the Baltic coast was rightfully theirs since they first crossed swords with Sweden.

And before (look at the Livonian War) and today, but I repeat, even when the Soviet Union used Russian nationalism it never implemented it. No Russian nationalism movement would have treated Belarus and Russia as seperate, equal entities, and a Russian nationalist government would have annexed the Baltics to Russia directly.


Valid point with Denikin; I never thought he was so bad either. But Kolchak would probably have been able to outmaneuver him politically. The monarchy would probably have been restored with severely curtailed power; a Tsar would have served as a figurehead for a shattered nation to rally around, especially if they were a popular figure like Grand Duke Nicholas.

Glad tosee we have more common ground than I thought. I'm not sure any Romanov commanded enough popular support for this to happen in the early 20s (later is possible) after the disasterous events of '17.

And while Kolchak had some rather fascist leanings, he was a fruitcake. Denikin's the one who'll capture Moscow in your scenario, Denikin can use all the moderate forces of the centre against Kolchak, and if the worst comes to the worst Denikin has the much better resource and population base. I don't really see why Kolchak is mor elikely to take over the country.

I never said they did. I am saying that fascist elements would co-opt them and the traditional philosophy of "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationalism" to further their own ends.

This actually sounds rather similar to my (which is to say, Edt's :D) whole idea of the Tsarist Russia tarnsforming into a fascist-like state. It's not impossible after a White victory either, but I don't see see a clique of conservative generals letting it make much headway.

I was just using them as a model. Any fascist group that sprung up in Russia would have more than likely followed their philosophy of corporatist Tsardom.

Good point, although what I was saying was also that we never saw any proto-Fascist group having success in Russia itself, but it's possible.
 
UF, you're not being very coherent. Have you misformatted your post?

That depends a popular front is a more likely outcome rather an a directA German civil isnt out in that case the German army's fficer Cocrps was very conservative.


The German Army is one reason why "Communist Germany" is so unlikely, but the German army wasn't about to start a civil war to keep Socialist out of power. IIRC, Hindenberg, the barometer of reaction, had a pretty good working relationship with Mueller. A popular front is unlikely with anything at all similar to OTL's post-war Germany. It should be somehow possible to avoid the split of 1917 which led to "socialism" and "communism" as they are presently distinguished, but in that case as I said earlier you may end up with a "Marxist" organisation in power which owes much of its doctrine to Ebert, and the Junkers didn't mind having such people in cotrol of the (admittedly toothless) parliament when they were running the country.

Anyway, all I meant was the no Miracle on the Vistula does not mean a communist Germany carried in on the bayonets of the Red Army.

Eh? There was no chance of anything else the whites would've put in place brutal dictatorship. There's no doubt about that at all, at best you get the pre-1914 autocracy at worst, you get the type of dictator usually associated with Africa or Latin America.


The proto-Totalitarian repressiveness and casual brutality of the Tsarist autocracy makes many of the classier Juntas look pretty tame, and it's to them I refer: a small club of senior military men who step in to "save the nation" with an agenda of nebulous patriotism and rabid anti-communism that no sensible person would call fascist. How many such people there have actually been in South America is questionable, but it's an archetype.

communist takeover, but can shift over time...


Sorry, you what?

The middle road would something like the KMT in China under Chiang Kai-shek, a shifting coalition of warlords would rule the empire with a ''top warlord'' in charge in Petrograd or Moscow. Aleksandr Kolchak would make a good ''Russian Chaing''


FIrstly, why do people so overestimate His Nutbarness the Supreme Ruler of Russia? Probably because he was the nastiest of the main leaders and people are determined that White Russia should be as bad as the Red.

Anyway, Chiang is actually a good model for why the suystem of semi-warlordism which is indeed likely to prevail immediately after the RCW as the local leaders of various striped consolidate their powerbases will not endure. Give Chiang some credit: he did a pretty good job of reigning in the warlords, and it was the Japanese invasion that let them claw back some power by playing silly buggers iwth their military assets or even striking deals with the Japanese.

