Surviving Czarist Russia could ally with German fascists?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Could a Russian government in the 1920s on that is led by a Czar, probably Michael, with fascist tendencies have allied with a non-Nazi fascist German government or at least worked with them in the way the Soviets did in the 1920s? I'm assuming ITTL there is a Russian Civil War that just ends with a White victory under Alexander Kolchak. I'm also assuming there is a Prussian militarist government that comes power, as the Nazis don't get traction without the communist issue to leverage.
 
Yes, Czar Nicholas II was working on turning traditional Czarism into a modern ideology. Imagine what the weight of traditionalism and Orthodox Christianity could achieve when added to a modern fascist ideology, the Black Hundreds group was the embryo of such a movement, or what it would have been.
 
Yeah, that's probably going to be a very attractive alliance to both parties. I wonder if the Anchluss would go about in the same way. Whatever the case, I really can't see the Allies winning this one, especially since a continuation of Imperial Germany probably wouldn't hate Jews, as the Empire was quite progressive towards them.
 
You would need leastly pre-WW1 POD or even better pre-1900 POD that Russian Empire could survive. This might cause much changes. But it might be possible that Czarist Russia and nationalist/imperial Germany are allies. But it would depend exact POD and events after that.
 
Could a Russian government in the 1920s on that is led by a Czar, probably Michael, with fascist tendencies have allied with a non-Nazi fascist German government or at least worked with them in the way the Soviets did in the 1920s? I'm assuming ITTL there is a Russian Civil War that just ends with a White victory under Alexander Kolchak. I'm also assuming there is a Prussian militarist government that comes power, as the Nazis don't get traction without the communist issue to leverage.

I have always been of the view that the only options open to Russia in the late-1910s are authoritarian governments of one stripe or another. In reality, the best hope you have is refounded Stolypinism – a radical attempt at land-reform and the breaking of the old estates, coupled with harsh crack-down on dissent from the far-left, and co-opting the right-wing of the Social Revolutionaries. The White Generals (with the exception, possibly, of Wrangel) were all totally unsuited to the actual role of governance, so unless they were willing to co-operate a lot more and actually talk about concessions, there isn’t much hope of the Whites winning once the civil war breaks out.

I’ve never really thought that Russia was especially pre-disposed to Fascism, given the relative lack of industrialisation or a universally shared idea of national identity (The Triad was very much in the order of Autocracy, then Orthodoxy, then Nationalism). I know some historians have called the Black Hundreds proto-fascist, but in reality, they were little more than thugs, who just happened to follow the same sort of xenophobia and rabid conservatism that you see in a lot of decaying regimes.

However, Narodnost is used almost identically to Volkstum (even if most Russian state theorists at the time didn’t really know how to define it), which does have a strongly ethno-nationalist tinge. There certainly was a lot of discussion between academics prior to the Great War – and any right-leaning Russian government is going to draw greatly on German theorists during this time, however much they may not want to (there’s historical pedigree for this, Catherine the Great (who, frankly, is the most successful German ruler in history) gave lots of lip service to Voltaire and the French School, but her domestic reforms were almost entirely drawn upon English and German legalism).

Your best bet is to pre-empt the Civil War in the first place, and have the right take control of the situation as soon as the February Revolution takes place, suing for peace when Nicholas abdicates.

There would certainly be some common ground between a right-leaning German government and a reforming regime in Russia, especially if the Baltic Germans remain prominent in Petrograd. I’m far from an expert on German politics at this time, and revanchist feelings in both countries would take a long period of peace and growing prosperity to get rid off though (Slavophobia was far from a Nazi-only perception…).

The ideal outcome would be for some sort of grudging respect from a Germany that had not lost too much of her Eastern territories, and a Russia that was once again looking towards China and East Asia, rather than towards the Balkans. Not impossible – but it would have to take a lot of things happening in a very specific order.
 
Why would a White regime prefer the German Right (who had subsidized the Bolsheviks) to the Western Allies (who had helped the Whites--and in this ATL had presumably helped them enough that they actually won)?

The reason for the German-Soviet rapprochement in the 1920's in OTL is that both Russia and Germany were pariah states in the West. A "White" Russia--monarchist or not--will be a lot more favorably received in the West.
 
No, for a number of reasons.

A surviving tsarist Russia would be a reactionary state, not a fascist one. Fascists arose in countries where the traditional right wing had 'failed' the country. Hitler and the Nazis hated the German aristocracy; why would thy treat a slavic aristocracy any better?

Which brings me to the next point. The nazis really wanted all of that land in eastern Europe. They saw the slavs as inferior. Russia controls that land. They are not going to ally with one of their principal future enemies (and no, they did not ally with the Soviets, neither party intended to hold their promises over the M-R pact).

Edit: Without a communist Russia, though, the fascists would be less likely to come to power, without the communist bogeyman of the soviet union.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

No, for a number of reasons.

