Why is Russia Different than Mexico?

Nobody is really explaining to me why it's an invalid comparison, though.

Well, Netum did come up with a fair point:

In 1900, Russia was a great power, had a developing industrial base, many natural resources, was plagued with instability and had a population of 128m

In 1900, Mexico was a minor backwater, had no development, many natural resources, was plagued with instability, and had a population of 13.6m

I´d argue that today they aren´t that different, but back then they were.

And now, if we consider the cold war we can see that Russia truly has an awesome potential. It managed quite a lot despite a paranoid crazy leader, stupid economic policies and a horrific invasion.

I´m thinking about population here. Of course one shouldn´t underestimate Mexico´s potential either. (Resources, space and also industrializing).
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I´d argue that today they aren´t that different, but back then they were.

And now, if we consider the cold war we can see that Russia truly has an awesome potential. It managed quite a lot despite a paranoid crazy leader, stupid economic policies and a horrific invasion.

I´m thinking about population here. Of course one shouldn´t underestimate Mexico´s potential either. (Resources, space and also industrializing).
Russia managed a lot OTL because they had a scary paranoid crazy leader who ruthlessly favored centralization and brutally made sure Russia industrialized fast.
 
I´d argue that today they aren´t that different, but back then they were.

I don't see his point. It's true about population, but it isn't as if 1914 Mexico was a stone age squalor. I think people overestimate Russia's level of advancement in 1914, and underestimate Latin America pretty consistently.

I mean, Brazil certainly could have built ICBMs from the 1960s on. They didn't because they weren't completely insane.


And now, if we consider the cold war we can see that Russia truly has an awesome potential. It managed quite a lot despite a paranoid crazy leader, stupid economic policies and a horrific invasion.

This is all true, but nobody's explaining to me why they would do better than Argentina, say. I mean, look at wages and standards of living in 1913 Russia and Argentina.

(The other, alternative implication is that the Soviets didn't do as terribly as everyone seems to think....)

Russia can be a great power with an economy the size it has today. But it doesn't mean that it will be more prosperous than OTL.
 
I might have somthing to do with population, even if the % of russian in higher enducation or staring a bussines is the same of lower, the amount will be higher. Russia is also a in europe, that means different stats that have different needs and thus might gennerat more investment. This is all guessing.
 
You know Czarist Russia was rapidly industrializing pre-WWi right? depending on the winning faction, they might have taken it more slowly, but they were going to industrialize.

Yes Czarist Russia, not White Russia. The POD I had would have Russia devastated by a massive civil war. The Whites come out on top but by an edge. But just by an edge. Industrialization occurs, but not by OTL Soviet standards.
 
If non-red Russia can get a stable civil society (governments can come and go, as long as the rule of law stays constant) with a market economy (not a capitalist economy, state ownership is fine, just so long as it's people's demands not government that determines supply and prices) then it will do much better than the Soviets. The general example is Finland vs Estonia;

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/comparing-the-costs-of-communism/

They were very similar in the 1930s, one got Soviet communism and the other merely Soviet influence along side joyus Scandanavian social democracy. But the results as measured at the end of the Cold War were quite impressively different.

So that is why you could assume non-red Russia would do better, but of course if you vary your assumptions then it could easily become a mega-Mexico or worse - If White Russia becomes a corporatist state where law depends on who you know in the ruling Junta and prices are controlled by the Ministry of Stuff then things could go much worse than OTL.
 
I don't see his point. It's true about population, but it isn't as if 1914 Mexico was a stone age squalor. I think people overestimate Russia's level of advancement in 1914, and underestimate Latin America pretty consistently.

I mean, Brazil certainly could have built ICBMs from the 1960s on. They didn't because they weren't completely insane.

This is all true, but nobody's explaining to me why they would do better than Argentina, say. I mean, look at wages and standards of living in 1913 Russia and Argentina.

(The other, alternative implication is that the Soviets didn't do as terribly as everyone seems to think....)

Russia can be a great power with an economy the size it has today. But it doesn't mean that it will be more prosperous than OTL.

I certainly do not think that a White Russia would be a prosperous, stable and democratic great power.

Leaving aside issues such as industrialisation or population size, a White Russia has lots of potential for ethnic strife and major wars with it's neighbours. Many White Russian leaders made it clear that they wanted to re-establish the Czarist borders to an extent. With Poland, Finland and the Baltic republics becoming independent, with Romania annexing Basarabia; with millions of Jews, Muslims and other minorities in Russia I really do not think that and ultranationalist, reactionary, Orthodox Russia would end up becoming a stable, prosperous democracy. Hell, today ethnic tensions in Russia are growing to an alarming level. Imagine what would happen if openly antisemitic people like Denikin were to come in power.
 
