Had the White Army won, how would they have governed Russia?

[Pimli]

Why assume that there would even be a Nazi Party in a White victory scenario? The first raison d'etre of Nazism was 'anti-Bolshevism', fears of which will be far more diminished here.

The first raison d'être of Nazism was to piss the Germans off with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic crisis. Hitler's charisma and political talent also played an important role. I think that even without the "red danger" he would have a good chance of gaining power in Germany by playing on nationalist resentment, revanchism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism.

Ok, something that always bothers me is the stereotype that Stalin, and ONLY Stalin could have defeated Nazi Germany because "Any other leader would have been too weak-willed."

Stalin's success against the Nazi's boiled down to just throwing bodies at the problem until the Nazi's broke, because Russia had more people to give a weapon to and throw in the meat grinder.

Russia's history is littered with leaders who were willing to do just that, in fact I think a lot of hypothetical leaders of Russia that weren't Stalin in WW2 would have fared better. They would have listened to the reports that the Nazis were planning to launch an invasion of Russia while still fighting in Western Europe.

It's not about Stalin, but about the fact that the Bolsheviks created a strong industry and an extremely militarized, totalitarian state. I doubt if any other country would have survived the catastrophic disasters that befell the USSR of 1941-1942.

 

[lafollette]

Y

You mean make prices even lower, as there was a glut without large Soviet Grain exports in the '20s.
Adding in White Russian Grain, and prices drop even more

Being able to export their grain to the international market would have been great for both Russian peasants and farmers.

Badly and briefly.

The Whites were not even remotely a coherent or unified block; their regime would begin tearing apart rather quickly as basically the only thing they agreed on was opposing the Reds. They had no plan for a government, no economic strategy or indeed any of the elements of a functioning state. They'd rapidly start settling scores with anyone who didn't fit their view of True Russians; socialists, Jews, political opponents et cetera.

The 1921 famine would still have happened, and had the effect of starving out all opposition to the White faction in charge of Petrograd and Moscow. Denikin/Wrangel have the greatest chances of leading a White Russia, although Yudenich is a likely alternative.

All White generals agreed that the future of the Russian government should be determined by an 'acceptable' Constituent Assembly. Right-wing military dictatorship was the norm, not the anomaly for interwar Central-Eastern European governments. Economic policy would have been a continuation of Romanov-era industrialization, which, with access to international markets and loans, would have led to more development than a Russia without.

After it fell apart, again, you'd see a second civil war, more warlordism and probably the final dissolution of Russia.

Whichever warlord wins this Second Civil War, there would not have been 'the final dissolution of Russia': the ephemeral states of the Russian Civil War were far too small and militarily weak anyway to resist re-absorption back into a White Russia.

 

[Shiva]

The first raison d'être of Nazism was to piss the Germans off with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic crisis. Hitler's charisma and political talent also played an important role. I think that even without the "red danger" he would have a good chance of gaining power in Germany by playing on nationalist resentment, revanchism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism.

It's not about Stalin, but about the fact that the Bolsheviks created a strong industry and an extremely militarized, totalitarian state. I doubt if any other country would have survived the catastrophic disasters that befell the USSR of 1941-1942.

First on Hitler, since this POD winds the clock to what I assume is the 1920's, there are plenty of things that could happen that would prevent Hitler and his Nazi party from rising to power, including him being killed during the Beer Hall Putsch, which in RL very nearly DID happen.

Yes and No, yes I agree that the USSR under Stalin was built up enough to stand a chance against Nazi Germany, but even they needed supplies from America in order to keep the war going. Though Stalin's 'plan' was basically just throw bodies at the problem until it was solved, which any Russian leader worth their salt would have done. But again, the POD is early enough that a 'White Russia', could go in several different directions, as could a huge chunk of the world very quickly.

But I've noticed that there is a weird sort-of hero-worship that's attached to Stalin that says that he, and only he, could have 'saved' the USSR from Hitler, and it's one that I think really needs to be debunked.

 

[lafollette]

The issue with the idea of White Russia being friendly with Entente is very simple too: Tsarist debt. Either Whites do what Bolsheviks did and refuse to pay up or they try to pay up and smother the whole industrialization in the cradle.

Italy's massive WWI debts didn't stop friendly foreign relations with the former Allies throughout the 1920s.

