How would've WW2 went if Whites won Russian Civil War?

Would have WW2 happened if Whites won Russian Civil War?

  • Yes

    Votes: 48 56.5%
  • No

    Votes: 37 43.5%

  • Total voters
    85
Let's say in this timeline, the Whites win Russian Civil War. How would it go throughout 1920's and 1930s? Would have Hitler rise to power? Would Great Depression affect Russia? In this alternate timeline what does Russia do in WW2 if it happens and how would it end up? I heard many people said that if White Army won, then Russia would've been an authoritarian dictatorship led by Kolchak.
 
There wouldn't have been a WWII as we know it. The success of the Russian Revolution really fanned the flames of anti-communist and anti-Leftist hysteria worldwide. If the Bolsheviks fail to take over and there's no other, similar Left anticapitalist revolution anywhere in the world those fears won't exist. That also means you won't get the unique situation which led to Hitler becoming Chancellor.
 
Russia could went anywere, from moderate socialism to Black Hunderts nationalism, likely would just turn into military dictatorship, ruled by one of Civil War generals.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
One thing I wonder is that in a white victory could the civil war continue a Russian warlord era sense?

Where all the warlords fight amongst themselves while fighting the communist remnants and various separatist movements.
 
One thing I wonder is that in a white victory could the civil war continue a Russian warlord era sense?

Where all the warlords fight amongst themselves while fighting the communist remnants and various separatist movements.

That seems most likely given the disunity among the various White Generals.
 
There wouldn't have been a WWII as we know it. The success of the Russian Revolution really fanned the flames of anti-communist and anti-Leftist hysteria worldwide. If the Bolsheviks fail to take over and there's no other, similar Left anticapitalist revolution anywhere in the world those fears won't exist. That also means you won't get the unique situation which led to Hitler becoming Chancellor.

'If' is the operative word here. Bolshivk failure does not guarantee a lack of socialist & Communist activity & revolutions globally. those were due more to local conditions and existing Marxist leaders than Soviet agitation. The course of those movements changes in many cases, but not all, without soviet assistance, but they will still be there. In any case the assumption the nazi rise was wholly dependent on the Bolshevik bogeyman rather ignores then deep racist foundations of the nazis. I is correct Hitler played on upper class fears of the reds, but this is often overstated and overlooks the strong foundation of racism that persuaded voters for the nazis. My take is Hitler can write effective speeches railing against the Jewish led "Marxists", Socialists, Slavs, mongrel nations, ect... without a Stalinist state in the east. That Marxist movements & activist parties are still likely to exist provides a scary Red Clown to frighten middle class voters with.
 
'If' is the operative word here. Bolshivk failure does not guarantee a lack of socialist & Communist activity & revolutions globally. those were due more to local conditions and existing Marxist leaders than Soviet agitation. The course of those movements changes in many cases, but not all, without soviet assistance, but they will still be there. In any case the assumption the nazi rise was wholly dependent on the Bolshevik bogeyman rather ignores then deep racist foundations of the nazis. I is correct Hitler played on upper class fears of the reds, but this is often overstated and overlooks the strong foundation of racism that persuaded voters for the nazis. My take is Hitler can write effective speeches railing against the Jewish led "Marxists", Socialists, Slavs, mongrel nations, ect... without a Stalinist state in the east. That Marxist movements & activist parties are still likely to exist provides a scary Red Clown to frighten middle class voters with.

The big difference is, prior to the Russian Revolution, there was the perception that Red agitation could be contained especially when you had the rise of reformist Social Democratic parties to capture sympathetic though less radical voters. Once the October Revolution happened the situation completely changed with revolutionary groups vindicated, non-revolutionary groups looking less effectual and the status quo seeing far more urgency to act quickly. No Soviet menace to the east actively and openly working with organizations like the KPD means his rants about a secret, evil conspiracy threatening German society lose the veneer of plausibility that gave people a reason to listen. It says something the first ever Red Scare in history was in direct response to the proven threat the Russian Revolution created.

Plus the fact that the KPD even existed in the first place, as a direct result of the October Revolution, meant there was a strong divide between the SDP and the KPD in the Reichstag coupled with pressure from Moscow preventing a governing coalition from forming. No Russian Revolution means, even if you still have that split in the German Left, there won't be the hardline coming down from Moscow and the Comintern blocking cooperation to freeze out the NSDAP.
 