An idle thought, inspired by some of the older discussions of the future of White Russia.

We tend to presume that the default scenario is that it ends up with a Western European standard of living, like Finland and the Baltic States have. But...

A quick look at per capita incomes around the world, drawn from the IMF:

Mexico: $14,406
Russia: $15,612
Argentina: $15,901
Brazil: $11,273

Is there a reason to assume that non-red Russia, in whatever form, wouldn't end up as mega Mexico?

Heh, optimist. I’ve always thought it’d look more like Warlord-era China.

It has a nominal central government riddled with weakness, corruption and incompetence. With army strongmen/bandits, controlling vast tracts of the country. Looting it for their own gain and to support their private armies.
 
I certainly do not think that a White Russia would be a prosperous, stable and democratic great power.

Leaving aside issues such as industrialisation or population size, a White Russia has lots of potential for ethnic strife and major wars with it's neighbours. Many White Russian leaders made it clear that they wanted to re-establish the Czarist borders to an extent. With Poland, Finland and the Baltic republics becoming independent, with Romania annexing Basarabia; with millions of Jews, Muslims and other minorities in Russia I really do not think that and ultranationalist, reactionary, Orthodox Russia would end up becoming a stable, prosperous democracy. Hell, today ethnic tensions in Russia are growing to an alarming level. Imagine what would happen if openly antisemitic people like Denikin were to come in power.

And the Soviet Union didn't have that exact same problem? The difference is that White Russia is a lot more like the other Great Powers and can therefore be more easily influenced by them. When everyone else is a democracy the Soviets went "eh who gives a crap" but if pressure were put on the Whites something may actually happen.
 
And the Soviet Union didn't have that exact same problem? The difference is that White Russia is a lot more like the other Great Powers and can therefore be more easily influenced by them. When everyone else is a democracy the Soviets went "eh who gives a crap" but if pressure were put on the Whites something may actually happen.

Not nearly to the same extent. There was some antisemitism and discrimination against others but not even fucking close to what would happen if the Whites had come in power. Jesus Christ are you serious? Josef Stalin was a Georgian, go ask today a Russian ultranationalist what he thinks about Georgians and then think what he might do with them if you put him in power. Or about having a Jewish Commander in Chief (Trotsky)?

Even Jews, though they were not allowed to reach the highest levels, there were many influential and succesful Jews in the Soviet Union. How can you even compare it? The Soviet Union did not have perfect race relations, far from it, it even became in time a vechicle for Russification, but in this case there would be no need for Russification since most minorities would not even be considered worthy of it.

Were you talking about foreign policy? How would the Whites tolerate a Poland with millions of Belarusians and Ukranians in it? Or a Romania with Moldova in it? The Soviet Union did use irredentisim quite often in the inter-war era, but in this case the whole point of the White regime would be to unite all East Slavs and re-establish Tsarist borders. If they cannot do that than what purpose do they have?

And about democracy. I already said that this may lead to many wars and ethnic conflicts, this tends to cause further radicalization and instability. And who says that all the other countries will be democratic? How many were there in the world during the 1930s? A dozen at most. Not even in the Cold war were a majority of countries democratic by any measure. Non-democratic does not equal commie, there are dozens of different authoritarian regimes.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Not nearly to the same extent. There was some antisemitism and discrimination against others but not even fucking close to what would happen if the Whites had come in power. Jesus Christ are you serious? Josef Stalin was a Georgian, go ask today a Russian ultranationalist what he thinks about Georgians and then think what he might do with them if you put him in power. Or about having a Jewish Commander in Chief (Trotsky)?

Even Jews, though they were not allowed to reach the highest levels, there were many influential and succesful Jews in the Soviet Union. How can you even compare it? The Soviet Union did not have perfect race relations, far from it, it even became in time a vechicle for Russification, but in this case there would be no need for Russification since most minorities would not even be considered worthy of it.

Were you talking about foreign policy? How would the Whites tolerate a Poland with millions of Belarusians and Ukranians in it? Or a Romania with Moldova in it? The Soviet Union did use irredentisim quite often in the inter-war era, but in this case the whole point of the White regime would be to unite all East Slavs and re-establish Tsarist borders. If they cannot do that than what purpose do they have?

