White Victory in Russia; Horrible?

Saudi Arabia radicalized in response to a secular Egypt and Syria
Saudi Arabia actually had pretty decent relations with Egypt, all things considered. Relations cooled after the ascension of Faisal in 1964 - but they warmed right back up by 1970., before the Saudi turn towards...whatever it is now. The religious stance of Saudi Arabia that we're so familiar with I think is more a dual reaction to the Grand Mosque Seizure and the Islamic Revolution in Iran, both of which took place in the same year.
 
1. Even if alternate Russia was militarily defeated by Germany (or at least bludgeoned to the point of being unable to conduct organized resistance), the consequences would not have been as bad as OTL. The Allies would have dominated the continent, Russia and Eastern Europe could have been rebuilt under the Marshall Plan, the famine of 1946-47 could have been mitigated or alleviated entirely, and communism (with associated horrors) would not have spread. All things considered Russian deaths alone from 1920-1950 might actually have been less, and with no Cold War to boot.

2. A few more months or years of European colonialism would have been infinitely preferable to the Iron Curtain in Europe and Red Dominoes in Asia.

3. Without the Cold War that threat goes down, no? Mutually assured destruction cannot exist without mutuality.

4. ... Is a viable conclusion, especially if one puts the Cold War in general on them.

5. The 'Soviet system' was never competitive outside its own propaganda. Thanks to that same 'system' Eastern Europe is now decades behind the West in many key economic indices; in some places conditions are closer to those in sub-Saharan Africa.
1. How do you think the allies would defeat Germany if Russia lost? They either dont or use a lot of nukes. I also think that nazism was worse than communism and the only reason the latter has a higher bodicount is that it existed much longer.

2. My country was behind the Iron Courtain and yes to us it would have been much better if it didnt exist. But Im loath to exchange or even try to equate our freedom with the lives of Africans and other colonials.

3. Other countries did develope nukes as well. And I dont want to buy in to the idea that "The more dominant the USA is the better for the world" which this implies. Looking at the world after the soviets collapse is not too convincing an argument in favour of this.

4. Was it the soviets that forced the americans to support Osama in Afghanistan? No. That was an american decision. It has it pros and cons from USA view point. It contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. It also resulted in the rise of Al Qaeda with the known results. I would also add that american interventions in the Middle East and support of Israel did a lot to make the USA the target of radical Islam. Neither was forced on them by Moscow.

5. The soviets industrialisation produced incredible results - at a horrible human price. But the result you cant deny. And I used the word: seemed competitive. But the point was that it created a much higher standard of living for the working class. In Europe before the war the lives of these people were incredibly bad. The soviets proving that a system can exists that provides them with a much better life was a direct challenge to the Capitalist states - and a threat as well. If they keep treating their workers as shit said workers might rise up seeing that there is an alternative in the Soviet Union. The result was that in the 50's and 60's the capitalist states did themselves drastically raise the living standard of the working class. Thus those had money they could spend and it turned out that it was a great situation for the economy. But as soon as it became evident that the socialist way was a failure (the challenge disappeared) the capitalist cut back on these and we are living in a world were social inequality is already at an incredible level and on the rise.
 
Last edited:
See my post from a previous discussion thread
Well no, Lenin wasn't the paranoid mass-murderer Stalin was and I don't think he would have unbalanced the Soviet economy quite so heavily away from consumer goods and towards military industries. But Lenin was much worse for Russia's economy, taken in the round, than Stalin was. War Communism nearly destroyed Russian industry. By 1929 Russia's industrial economy was only back to 1914 levels and there was some industrial growth between 1914-17 mainly in heavy industry. So Lenin left Russia a less economically developed country than he found it. Doesn't matter if the SRs/Provisional Government go more slowly than Stalin did, they don't have a 60% reduction in the size of the industrial economy to contend with and are starting from a higher initial base. They may be climbing the ladder more slowly but they didn't fall off the ladder and have to start again at the bottom.

