WI Barbarossa against white russia?

What if the white army won the civil war, but this didn't affected the rise of power of the NSDAP in Germany, and then the operation barbarossa happens more or less in the same date as OTL

Would Russia do better than OTL? There would be no purges, but they problably would be less industrialized than OTL soviet union..
 
Honestly, Im sorry to say. but with a White Russia, the rise of the NSDAP will most likely be butterflies, since men like Rosenberg and Von Scheuber Richter would remain in Russia, instead of fleeing to Germany post war.
 
Would a white Russia not also rebuild the entente with France and GB ?

Without the fear of revolution why would anybody put up with fascists and appeasement and Germany just gets told no it cant repudiate the VT unless we also agree with it.....
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The logic that no Red Russia means no Nazis is something I find flawed. Good ol' anti-Slavic racism and antiSemitism was far more crucial to getting working class votes than fear mongering about the Reds, which worked with the elites.

Of course, White Russia does not mean ALL OF RUSSIA is white. There could have been an agreement reached in the Civil War where the Whites get the South and most of Siberia while the Reds get the rest. If this happens, the tide could change.

But to your main question, saying that White Russia exists with Soviet borders and the invasion goes ahead as planned, I give the Germans the edge because Russia would be less able to industrially support itself, even if there is more qualitative officer composition. Still, Western aid might be even forthcoming than OTL, and Russian manpower might be better than it was with the Stalinist massacres and famines, not to mention of course a better officiered army and the Church as a symbol to rally around, which was indeed effective in the past. It would be a total war of annihilation just as OTL, so Russian motivation and willingness to accept horrible losses would be just as high. I just don't know if they'd be able to win with the lack of industrialization of OTL, which was forced and not something I think White Russia would do.
 
A thing to consider is - would Russia be willing to make a M-R Pact equivalent? In other words, would they perceive Germany (not necessarily strictly Nazi ITTL) as a direct threat, or could a far-right General see in them a model to be emulated, and a power to co-operate with against the West? It's a crucial question to understand what the border is going to be in the beginning.

Also, the power structure in Russia is very important to see what the army, industry etc. is going to be like. A fragmented political scene can be very unfortunate when it comes to preparing the country for anything like Barbarossa; an incompetent dictator would be completely disastrous.
 
The Nazis (and to a good extent Germans in general) still hate the Jews, of which Russia has a substantial population, and the Slavs. A savvy Hitler-type person will still know how to exploit the hatred of both and rise to power.

As for White Russia's performance in Barbarossa, the nation won't be as modern/mechanized but all the purges of Stalin won't have taken place so the quality of commanders/generals (and average soldiers) will be higher. So, it might be a wash.
 
The logic that no Red Russia means no Nazis is something I find flawed. Good ol' anti-Slavic racism and antiSemitism was far more crucial to getting working class votes than fear mongering about the Reds, which worked with the elites.

Of course, White Russia does not mean ALL OF RUSSIA is white. There could have been an agreement reached in the Civil War where the Whites get the South and most of Siberia while the Reds get the rest. If this happens, the tide could change.
Yes.

But to your main question, saying that White Russia exists with Soviet borders and the invasion goes ahead as planned, I give the Germans the edge because Russia would be less able to industrially support itself, even if there is more qualitative officer composition. Still, Western aid might be even forthcoming than OTL, and Russian manpower might be better than it was with the Stalinist massacres and famines, not to mention of course a better officiered army and the Church as a symbol to rally around, which was indeed effective in the past. It would be a total war of annihilation just as OTL, so Russian motivation and willingness to accept horrible losses would be just as high. I just don't know if they'd be able to win with the lack of industrialization of OTL, which was forced and not something I think White Russia would do.
Russia had self-inflicted mass starvation from Stalin's five-year plans and a lot of early Soviet equipment was worthless crap. It wasn't until the end of 1941/early 1942 that Russian tank forces were any kind of real threat and not until almost two years after that that the VVS could really give it to the Luftwaffe.

