White Victory in Russia; Horrible?
- Thread starter Johnharry
- Start date
Hey mindless violence by all the non Leninist forces against each other could very well equal or surpass his kill count
Basically but probably worse I really don't see any candidates for a Chiang equivalent who could get Russia's shit together.
Why are people's understanding of Trotsky either "secret social democrat" or "red alert stalin?"
Trotsky's USSR would retain an international commitment to socialism but he wouldn't launch a red crusade against capitalism in Europe - since Bukharin is mentioned, he actually did want to do that in 1918 before the various uprisings in Europe failed and he was forced to reevaluate course of action. Trotsky's economic policies were similar to Stalin but less unhinged. Those are the sole two differences - otherwise the USSR would be pretty similar in it's mixed gains for the working class and it's disconnect with that class.
"General Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea"
Pol Pot - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Pol Pot was a communist.
By this logic the Nazis were socialists, the PRC is still socialist and the DPRK is all three of the things it claims to be. As it turns out, ideology is much more complicated than what label one waves. The only thing remotely socialist about Pol Pot would be the "feudal/reactionary socialism" Marx and Engels criticized and historically served as one of the founding currents of fascism.
Let's not forget about the US arming Pol Pot and supporting his government even after it's deposition as well...
Last edited:
People also don't understand the White Russians they weren't a coherent group they were made up of forces that follow many different ideologues they were only working together out of fear and hatred of the Reds. Theirs really no reason to think they could make a coherent government most like the Whites would collapse and start a bloodier stage two of the civil war,
marathag
Banned
Would be really difficult.
They wanted to control land, not kill the 'Wreckers and other Enemies of the State'
But they wouldn't be sending a million off to dig gold by hand at Kolyma and cut trees elsewhere in the far east
Definitely depends on who takes power. "Not Leninist" is absolutely not a guarantee.
I mean if the Whites's collapse and go battle royal mode things could get bad. The whole network of food production and shipping could easily be disrupted causing famine. Ethnic tensions could easily reach a boil and we could very well see genocides happen.
Which was fostered in part by the West as a countermeasure to the growing socialist influence in the Middle East.
To be honest, radical Islam's been around since forever, every religion has its nutjobs. Christianity had Savonarola, the more extreme elements of the Crusades, the actions of Thomas Cromwell to non-Anglicans in Scotland and Ireland. It's just when Socialism (or what was seen as Socialism) spread to the Middle East, the West turned to something they thought they could use and weaponize, with help from the locals. Saudi Arabia radicalized in response to a secular Egypt and Syria, and then exported the madness to Afghanistan resulting in the Taliban to counter the Soviets.
Without a Communist USSR, there would still be radical Islam, but it wouldn't have been allowed to get so far out of hand, admittedly.
BigBlueBox
Banned
Chiang was atrocious at getting anything together. Just look at the Central Plains War, the failure to defeat the CCP, and the de facto replacement of KMT civilian rule with military despotism that only encouraged warlordism. In a White Victory Denikin or Kornilov would likely do a far better job at managing Russia than Chiang could manage China.
Last edited:
It wasn't the west distributing bombs disguised as toys to Pashtun children...
Yeah, some sort of radical Islam is pretty much assured. OTL's multi-decade long sectarian crisis however, is a pretty difficult beast to replicate.
Yeah if anything it may be better to say the Whites have too many Chiangs.
True, but such an act would have created resistance, regardless of creed or faith. Islam was just the easiest to import.
The sectarian schism was around since the days of Caliph Ali, with the Shi'ites being around since the late Umayyad era. It would have flared up sooner or later, but admittedly most likely in a different form than OTL.
You obviously don’t.
archives are the documents that institutions collected *FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT*. The Soviet Union as a state purged nomenklatura who lied to it (Fitzpatrick S) and incentivized such revelations. The Soviet Union as a state valued being correctly informed because it was an information dependent ruling class who relied on public opinion data *especially during crises* (Pirani).
Soviet state archives are a brutal truth of a ruling class who lied to everyone else, and whose own pathetic lies about socialisation are easily read around. Archives are not the public fictions put by government. They are the private facts. There’s a reason why the RF as the successor state closed the archives: too much honesty.
go peddle your nationalist fantasy elsewhere. The real abhorrence of the Red bourgeoisie is far more interesting than sollys fictions. And unlike you solly was a poet so regardless of historiographical merit he has literary merit.
That's not the schism that's been causing most of the death in the ME. Wahhabists vs other Sunni Muslims is the main issue at this time. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan War, Wahhabism was confined to Saudi Arabia where it was content maintaining its own slice of heaven/dystopia. The Afghan refugee crisis and international Mujahideen were its impetus and vectors for spread and militarization.
...arent you blaming the soviets for everything a bit too much? Some of your point are valid but other are way over the top.
To correct a few:
1.Better or worse in a humanitarian standpoint a White Russia would be certainly much weaker industrially than the CCCP. A weaker Russia could loose to the germans and that could have catastrophic consequences.
2. The soviets had a very important role in breaking up the colonial empires. Im not saying that without them they survive but decolonisation might be delayed.
3. Threat of nuclear annihilation: that was a two player game and the USA the only party that ever used nukes in a war.
4. Putting radical islam and war on terror on the soviets...
5. To add one of my own: Without the soviets creating a system that till about the 70's seemed not only viable but even competitive with the west (and that from dirt poor wartorn countries) that created a previously unimaginable standard of living for the poor and average people and thus being a challenge to capitalism that would have looked very different in the west - and not in a good way.
Last edited:
Wahhabism was going to spread because the Saud family were supporters - though clearly not devout practitioners. They use Wahhabism as a weapon against their enemies, so the only real way to stop it is to either put the Hashemites or Rashidis in charge of Arabia, who would have at least contained it to be some weird extremist cult.
Essentially, you'd be trading forced industrialization, totalitarianism, and purges, out for corruption, continued illiteracy, civil & political strife followed by likely military dictatorship, and different groups being purged. Any famines would likely be due to incompetence rather than malice, though.
It's a rare day when Stalin's the better option, but as incompetent, totalitarian, micromanagey, and generally incompetent as he was, at least Red victory means that the civil war will end. Of course, what with his sociopathic pedo sidekick and all...that might be a bad thing for a bunch of people.
Still arguably slightly better to have the Reds win, as bad as Stalin was, because a White-run Russia would be somewhere between a very nasty hard-right authoritarian regime, or an anarchic mess. Potentially both.
It's a rare day when Stalin's the better option, but as incompetent, totalitarian, micromanagey, and generally incompetent as he was, at least Red victory means that the civil war will end. Of course, what with his sociopathic pedo sidekick and all...that might be a bad thing for a bunch of people.
Still arguably slightly better to have the Reds win, as bad as Stalin was, because a White-run Russia would be somewhere between a very nasty hard-right authoritarian regime, or an anarchic mess. Potentially both.