The first raison d'être of Nazism was to piss the Germans off with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic crisis. Hitler's charisma and political talent also played an important role. I think that even without the "red danger" he would have a good chance of gaining power in Germany by playing on nationalist resentment, revanchism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism.

There is no reason for the elites to appoint Hitler Chancellor without the fear of a communist revolution in Germany.

It's not about Stalin, but about the fact that the Bolsheviks created a strong industry and an extremely militarized, totalitarian state. I doubt if any other country would have survived the catastrophic disasters that befell the USSR of 1941-1942.

Are we going to mention the historical reality that the Bolsheviks' purges of 1936-1938 decimated the Red Army's ability to resist the German invasion?

 

[Pimli]

First on Hitler, since this POD winds the clock to what I assume is the 1920's, there are plenty of things that could happen that would prevent Hitler and his Nazi party from rising to power, including him being killed during the Beer Hall Putsch, which in RL very nearly DID happen.

Yes and No, yes I agree that the USSR under Stalin was built up enough to stand a chance against Nazi Germany, but even they needed supplies from America in order to keep the war going. Though Stalin's 'plan' was basically just throw bodies at the problem until it was solved, which any Russian leader worth their salt would have done. But again, the POD is early enough that a 'White Russia', could go in several different directions, as could a huge chunk of the world very quickly.

You know, industrial production in Germany and the USA in 1932 was only 53% of the production in 1929 (in France and Great Britain respectively 72 and 84%), and in the USSR - 180%. Of course, this happened at the cost of the enormous austerities of Soviet society, but would any capitalist state achieve such a result? For comparison, Poland did not reach the level of industrial production in 1914 until 1938...

There is no reason for the elites to appoint Hitler Chancellor without the fear of a communist revolution in Germany.

There was no chance for a communist revolution in Germany. Support for the German Communist Party rose from 11% in the May 1928 general election to 14% in the July 1932 election. During this time, support for the Nazis rose from just 3% to 37%. Quite simply, the ideology advocated by Hitler found a much greater resonance among the pauperized German middle class than the communist ideology. The German elite resisted allowing the Nazis to power for quite a long time, considering that by the summer of 1932 they had become the largest party in Germany

 

[lafollette]

You know, industrial production in Germany and the USA in 1932 was only 53% of the production in 1929 (in France and Great Britain respectively 72 and 84%), and in the USSR - 180%. Of course, this happened at the cost of the enormous austerities of Soviet society, but would any capitalist state achieve such a result? For comparison, Poland did not reach the level of industrial production in 1914 until 1938...

No, these figures are complete fiction:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarship.haverford.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=economics_facpubs

There was no chance for a communist revolution in Germany. Support for the German Communist Party rose from 11% in the May 1928 general election to 14% in the July 1932 election. During this time, support for the Nazis rose from just 3% to 37%. Quite simply, the ideology advocated by Hitler found a much greater resonance among the pauperized German middle class than the communist ideology. The German elite resisted allowing the Nazis to power for quite a long time, considering that by the summer of 1932 they had become the largest party in Germany

The extent of the fear of Communism(which will be far less here) does not equate to the likelihood of a Communist takeover: after all, the Romanian Army easily overthrew Bela Kun's Hungary.

 

[ahmedali]

As others have mentioned here, a white victory probably means an unstable republican system or a foolish attempt at a tsarist restoration (though I suspect we'd more likely get an eternal regency like Hungary).

The whites would not implement such aggressive industrialization, and probably would not vastly improve their military capacity as a state - if just because their state would be highly unstable.

Peasant land reform would be implemented slower, probably causing immeasurable damage to the country's economy. Additionally it's entirely possible that Russia, like China, would end up de facto as a warlord state because of its vast territory and competing personalities.

In the end it wouldn't matter, as the Nazis (who would absolutely still invade) would obliterate them.

Republic is never possible


(Most White Russians were royalists, just because they didn't call for the tsar to be restored doesn't mean they didn't want to.)


So the white victory means the restoration of the monarchy of the Vladimirovich branch of the Romanov dynasty


The recovery and development of the white system depends on who is the ruler


(Pyotr Wrangel is your man if you want someone who is competent, worthy of management, less corrupt, willing to accept a constitutional monarchy with a focus on developing the country)


The rest were hard-core reactionaries who saw anything before 1905, the golden age of Russia

 

[Pimli]

No, these figures are complete fiction:

I stand by my opinion that under the rule of the Whites, Russia would almost certainly not develop its industry as under the rule of the Bolsheviks. The Great Depression would probably severely damage its economy, just as it damaged the Polish economy.