And about democracy. I already said that this may lead to many wars and ethnic conflicts, this tends to cause further radicalization and instability. And who says that all the other countries will be democratic? How many were there in the world during the 1930s? A dozen at most. Not even in the Cold war were a majority of countries democratic by any measure. Non-democratic does not equal commie, there are dozens of different authoritarian regimes.

To be honest the generals would probably be busy too fighting each other to have time to press Mother Russia's irredentist claims.
 
To be honest the generals would probably be busy too fighting each other to have time to press Mother Russia's irredentist claims.

True, they were a very fragmented movement and it's kinda hard to see them form a stable centralized government right after the civil war, but the OP was talking about the "future of White Russia" so I am assuming that at some point they would eventually form a government.
 
Assuming White Russia somehow overcomes the whole Bolsheviks having the best geography, overwhelming numbers, and a blend of overwhelming strength and the scruples of sharks in a feeding frenzy coupled with that strength (some White generals were the same way but there were never enough of them and their leadership being such is itself a Catch-22) and then avoids a generals-Social Revolutionary-Menshevik second round, White Russia by 2011 will be somewhere around the USSR of the early 1930s.

The Whites would be a purely military regime, and one whose nature and anti-Semitism make it hard for them to appeal to the Allies while they've every reason to hate the Germans. It'd be a very nasty and unpleasant place, though White factions had no Stalin counterpart. Ungern-Sternberg could be a potential Beria but you need a Stalin with your Beria. White Russia would be unpleasant like the USSR was, but unpleasant without the USSR's bloody-minded focus on industrializing come Hell or high water.

The absence of the Reds, however, virtually butterflies any recognizable WWII as Mussolini will still rise but Nazism won't and can't.
 
Bolshevik strength was far from overwhelming.

The Red Army had 355,000 bayonets and sabres in June 1919, and 304,000 in January 1920. The Armed Forces of South Russia, alone, had 154,000 in October 1919. I think the Northwestern Army had 18,000 at that time, and the various eastern armies had about 100,000 at that time. The Red Army eventually reached 5,500,000 personnel, but they were never about to arm more than 1/6 of their troops.

And the Armed Forces of South Russia and the Northwestern Army were far better supplied than the Red Army - The British sent more arms and ammunition to Russia than the Bolshevik-held factories produced.
 
I think this argument is missing the point. Without WWI, Russia stands a good chance of modernizing and might be able to catch up with Spain and Portugal by the 70's. WWI is the key factor here. A White Russia that does not have the enormous pressures of foreign invasion, occupation, and then revolution, would eventually modernize. While there might be a revolution of some kind, it is highly doubtful that it would resemble OTL's (which needed WWI to get started, and then had to piggyback off Kerensky...another discussion in and of itself). A surviving White Russia with a constitutional monarchy could be a superpower by the year 2000 if the right reforms are made. The idea of Russia simply not having the ability to modernize properly is an unfounded cliche, IMO.

Turkey might be a more appropriate analogy than Mexico for this question.
 
Bolshevik strength was far from overwhelming.

The Red Army had 355,000 bayonets and sabres in June 1919, and 304,000 in January 1920. The Armed Forces of South Russia, alone, had 154,000 in October 1919. I think the Northwestern Army had 18,000 at that time, and the various eastern armies had about 100,000 at that time. The Red Army eventually reached 5,500,000 personnel, but they were never about to arm more than 1/6 of their troops.

And the Armed Forces of South Russia and the Northwestern Army were far better supplied than the Red Army - The British sent more arms and
ammunition to Russia than the Bolshevik-held factories produced.

Actually it was quite overwhelming....relative to that of their opponents. When the biggest White Army is 30,000 strong 355,000 *is* overwhelming. The statement about Bolshevik factories is both true and irrelevant as they fought their war armed almost solely with weapons produced by the Tsar's government in 1916-7.
 
Actually it was quite overwhelming....relative to that of their opponents. When the biggest White Army is 30,000 strong 355,000 *is* overwhelming. The statement about Bolshevik factories is both true and irrelevant as they fought their war armed almost solely with weapons produced by the Tsar's government in 1916-7.

Talking about the strongest armies in this context is like talking about the strongest divisions or the strongest corps, and anyway, your figures are off. The Don Army had almost 51,000 bayonets and sabres in October. It was only one part of the Armed Forces of South Russia which had 154,000 bayonets and sabres.

In the fall of 1919, it's more like 270,000 Whites vs. 330,000 Bolsheviks, and 60,000 for miscellaneous independent partisans.
 
Top