Here I do not think the "Whites" are united enough to do more than prevent the Bolsheviks securing power and forming the USSR, instead the civil war ends with some power vacuum that might lead to a new republic as I doubt the monarchists have enough power to get anything like a restoration. My guess is that the Socialist parties fight against the Bolsheviks and emerge part of the new coalition drafting a new government. So you have an unstable democracy with weakened and more acrimonious parties, a more internally divided populace but the Russian middle-class was weaker and the peasantry more numerous. A sort-of fascist party might float on the peasantry's discontent. And I assume the western powers intervened better and supported it too. That likely means a more sustained rebuilding and loan structure towards Europe, that likely derails the Depression, and with the lack of a Communist government the Red Scare is real but loses traction as the German democracy survives and Russia continues to reform itself. Failed revolution should let the Socialists hold power with other reformist parties through the rocky rebuilding years. If we have wars they will be power on power, the old alliances likely never reform and a globe spanning war never has the alignment of stars to kick off.
 
Russia could went anywere, from moderate socialism to Black Hunderts nationalism, likely would just turn into military dictatorship, ruled by one of Civil War generals.
This.

The pseudo fascist Slavic rule in Russia would be feared as a worse version of the Tsar.
For example this. If there's an economic dislocation in the '30 (and there probably will be) the country could develop it's own form of authoritarianism. Which would almost certainly include Pan-Slavism and anti-Semitism. Sigh, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In general I'd expect a fascist Russia to be aligned with other authoritarian states and/or those without areas of geo-political conflict. Russia and Britain were traditional rivals (e.g. Central Asia) so even if they had similar political systems in the absence of a common threat (the Nazi analogue) I could see them being hostile towards each other. Japan is a traditional enemy, and looks on Russia as room for expansion. China is a possibility.

In my EDC Russia (then Social Democrat) was coup'd by a grand coalition of extremists that unified around a programme they could all live with: a windy mix of nationalism, corporatism, anti-liberalism, anti-socialism, social conservatism and reactionary Orthodox Christianity with generous helpings of militarism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and the Manifest Destiny of the Slavic Peoples to rule Eurasia....
They also began a rather brutal but undeniably effective programme of forced draught industrialisation and military expansion. And started the Eastern War.
 

samcster94

Banned
This.


For example this. If there's an economic dislocation in the '30 (and there probably will be) the country could develop it's own form of authoritarianism. Which would almost certainly include Pan-Slavism and anti-Semitism. Sigh, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In general I'd expect a fascist Russia to be aligned with other authoritarian states and/or those without areas of geo-political conflict. Russia and Britain were traditional rivals (e.g. Central Asia) so even if they had similar political systems in the absence of a common threat (the Nazi analogue) I could see them being hostile towards each other. Japan is a traditional enemy, and looks on Russia as room for expansion. China is a possibility.

In my EDC Russia (then Social Democrat) was coup'd by a grand coalition of extremists that unified around a programme they could all live with: a windy mix of nationalism, corporatism, anti-liberalism, anti-socialism, social conservatism and reactionary Orthodox Christianity with generous helpings of militarism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and the Manifest Destiny of the Slavic Peoples to rule Eurasia....
They also began a rather brutal but undeniably effective programme of forced draught industrialisation and military expansion. And started the Eastern War.
That is rather dark, and that sounds like something OTL avoided(the USSR when not run by Stalin was still pretty awful but was nowhere near that evil).
 
That is rather dark, and that sounds like something OTL avoided(the USSR when not run by Stalin was still pretty awful but was nowhere near that evil).
Yeah the Eastern War was pretty nasty, a rather successful eradication programme for enemies of society, drugged up convict battalions and extensive use of chemical, biological and (eventually) nuclear weapons. There are still (~2020) so parts of Eastern Europe that make OTL's Zone Rouge look like good picnic spots.
However the war against the "Slavic Hordes"[1] did lead to the formation of the European Federation[2], and the benefits of that bloc[3].



[1] An unpopular term given the integration of more parts of the former Russian Empire into EuroFed. The Poles (significant players in EuroFed) really don't approve.

[2] An the willingness to act decisively against later outbreaks of enthusiasm for genocide, most notably the joint Intervention (with Canada and the NEC) against the New Confederacy in the '50s.


[3] Human sub-orbital flight in 1948 and the subsequent expansion into space, the containment of the British Republic the management of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire et cetera.
 
Could or would the fractious "White" Coalition have held the enormity of Russia together ?

There's the Russian tradition of strong centralised Government but around the unifying figure of the Tsar (until 1917). Does the new Russia return a Tsar to the throne (Grand Duke Michael perhaps ?) or do we have a "strong man" ?