The extent of the fear of Communism(which will be far less here) does not equate to the likelihood of a Communist takeover: after all, the Romanian Army easily overthrew Bela Kun's Hungary.

Again, it was not fear of communists that made the NSDAP the largest party in Germany, but because Hitler's propanda reached the Germans more effectively than the communist propaganda. Without a rival of the second revolutionary party, the Nazis might have won even earlier.

 

[ahmedali]

Why assume that there would even be a Nazi Party in a White victory scenario? The first raison d'etre of Nazism was 'anti-Bolshevism', fears of which will be far more diminished here.

Whoever thinks that the Nazis will never come to power because there are no communists is simply an ideal statement


Revenge, revenge, revenge and hatred of Jews and Slavs are more reasons for the arrival of the Nazis than the red beast of the East


I can see a white victory and the Nazis keep coming to power in Germany

 

[Pimli]

Republic is never possible


(Most White Russians were royalists, just because they didn't call for the tsar to be restored doesn't mean they didn't want to.)

In reality, the idea of restoring the monarchy had no support from any of the main white factions.

 

[ahmedali]

Being able to export their grain to the international market would have been great for both Russian peasants and farmers.

The 1921 famine would still have happened, and had the effect of starving out all opposition to the White faction in charge of Petrograd and Moscow. Denikin/Wrangel have the greatest chances of leading a White Russia, although Yudenich is a likely alternative.

All White generals agreed that the future of the Russian government should be determined by an 'acceptable' Constituent Assembly. Right-wing military dictatorship was the norm, not the anomaly for interwar Central-Eastern European governments. Economic policy would have been a continuation of Romanov-era industrialization, which, with access to international markets and loans, would have led to more development than a Russia without.

Whichever warlord wins this Second Civil War, there would not have been 'the final dissolution of Russia': the ephemeral states of the Russian Civil War were far too small and militarily weak anyway to resist re-absorption back into a White Russia.

This is true, but I think that Azerbaijan, Bukhara, Kokand, the Baltic, Poland and Finland will continue to be independent and the first three may survive.


(Armenia is less likely to remain independent because Turkey would annex them if the Soviets did not do so or divide them between Azerbaijanis, Turkey and Georgia)


(Georgia had their army very weak, Turks and Azeris have unitary demands in Georgia, so their division between Azerbaijan, Turkey and white-ruled Russia is more likely)


Central Asia was rebellious until 1935 and the Krezinski government recognized their independence, so the whites would leave the Muslim princes alone.


If the Bolsheviks are weaker, then the Baku Commune may be suppressed by the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and therefore there will be no red invasion of Azerbaijan


The Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan will survive

 

[ahmedali]

In reality, the idea of restoring the monarchy had no support from any of the main white factions.

Denikin, Uniditch and Wrangel are basically royalist


But they did not announce their desires publicly for fear of evaporating support. If they win, the monarchy will be restored after a short period of victory.

 

[marktaha]

The logic of 'why Nazis will came to power in Germany if Reds loose the Civil War in Russia' is rather simple. Germany is a next logical focal point for the international communist movement, so defeat of the communism in Russia would make communism in Germany stronger.

Which would provoke a greater support of the German elites of the Nazi and Nazi-adjacent movements to combat greater communist influences. As an added bonus German communists would also be free of Moscow meddling and 'Russian puppets' brand that hampered them historically.

Logically, White Russia basically guarantees either Red or Brown Germany with latter being much more probable than the former.

Two authoritarian regimes fought each other in 1914 and their rulers were cousins!

 

[sarahz]

I can see an alliance with Mussolini and a military-conservative Germany, meaning that this new triple alliance trounces the WAllies in a WW2.

Depends how long the White versus White and possibly Green Civil wars last after victory. The only thing keeping them vaguely keeping them together is the Communists. Heck give it ten years and there may be another revolution the Whites have plenty of nasty types that could provoke it and without Stalin, probably, history wont be kind as they will not be made to look better by the comparison.

 

[Shiva]

Republic is never possible

(Most White Russians were royalists, just because they didn't call for the tsar to be restored doesn't mean they didn't want to.)

