The World After White Victory in Russian Civil War

[Imperator Frank]

Say the Whites defeat the Bolsheviks in Russia, How does this affect the world?

 

[Imperator Frank]

Bump. I'm don't know if this is a nooob question or not but i would like a response.

 

[Timmy811]

Well it depends on the impact of this in Germany. Do the Nazis or similar party still rise to power?

Also, how does Russia perform economically under White rule?

 

[yourworstnightmare]

As the waves of far left revolutions wane, the red scare in Europe diminishes. The Communist Parties collapse and the whole left wing spectrum is changing. The new radical left denounce Bolshevism and embrace Syndicalism thought instead, but many former Communists join the Social Democrats. The lure of the far right is also weaker.

In Italy Benito Mussolini faces trouble. He has founded his Fascist movement from the National Syndicalist brand of socialism, but moved to the far right spectrum of politics hoping to capitalize on the fear of Communism. Now that seems to have been a mistake. The Italian left need a new direction, and Mussolini is unable to become the new voice of the Italian proletariat. Instead he's seen as a troublemaker by both the left and the right in Italy.

In Germany a certain Austrian Corpral is never able to become anything more than a local celebrity on the bars in Munich. When Germany in the early 30s succumb into a military dominated revengist state he becomes a strong supporter of the new government though.

In Russia the Bolsheviks are outlawed, but the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries conitnue to represent the Russian left. A struggle between the Duma and the president also goes on in the new Russian republic, as well as a constant threat of a coup from the military and prolonged conflict with ethnic groups that seceded from Russia during the civil war gives colour to the Russian 20s and 30s.

In Spain a failed right wing coup during the 30s causes Socialists and Anarchists to pull together and together proclaim a Socialist Federal Republic. However the left wing experiment in Spain is much different than any OTL leftist states. Spain becomes a very decentralized federation, where the State remain very weak. Instead local Communes and authorities dominates. The Basque and Catalan regions gain such a high degree of autonomy that they could almost be considered separate nations. The Spanish left wing experiment gains admiration around socialist circles all over the world, but is not a big exporter of Socialism. Instead Spain remains very passive in foreign politics.

What do you all think?

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

As the waves of far left revolutions wane, the red scare in Europe diminishes. The Communist Parties collapse and the whole left wing spectrum is changing. The new radical left denounce Bolshevism and embrace Syndicalism thought instead, but many former Communists join the Social Democrats. The lure of the far right is also weaker.

In Italy Benito Mussolini faces trouble. He has founded his Fascist movement from the National Syndicalist brand of socialism, but moved to the far right spectrum of politics hoping to capitalize on the fear of Communism. Now that seems to have been a mistake. The Italian left need a new direction, and Mussolini is unable to become the new voice of the Italian proletariat. Instead he's seen as a troublemaker by both the left and the right in Italy.

In Germany a certain Austrian Corpral is never able to become anything more than a local celebrity on the bars in Munich. When Germany in the early 30s succumb into a military dominated revengist state he becomes a strong supporter of the new government though.

In Russia the Bolsheviks are outlawed, but the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries conitnue to represent the Russian left. A struggle between the Duma and the president also goes on in the new Russian republic, as well as a constant threat of a coup from the military and prolonged conflict with ethnic groups that seceded from Russia during the civil war gives colour to the Russian 20s and 30s.

In Spain a failed right wing coup during the 30s causes Socialists and Anarchists to pull together and together proclaim a Socialist Federal Republic. However the left wing experiment in Spain is much different than any OTL leftist states. Spain becomes a very decentralized federation, where the State remain very weak. Instead local Communes and authorities dominates. The Basque and Catalan regions gain such a high degree of autonomy that they could almost be considered separate nations. The Spanish left wing experiment gains admiration around socialist circles all over the world, but is not a big exporter of Socialism. Instead Spain remains very passive in foreign politics.

What do you all think?

Leftist who don't favor strong central authority?

Any OTL examples?

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Leftist who don't favor strong central authority?

Any OTL examples?

Anarchists

 

[The Red]

Leftist who don't favor strong central authority?

Any OTL examples?

Karl Marx, Nestor Makhno, Buenaventura Durruti, Caroline Lucas for a more present day figure...

 

[Arafeel]

True but we have never actually seen a Anarchist stat, and in Spain they would be Syndicalist, CNT the was the larger bye fare than FAI.

 

[The Red]

True but we have never actually seen a Anarchist stat, and in Spain they would be Syndicalist, CNT the was the larger bye fare than FAI.