As said elsewhere, the failure of democracy and the rise of authoritarian nationalism throughout eastern and central Europe was in large part down to the fear of Soviet-style revolution which encouraged business and the military to turn away from the uncertainties of democracy to the certainties of nationalist dictatorship.

There is an assumption a non-Bolshevik Russia might be expansionist and follow the doctrine of Peter the Great - I suspect it wouldn't have the means- would we have seen industrialisation in Russia or would the fear of renewed politicisation of the workers put a brake on economic development leaving Russia a conservative backwater not really engaging with Europe ?

No Bolshevism doesn't guarantee democracy in Germany - there would be no Nazis but you could see an erosion of democracy in favour of increasing power for the President - who would it be post-Hindenburg in a world without Hitler ?
 

samcster94

Banned
Yeah the Eastern War was pretty nasty, a rather successful eradication programme for enemies of society, drugged up convict battalions and extensive use of chemical, biological and (eventually) nuclear weapons. There are still (~2020) so parts of Eastern Europe that make OTL's Zone Rouge look like good picnic spots.
However the war against the "Slavic Hordes"[1] did lead to the formation of the European Federation[2], and the benefits of that bloc[3].



[1] An unpopular term given the integration of more parts of the former Russian Empire into EuroFed. The Poles (significant players in EuroFed) really don't approve.

[2] An the willingness to act decisively against later outbreaks of enthusiasm for genocide, most notably the joint Intervention (with Canada and the NEC) against the New Confederacy in the '50s.

[3] Human sub-orbital flight in 1948 and the subsequent expansion into space, the containment of the British Republic the management of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire et cetera.
I can easily imagine an alt-Holocaust(or something horrible that comes close) given the obvious anti-Semitism.
 

samcster94

Banned
Could or would the fractious "White" Coalition have held the enormity of Russia together ?

There's the Russian tradition of strong centralised Government but around the unifying figure of the Tsar (until 1917). Does the new Russia return a Tsar to the throne (Grand Duke Michael perhaps ?) or do we have a "strong man" ?

As said elsewhere, the failure of democracy and the rise of authoritarian nationalism throughout eastern and central Europe was in large part down to the fear of Soviet-style revolution which encouraged business and the military to turn away from the uncertainties of democracy to the certainties of nationalist dictatorship.

There is an assumption a non-Bolshevik Russia might be expansionist and follow the doctrine of Peter the Great - I suspect it wouldn't have the means- would we have seen industrialisation in Russia or would the fear of renewed politicisation of the workers put a brake on economic development leaving Russia a conservative backwater not really engaging with Europe ?

No Bolshevism doesn't guarantee democracy in Germany - there would be no Nazis but you could see an erosion of democracy in favour of increasing power for the President - who would it be post-Hindenburg in a world without Hitler ?
Probably some military guy.
 
In my EDC Russia (then Social Democrat) was coup'd by a grand coalition of extremists that unified around a programme they could all live with: a windy mix of nationalism, corporatism, anti-liberalism, anti-socialism, social conservatism and reactionary Orthodox Christianity with generous helpings of militarism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and the Manifest Destiny of the Slavic Peoples to rule Eurasia

When I turn the tables so to speak, leaving Germany and A-H undefeated, Russia defeated and forced to peace I tried my best to avoid either an authoritarian government ab initio or the weak republic falling to reactionaries much as you map out. Obviously the Communists were responsible for untold misery, death and exploitation of Russia for some seven odd decades, fascist style government would be as potentially evil, another mass murdering of Jews and minorities in Russia even as we side step it in Germany? What an awful twist of fate and sad bit of unavoidable history. As much as I could see it and think it is plausible, I would prefer to deny it outright. So does this argue for a German led intervention that restores a monarchy and imposes an "orderly" government? I think Germany is too exhausted and its people apathetic about winning the peace once the war is "won." The Allies failed to intervene and I wonder if they would permit Germany any leeway to do so post-war? Thus I get the OTL Bolsheviks or your right-wing opposite as I thread the needle to get a democracy in Russia. Would Russia be able to avoid the full craziness if it got a series of Presidential strongmen who preserve the illusion of democracy long enough for it to actually function instead?

As an aside I gave weight to the German Social Democrats and having them effectively the tail wagging the dog in coalition with other "liberal" parties building a relationship with the fledgling leftier Social Democrat Russian Republic, helping avoid a collapse as both economies recover from the war and can agree to peace in the East. Would your right-wing Russia be an enemy to German led Europe or find its at least nominally Monarchist and conservative veneer enough to prefer over the democracies?
 
Top