White Victory in Russia; Horrible?

[BlackDragon98]

As much as Chiang is a not so effective leader who's poor decisions screwed a lot of people, he is certainly not AS bad as Mao, no way. Chiang wasn't an evil psychopath straight out of 1984 like Mao was.
Mao had a policy of execution for anyone who tried desert his territory, peasants and soldiers both to be executed. This was actually one of the main reasons Mao was able to keep his bases going, through sheer terror, all who wanted to leave either didn't out of fear or were shot doing so. This practice was especially prevalent during his bleak Yan'an days. There was a reign of terror worse than any other in history. Most of this is from Jung Chang's book again btw.
Another thing that seperates Mao is that once, no joke, he considered an end to names for the people which would be replaced by a 9 digit number..... I'm being totally serious. He didn't give a shit about human life, not that chiang did either, he once said something along the lines of:
"being nice and doing people favours is never to be done out of good-will, but for the purpose of self-preservation alone". Another shitty thing he did was when either his first of second wife, I think second, was stuck in nationalist controlled Changde during a siege, and while he knew she was there he ordered a brutal no prisoners taken offensive and bombardment of the city.

I could go on and on and on but you get the picture.

I pity any woman unfortunate enough to become Mao's wife

and I believe you about Mao's terror tactics
the Yan'an terror campaign is completely true, even though any info about it is completely suppressed by the Chinese government

If Chiang had any brains he would offer amnesty to any low ranking communist if they deserted to the Nationalists in 1934, when they were surrounded by the KMT

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Those were military actions done by a desperate idiot after throwing his best German trained units into the Asian Stalingrad and watching them getting completely destroyed
Chiang's not a nuthead, just a really incompetent idiot
I rather have neither of them in charge of China

Chiang may have been convinced of their military necessity, but to me it looks a lot like preventing Japanese take over by ensuring there is no longer a China for them to take over.

 

[ferdi254]

Again the argument is: Hey we got this psychopathic mass murder of a couple million people but somebody might have killed more.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Again the argument is: Hey we got this psychopathic mass murder of a couple million people but somebody might have killed more.

I wouldn't say anyone's really arguing here, we're mostly just talking about how 20th Century China got shafted hard in the leadership department.

 

[Johnrankins]

The USSR supported decolonization?
So maybe without the UK being bankrupted in the war they would try to fight much harder for their colonies?
And if you want to get really ideological you can talk about comparing the deathtoll of communism with capitalist neocolonialism and all that stuff, but that is not what this thread is about

Except for its colonies in Eastern Europe , North Korea, Cuba etc.

 

[TJSwoboda]

There was no real expectation of freedom coming from the czars, and tyranny was bound to continue in any case. Here's something I once wrote in a TL where the White Movement won. Every time I post this, I have to point out: 1) I honestly had no idea who the real Bob Novak is when I wrote that. 2) There's at least one other thing wrong with it, but expanding further would be spoily...

 

[Johnrankins]

There was no real expectation of freedom coming from the czars, and tyranny was bound to continue in any case. Here's something I once wrote in a TL where the White Movement won. Every time I post this, I have to point out: 1) I honestly had no idea who the real Bob Novak is when I wrote that. 2) There's at least one other thing wrong with it, but expanding further would be spoily...

They don't have to establish a liberal democracy to be better than the Reds. Between Lenin and Stalin they would have to be really awful to be as bad. They might be as bad or worse but the odds are strongly against it.

 

[b0ned0me]

They don't have to establish a liberal democracy to be better than the Reds. Between Lenin and Stalin they would have to be really awful to be as bad. They might be as bad or worse but the odds are strongly against it.

Why are the odds against it? We know from OTL three facts:
1) The red side in the civil war was disorganised, under-resourced, prone to factional squabbling, totally bereft of any external support and spent a large amount of what resources they did have on murdering each other or ideological posturing
2) the white side had access to a whole heap of legacy Tsarist organisation and military leaders, plus strong external support from the entente powers
3) The leadership on the white side was such a horrifying collection of demented chucklefucks that despite all their advantages on paper the Reds still stuffed them.

So to me it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that (4) could be “if the whites somehow beat the reds then the next few decades are an epic shitshow, like a prison riot with 150M inmates” . How exactly they would stack up to OTL is an unknown, especially since no-one can agree for certain how OTL actually turned out.

 

[HagenWest]

especially since no-one can agree for certain how OTL actually turned out

Exactly

This is basically what the past 18 pages revolve around.

 

[sonofrome]

Why are the odds against it? We know from OTL three facts:
1) The red side in the civil war was disorganised, under-resourced, prone to factional squabbling, totally bereft of any external support and spent a large amount of what resources they did have on murdering each other or ideological posturing
2) the white side had access to a whole heap of legacy Tsarist organisation and military leaders, plus strong external support from the entente powers
3) The leadership on the white side was such a horrifying collection of demented chucklefucks that despite all their advantages on paper the Reds still stuffed them.

So to me it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that (4) could be “if the whites somehow beat the reds then the next few decades are an epic shitshow, like a prison riot with 150M inmates” . How exactly they would stack up to OTL is an unknown, especially since no-one can agree for certain how OTL actually turned out.

