Russian Civil War Question

OK, given the situation as follows:

-> Whites control the Ukraine, Belarus, Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia
-> Petrograd has fallen to the whites, but unable to capture Moscow
-> Greater focus for unity among white forces due to survival of the Tsarviech

what is the most likely outcome for the war?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
OK, given the situation as follows:

-> Whites control the Ukraine, Belarus, Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia
-> Petrograd has fallen to the whites, but unable to capture Moscow
-> Greater focus for unity among white forces due to survival of the Tsarviech

what is the most likely outcome for the war?

Close-run thing: controlling Moscow in Russia is a lot like controlling Paris: it's not merely the capital, it's also a major, essential rail hub and a core industrial zone of the empire. I give it to the reds mostly because even the Tsarevich wouldn't be able to break some of the ego problems in the white forces in the first place.
 
Close-run thing: controlling Moscow in Russia is a lot like controlling Paris: it's not merely the capital, it's also a major, essential rail hub and a core industrial zone of the empire. I give it to the reds mostly because even the Tsarevich wouldn't be able to break some of the ego problems in the white forces in the first place.

Any chance of a stalemate? Whites manage to keep control of the Ukraine and Belarus until the inevitable Round 2?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Any chance of a stalemate? Whites manage to keep control of the Ukraine and Belarus until the inevitable Round 2?

That was my initial thought actually, yes it likely leads to a rather long and painful stalemate. But I suspect the peripheral regions would not have the weight to hold if the soviets hold core Russia without something breaking them...
 
On the contrary, if they had just dug in in the Ukraine, the Bolshies would never have been able to pry them out. Unfortunately, Denikin believed it was his responsibility to try and retake Moscow. It would take a direct order from the Tsarevich to convince him otherwise.
 
On the contrary, if they had just dug in in the Ukraine, the Bolshies would never have been able to pry them out. Unfortunately, Denikin believed it was his responsibility to try and retake Moscow. It would take a direct order from the Tsarevich to convince him otherwise.

Why not?

The Red Army organisation and logistical infrastructure was far superior to any White Army group. It all depends on the attitude of the interventionist powers. Without their support the Whites lose anyway.
 
it all really depends on how much support the western powers give. becuase i imagine that if the whites are more unified then they will get more support.
another important point was with the way the two powers treated everyday people. both of them treated the peasants (most of which didn't support the reds) pretty bad, yet the whites were particulary bad and weren't effective in their extortion of supple from them. The reds were pretty good at this as they used war communism. They should have had an advantage in OTL becuase most peasants were social -revolutionaries (the main party the whites supported) but they failed to treat them well.
so, if the whites treat the peasants better, and are better supplied the western powers then they could easily win especially if they have petrograd and most of russia minus the moscow area.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Why not?

The Red Army organisation and logistical infrastructure was far superior to any White Army group. It all depends on the attitude of the interventionist powers. Without their support the Whites lose anyway.
That's certainly true, and the Whites were even worse than the Reds in winning the hearts and minds of the Russian peasantry. The peasants were always the keys to Russia.
 
It would matter far if you give the Whites a strong leader, especially in the beginning, if you do that they can knock-out the Reds instead of just bitch-slapping them.
 
Top