How would WWII play out with a White Russia?

As the title says.

FPotS, let's assume that WWI and B-L goes through, but Lenin manages to get killed, and the Reds collapse. The provisional Russian government manages to reform into a democratic, if not corrupt republic. However, the Nazis still manage to come to power in Germany once the Depression hits, albeit slightly weaker due to the lack of the 'Communist menace'.

How would WWII play out, with a White Russia? How would they fare against the Nazis if they invaded? If they win, what would post-war Europe and the rest of the world look like?
 
So there's maybe no Polish-Soviet war, which improves relations between the two countries, which means no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which quite possibly means WW2 never actually starts.
 
Hitler writes a book about the evils of Jewish Bolshevism just over the bor...oh.

Yeah no WWII, or at least not in any recognisable sense.
 
While the ITTL Russian's friendlier relationship with the West would certainly make an alliance more feasible, it must be kept in mind: would this Russian Republic be anything like as capable of the Soviets in building the requisite military-industrial to fight WW2? The "corrupt" part suggests not...
 
They'd probably have a decently-led army though, and without all the politicking they might get an earlier start and more outside help, and so do better despite worse technology.
 
They'd probably have a decently-led army though, and without all the politicking they might get an earlier start and more outside help, and so do better despite worse technology.

Depends on how bad their corruption is, as that kind of thing can be horrendously toxic to morale, training, and leadership. Look at the ARVN in the 60's/70's or the Russian Army in the 1990s. And all the aid in the world doesn't mean anything if the state is too incompetent and/or corrupt to properly make use of it (as Tsarist Russia itself amply demonstrated in WW1 and the Iraqis demonstrated in the Iran-Iraq War).

Say what you will about the Soviet Union, but it's state ideology proved an extremely ample motivator for it's forces and populace even before Stalin started tossing Russian patriotism on top of it. And it's administrative apparatus was able to effectively handle the evacuation, mobilization, recovery, and operation of the war industries as well as the distribution of both said war industries products and lend-lease aid with a macroefficiency practically unmatched by any other major combatant. Could a less centralized Republic with a more tenuous hold over the country manage that?
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's why they suffered 10 million military casualties.

Early military incompetence contributed a lot to that. But the heavily centralized state and military apparatus allowed a rapid weaning out of incompetents and the application of accrued wartime experience much more rapidly then might have otherwise been the case. The results of that process, along with the recovery of Soviet war industries, was that the Red Army was able to seize the initiative in late-1942 with tide-turning victories. Over the course of 1943, the further refinement of their technique and the arrival of significant quantities of lend-lease (which was again effectively distributed by the relevant administrative institutions) meant that by 1944 the Red Army was a juggernaut capable of conducting maneuver warfare on a scale that surpassed either the Germans or the Western Allies.

I'm doubtful that a much more corrupt and decentralized Republic could have achieved quite the same. Tsarist Russia in World War I certainly couldn't and it was a rather more decentralized system then Stalin's Soviet Union.

As I observed earlier, the effects of corruption on the military could mean that ITTL's Russian Republic goes into the war with an army just as incompetent as the Red Army at the start of WW2 but without the relevant centralized institutions that enabled the Soviet leadership to rapidly weed out incompetence and conduct rapid reorganization it might not ever manage to improve like the Red Army ultimately did.
 
Last edited:
You assume that a white Russia would be much more corrupt, but that's far from guaranteed.

Actually, the OP is the one who assumes that. I'm just running with the implications of that assumption. :p

Whether a successful White Russian Republic does actually end up as a corrupt morass... that is going to depend quite a bit on what happens both during and immediately after it's consolidation of power. No guarantees there either way.
 
You assume that a white Russia would be much more corrupt, but that's far from guaranteed.

In terms of corruption, more like the state of Illinois, instead of Iraq. Money laundering, fraud, and lots of shit behind the scenes, but not cronyism and putting people who are loyal to you but are terrible at what they do.
 
Hitler writes a book about the evils of Jewish Bolshevism just over the bor...oh.

Yeah no WWII, or at least not in any recognisable sense.

or hitler blames the jewish people for being behind the colapse of the german empire and things remains more or less the same or even worst for the jewish community.
 
In terms of corruption, more like the state of Illinois, instead of Iraq. Money laundering, fraud, and lots of shit behind the scenes, but not cronyism and putting people who are loyal to you but are terrible at what they do.
And that is different from the Soviets, how?
 
For a time in 1941-42 political offers could countermand military officer orders. Also, with no/very limited purges, you end up with an officer corps that is both more competent and possibly also more outgoing, which would go at least some way to making up any (potential) inferiority in terms of technology.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Old September 8th, 2015, 11:32 PM
MattII MattII is offline
Member

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1000 or more
So there's maybe no Polish-Soviet war, which improves relations between the two countries, which means no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which quite possibly means WW2 never actually starts.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
#3 Report Post
Old September 8th, 2015, 11:34 PM
Ingsoc Ingsoc is offline
Member

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 97
Hitler writes a book about the evils of Jewish Bolshevism just over the bor...oh.

Yeah no WWII, or at least not in any recognisable sense


Sure WWII can be knocked away or butterflied by an event as early as White Victory in the Russian Civil War. But, a reasonable analogue could occur.

I think that the Hitler-esque ideology of Lebensbraum and giving continental domination a second try is more plausible with a PoD post- revolution and post-Brest-Litovsk than it is with a scenario where there is no revolution and Brest-Litovsk.

A few reasons for this:

a) The Germans retain a memory of actually beating the Russians. It makes contempt for the Russians and the belief that they can be colonized like full non-Europeans more plausible in right-wing German circles than would be the case if the Russians took Berlin in WWI or never got pushed east of Poland.
b) Russian-Allied relations may be worse, the White Government might in retrospect feel more let down than the Western Allies and be more of a mind to consider the French alliance a mistake if they've gone through defeat and revolution and civil war rather than if a Tsarist regime or Provisional Government managed to win or hold on to the end of WWI. Mutual allied acrimony gives German revisionists more of an opportunity.
c) Poland has become independent, and its border with Russia may well be settled violently even with the Whites in power, making Russo-Polish cooperation hard purely for nationalist reasons. In a scenario where the Russian Empire or Provisional Government held on, Poland will either remain either federated with Russia and under its protection or if independent will be in a position where it has to accept the border Russia grants it.

Now could the Germans still be motivated to put a group like the Nazis in power and to launch a war on their eastern neighbors in a White Victory scenario?

Well, it is not predetermined, or super likely, but still plausible -

Without a living Communist state a radical right takeover is harder to swallow, but the memory of the Boleshevik state and sympathetic communist uprisings in Germany can make the powerful feel vulnerable and desirous of protection by a "firm hand".

Anti-semitism can go on with equal force.

Appeasement is a harder sell once Germany starts militarizing and expanding again, because western right-wingers won't need to worry about Communism benefitting.

But it's still not an impossible sell and Russo-Franco-British relations could still be fraught and troubled. Tension over the extent of Russia's borders with Poland, Romania etc could alienate the west. Even if not a communist bogeyman, Britain could excessively fear a right-ist Russian geopolitical bogeyman.

Also, the Nazis, and certainly the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht certainly had no problem being virulently against a right-wing Poland, and was ready t massacre its people and steal its land even though it was not a communist country.
 
Top