There would be ongoing political unrest yes if any of those groups come to the top but there wouldn't actually be economic shrinkage as OTL. And all of those groups are military modernisers. No matter how reactionary, they all want to build tanks, armoured cars, machine guns, battleships and submarines and want field radios for their troops. They aren't about to reimpose serfdom. Civil and industrial unrest will die down post war because peace and bread (if not land) will still be delivered. Yes, probably some pogroms and forced emigration but no Great Purges. There was plenty of anti-Semiticism in the OTL USSR and a friend brought up there told me that there were also quite a few incidents that would be characterised as race riots in the West in the Caucaus, Kazakhstan and Siberia - they just weren't reported in the Soviet media. The "Hard White" will be ruthless and hold life cheap but they would I think represent the best of Stalin rather than the worst. They wouldn't be ideologically paranoid, nor would they be as pathologically personally paranoid and would have no political objections to bankers and non-Marxist economists. Or to overseas trade and external investment. And while they might censor the press they are unlikely to waste huge resources on ensuring that scientific journals or a beekeeper's magazine display the right level of ideological purity. National rights wouldn't be great I agree but the main drivers for woman's rights in the twentieth century are still there - the typewriter, the need for skilled machinery operatives and the need for increasingly highly trained nurses.
Again, you are unduly pessimistic about a "Soft White" victory. Yes there would be analogies with Weimar (though Weimar wasn't as unstable as its detractors often claim and would have had a fighting chance of survival with a President other than Hindenburg). But, unlike Weimar, you wouldn't have had somewhere between 45%-50% of the population wanting the monarchy back. Unlike the Hohenzollerns the Romanovs had managed to discredit themselves with at least 70% of the Russian people. Russia had no War Guilt clause and no repariation payments. They might well want Poland, Finland and the Baltics back but no (even arguably) ethnic Russian territories had been lost (unlike Danzig, Saarland, Silesia or the Polish corridor). And whoever gets to rule at the point where the automobile, tractor, sewing machine and radio become widely affordable will pick up a certain amount of popularity. And the lack of an insistence on autarky and consequent foreign trade will bring in imported consumer goods. And no food shortages and a moderately efficient service sector.
 
Likewise
See my previous post from an earlier site on this topic. War Communism literally regressed Russian industrial development by over ten years OTL. Avoid it and even a fairly left leaning Socialist government is where Stalin planned to be by 1950 by 1939. A more right wing government even further ahead.
I don't think they would have had a poor economy, Russia is too rich in minerals and timber for that. And oil and precious and semi-precious stones. And the OTL slump in the early thirties wouldn't have happened as early or in quite the same way had Russia been a full participant in world trade.
 
True, true and the Old Bolsheviks. There would have been some overlap on the death lists of Stalin and "White Stalin" if the latter ever existed.
Except the gulag processed in volume:
Thieves
Workers
Peasants
Fa
Rights

Fascist / White Republican Russia will not be as discriminative about the Thieves.
And it is going to have to repress far more workers and peasants. It is almost like the Collective Farms were an agreement to get the minimum out of the minimum compliant population who didn't want a free-promotion factory job…


Yeah nah let's stay prearchival and masturbate ourselves with chilli oil.

The Soviet Union was significantly repugnant enough historiographically; it doesn't need your fantasy imposed upon it. See it for what it was if you choose to hate it. Hating isn't a historian thing.
 
Except the gulag processed in volume:
Thieves
Workers
Peasants
Fa
Rights

Fascist / White Republican Russia will not be as discriminative about the Thieves.
And it is going to have to repress far more workers and peasants. It is almost like the Collective Farms were an agreement to get the minimum out of the minimum compliant population who didn't want a free-promotion factory job…


Yeah nah let's stay prearchival and masturbate ourselves with chilli oil.

The Soviet Union was significantly repugnant enough historiographically; it doesn't need your fantasy imposed upon it. See it for what it was if you choose to hate it. Hating isn't a historian thing.
Why is it going to have to oppress more workers and peasants than the USSR? Yes, it will be nationalistic I am sure but it is not going to be selling itself as a superior new economic system which doesn't have crop failures and which would rather have people starve than admit defeat by buying in wheat from the filthy capitalist USA and Canada. Nor is it going to force collectivisation or purge the kulaks (natural supporters of the new regime after all) , nor is it going to waste resources on going for autarky and trying to minimize imports of machine tools from the capitalists. Yes going to break strikes and round up labour organisers is a strong possible though not an inevitability. And remember that the "thieves" include what we would call small businessmen because we aren't trying to run a Communist economy
 
Why is it going to have to oppress more workers and peasants than the USSR?
Thank you for being analytical. You have improved the tone of the thread immensely.

Yes, it will be nationalistic I am sure but it is not going to be selling itself as a superior new economic system which doesn't have crop failures and which would rather have people starve than admit defeat by buying in wheat from the filthy capitalist USA and Canada.
Thank you for your historical materialist bent. The NEP castrated the existing working class. Without a line of credit or an exploited manufacturing or rural working class a line of credit for grain purchases will be unavailable.