The term "Anarchist state" is an oxymoron, like Marxist Capitalism. Anarchists aim to remove the state entirely or at least reduce it to basic functions.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

And it's not an Anarchist state. I probably didn't explained it very well. Without doctrinal Soviet Marxism the left is back in the experimental stage trying to find an identity. In Spain Socialists and Anarchists after a failed military coup started spontanous revolutions all over the country. When they needed to organize it somehow, none of them wanted to be controlled by another. The Anarchists wanted no state at all, while the Socialists wanted one, but socialists from different parts of Spain all had different ideas on how things should be run. The result was a very decentralized federal republic with a very weak central authority.

 

[Wolfpaw]

This scenario is very, very dependent on when the Whites win. Their last (and frankly best) shot is in the fall/winter of 1919. This means that most of the major Communist insurrections will have already taken place. The Spartacist Uprising, the Bavarian Soviet Republic, the Hungarian Soviet Republic, etc. The Bolsheviks losing doesn't just butterfly away radical Leftism or worker discontent or anything like that.

Fascism was already on the move in Italy, and the Reds losing in Russia won't change that. The Biennio Rosso is still going to occur and Mussolini's still more than likely to come to power. The Nazis, on the other hand, are far less likely to come to power if they lack the "Fear of baby-eating Bolshevism" vote that allowed them to succeed IOTL. Without the taint (and nomenclatural co-opting) of Nazism, we might see legitimate "national socialism" develop since internationalism is going to be less important without Moscow to organize it all. If the Left moves towards syndicalism ITTL (which is a novel idea), fascism may end up being called "national socialism" instead of fascism since the terms "socialism" and "syndicalism" are probably going to muddle together ITTL.

A Soviet defeat in the RCW will defang communism in the long run since it won't have a great power supporting it, but it's not going to just up and evaporate once the Bolsheviks fail. I could actually see Communists become even more radicalized in the case of a failed revolution in Russia. Hell, Marx himself said that Russia would be the last country to adopt communism, so as far as most Communists are going to be concerned, what happened in Russia just confirms historical materialism. And frankly, it wasn't like Moscow was already in charge of Communists the world over; the International didn't really pick up until the early-mid 1920s.

So what happens as a result of a White victory? Not a whole lot in the short term. Fear of Communism is still going to be present, but in a much, much smaller capacity. It'll be viewed as a terrorist movement like al-Qaida; random, sporadic attacks that, though relatively few and far between, are nonetheless a major concern.

Russia proper will be different since the Whites will still have to contend with putting down many Leftist uprisings, but the beheading of the organized anti-White movement likely means that they'll never be strong enough to pose a mortal threat to White rule.

 

[Son of Sphinks]

I think you may also have to consider whether of not the Whites would come to power as a Republic or a constitutional Monarchy. Within the Whites was a strong pro-monarchy group and returning with a new Tsar would add an air of stability while power was consolidated.

As for the divergence of the left, I have to agree that the Social Democratic model would probably be the dominant form, despite the uprisings that had taken place in Germany and Hungary

 

[yourworstnightmare]

I think you may also have to consider whether of not the Whites would come to power as a Republic or a constitutional Monarchy. Within the Whites was a strong pro-monarchy group and returning with a new Tsar would add an air of stability while power was consolidated.

As for the divergence of the left, I have to agree that the Social Democratic model would probably be the dominant form, despite the uprisings that had taken place in Germany and Hungary

If the Whites continue to embrace absolute monarchism there's no chance they'll win. To win they'll need the support of the Russian peasantry, and Czarism would only scare away the peasants. The peasants was the key to Russia, and the Reds OTL won them over by being the lesser of two evils. The Whites would have to become the good guys for the peasants to choose their side.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Here's a cross-post from a thread in May where we talked about what a White victory scenario would look like r.e. Russia:

In October of 1919, Denikin was launching his offensive on Moscow. While the Whites were not what one would necessarily call "unified," they were far from the splintered warlords they would become in 1920 and for the remainder of the war.

Wrangel had fairly solid control over the majority of White forces in Southern Russia/the Ukraine since his spat with Denikin hadn't yet flared up (it was by and large caused by the decisive failure of the Moscow campaign), and the same goes for Yudenich in the Baltics and Kolchak in Siberia. In fact, up until 1920, Kolchak was still officially regarded by Denikin, Wrangel, and Yudenich as the legitimate Commander-in-Chief of all White forces.