He (and his GMD predeccesors) built a secure powerbase in Guangong, established a comparatively modern and proffesional army, got the backing of powerful foreigners, marched into the centre of the country smashing the warlords and asserted his leadership, beat other warlords and rivals who challenged his control, and suborned some peripheral warlords to his cause, establishing a government of China which, while weak, deserved the title.

Why the hell is Denikin unable to pull off the same act?

Democracy is out you’d need ASB for that to happen.


Did I use the word democracy? Also, does "Lenin falls down some stairs" qualify as ASB? Sure, it's not the only or even the most likely outcome of no Bolshevik coup, but it's hardly impossible for a rickety sort of democracy which divided the least to be set up.

It's also probably true that some sort of revolution would’ve toppled the provisional government. Lenin just struck first, Russia was on the verge of disintegration by late 1917 civil in the various parts of the Empire was already brewing. (People tend to forget the ''Russian Civil War'' was a set of inter-linked struggle rather than a single war as such)

What it was was various long-brewing or pre-existing conflicts like the Basmachi revolt, international wars and intermixed civil wars like Poland and Finland, and foreign interventions all interlocking with the central struggle: everyone against the Bolsheviks, Bolsheviks win because everyone has no coherent strategy and the Bolsheviks control the industrial heartland.

Ohmigod the train from Switzerland has come off the rails! This is pretty much enough to avert the Civil War in any recognisable form. There will be a lot of violence and nastiness in Russia, but the real meat of the war was the result of the Bolshevik coup, and that was hardly inevitable even for the Bolshevik leadership. Almost every other party and faction, including the cliques of generals, were willing to give grudging support to the provisional government's system.

Who else is going to overthrow it, then?
 
FIrstly, why do people so overestimate His Nutbarness the Supreme Ruler of Russia? Probably because he was the nastiest of the main leaders and people are determined that White Russia should be as bad as the Red.


Ah, ascribing motivations again. But very satisfying to see you in such a pronouncedly minority opinion.

Why the hell is Denikin unable to pull off the same act?
Question is, how long would Denikin even be around?

If he was as well-meaning as all that, what his subordinates did in the territories he held shows he couldn't control them - so perhaps he wouldn't be around long.

If he could somehow control them, then he approved of the nationalist, antisemitic, zenophobic, expansively violent, militaristic, reactionary tendencies his soldiers and officers had and it could still evolve into something that nobody without a history degree would be able to distinguish from "real" fascism in, say, 1990.

If he was simply biding his time and had to squash his unruly subordinates when the whites won so that things won't get out of hand, you could be looking at a round of palace assassinations or outright warlord wars. His nutbarness could well step in then.

-------

Finally, the purpose of this alt-hist exercise is to look for an opening for a fascist Russia. This is as good a place as any, really. If you can suggest a better one, please go ahead and do so.
 
Last edited:
Ah, ascribing motivations again. But very satisfying to see you in such a pronouncedly minority opinion.


So you're accusing me of being a Menshevik, then? My suspicions are confirmed! :D

Ahem, that was immature. I should have done the adult thing and accused you of the Appeal to Popularity, a notorious logical fallacy.

Question is, how long would Denikin even be around?


He can nominate a succesor. Conveniently enough, my analogy still works: much of the groundwork for Chiang's campaign was laid by Sun Yat-Sen.

If he was as well-meaning as all that, what his subordinates did in the territories he held shows he couldn't control them - so perhaps he wouldn't be around long.


I never said he was well meaning. I said he would have been able to assert a reasonable degree of control if he by some miracle won the civil war, as this would give him the very Russian industrial heartland which allowed the Reds to win it, putting him in a perfect position to launch anti-warlord campaigns after the model of Chiang. There's nothing inherently well-meaning about wanting to control a country. Chiang was an absolute scoundrel.

If he could somehow control them, then he approved of the nationalist, antisemitic, zenophobic, expansively violent, militaristic, reactionary tendencies his soldiers and officers had and it could still evolve into something that nobody without a history degree would be able to distinguish from "real" fascism in, say, 1990.