So the white victory means the restoration of the monarchy of the Vladimirovich branch of the Romanov dynasty

The recovery and development of the white system depends on who is the ruler

(Pyotr Wrangel is your man if you want someone who is competent, worthy of management, less corrupt, willing to accept a constitutional monarchy with a focus on developing the country)

The rest were hard-core reactionaries who saw anything before 1905, the golden age of Russia

I could see a situation similar to Franco's Spain, where there is a 'throne' and the military government is the regent, but the throne is left vacant until the right candidate is found. But even if they did find such a person to be Tsar, I could see them being a puppet with no power and the Russian Junta still being in control.

 

[ahmedali]

I could see a situation similar to Franco's Spain, where there is a 'throne' and the military government is the regent, but the throne is left vacant until the right candidate is found. But even if they did find such a person to be Tsar, I could see them being a puppet with no power and the Russian Junta still being in control.

I do not think that the nomination of a family other than the Romanovs, even if they were Orthodox, would be considered by the White Russians.


(In the case of the Bulgarian branch of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or the Greek Glocksburg, or Hohenzollern, Romania, or the Serbian royal family, who were all Orthodox, I do not see them forming a new Russian royal family)


The Romanovs ruled the country for more than three centuries and the Vladimirovich branch existed (and they became the official claimant to the Russian throne)


Another descendant of Rurik would have been more likely to be crowned Tsar, but even those loyal to Romanov and Zemsky Sobor do not seem realistic.


Hungary It is true that the Hungarians hated the Habsburgs, but nevertheless preferred the survival of the monarchy


But the Hungarian legislators never accepted another Catholic dynasty (Bourbon, Savoy, Braganza, Hohenzollern-Sigmargen, Wittlisbach, the still-Catholic King of Romania, the son of King Charles of Belgium, or some other Hungarian nobleman).


Especially with the person legally crowned as King of Hungary and his still-living son (Karl Otto) and Horthy impressed as the regent and unofficial king of Hungary.


There was a basis for Franco's bid for the Spanish throne to Otto (the Habsburgs once ruled Spain)


But I cannot see Russian Horthy or Franco (Wrangel or Denikin) presenting the Russian throne to Boris III's brother Kirill, or Nicholas, Carol II's brother, or to one of Constantine I's sons or brothers


Or even Ballantine Hungary, who was the Romanovs, despite being Habsburgs


Especially if Grand Duke Kirill and his son Vladimir are alive

 

[lafollette]

Republic is never possible


(Most White Russians were royalists, just because they didn't call for the tsar to be restored doesn't mean they didn't want to.)


So the white victory means the restoration of the monarchy of the Vladimirovich branch of the Romanov dynasty


The recovery and development of the white system depends on who is the ruler


(Pyotr Wrangel is your man if you want someone who is competent, worthy of management, less corrupt, willing to accept a constitutional monarchy with a focus on developing the country)


The rest were hard-core reactionaries who saw anything before 1905, the golden age of Russia

"If I raise the monarchist flag, I will lose half my followers. If I raise the republican flag, I will lose half my followers."

No, Denikin is not going to restore the monarchy.

I stand by my opinion that under the rule of the Whites, Russia would almost certainly not develop its industry as under the rule of the Bolsheviks. The Great Depression would probably severely damage its economy, just as it damaged the Polish economy.

Russia will have access to French loans and international trade: pre-1914 industrial growth would have continued in the event of a White victory.

Again, it was not fear of communists that made the NSDAP the largest party in Germany, but because Hitler's propanda reached the Germans more effectively than the communist propaganda. Without a rival of the second revolutionary party, the Nazis might have won even earlier.

Even after the ban on public speaking was lifted, the Nazis remained a fringe party until the KPD began to become more prominent.

Whoever thinks that the Nazis will never come to power because there are no communists is simply an ideal statement


Revenge, revenge, revenge and hatred of Jews and Slavs are more reasons for the arrival of the Nazis than the red beast of the East


I can see a white victory and the Nazis keep coming to power in Germany

The KPD will neither appear or actually be as strong as they were without Comintern help.

This is true, but I think that Azerbaijan, Bukhara, Kokand, the Baltic, Poland and Finland will continue to be independent and the first three may survive.


(Armenia is less likely to remain independent because Turkey would annex them if the Soviets did not do so or divide them between Azerbaijanis, Turkey and Georgia)


(Georgia had their army very weak, Turks and Azeris have unitary demands in Georgia, so their division between Azerbaijan, Turkey and white-ruled Russia is more likely)


Central Asia was rebellious until 1935 and the Krezinski government recognized their independence, so the whites would leave the Muslim princes alone.