If Denikin is not betrayed by Makhno while he's en route to Moscow, or if he just decides not to send six regiments back to fight Makhno (which they never wound up doing, the anarchists basically having just pulled an ineffectual hit-and-run on Denikin's supply lines before the reinforcements could do anything about it), Denikin would most likely have defeated the Bolsheviks at the Battle of Oryol.

A White victory at Oryol means that the Bolsheviks are going to reconsider the forces they sent to beef-up Petrograd (which they had previously thought of abandoning and were only dissuaded by Trotsky ignoring their opinions and sending them anyways) and call them back to the capital. This means that Petrograd will fall to Yudenich and, even if the Red forces make it back in time, Moscow will probably fall to Denikin.

We should remember that in OTL, the Whites only really started to come undone after 1919 (corruption, drug abuse, arms-dealing, black marketeering, etc. were already endemic to the Whites, but not yet cripplingly so). The winter of 1919 is when Yudenich bowed out, basically leaving Whites in the Baltics and northwestern Russia without a leader. It's also the year that Denikin and Wrangel started fighting over what to do with their forces, a fight that would lead to Wrangel's resignation (and later brief re-installment) and Denikin and his cronies-cum-warlords grabbing land, wantonly looting, alienating Ukrainians with cultural chauvinism, and basically reversing all of the progress that the reform-minded Wrangel had initiated, thereby losing the support of most of the peasantry. And Kolchak? Well, he just got more and more autocratic when he realized he was the Whites' last chance at achieving anything.

So there we have it. A White victory complete with all of the delicious butterflies that come with them still having refused to recognize Finnish and Polish independence .

For the subsequent situation that could easily ensue, allow me to re-post one more thing

The Whites win in late-1919-early 1920, something that is very, very plausible. A junta is established between Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak, and Yudenich. It is decided that Wrangel becomes head of government (probably alongside Milyukov and Pepelyayev) while Denikin and Yudenich are put in charge of the military. Kolchak becomes an élément grise in Russian politics, sort of like a Hindenburg-Ludendorff mix; a figure given deference who sort of stays behind the scenes but is the man to call when "decisive measures" must be taken to reestablish "order."

Meanwhile, the near-universally beloved Grand Duke Nikolai becomes Tsar, though this time he is a constitutional monarch with negligible power at best. This not only satisfies traditionalists and democrats, but also provides the nation with an untainted figurehead that pretty much everybody can rally around.

After an ill-fated Russian experiment with parliamentary democracy (à la pre-fascist Italy; a theoretical liberal constitution ridden with institutional problems, a still-stratified society, instability, economic uncertainty, a political army.), Kolchak (at the urging of Grand Duke Cyril who ascends the throne in 1929) finally steps in to reestablish "law and order" and becomes the de facto dictator of Russia. People who present a threat to his new order like Denikin and Kutepov and much of the Army high-command will probably be purged.

Kolchak probably dies some time in the '30s. During and after his reign, movements like Aleksandr Kazem-Bek's Mladorossi gains momentum with its unique and popular (and typically fascist) slogans promoting both industrialization/modernization and traditionalism. Mladorossi or something with a similar name but in the same mold becomes the major (and eventually only) political party in Russia.

The charismatic and handsome Kazem-Bek becomes dictator after Kolchak kicks the bucket. How long his rule lasts is debatable due to his being of Azeri stock, but the major point is that his general philosophy (Tsar and the Soviets!) becomes the norm. His most likely successor is Anastasy Vonsyatsky (who may not be bigoted enough), maybe Konstantin Rodzayevsky.

Ethnicities that will most likely be targeted under the Whites (and I'm assuming we have pre-WWII Soviet borders here) are Jews (of course), Poles, Gypsies, Ukrainians (i.e. people who regard themselves as "Ukrainians" rather than "Little Russians"), Volga Germans, Crimean Karaites, possibly Chinese, perhaps Finns, and maybe Azeris depending on if and how far Kazem-Bek falls. Obviously homosexuals and non-Orthodox will be persecuted, the only exception being Muslims. Also expect a great deal of anti-Western sentiment.

Caucasians and Central Asian tribesmen like Kazakhs and Kalmyks and Buryats and Turkmen will in all likelihood not be targeted for two main reasons; the anti-Bolshevism that the majority of these groups displayed, and the distinct lack of general anti-Russian sentiment amongst them. In fact, the tribesmen will probably join the Cossacks in the pantheon of "martial races" (excellent theory, RGB). Again, the fate of Azeris largely depends on the success or failure of Kazem-Bek.