Nor is it going to force collectivisation or purge the kulaks (natural supporters of the new regime after all) , nor is it going to waste resources on going for autarky and trying to minimize imports of machine tools from the capitalists. Yes going to break strikes and round up labour organisers is a strong possible though not an inevitability.
No, it will try to impose the pre civil war 40% tithe and tax obligations (https://www.marxists.org/archive/strauss/index.htm) with attendant social cost. The Leninists avoided this.

And remember that the "thieves" include what we would call small businessmen because we aren't trying to run a Communist economy

Are you suggesting that small business people are 100% criminal? I doubt it. Seriously mate. The whites are going to liquidate a large number of people. Who is a moral question. The cummupance is a material one.

Yours,
suggest a non genocidal german white (Theweleit, Mannerphantasien),
Sam R.
 
Thank you for being analytical. You have improved the tone of the thread immensely.



Thank you for your historical materialist bent. The NEP castrated the existing working class. Without a line of credit or an exploited manufacturing or rural working class a line of credit for grain purchases will be unavailable.


No, it will try to impose the pre civil war 40% tithe and tax obligations (https://www.marxists.org/archive/strauss/index.htm) with attendant social cost. The Leninists avoided this.




Are you suggesting that small business people are 100% criminal? I doubt it. Seriously mate. The whites are going to liquidate a large number of people. Who is a moral question. The cummupance is a material one.

Yours,
suggest a non genocidal german white (Theweleit, Mannerphantasien),
Sam R.
A good many of the "thieves" would be criminals who would be incarcerated in virtually any society but at least 20% are people who would be described as market traders or small shopkeepers in any regime less woo-woo than the communist regime.
In addition, assuming the Whites do not repudiate the Tsarist loans like the Bolsheviks did, why on earth would a country rich in oil, coal, gold, precious stones(though they haven't found the Siberian oil or diamonds yet) minerals and timber have difficulties in establishing a credit line?
 
There's always the probability that the Whites beat the Reds, they just fall back into internal conflict among each other.
Russia is pretty much screwed in such a scenario.
 
There's always the probability that the Whites beat the Reds, they just fall back into internal conflict among each other.
This can happen only without Lenin as a unifying force. He allmost died after an assasination attempt on August 30th 1918. If he dies and Trotsky/Stalin start a power struggle, a reason could be Troskys wish to replace Stalin as leader of the Southern Front, then the White offensives in the spring of 1919 could be the beginning of the end for the Bolsheviks.

Russia is pretty much screwed in such a scenario.
Not as screwed as OTL. The Whites would not have been as murderous as the Bolsheviks, also they would have accepted help from the West more readily, unlike Lenin who at first rejected it. This could have greatly reduced the number of dead in the Famine of 1921 - 1922.

Sure the Whites could have slaughtered most of the Bolsheviks that would have surrendered in the 1919-1920 period, they could have expanded the old Tsarist tradition of labour camps in Siberia, they also could artificially have produced a famine in the Ukraine to kill off opposition, and started some form of the Great Terror to kill of supposed Bolsheviks that slipped through their fingers. But at worst we are talking about hundreds of thousands sent to labour camps and hundreds of thousands killed, but definitely not dozens of millions in each category.

Oh an there is also no Hilter, or at least not as radical as OTL, another great +
 
1. How do you think the allies would defeat Germany if Russia lost? They either dont or use a lot of nukes. I also think that nazism was worse than communism and the only reason the latter has a higher bodicount is that it existed much longer.

2. My country was behind the Iron Courtain and yes to us it would have been much better if it didnt exist. But Im loath to exchange or even try to equate our freedom with the lives of Africans and other colonials.

3. Other countries did develope nukes as well. And I dont want to buy in to the idea that "The more dominant the USA is the better for the world" which this implies. Looking at the world after the soviets collapse is not too convincing an argument in favour of this.

4. Was it the soviets that forced the americans to support Osama in Afghanistan? No. That was an american decision. It has it pros and cons from USA view point. It contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. It also resulted in the rise of Al Qaeda with the known results. I would also add that american interventions in the Middle East and support of Israel did a lot to make the USA the target of radical Islam. Neither was forced on them by Moscow.

