Russian Warlords Era?

[Višeslav]

I've recently been thinking about the idea of something similar to a "warlords era" or "warring states period" in 20th century Russia, and I've decided it would be interesting enough for a TL, but I wanted to get some feedback and information from the community before I started.

Now, what I mean by a "Warlords Period" is pretty loose, but basically either a number of small states run by military leaders, the majority of which (in terms of territory) claim to be part of a single Russian state. This could be a messier Russian civil war or a situation where a weak central government is unable to adequately control military rulers and cliques outside of a core area around Moscow and St. Petersburg.

• Has something like this been done before?
  • I've only seen 2 discussion threads and 1 ASB TL on a topic like this, I may be missing something though.
• What's the best POD for a Russian Warlords Era? What I've thought of is either greater disunity on both sides of the Russian civil war leading to something of this sort (the attached map would be an example of this) or the whites winning but not being able to hold their generals in check, resulting in something more similar to the Chinese warlords era.
• Which military (or political) leaders are most likely to become prominent "warlords"? In my map I specifically mentioned Denikin, Kolchak, Yudenich, Kornilov, Diterikhs, Bukeikhanov and von Ungern-Sternberg, how realistic is that?
• What states and forms of government are the most realistic? I figured there would be small but more stable breakaway states on the fringes of the empire with truly Russian warlords in the interior and in either case likely some leftist faction that creates a stable state. Does this make sense?
• How long would this period last? Who might reunify Russia?
• How would the world react to this?

​

The white army elements (shown in the green) are not exactly a centralized army. They are the territories of loosely bound together anti-communist warlords who fight each other as often as they fight their ideologically opposed neighbors. I guess you could say this map is a fusion of both potential PODs. The borders are, obviously, subject to change over time.

 

[Callmesalticidae]

My first thought is that if you had a Muscovy SR, and Denikin has been pushed out of Ukraine (both going off that map) then there’s probably a Free Territory of Ukraine, in whom Muscovy will probably find a better friend than Lenin.

 

[Višeslav]

My first thought is that if you had a Muscovy SR, and Denikin has been pushed out of Ukraine (both going off that map) then there’s probably a Free Territory of Ukraine, in whom Muscovy will probably find a better friend than Lenin.

That's a good point, though the map was not really thought out, more of an outline for the general idea so such things were not considered.

Of course, the possibility is interesting and makes sense. It will mean a change in the map for sure, all of the land in the blue could not possibly be the Free Territory considering the political alignment of the don and Kuban Cossacks. I might revise it so that they are allied with Denikin instead of Ukraine or that the free territory is shown but around as small as OTL.

 

[Callmesalticidae]

That's a good point, though the map was not really thought out, more of an outline for the general idea so such things were not considered.

Of course, the possibility is interesting and makes sense. It will mean a change in the map for sure, all of the land in the blue could not possibly be the Free Territory considering the political alignment of the don and Kuban Cossacks. I might revise it so that they are allied with Denikin instead of Ukraine or that the free territory is shown but around as small as OTL.

Yeah, I know, I’m just spitballing based on the map.

There was also a socialist Transcaucasian Federation for a time, if you don’t mind booting Denikin.

The thing I like the most about the map is that there are multiple socialist/communist “warlords” too. I think the ideal scenario (for my tastes) would involve three or more Red states which switch between friendliness and hostility according to circumstances—IIRC Petrograd is going to have the strongest industrial base, but is also not going to be very tolerant of the other states. I could easily see Muscovy + Ukraine + Transcaucasia (maybe) being good(ish) friends and Moscow sometimes supporting them and sometimes trying to eat them (generally, when the Whites are a danger, Moscow is smart enough to help out, but when the Whites are laying low, Moscow gets edgy).

If there’s no Transcaucasia then Denikin (or whomever is in that region) will probably be the most immediate threat to the Red states, because they have an easy supply route (it’s also possible to get supplies to Vladivostok, but getting those supplies all the way to the border with the Reds is more troublesome, to say nothing of the fact that there are possibly other warlord states you need to route those supplies through).