If the Bolsheviks are weaker, then the Baku Commune may be suppressed by the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and therefore there will be no red invasion of Azerbaijan


The Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan will survive

A Curzon Line Poland and Finland would have survived, but the Turkic independence movements?

There is no way that the Whites would have allowed their independence, especially since doing so would mean a posthumous victory for the Young Turks.

 

[Shiva]

I do not think that the nomination of a family other than the Romanovs, even if they were Orthodox, would be considered by the White Russians.


(In the case of the Bulgarian branch of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or the Greek Glocksburg, or Hohenzollern, Romania, or the Serbian royal family, who were all Orthodox, I do not see them forming a new Russian royal family)


The Romanovs ruled the country for more than three centuries and the Vladimirovich branch existed (and they became the official claimant to the Russian throne)


Another descendant of Rurik would have been more likely to be crowned Tsar, but even those loyal to Romanov and Zemsky Sobor do not seem realistic.


Hungary It is true that the Hungarians hated the Habsburgs, but nevertheless preferred the survival of the monarchy


But the Hungarian legislators never accepted another Catholic dynasty (Bourbon, Savoy, Braganza, Hohenzollern-Sigmargen, Wittlisbach, the still-Catholic King of Romania, the son of King Charles of Belgium, or some other Hungarian nobleman).


Especially with the person legally crowned as King of Hungary and his still-living son (Karl Otto) and Horthy impressed as the regent and unofficial king of Hungary.


There was a basis for Franco's bid for the Spanish throne to Otto (the Habsburgs once ruled Spain)


But I cannot see Russian Horthy or Franco (Wrangel or Denikin) presenting the Russian throne to Boris III's brother Kirill, or Nicholas, Carol II's brother, or to one of Constantine I's sons or brothers


Or even Ballantine Hungary, who was the Romanovs, despite being Habsburgs


Especially if Grand Duke Kirill and his son Vladimir are alive

Well my idea is that the 'Russian Franco' could declare that there is a crown as a sop to the monarchists, and then just leave it vacant while he actually rules Russia. Like Franco he could leave it vacant for his entire rule until his death and then leave sorting it out to either a declared will and testament, or just declare the Tsardom permanently scrapped.

Whatever is most politically useful for such a ruler, even if he later felt compelled to choose someone to fill the role, that role would be highly restricted like the British Monarch (or possibly MORE restricted) and the Russian Franco would have the actual power.

It is possible that a young male Romanov that is still a child is quietly groomed to be a new Tsar, one who knows to toe the party line and is officially crowned as an adult. Just a thought.

 

[raharris1973]

My own view is that the presence of a White Russia allied with France on the international stage would have at least mitigated the effects of the 1920s-1930s farm crisis due to the influx of Russian agricultural products into the markets of the UK and the USA.

That depends - was the agricultural crisis one of food shortages [Russian exports can help with that], or of oversupply hurting farm incomes [Russian exports will make that worse].

 

[ahmedali]

"If I raise the monarchist flag, I will lose half my followers. If I raise the republican flag, I will lose half my followers."

No, Denikin is not going to restore the monarchy.

Russia will have access to French loans and international trade: pre-1914 industrial growth would have continued in the event of a White victory.

Even after the ban on public speaking was lifted, the Nazis remained a fringe party until the KPD began to become more prominent.

The KPD will neither appear or actually be as strong as they were without Comintern help.

A Curzon Line Poland and Finland would have survived, but the Turkic independence movements?

There is no way that the Whites would have allowed their independence, especially since doing so would mean a posthumous victory for the Young Turks.

He said it when the victory of the Whites was not guaranteed victory makes it different and the restoration of the Romanov monarchy more certain


In fact it was the Bolsheviks who defeated the Turkish movements (Krezinsky and the Whites largely left the Bukhara princes alone)


Without the Bolsheviks and their allies young Bukhari and the Baku Commune


The Khanates of Khiva, Bukhara and the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan have greater chances of survival, especially with Turkish (and British) support.


(The British see the former as insulating from the Russians, and the latter as very tempting because of its oil)


Nonsense Versailles was a stronger reason than the Reds


(The Germans all hated the treaty very much, and even the most moderate of them tried to cancel it, so the Nazis were inevitable after that treaty)