5. The soviets industrialisation produced incredible results - at a horrible human price. But the result you cant deny. And I used the word: seemed competitive. But the point was that it created a much higher standard of living for the working class. In Europe before the war the lives of these people were incredibly bad. The soviets proving that a system can exists that provides them with a much better life was a direct challenge to the Capitalist states - and a threat as well. If they keep treating their workers as shit said workers might rise up seeing that there is an alternative in the Soviet Union. The result was that in the 50's and 60's the capitalist states did themselves drastically raise the living standard of the working class. Thus those had money they could spend and it turned out that it was a great situation for the economy. But as soon as it became evident that the socialist way was a failure (the challenge disappeared) the capitalist cut back on these and we are living in a world were social inequality is already at an incredible level and on the rise.
1. It was certainly within the military ability of the United States and Great Britain to defeat Germany. Especially by 1945 the former had the strongest armed forces in the world and an untouched industrial base. Perhaps without the USSR the Nazi regime might have survived long enough to get nuked, but there was no realistic way they could win.

2. Why? What suffering was taking place in colonial countries that could compare with that inflicted by Communism during the same time period?

3. But both the Soviet Union and USA were military superpowers, each with the capacity to destroy the entire world. Without a Cold War the knife edge balance between these adversaries would not have been a concern. Furthermore, without the need to confront and contain communism the United States would almost assuredly have not maintained such a longstanding military presence worldwide: the public overwhelmingly wanted to bring the troops home after the war, and without a major opponent there would be far less basis for keeping large forces overseas.

In other words, without the communist threat, you wouldn't see the American military everywhere like you do today.

4. In connection with (3), without the Soviets' explicit meddling in these regions there would have been no reason for the US to take measures to oppose them. These measures produced mixed results in hindsight, but again, no Cold War basically removes the entire reason for their existence.

5. It is a fallacy. By their own measures the Soviets improved the conditions of the 'working class'. . . at the cost of millions of workers' lives. Who really benefited? The regime.

Furthermore, the reason for the economic growth in the United States was because it was the largest economy in the world and survived the war almost untouched. Having recovered from the Great Depression, the massive boost to the workforce created by so many millions of servicemen returning home and starting families created a housing boom and massive demand for goods and services. The huge automobile industry and government military spending during the early part of the Cold War also played a part. It was not, as you claim, because of some conspiracy theory that big capitalists 'allowed' the working class greater privileges to keep up with the USSR.

This is a poorly sourced blog post written mostly by one guy on wiki with an axe to grind.
 
Linking in-line citations behind a sentence is one thing; creating a truthful narrative is quite another. Check the talk page of the same 'article' to see what I'm talking about.
The Khmer Rouge admit it themselves US support was essential for maintaining power, and multiple anti-communist ideologues have confirmed as much. But keep trying to wash your hands of it, man.





 
In addition, assuming the Whites do not repudiate the Tsarist loans like the Bolsheviks did, why on earth would a country rich in oil, coal, gold, precious stones(though they haven't found the Siberian oil or diamonds yet) minerals and timber have difficulties in establishing a credit line?
Check how stretched the Czars were on their french line. The rates of interest would have been sufficiently usorious to have justified a continuing cycle of 1905s.
 
Check how stretched the Czars were on their french line. The rates of interest would have been sufficiently usorious to have justified a continuing cycle of 1905s.
But you also have the Americans coming out of WW1 with a lot of surplus capital looking for an outlet. Recollect the Dawes and Young Plans OTL?
 
There are the people who died in famines engineered by Stalin, repatriated Soviets who were executed, etc.
If's not like they could tallied how many died in those events.
And Stalin was the same guy who said that one death is tragedy and a million is a statistic.
There are various estimates about the number of famine deaths, but none of them comes even close to explaining any of the excessive estimates claimed here.
As for the Stalin's quote, like nearly all Stalin quotes, it is invented.

Soldiers and civilians murdered by Germans can indirectly be attributed to Stalin.
The Great Purge is what weakened the USSR to the point that OP Barbarossa became so successful for the Germans.
And Hitler himself said that the Great Purge was one of the reasons that OP Barbarossa was even considered.
No Great Purge means that even if the Nazis launched OP Barbarossa it wouldn't have ended up as it did OTL.
The problem with this argument is that you could turn it around and claim that without the industrialization and build up of the military under Stalin the disaster would be even greater.
And anyway, however culpable the Soviets were in not preparing for the German invasion, it was the Nazis who decided to start a genocidal invasion. Trying to transfer blame for that to the Soviet regime only diminishes the Nazis decision to carry out those crimes.