P.S. Did you make the map yourself?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The thing I like the most about the map is that there are multiple socialist/communist “warlords” too. I think the ideal scenario (for my tastes) would involve three or more Red states which switch between friendliness and hostility according to circumstances—IIRC Petrograd is going to have the strongest industrial base, but is also not going to be very tolerant of the other states. I could easily see Muscovy + Ukraine + Transcaucasia (maybe) being good(ish) friends and Moscow sometimes supporting them and sometimes trying to eat them (generally, when the Whites are a danger, Moscow is smart enough to help out, but when the Whites are laying low, Moscow gets edgy).

This is the most important factor, IMHO, for this to come about. If you have a unified, territorially contiguous, Soviet state then the White Warlords will be limited in duration at best, a fleeting historical footnote being more likely. The industrial and population advantages that the central Russian areas afford the Soviets mean that any outlier states would be up against it in the long term, barring significant foreign aid and succour.

Did you make the map yourself?

Seconded. I really like the look of the map, wouldn’t mind knowing the method of production if you wouldn’t mind sharing?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Fast forward thru the 1920s & 1930s. France made a effort to create a 'Little Entente' out of central European nations. Poland, Rumania were the two principle. Its possible several other nations here would be amenable to such a coalition. Theres still a lot of local tensions over ethnic groups & borders, but a anti German Entente is possible. If a aggressively revanchist German government develops as OTL France may be more successful at boxing Germany in. Vs the failed effort of OTL.

 

[Byzantion]

I've recently been thinking about the idea of something similar to a "warlords era" or "warring states period" in 20th century Russia, and I've decided it would be interesting enough for a TL, but I wanted to get some feedback and information from the community before I started.

Now, what I mean by a "Warlords Period" is pretty loose, but basically either a number of small states run by military leaders, the majority of which (in terms of territory) claim to be part of a single Russian state. This could be a messier Russian civil war or a situation where a weak central government is unable to adequately control military rulers and cliques outside of a core area around Moscow and St. Petersburg.

• Has something like this been done before?
  • I've only seen 2 discussion threads and 1 ASB TL on a topic like this, I may be missing something though.
• What's the best POD for a Russian Warlords Era? What I've thought of is either greater disunity on both sides of the Russian civil war leading to something of this sort (the attached map would be an example of this) or the whites winning but not being able to hold their generals in check, resulting in something more similar to the Chinese warlords era.
• Which military (or political) leaders are most likely to become prominent "warlords"? In my map I specifically mentioned Denikin, Kolchak, Yudenich, Kornilov, Diterikhs, Bukeikhanov and von Ungern-Sternberg, how realistic is that?
• What states and forms of government are the most realistic? I figured there would be small but more stable breakaway states on the fringes of the empire with truly Russian warlords in the interior and in either case likely some leftist faction that creates a stable state. Does this make sense?
• How long would this period last? Who might reunify Russia?
• How would the world react to this?

​

The white army elements (shown in the green) are not exactly a centralized army. They are the territories of loosely bound together anti-communist warlords who fight each other as often as they fight their ideologically opposed neighbors. I guess you could say this map is a fusion of both potential PODs. The borders are, obviously, subject to change over time.

Ungern-Sternberg in Manchuria.

 

[Višeslav]

P.S. Did you make the map yourself?

Seconded. I really like the look of the map, wouldn’t mind knowing the method of production if you wouldn’t mind sharing?

I did make the map myself, I'm glad you like it. I made it in Photoshop, so the tools I used probably don't translate directly into other software, but I'll try to explain it as generally as possible. If I ever get the chance I might give a step-by step tutorial with screenshots in my map thread.