You haven't actually shown me any evidence that the majority of White officers and men were as radical as you make out. Why would xenophobes accept foreign aide? What violent expansionism did they have the opportunity to display? Was antisemitism so uncommon among ugly nationalist movements at the time (it was endemic in interbellum Poland, for example)? Is nationalism among army officers either unexpected or necessarily a bad thing?

I will repeat, however, that the "White Army" emerged as groups organised by ex-officers to fight communism, local protection forces, and similar outfits, often having less than 100 men, designated themselves as this or that company and battalion of this or that regiment. Denikin did not so much lead the Volunteers as stride before them and be accepted as their chief. He couldn't control his troops, couldn't afford to do anything that would threaten the already tenuous unity of the many White factions (you seem to think the Whites were an ideological monolith of evil) given that there was a slightly bigger problem in the shape of the Bolsheviks.

If he was simply biding his time and had to squash his unruly subordinates when the whites won so that things won't get out of hand, you could be looking at a round of palace assassinations or outright warlord wars. His nutbarness could well step in then.


Ah yes, Kolchak, beloved of the common Russian, lord of Siberia, the industrial and population centre of Russia, Europe, and Asia!

I think we're talking about differant Kolchaks. I mean Kolchak the lunatic warlord who asserted a rickety control of any army that managed to resist the Bolsheviks for as long as it did principally because it was so far away from their centre of power.

I have already explained that an internationally supported government witha secure base and some good military expertise is quite capable of ending warlordism, as seen in China, the textbook case. We also saw in the RCW that he who commands the oval centred on Moscow and reaching St.Petersburg controls Russia. Hmmm.



-------

Finally, the purpose of this alt-hist exercise is to look for an opening for a fascist Russia. This is as good a place as any, really. If you can suggest a better one, please go ahead and do so.

Ahem.

It is interesting to note that under the classic "Tsarist autocracy" of the later 19th Century, developments existed which could easily have transformed into an ideology strongly resembling fascism, in particular Franco's regime (with its heavy religious element and pragmatic foreign policy). There was already a near-cultish official veneration of the Tsar, promoted by an organisation, the Orthodox church, having immense power and influence and essentially controlled by the government, in an ideal position, with a little more politicisation, to become part of some sort of mass movement.

This movement would seek to secure the ancient autocracy by making it an enthusiastic political movement. Foreigners and minorities would be scapregoated, loud militaristic and nationalistic drumbanging everywhere. Populist gestures would be made towards the common man while the property of the big businessman would be secure... so long as he adibed by the state's guidelines. The whole would seek to make the Russians "organic" and "united", rejecting democracy as divisive and unRussian. Enemies of the people, identified by the system of spies and secret police aleady entrenched by Alexander III, would be frequently sent to Siberia.

This all seems a much more reliable way to create a fascistic Russia than having:

1) The Whites win the Civil War, which is very improbable.

2) Kolchak assert his dominance, which is unlikely.

And weren't you harping on about how the only possible outcome was endemic and permenant warlordism? Make up your mind? Will the Whites create a ruthless state having total control over the people, or will they have no control?

If you don't want me to accuse you of pushing an agenda, try pushing a coherent argument instead.
 
And weren't you harping on about how the only possible outcome was endemic and permenant warlordism? Make up your mind? Will the Whites create a ruthless state having total control over the people, or will they have no control?

I'm with the Warlordism, naturally. But I don't want to have this discussion again, you've proven your inability to have it quite convincingly last time.

If you don't want me to accuse you of pushing an agenda, try pushing a coherent argument instead.
There's no satisfying you so why should I try?

-------

A Fascist Tsarism is a better PoD than the RCW, I agree. But at some point the monarchy would need to get less dependent on the English and French, otherwise anything resembling classic fascism is difficult.

Say a post-bellum development where Tsarist Russia and the rest of the former Entente find themselves in conflict over something, while Germany (somehow) has a communist takeover?

A victorious but exhausted Entente scenario, then? I don't think that Ottoman neutrality would really be all that decisive, although it could certainly help. It would have to do with Russia's military performance more than anything else.
 
I'm with the Warlordism, naturally. But I don't want to have this discussion again, you've proven your inability to have it quite convincingly last time.