How the hell could a white victory be worse??? If they won the kulaks wouldn't have died and therefore no holodomor or other famines. Leninists in the thread think that the famines were inevitable or something when the worst tzarist famines killed an order of magnitude less people than the holodomor. With the kulaks alive, lysenkoism non existant, agricultural production would have easily kept up with population growth. Add to this an acceptence of relief aid that commies IOTL didn't accept. What kind of fantasy world would have someone like kolchak or wrangel screw russia like the bolsheviks??? As far as I know Kolchak was slightly autistic, poor social skills, but extremely proud and patriotic of his country(and a genuine christian i think which makes a big difference from the immorality of godless communism). Why would he destroy it psychopathically like reds or any of other white leaders?

 

[ferdi254]

Well even those who argue for the lowest figure here are at 10 million people that got killed. Making Stalin the worst killer of the own people in all of history until Mao came along.

So any lets say normal dictatorship is most likely better than Stalin as all governments in history have not killed as many as Stalin did. So apart from „the Whites were not nice prople“ no one has so far made any argument that any of those (or all of them combined) would go Stalin

 

[sonofrome]

Its just people magnifying the tiniest possibilities of TTL to fit there ideological lense, when they know full well that in all likelihood the whites would be better for Russia and the World.

Regarding white leadership, the only unsavoury character at the top top echelon that was relevant was Denikin, and he refused to take over even after kolchak was gone. Wrangel and Kolchak were by no means "demented chucklefucks"(???why). They seem to me like people who would actually lead russia better than Nicholas. Am I wrong about these two individual who were the likely leaders??

 

[Rosella]

Well even those who argue for the lowest figure here are at 10 million people that got killed. Making Stalin the worst killer of the own people in all of history until Mao came along.

So any lets say normal dictatorship is most likely better than Stalin as all governments in history have not killed as many as Stalin did. So apart from „the Whites were not nice prople“ no one has so far made any argument that any of those (or all of them combined) would go Stalin

Not going to agree with this in 90 percent of all respects. The whites weren't "not nice people", and if you're willing to excuse these people I shudder to think what you'd say about Kissinger. Likewise there's a huge elephant in your second sentence....

Am I wrong about these two individual who were the likely leaders??

Almost certainly! Not a good look to keep defending such horrible people. "Might not cause specifically the holodomor, just probably some other genocide or 'famine'" does not a good person make.

(and a genuine christian i think which makes a big difference from the immorality of godless communism).

Ohhhhh, that explains everything, doesn't it!

 

[ferdi254]

Rosella if you think Kissinger is in the same league as Stalin...

Even the likes of Franco and Pinochet who were terrible dictators were not murderous mass killers on the scale of Stalin. I am not excusing those nor any of the whites of Russia but even if they had won and killed two million people making them the worst rulers Russia ever had... they‘d still be at the very least 8 million killings short of Stalin. And name me any other ruler who in peacetime killed so many of his own people.

 

[sonofrome]

@Rosella you still haven't explain why one might "shudder at the thought" of the white leaders Kolchak and Wrangel. Please elaborate as to what genocides and famines these people would order or let take place. You are just making blank statements.

 

[sonofrome]

Ohhhhh, that explains everything, doesn't it!

Because Christians are idiots with morals far below those of the honorable and enlightened Bolsheviks? (Who viewed murder as merely a means to an end and not an inherently bad action)

 

[Rosella]

Rosella if you think Kissinger is in the same league as Stalin...

Even the likes of Franco and Pinochet who were terrible dictators were not murderous mass killers on the scale of Stalin. I am not excusing those nor any of the whites of Russia but even if they had won and killed two million people making them the worst rulers Russia ever had... they‘d still be at the very least 8 million killings short of Stalin. And name me any other ruler who in peacetime killed so many of his own people.

I never said that.
Plus, excluding wartime genocide is... not exactly the best?

@Rosella you still haven't explain why one might "shudder at the thought" of the white leaders Kolchak and Wrangel. Please elaborate as to what genocides and famines these people would order or let take place. You are just making blank statements.

That makes two of us, huh?

Because Christians are idiots with morals far below those of the honorable and enlightened Bolsheviks?

Because being Christian doesn't automatically make you a wonderful person, even compared to a hypothetical G-d hating communist who throws knives at people on their spare time.

 

[sonofrome]

That makes two of us, huh?

Oh so your admitting you don't actually know how they are bad people?

Because being Christian doesn't automatically make you a wonderful person, even compared to a hypothetical G-d hating communist who throws knives at people on their spare time.

I never said it did, just that it at least gives moral underpinnings to one's world view and gives you an obligation to your people, king and country, which if you snub, will be a stain on your reputation as worthy of ruler-ship, something I'm sure Wrangel and Kolchak would have respected.
Again please tell me if I'm wrong, does atheist totalitarian communism have a higher chance of treating the people fairly?

 

[GameBawesome]

Because Christians are idiots with morals far below those of the honorable and enlightened Bolsheviks? (Who viewed murder as merely a means to an end and not an inherently bad action)

Are being sarcastic or are actually saying that the Bolsheviks were more moral and honorable then even Christians?

 

[sonofrome]

Are being sarcastic or are actually saying that the Bolsheviks were more moral and honorable then even Christians?

Yes I'm being sarcastic. To show how ridiculous the idea that White Russia would have been worse for the people is.