And are the Soviet archives really a reliable source?
I doubt recording how many they people they killed was at the top of their to-do list.
It most certainly was. After all the Soviet repressive organs had to show how effective they were in eliminating "enemies of the people". Labor camps meanwhile had every interest in not under-reporting deaths because their production quotas were assessed based on the numbers of workers available.

And Stalin wouldn't have his cronies modify the archives?

In dictatorships, there are usually 2 sets of data.
One set is the stuff in the archives, which are usually heavily doctored for whatever purpose.
Then there's the set of numbers that the dictator and his inner circle (secret police chief, party secretary, etc.) get to see.
The second copy is usually print in very small amounts and destroyed after being read.
Your argument would make sense if the figures in the archives were meant for publishing. They most certainly were not - they were precisely the second set of data that was only for the inнer circle. Also, nothing was destroyed in the Soviet archives. They did not even destroy the order to execute the Polish POW at Katyn, even though Khrushchev ordered them destroyed.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn estimated 60 million and he knew first hand the conditions in a gulag.
Other scholars say 20 million minimum with a 60 million maximum.
Source is below.
Knowing the conditions in the Gulag does not help in estimating the number of total deaths. Furthermore, Solzhenitsyn made no estimates in his book (which incidentally is subtitled "An Experiment in Literary Investigation"). He quoted the estimates of Ivan Kurganov, a Nazi collaborator, which were more or less baseless speculations.

And most modern scholars (your source only cites cold war era figures) no longer consider even the 20 million figure credible, let alone 60 million. The Soviet archives have been opened and even taking into account underestimation and unreported deaths, as well as the highest estimates of the 1932-33 Soviet famine makes it's difficult to see how there could have been 15 million deaths. In fact the Black Book of Communism estimated 14 million and was criticized by one of its writers of exaggerating the numbers. In my opinion if someone like Timothy Snyder - probably one of the last historians who can be accused of sympathy towards the Soviet Union - considers the deaths to have been about 9 millions, it's not very likely that they were much higher.

Solzhenitsyn was a Russian chauvinist who engaged in the blatantly dishonest tactic of attributing everything good about the Soviet Union to Christian Slavs and everything bad to Jewish Bolsheviks. More importantly, he did his work before the fall of the USSR and the opening of actual state archives. Everything written since about 2000 has gone for a lower figure.
It's always better to read a work before quoting it or you're just going to look ridiculous by making obviously false statements, like you did here.

Even the Russians admit 9.8M 'abnormal deaths' between 1926 and 1937, and that's discounting Holodomor.
One should be careful in citing sources, since the Russians have certainly not "admitted" anything like that.

Averaging highband low numbers of megadeaths is around 30M
Most of which include baseless speculation from the Cold War years.

The Soviet Census 1926 claims a population of 147 Million, the growth rate was 2.5-3% a year. Based on this the population in 1937 when the next cenus took place should have been between 175-180 Million, yet it was only 162 Million. Some 13 to 18 Million People are missing. It is impossible to calcualte how many died, how many were not born, wrong predictions ect ect however we know that roughly this many people were missing. And then there are the dead between 1937 and 1953. So while 50 Million + is a ridiculous number, so is 10 Million -. As with most estimates, the most accurate number can be found somwhere in the middle - around 30 Million.
I don't think anyone who can look at a population deficit of between 13 and 18 million and claim that 30 million is the most accurate number is in a position to call other estimates ridiculous. The declining birth rates alone would have substantially decreased the population growth and there was certainly a substantial reduction of birth rates both due to the famine and due to the increasing urbanization. For example, in Russia and Ukraine there was over 9 million decrease in births overall during this period when compared to 1926.
Anyway, if the claim about 30 milion was even remotely true, birth rates would have collapsed even further, leading to a significant population decrease, not an increase.

Robert Conquest was a reputable historian and he gave 14.5M for just Uncle Joe's Collectivization period that includes what he did to the Ukraine
and Kazakhstan for man made famines.
That leaves out the Gulags, Purges and most of the other forced migrations/deportations
Even Robert Conquest modified his figures down to 14 million in total after the Cold War ended.

I thinks Clive James put it best, that by 1939 Stalin had killed so many people, not even Hitler could catch up.
Yes, if you discount most of Hitler's victims.[/QUOTE]
 
Top