How to make a map like the one in the first post:

1. A solid base: Obviously I start with a base map. You've both been doing this longer than me judging by when you joined the site, so I assume you know how to find or make a good one.
   1. Pick a base map that shows more than just the countries you want to focus on.
2. Make the land: Keep the land and sea as separate layers. In Photoshop this can be done by selecting the land, filling that space in a new layer and filling a rectangle in a layer under it with the color for the water. I usually start with just the main map and then expand the canvas afterwards, though I'm not sure if all image editing software can do this. A big part of the style is the grayish light colors.
   1. The Color I use for the land is an off-white, the code for it is #edf4ed
   2. I use a very light grayish blue for the sea. Its code is #d5e4eb
3. Define the coast: Give the land a 1-pixel stroke in a very dark color. I usually go with a grey-black or a very dark space blue or Prussian blue. Create another layer of land (underneath all other land layers but above the sea layer) and give it a somewhat wide stroke (I usually go with 5-7 px depending on the image size) in a very light, almost white, blue (#f2f6f8 is what I go for), this makes the stroke around the other land layer more visible and I just like how it looks. If possible, set the fill of the layer with the dark stroke to 0 so only the effect is visible, and put it above all the other layers.
4. Draw in the borders: In a land layer, ideally below the dark stroke, draw in the borders. I use a light grey-red color: #d6ccc6 . Make sure that the borders have no gaps in them
5. Filling the countries: once you have borders you're happy with, select the area inside a country you want to fill. Only color/fill the countries that you want to focus on, you should leave a few countries unfilled, these would be the ones that the map doesn't really focus on.
   1. Pick light grayish colors. In terms of the Photoshop color picking box, pick colors roughly in top right 1/9th of the box. Examples of colors I used are: #c1e0cd, #f0c6c6, #eac9b2, #e0dfc1, and #e0c1c1
   2. Show closely affiliated states (protectorates and colonies, members of coalitions, or members of international unions) in slightly but visibly different shades of the same color
6. Add the inner glow: One of the key parts of my mapping style is the inner glow effect. The following is an explanation of how to do this in photoshop. First, in a new layer, fill all the space you want to apply the glow to with one color (or multiple, it doesn't matter, just fill it all). Set that layer's fill to 0. Add an inner glow. The color should be a much darker shade of the fill color for that state or group of states. Set the blend mode to normal, opacity to 70%, noise to 0, technique: softer, source: edge, choke: 75, size: I usually go with 5 or 7, here it's 7 but I feel it's too thick. basically make a somewhat thick line around the inside of the border. Range should be 50%, jitter should be 0. If you're not using photoshop Just make a kind of thick line in a darker color around the inside edges that maintains a roughly consistent width at all times.
   1. Don't overdo it: If you use the inner glow effect too much, the map gets overcrowded. You want to make things like coalitions, colonial empires, or international unions have one glow (like I did with the whites and with the Ukrainian and Cossack states)
7. Touch up the borders: Sometimes there's a space between the inner glows or internal borders of a multinational group aren't visible. To fix the former, just fill the space in a layer that is in between the layers holding the 2 bordering states. If internal borders aren't visible, draw them in a dark grey in a layer above the fill layer for that state or group of states (I did this for the white warlords and Ukraine's Cossack allies)
8. Country labels: In fairly large, bold letters, label the countries. The font should be Arial, the color should be either black with an opacity of 40% or just a dark gray.
9. Add cities: City icons should be simple, black and white (true white, #ffffff ), clean and simple, circles and squares. They shouold always have a clean black outline of 1-3 px. This can be achieved with a 2 pixel center stroke. To show varying sizes, you can change the icon size (don't rely too much on that) and you can add things in the middle. Add a smaller square or smaller dot in the middle in black. I advise against putting dots in squares and squares in dots but its up to you.
   1. Recommended city size icons
      1. For capitals, I would go with a square with a smaller black square in the center. Being a different shape makes the capitals stand out. On my map these squares were around 14x14 px with a 4x4 dot. I recommend odd numbers though, they're easier to work with. The size would depend on the size of the map.
      2. Very large cities could be a circle with a black dot in the middle or a dot with a black ring in the middle. (I usually make the ring 3 px thick). These could both be used if you want to show a lot of cities.
      3. If you're not going for too many cities, a plain white dot (with the black stroke ofc) is good. If your only gradation is major city and capital, these are good for major cities, otherwise, use them for smaller cities or towns
      4. If you're adding a lot of detail, use black dots for villages or small towns They should be fairly small dots.
   2. City labels should be small but legible, never bold.
10. Internal subdivisions: If you're focusing on one or 2 states, especially if they're all in an alliance or union, the map might still feel a little empty. Feel free to add state divisions for larger countries, I recommend a grey dotted line for this to distinguish it from higher order borders.
11. Additional details: If you want to show a warzone, guerrilla activity, or that Yudenich's northwest government is only very loosely aligned with the whites, you can use a pattern like diagonal lines or whatever else you want, just keep it light. Visible, but not too intrusive. To show the borders of former states or other borders that are for whatever reason not shown normally on the map, try a red dotted line, it works quite nicely in my experience. You can also label the seas, Arial, Bold, slightly smaller than country labels, with a darker grey-blue (Rock blue ( #99a5b9 ) and cadet blue ( #5f9ea0 ) are good ones)
12. Around the map: The space around the map should be the same off-white as the land. Add whatever you want on the sides. Country profiles, smaller maps, a legend, etc. There should ofc be a title. All writing should be in Arial.
    1. The map itself should have a clean rectangular frame around it, I used a dark grey. The layer with this should be above everything else so as to hide the map's effects if they go over the edge
    2. Side boxes should have dotted outlines. It just fits better with the style than a solid border. You can also not have a border, it depends on how many things you're adding and how you format things.