Tsarist Russia was starting to industrialize OTL, and we don't really know how far they would have gotten if they had won, particularly if the Russian Civil War could have been avoided or shortened.
 
A lot depends on what this "White" Russia looks like. Aside from not being a communist dictatorship, a White Russia could be anything from a Republic to a Fascist regime itself. Each has its own implications. Also given the less-than cohesive nature of the White movement the civil war could last a couple years longer than OTL.
A western-ish looking Russia won't have the purges, but it could also be hit hard by the great depression and be industrially backwards and less militarized (so no hordes of T-34/T-26s or whatever the tank model was most common in 1941).
Of course a white Russia would almost certainly be more in concert with the west on Germany, so Hitler's strategy is going to run into stumbling blocks earlier. A M-R equivalent isn't likely to happen here, and without that there's no surprise attack.
 
A thing to consider is - would Russia be willing to make a M-R Pact equivalent? In other words, would they perceive Germany (not necessarily strictly Nazi ITTL) as a direct threat, or could a far-right General see in them a model to be emulated, and a power to co-operate with against the West? It's a crucial question to understand what the border is going to be in the beginning.

Also, the power structure in Russia is very important to see what the army, industry etc. is going to be like. A fragmented political scene can be very unfortunate when it comes to preparing the country for anything like Barbarossa; an incompetent dictator would be completely disastrous.
Good question.
If we have some ATL Nazis who still look for Lebersbraun (sp?) in Russia as well as killing slaves for sport, they'd still see them as a threat, even if they are ideologically close (except for the whole "kill the slavs" thing of course)

And regarding coordinating with the West - the problem here is how the relationship with the UK evolve. In the face of a resurgent, anti-Russia, Germany, Russia will establish closer ties with France. But if they are still involved in some updated version of the Great Game with the UK, they may feel, like Stalin did, that the British want to trick the Russians into fighting Germany so the UK can weaken both rival powers without expending British blood. And if France is reluctant to stop Germany (still a likely possibility), a White Russia might decide some sort of M-R pact is a good short term deal to make sure Germany turns west instead of east. However, I think this has better possibilities of happening after an ATL Fall of France, and would be very short lived.
 
Despite not being communist in this scenario, I'm with the others who think that Hitler would still exploit anti-Slavic racism. He'd probably use Spenglerian arguments about the rise of a Tolstoyan-Dostoevskyian culture in Russia as an existential threat to an "Aryan-Faustian West". No matter that Spengler rejected scientific racism, because the Nazis could just academically cherry-pick as they always did.
 
Yes.


Russia had self-inflicted mass starvation from Stalin's five-year plans and a lot of early Soviet equipment was worthless crap. It wasn't until the end of 1941/early 1942 that Russian tank forces were any kind of real threat and not until almost two years after that that the VVS could really give it to the Luftwaffe.

Tsarist Russia was starting to industrialize OTL, and we don't really know how far they would have gotten if they had won, particularly if the Russian Civil War could have been avoided or shortened.

So what military equipment of the Soviets sucked? The light tanks did not seem to be effective since their guns could not penetrate German tanks IIRC. The KV tank were quite good, but were uneconomical compared to the T-34s.

How much French or British equipment was good against the Heer? I think the Matilda tanks were good though.
 
I'm saying that we can't say that a White or surviving Tsarist Russia that had its act reasonably together wouldn't be able to field a military comparable to that of the USSR in 1941.
 
Despite not being communist in this scenario, I'm with the others who think that Hitler would still exploit anti-Slavic racism. He'd probably use Spenglerian arguments about the rise of a Tolstoyan-Dostoevskyian culture in Russia as an existential threat to an "Aryan-Faustian West". No matter that Spengler rejected scientific racism, because the Nazis could just academically cherry-pick as they always did.

Yes, and he would say that because Russia "almost went Bolshevik" that it would always be a threat to Germany until dealt with.
 
Top