Interestingly, the concept of "sophisticated secret policemen vs. partisan street thugs" like we see exemplified in the rivalry between the SS and SA already existed in Imperial Russia. The "sophisticated" aspect—the Okhrana—will be reestablished, expanded, and revitalized under the leadership of people like Mikhail Diterikhs. The "street thug" element will lie in the resurrected Yellow Shirts under the command of somebody like Lev Okhotin or Gen. Vladimir Kozmin.

Another thing of note is the viability of Konstantin Rodzayevsky as the successor to basically any post. Head of the Okhrana, head of the Yellow Shirts, even Vozhd (or whatever the head honcho spot is called); Rodzayevsk could potentially succeed to any one (or perhaps even two) of these positions.

Basically, the regime we get is a cross between Iron Guard Romania and Francoist Spain alongside some major elements of clerical fascism.

Assuming that the Whites' borders are the same as OTL's pre-War Soviet Union, there will be lots and lots and lots of revanchist and imperialistic aims aimed at Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland. We also shouldn't discount potential adventures in Asia led by folks like Ungern fon Shternberg (if he's still around) or Semyonov.

 

[Wolfpaw]

To win they'll need the support of the Russian peasantry, and Czarism would only scare away the peasants.

Not at all true. Most peasants didn't care about the Tsar one way or the other and if anything they probably had tepid feelings towards him. Peasants didn't hate the Tsar, they hated landowners. The peasants sided with anybody who promised to let them run their own land; ideology was a secondary thing to them.

The Whites would have to become the good guys for the peasants to choose their side.

There were no "good guys" in the Russian Civil War. It was for all intents and purposes and apocalyptic event where humanity was chucked out the window. Neither side was better than the other and none of the outcomes are good. If the Reds win you have totalitarianism, if the Whites win you could have anything from warlordism to shaky republicanism to totalitarianism. Neither side holds the moral high ground in the Russian Civil War, and reducing it to a black and white "good guys v. bad guys" is foolish.

 

[Dr. Luny]

I think socialist movements would end up stronger in the long run. Without the bad example of Soviet Russia, especially once Stalin took over, the left would be on a stronger footing. The story of the Russian Revolution would also increase working class anger against the regimes that assisted in violently crushing what would still be seen as an authentic proletarian uprising. It would also serve as inspiration and example for bringing a revolution as far as the Bolsheviks brought it.

Without doctrinaire Marxism-Leninism as the dominant ideology of the European left, there would be much more room for ideas of social democracy, anarchism, syndicalism, and others that were pushed aside when the Soviet Union took the leading role in the international left movement. I also don't think that internationalism would be harmed in this situation. The idea of Socialism in One Country only emerged because the Soviet State was confronted with the problem of acting as a world power on the international stage, a multi-national revolution would still be seen as a possibility and something to strive for.

So you would probably get a kinder, gentler socialism, but not a socialism that's less revolutionary, or weaker.

 

[I Blame Communism]

I can only endorse (again) what Wolfpaw has said, so I'll just add some thoughts on how the new regime he sketches will interract with the other governments in the ruined empire.

The Poles have by late 1919 crushed the Galician republic, and things were quiet with Lithuania after the POW coup attempt had failed, so their principal pre-occupation is what goeson in Russia. Pilsudski feared a strong White regime more than anything: he though it would usurp Poland as France's main ally in eastern Europe and Poland would be stuck with the "ethnographic border" (Curzon's line). The reality, of course, was that his troops held Minsk and Kemenets-in-Podolia, and the Whites still have to stamp out Petlyura's remnant around Vinnitsa, so I imagine the French would step in at this point to negotiate a line pretty much the same as that of the Riga treaty.

But Russia and Poland aren't going to get on well: as far as the White government is concerned, Poland is just a robber-state run by filthy ex-socialist-terrorist bastard Pilsudski, who got to Warsaw the same law Lenin got to Petrograd, in a special train courtesy of the German High Command. Poland is going to need to rely on France for gurantees of its independence.

Domestically speaking, though, Poland has less to fear from a White regime unable to win the loyalty of the peasants or the Ukrainian nationalists that they held for much of the 1920s. The Polish couldn't resist persecuting the Orthodox church quite enthusiastically, so I think you'll still see familiar repression and suspicion in the Kresy. How Galician-Ukrainian nationalism will develop, without energetic Ukrainianisation going on in Kievan Ukraine, is an interesting question.