The last time we had this discussion, it basically started with a misunderstanding, then went on as I attacked various fallacies in your posts, some of which, such as your apparent belief that the Transsiberin's significance was that it was one of only a very few railways in Russia and Ukraine had none seemed to me to indicate ignorance of the subject. You also made increasingly ridiculous attempts to make the Whites worse than the reds (you notes that they were "not a better" option because they "failed to keep their extremists under control", completely forgetting about Dzherzinsky, and, uh, Lenin), which made me suspect that you were an apologist for the Bolsheviks.

the argument was actually winding down when, over my simple request that you rephrase something i had found hard to understand, you called me an illiterate, a clear and irrelevant ad-hominem. I demanded an apology, going so far as to give you one for "any way in which I have offended you", and you simply left the thread.

I think any reasonable person would conclude that it was you who failed to convince.

There's no satisfying you so why should I try?

Because I'm a reasonable chap and if I'm arguing from a position which is wrong and am convinced of it by my opponent, I concede. I invite you to take a look at the "British Victory in 1812". Therefore were you to present me with an actual refutal of any of my positions, i would reconsider my opinion and we could part better-educated and on good terms. You've failed to do anything of the sort.

-------

A Fascist Tsarism is a better PoD than the RCW, I agree. But at some point the monarchy would need to get less dependent on the English and French, otherwise anything resembling classic fascism is difficult.

Hmm. I'm not sure. For one thing, Russia was only really "depedent" on French investment for its industrial change. Raproachment with britain came fairly late. For another, it was considered pretty ironic that France, Europe's most liberal nation, and absolutist Russia were moving together: the Marseilles had been banned under AIII right up until it started to be played for visiting French dignitaries. And as EdT, the codifier of the idea, has noted, the regime wuill be a pragmatic one, determined to continue the flow of foreign capital into Russia.

Say a post-bellum development where Tsarist Russia and the rest of the former Entente find themselves in conflict over something, while Germany (somehow) has a communist takeover?

Although communist Germany is always tricky, that seems a rather convincing development to the Open Straights/Victory in '16 scenario. Russia will continue to industrialise, from a much better starting point and with strong prestige as the trappings of a democracy that died in the cradle are swept away. It's sheer size and power may start to worry people even without it being a scary ideological bogeyman (and if moderate socialist movements come to power in the Entente countries and, as seems more likely if it's not some sort of Wilhelmine military dictatorship, Germany) the new Tsarism could be rather a bogeyman anyway.

There are plenty of places for a ispute to arise. In the ME, the Ottomans have probably taken the opportunity of the war to recover their sovereignty, and the Russians may be a miffed about this, whereas Britain will be chuckling with glee: we sold Anatolia to the Russians and the Turks snatched at back after we'd spent the relations capital on winning WW1. Add to that the... complicated situation in Persia and there may be ill-feeling.

And there's Manchuria, too...

A victorious but exhausted Entente scenario, then? I don't think that Ottoman neutrality would really be all that decisive, although it could certainly help. It would have to do with Russia's military performance more than anything else.

Well, a few seemingly minor things can have pretty big effects on a war. The Gallipoli campaign was a notorious waste of resources, resources which could have gone to Serbia and, since neutral Ottomans probably means neutral Bulgaria, saved it.

And open straights mean a less disasterous 1915, better morale, better supplies and equipment, and several extra divisions from the Caucasus (Gallipoli and other ME forces in France may also avert the useless Belarussian offensive in early '16 that was supposed to take pressure off Verdun) will all conspire to mean a *Brusilov even rougher on AH, and that can butterfly into an earlier Romanian entry. Since it took Bulgarian and Turkish troops opening a second front to stop the Romanians, well... add in a big Entente force in Serbia and the Italians taking Gorizia, and remember that the Austrians tried for peace in '16 as it was...

This doesn't dramatically improve Russia's performace or worsen Germany's, it just tips A-H over the edge to early collapse (after the trials of 1916, they were a pretty acknowledged German dependency anyway) and so makes the position of Germany hopeless.
 
Top