Keep in mind you don'y have to follow this exactly, that's just how I made that map.

Did this help?

 

[thaddeus]

There was also a socialist Transcaucasian Federation for a time, if you don’t mind booting Denikin.

The thing I like the most about the map is that there are multiple socialist/communist “warlords” too. I think the ideal scenario (for my tastes) would involve three or more Red states which switch between friendliness and hostility according to circumstances—IIRC Petrograd is going to have the strongest industrial base, but is also not going to be very tolerant of the other states. I could easily see Muscovy + Ukraine + Transcaucasia (maybe) being good(ish) friends and Moscow sometimes supporting them and sometimes trying to eat them (generally, when the Whites are a danger, Moscow is smart enough to help out, but when the Whites are laying low, Moscow gets edgy).

If there’s no Transcaucasia then Denikin (or whomever is in that region) will probably be the most immediate threat to the Red states, because they have an easy supply route (it’s also possible to get supplies to Vladivostok, but getting those supplies all the way to the border with the Reds is more troublesome, to say nothing of the fact that there are possibly other warlord states you need to route those supplies through).

This is the most important factor, IMHO, for this to come about. If you have a unified, territorially contiguous, Soviet state then the White Warlords will be limited in duration at best, a fleeting historical footnote being more likely. The industrial and population advantages that the central Russian areas afford the Soviets mean that any outlier states would be up against it in the long term, barring significant foreign aid and succour.

Lenin's direction that they must have Baku, maybe a little hyperbole but a clue to how the country could fragment?

not sure how to achieve that? Persia is too weak, even in partnership with White Russians?

at any rate, Baku/Azerbaijan part of separate regime, Poland retains their furthest advance into Ukraine, and Japan backs one of the warlords to retain Vladivostok?

 

[Višeslav]

Lenin's direction that they must have Baku, maybe a little hyperbole but a clue to how the country could fragment?

not sure how to achieve that? Persia is too weak, even in partnership with White Russians?

at any rate, Baku/Azerbaijan part of separate regime, Poland retains their furthest advance into Ukraine, and Japan backs one of the warlords to retain Vladivostok?

Poland being bigger than OTL, and japan backing a warlord that holds outer Manchuria/Primorsky krai makes sense to me, but Poland holding all the land it occupied seems unlikely considering a lot of that was really the core of the Ukrainian state and would likely resist occupation, more of Ukraine and most of Belarus seems plausible.

Maybe something like this eastern border for poland (ignore the other borders)?

edit: also, Sorry, I didn't quite get what you said about Baku.

 

[thaddeus]

Lenin's direction that they must have Baku, maybe a little hyperbole but a clue to how the country could fragment?

not sure how to achieve that? Persia is too weak, even in partnership with White Russians?

at any rate, Baku/Azerbaijan part of separate regime, Poland retains their furthest advance into Ukraine, and Japan backs one of the warlords to retain Vladivostok?

