The Worst Russian Revolution Alternate History Cliche

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the US and UK had properly supported the whites, the reds would have been crushed. (This is often bunched up with putting Anastasia in the throne. Wherever she might be)
 
Well almost every sizeable minority in Russia tried to secede during the Russian Civil War, so that cliché does have some historical backing. I think almost all separatist attempts failing is another cliché, since every time you either have them all be succesful, or basically just the OTL succesful ones succeed (Finland, Poland, Baltic States). There are never really middle grounds.
Separatism gained traction and wide public support among minorities in all crumbling Empires because of very specific circumstances.
 
Which other alternatives even exist? These are the Bolsheviks we are talking about, not the SR.
Their attitudes were part of who they were.

There *were* relatively moderate Bolsheviks, like Kamenev, who opposed the October insurrection and even after it happened favored a multiparty socialist government. That they might have prevailed under other circumstances--e.g., Lenin dying--may be unlikely but is not inconceivable.
 
There *were* relatively moderate Bolsheviks, like Kamenev, who opposed the October insurrection and even after it happened favored a multiparty socialist government. That they might have prevailed under other circumstances--e.g., Lenin dying--may be unlikely but is not inconceivable.
Stalin himself told Molotov to alter the official Pravda line towards cooperative stance when he returned to Petrograd.

Lenin really had a huge impact to the way the Bolshevik inner circle (a rather small group of people) planned to deal with the situation, and without him a coalition Soviet government consisting of the various leftwing parties taking over through the Constituent Assembly elections is much more likely outcome than a Bolshevik coup followed by a Green-Red civil war.
 
Some "Russians are drawn to autocracy" pseudo-sociological bullshit to justify Russia becoming a brutal dictatorship in every possible 20th century outcome.


Well of course "Whites" can't win, because there were no such thing as "Whites", and imaginary terms can't win. There were the Bolsheviks, their allies and a few dozen opposing movements which may or may not cooperate towards a common goal sometimes. Denikin, Wrangel and Kolchak are usually written into the same cabal, while in reality they operated independently from one another. It was the Soviets themselves who grouped all their opponents in the Civil War into one unitary "movement", after they already won, that is.

Now if one were to say "Bolsheviks can't lose the Civil War", then that statement is a cliche and I would agree it is a cliche.
So then what would a Bolshevik loss in the Civil War look like if there was no unified White faction?
 
Some "Russians are drawn to autocracy" pseudo-sociological bullshit to justify Russia becoming a brutal dictatorship in every possible 20th century outcome.

Cliche and inaccurate as this may be, I've read a really good and interesting book on this topic. I forget who its by, but it's called "Russia's Moment in World History"
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Next one of these copy cat threads gets the OP a week painting their tollbooth.

FFS folks, have an original thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top