A surviving tsarist Russia would be a reactionary state, not a fascist one. Fascists arose in countries where the traditional right wing had 'failed' the country. Hitler and the Nazis hated the German aristocracy; why would thy treat a slavic aristocracy any better?

Which brings me to the next point. The nazis really wanted all of that land in eastern Europe. They saw the slavs as inferior. Russia controls that land. They are not going to ally with one of their principal future enemies (and no, they did not ally with the Soviets, neither party intended to hold their promises over the M-R pact).
German Fascists don't have to be Nazis. I'd consider the general right wing Prussian officer option (von Schleicher) a Fascist option and he was all for working with the Russians, Soviet or not, to revise the Poland situation and rearm. I question whether the Nazis would have even been an option without a communist state in Russia.

Why would a White regime prefer the German Right (who had subsidized the Bolsheviks) to the Western Allies (who had helped the Whites--and in this ATL had presumably helped them enough that they actually won)?

The reason for the German-Soviet rapprochement in the 1920's in OTL is that both Russia and Germany were pariah states in the West. A "White" Russia--monarchist or not--will be a lot more favorably received in the West.
I don't think it was known that the Germans sent Lenin in until much later. Also they didn't subsidize him, just send him home. The Entente certainly was an option for an alliance, but the French supported the Polish during the Russian Civil War and would have continued to so do if the White's won. So the Russian government would be more interested in Revanche against Poland, the Baltics, and Finland and realize that France is in the long run weaker than Germany and Britain is not happy about Russian expansion. A Russo-German alliance post-WW2 complements each others' strength, is effectively unbeatable, has similar foes, neither side has the same ideological issues (Germans supporting Austria-Hungary), and Germany would be thrilled to see the Russians expand against Britain while they settled their beef against France and Britain. The biggest obstacle to Russo-German friendship pre-WW1 was pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism, which is largely resolved by the removal of A-H as a sticking point, mutual interests in Revanche, and working out spheres of influence. And mutual problems with Britain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The biggest obstacle to Russo-German friendship pre-WW1 was pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism

This would become an issue again once the war is won. The Russians and Germans won't just settle down with their territories, they'd start squabbling over their sphere's of influence and come to oppose each other, which would either end in another war or one regime being overthrown.

A fascist Germany and tsarist Russia are both going to be very nationalistic, and with that comes sentiments opposing each other. So, yes, they could be allies during a second world war, but in the long run an alliance is not feasible. They will have 0 common goals once victory is achieved.
 
I don't think it was known that the Germans sent Lenin in until much later. Also they didn't subsidize him, just send him home.

First of all, of course everyone knew that Lenin could not have returned to Russia through German territory without German permission. Second, it is not true that the Germans "just" sent Lenin home; they definitely subsidized the Bolshevik party. https://books.google.com/books?id=XtE54LuhFzEC&pg=PA411 While of course the details were secret, the fact of German support was well-known.
 
First of all, of course everyone knew that Lenin could not have returned to Russia through German territory without German permission. Second, it is not true that the Germans "just" sent Lenin home; they definitely subsidized the Bolshevik party. https://books.google.com/books?id=XtE54LuhFzEC&pg=PA411 While of course the details were secret, the fact of German support was well-known.
The Germans supported Russia pulling out of the war, no doubt, and thus the stated aim of the Bolsheviks to end the war coincided with the German aim to end the war on the Eastern front but there was little formal support for the Bolsheviks. Alexander Parvus secured funds through his association with Baron von Wangenheim but those funds went to everyone from dissident writers to nationalist organisations in Finland and the Ukraine and to the anti-war sections of the Essers. The documents Kerensky's government presented as 'proof' of Lenin's association with Germany have been largely proven to be forgeries by the US diplomat George Kennan. Essentially, you and Pipes are grasping at straws.
 
Speaking as someone who proposed a scenario somewhat similar to this one: No, I don't think so, because the circumstances which my proposition required are not retained in the scenario proposed by the OP.

The circumstances in which I suggested that such an alliance was likely required an authoritarian conservative nationalist Germany dominated by the Prussian military/aristocratic class and a tsarist Russia that wasn't so much "surviving" as "destroyed fairly similarly to OTL, then came back with a White Russian victory in the Russian Civil War with a very great deal of luck, and even then only by the skin of its teeth, and even then as more like a stratocracy than a true resurrection of the Romanov autocracy". Crucially, Russia keeps most of the pre-WW1 Russian Empire but Poland is an independent republic that has been friendly to France, the UK and the USA since before it became clear who was going to win the Russian Civil War.

In that case, you have a Russian regime and a German regime which are reasonably ideologically similar and, more importantly, both very focused on Poland in particular; Russia would want to regain the only land it lost in Europe, and Prussian aristocrats would be more interested in the lands lost by Prussia than the lands lost by other parts of Germany, and, with their more traditional approach instead of Hitler's pan-Germanist radicalism, might not even go after the Sudetenland and Austria at all, and at least will be less keen on those lands than on Poland. As a result, you don't have the stream of provocations (by which I mean the Anschluß, the Sudeten crisis and the final fall of Czechoslovakia) that led to the guarantee to Poland in OTL, and in that case I think Russia and Germany might well re-partition Poland between them with Washington DC, Paris and London too timid to protect Poland—though quite possibly Russia and Germany would fall out later.