Poland being bigger than OTL, and japan backing a warlord that holds outer Manchuria/Primorsky krai makes sense to me, but Poland holding all the land it occupied seems unlikely considering a lot of that was really the core of the Ukrainian state and would likely resist occupation, more of Ukraine and most of Belarus seems plausible.

Maybe something like this eastern border for poland (ignore the other borders)?

View attachment 504316

edit: also, Sorry, I didn't quite get what you said about Baku.

working from what Poland (with some Ukrainian support) actually occupied?



and for Baku, meant the USSR must have that oil producing region, take that away and the country collapses into constituent republics/regions or if you will "warlord areas"

but I have no idea who or what countries can take it away from them? maybe UK could back Persia to annex (modern day) Azerbaijan (using White Russian troops), maybe that would work with ongoing Polish-Soviet War and Japan backed regime in Siberia?

 

[BigBlueBox]

How exactly did Yudenich get to Arkhangelsk without controlling Petrograd?

 

[sans1shashlik]

Poles capitalize more on their Polish-Soviet war victory creating Intermarrium allied/puppet states (Ukraine, might also be Belarus if you would want to change the map a bit) and whites/whoever wins Civil War collapses shortly after?

 

[Višeslav]

How exactly did Yudenich get to Arkhangelsk without controlling Petrograd?

I believe I said this already, the map just giving a rough idea. It's not really a well thought out and constructed work of AH.

 

[BigBlueBox]

My PoD would be the Whites win at Kazan, maybe even killing Trotsky, but fail to exploit that victory so fighting in the east stalemates along the Volga. The Reds strike west to prevent the separatists from entrenching themselves and also in the hope that they can exploit the resources of Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltics to break the stalemate. This brings them into conflict with Poland, which takes most of takes even more land this time. They get Belarus to the Berezina (including Minsk) and most of West Ukraine (including Zhytomir and Odessa but excluding Kiev and the Dniepr). Meanwhile, the Kronstadt and Tambov uprisings kick off with the Kronstadt revolt spreading to all of Petrograd. However, the eastern Whites are unable to to exploit this because Kolchak launched a failed coup. This results in hardline reactionary Whites controlling everything east of the Urals while the republican social democrat Komuch Army controls everything between the Volga and the Urals and maintains an uneasy power-sharing agreement with the Tatars. The Reds in Moscow are forced to negotiate with the Petrograd and Tambov insurrectionists. In theory they submit to Moscow but in practice Petrograd effectively becomes a city-state and Antonov establishes a personal fiefdom. East of the Urals, Kolchal and Diterikhs have a falling out, with Diterikhs taking Amur, Chita, and Vladivostok with Japanese backing. Sternberg and Semyonov go rogue and establish an independent Greater Mongolia.

 

[haider najib]

What happens to the russian Monarchy?

 

[Expat]

How exactly did Yudenich get to Arkhangelsk without controlling Petrograd?

My first thought when I saw this detail on the map: this faction is almost certainly being propped up entirely by outside aid, who are maintaining the polite fictions of diplomacy while undermining red control wherever they can without actively starting a war that will require large-scale involvement in Russia.

The reds must have more important things on their mind and are only not attacking because fear over killing too many foreign instructors/volunteers is a stronger impulse than wiping this front away (which has only minor power projection at the moment, anyway).

Surely they figure they’ll be able to knock it out at their leisure when the situation in front of them is less tenuous.

 

[Kevin Renner]

This is my take. Lenin dies in the Midst of the Civil War with no clear successor. Factions backing different Party higher ups slide into open fighting. Red Partisans turn to banditry. The Whites attempt to take advantage (poorly) of the situation. The foreign interventionists carve out enclaves seeking to protect their interests. As conditions deteriorate new revolutions happen in various regions. Most fail. The few that succeed are no better than the ones they overthrew. By the mid 30s one faction wins out and a new Russia is born. But not like the previous ones