If Whites win Russian Revolution, they still expand?

Whether thanks to help from expeditionary forces from America, Japan, etc or whatever means, Lenin dies, whatever- The Whites instead of the Reds win the Russian Revolution sometime around 1918-19. Does the new "democratic" Russia go on to conquer Central Asia, Caucasus, White Russia, and Ukraine (Little Russia/Ruthenia)? Does a democratic Russia possibly go fascist and take Ukraine, White Russia, and the Baltics, along with half of Poland in a deal with Hitler? Would Hitler view the Russians as less than a threat and not deal like he did with Stalin, or would he view them like Bulgaria, Hungary, or Italy; nice to have as lesser allies as long as they obeyed his overall aims.

Can we see independent nations like Tuva, Ukraine, White Russia (Belarus), Bukhara (technically always independent emirate, but a Russian protectorate from the 1700s), Kokand, and Kazakhstan. If we see independent nations east of the Urals (except sparsely populated Siberia and along the Trans-Siberian RR easily goes Russian) then could we see a China that doesn't take back Xinjiang in the 1930s thanks to pan-Turkic policies of these Central Asian states, we could then go on to butterfly away the PRC since there would be no support from a non-existent USSR, and even butterfly away the 1951-1959 conquest of Tibet by China allowing Tibet to be independent.
 
'White' Russia is unlikely to be democratic in any meaningful sense, even if the more liberal forces among the Whites come out on top.

As to its expansionist policies - it would almost certainly try. THe Bolshevik acceptnce of secession was considered so outrageously weird for its timne, even the USSR in effect reversed it. Any other representative of the Russian state would pursue claims to the country's prewar territories.

How successfully? I don't think very, given the tenuous hold on power and the limited resources a successor government to the Romanovs would have. Getting back Poland, Finlannd or the Baltics is certainly out of the question. Central Asian territories are more likely to be reconquered, and the Caucasus may simply be handed over to it in the course of the Entente division of the Ottoman Empire.
 
Given the mess of contending factions it was OTL, a long lasting Ukraine also seems unlikely: the Poles are unlikely to support an independent Ukrainian state due to their desire to pursue historical territorial claims, and nobody else who might want to is in a position to help after an entente victory. I'm a bit more positive about the possibility of Armenia and Georgia surviving (Although Armenia might just call in the Russians for protection if Kemal's victories aren't butterflied away).
 
I doubt Hitler would get close to power if Communism was defeated in Russia.

The "Whites" covered a lot of ideological and cultural space. Even if they crush the Bolsheviks there will be a lot of sorting going on there which would surely affect the future trajectory of Russia.
 
Hitler didn't get that much of the vote until the Great Depression in our Soviet Union-endowed world, and the hard left-left split is going to happen in Germany regardless. The lack of a USSR might keep Hitler from power, true, but consider that without being considered agents of a foreign power, the hard left might do _better_ than OTL in Germany. Confident statements of Hitler not coming to power sans the Revolution strike me as a right-wing meme ultimately grounded in "everything bad in the 20th century comes from 1917."
 

TinyTartar

Banned
I doubt Hitler would get close to power if Communism was defeated in Russia.

The "Whites" covered a lot of ideological and cultural space. Even if they crush the Bolsheviks there will be a lot of sorting going on there which would surely affect the future trajectory of Russia.

I think I've said this before, but if you look at Hitler's electoral success, it comes from mostly lower middle class and working class voters who were drawn in by anti-Slavic racism and anti-Semitism, and these two things were NOT AT ALL new to Germany.

Hitler's panic mongering about the Reds was effective in gaining the support from the elites to consolidate his rule, but it was not effective in getting votes. Anti-Semitism and Anti-Slavism were what got the Nazis to power. The Eastern Menace was a concept that did not need ideology. Tying that Menace to the Jews was merely rhetorically convenient, but not integral.
 
Given that the event in question takes place after 1900, wouldn't it be better have this thread in the after 1900 subforum?
 
Top