If the Russian Empire survives, rather than falling apart and then just about managing to come back as a stratocracy but not getting back all its old territory (as in my scenario), it keeps Poland. If Germany is ruled by fascists rather than reactionaries, there will be the pan-Germanist attitudes and stream of provocations that led to the guarantee to Poland in OTL. It's difficult to see what such regimes would have in common, especially since such a powerful Russia would be interested in expanding in Eastern Europe, not so much against Germany as against other states weaker than Germany (in particular the remnants of Austria-Hungary, and the Balkan peninsula) where Germany would be likely to oppose Russia. Indeed, a Russian Empire that survived the First World War and never abandoned the Triple Entente might well receive some territorial gains from Germany (Posen added to Russian Poland, perhaps, and quite possibly more, such as Royal or even Ducal Prussia) as well as Galicia from Austria-Hungary, so Germany would not be well-disposed to such a Russia. I think that such a Russia would be more inclined to keep to old alliances in the face of a renewed German threat.
 
The Germans supported Russia pulling out of the war, no doubt, and thus the stated aim of the Bolsheviks to end the war coincided with the German aim to end the war on the Eastern front but there was little formal support for the Bolsheviks. Alexander Parvus secured funds through his association with Baron von Wangenheim but those funds went to everyone from dissident writers to nationalist organisations in Finland and the Ukraine and to the anti-war sections of the Essers. The documents Kerensky's government presented as 'proof' of Lenin's association with Germany have been largely proven to be forgeries by the US diplomat George Kennan. Essentially, you and Pipes are grasping at straws.

That the Germans helped to finance the Bolsheviks (as well as other anti-war parties in Russia) is the general consensus of historians, not just Pipes. (This of course does not mean that Lenin was a "German agent" as Allied propaganda absurdly claimed, and you are right that the "Sisson documents" were forged or otherwise unconvincing, but they are hardly the only evidence for the Bolsheviks receiving German funds.) See

(1) Robert Service, *Lenin: A Biography,* pp. 248-9. https://books.google.com/books?id=N9mbl_xbWpkC&pg=PA248

(2) Stephen Kotkin, *Stalin: Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928* ("Lenin never admitted the truth about receiving German money, but he was not a German agent; he had his own agenda.") http://www.rulit.me/books/stalin-volume-i-paradoxes-of-power-1878-1928-read-379183-63.html

(3) Adam Ulam, *The Bolsheviks*, p. 327 https://books.google.com/books?id=TdCK1WkconkC&pg=PA327 ("All these accounts create a strong presumption, strongly supported by the recently revealed German documents, that at the time Lenin had decided to avail himself not only of German permission to pass through but of German funds as well....Granted Lenin's premises, his decision to accept German help was perfectly natural. It was not to affect his position an iota: he was working to bring about a new revolution in Russia, but that revolution in turn was to overthrow the German government and bring about the victory of revolutionary socialism in all Europe. The Bolsheviks needed money. Their future prodigious growth in membership and prestige between April and October was to reflect not only the skill of their leaders and the ineptitude of their opponents, but also their superior resources. They were able to spend freely on their newspapers, on full-time agitators and propagandists, and on arms for their Red Guards. These vast sums could not have come from the Party dues (in April they had but 49,000 members) or from the sale of *Pravda.* The revolutionary activities needed money, and just as in 1906 he did not hesitate to obtain it from expropriations [i.e., bank robberies--DT] so in 1917 Lenin did not scruple to get it from Germany. If he could he would have willingly accepted it from France, England, or the Romanovs.")

(4) Dmitri Volkogonov: "[Karl] Moor was just one of the channels by which German money entered Bolshevik coffers...When he died in Berlin on 14 June 1932, aged almost eighty, Radek wrote an obituary in Izvestiya in which he made the unexpected admission that Moor had helped the Bolsheviks financially. Only a few people, including Radek, knew that this money had come from the German General Staff." https://books.google.com/books?id=9WnWxkT4TuIC&pg=PT139

It should be noted that even a historian who argues that the conventional version of "Parvus to Hanecki to the Bolsheviks" is wrong adds that "Of course, this is not to say that the Bolsheviks did not receive financial assistance from the German government. The documents of the German Foreign Ministry indicate that substantial funds were allocated to support Bolshevik anti-war activities in 1917. But since the present research disproves the generally accepted view of how the assistance reached the Bolshevik organization (that is, through Furstenberg-Kozlowski-Sumenson's business), it appears more likely that the Germans used other intermediaries than the banking system..." https://archive.org/stream/Lyandres...InquiryInto1917Accusations#page/n103/mode/2up
 
Top