The Romanians have already got Besserabia, and I don't think France would take kindly to Russia being belligerant about this; but if the Soviets never got over the loss, I doubt the Whites ever will, even if the pressure of the Entente (financially and in discouraging the Japanese not to do anything stupid in the Far East) forces them to give it formal recognition.

Mannerheim and Yudenich were old chums, so the deal they proposed to Stahlberg (nominal Finnish help outside Petrograd in exchange for recognition of Finnish sovereignty) will likely go through. No Heimosodat, and Finland may end up... well, Finlandised... quite soon.

Estonia has been helping Yudenich out, of course, on the quite assumption that its independence under the guns of the Royal Navy's battleships will not be called into question. Problematically, however, Estonian troops (and the Royal Navy) are helping keep nominally White (actually basically German) troops out of Riga...Really, the White regime probably just ditches the nutty Bermondt-Avalov at Entente behest, but nothing's going to reconcile to the independence of the Estland, Livland, and Kurland guberniya.

The Entente intervention is pretty much over by this point in the far north and Ukraine; but out beyond Lake Baikal, Semyonov's thugs are in charge, backed by Japan. Though he didn't get on too well with Kolchak, I reckon the Ataman will submit to the new government in exchange for some position of power (I do like Wolfpaw's idea of his going on Whacky Adventures in the Far East): the other interventionists will be encouraging Japan to quit as soon as possible.

And then there's the Caucasus. The Volunteers fought against the Shamilists: once the Whites feel secure in power, the Circassian insurrection will be crushed (the fate of Circassians isn't going to be pretty ITTL) and the Whites will then carry on to Baku for the same reasons as the Reds (oil, and the Azeris being too busy fighting Armenia to resist effectively). That done, the Menshevik regime in Georgia is living in borrowed time, though some of Russia's nominal Entente allies are going to be rather put-off when it's wiped out.

Armenia, though... Russia is a pro-Entente and hence anti-Kemalist force now, and the British had been sponsors or the Armenian republic. With British officer's mediating, I could see Russian troops reaching an agreewment on re-incorporation of Armenia and moving peacefully up to Kars.

Not at all true. Most peasants didn't care about the Tsar one way or the other and if anything they probably had tepid feelings towards him. Peasants didn't hate the Tsar, they hated landowners. The peasants sided with anybody who promised to let them run their own land; ideology was a secondary thing to them.

I know I have Bulgakov on the brain right now, but I'm once again reminded of The White Guard: "He's for the Tsar, only without the officers!"

 

[Wolfpaw]

I think socialist movements would end up stronger in the long run. Without the bad example of Soviet Russia, especially once Stalin took over, the left would be on a stronger footing. The story of the Russian Revolution would also increase working class anger against the regimes that assisted in violently crushing what would still be seen as an authentic proletarian uprising. It would also serve as inspiration and example for bringing a revolution as far as the Bolsheviks brought it.

Without doctrinaire Marxism-Leninism as the dominant ideology of the European left, there would be much more room for ideas of social democracy, anarchism, syndicalism, and others that were pushed aside when the Soviet Union took the leading role in the international left movement. I also don't think that internationalism would be harmed in this situation. The idea of Socialism in One Country only emerged because the Soviet State was confronted with the problem of acting as a world power on the international stage, a multi-national revolution would still be seen as a possibility and something to strive for.

So you would probably get a kinder, gentler socialism, but not a socialism that's less revolutionary, or weaker.

I very much agree with this assessment. Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that internationalism would die or be crippled. What I mean to convey was that a Moscow-led International would not emerge. Which would be better since, as has been pointed out, there will not be one domineering force but rather a greater variety of Leftist ideas within the International.

One does wonder where the International would be headquartered, if indeed a headquarters is even established. Where do you guys think it would be centered? Perhaps in Berne, where it fled during WWI?

 

[Goldstein]

What do you all think?

That Anarchists and Communists would never set a regime together. They hated each other as much as they hated Fascism. Also, if OTL the Communist Party of Spain was ridiculously small and needed a Civil War to become prominent, I think a white victory and the SCW averted would mean that there would be literally no Communist faction worth of mention. OTOH, I can envision a much stronger Anarchist movement ITTL, so the Spanish revolutionary, decentralized program could make sense in-universe, I guess.

 

[Meadow]

Leftist who don't favor strong central authority?

Any OTL examples?

Orthodox/Anarchist Syndicalists would favour a loose federal structure that oversees agreements between local groups but otherwise keeps out of their way. Collectivisation on a local scale.