WI: White Russians win the Russian Civil War?

Zioneer

Banned
What happens if Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and the rest of the "Reds" are beaten by the White Russians in the Russian Civil War?

Most, if not all of the Romanovs have already been killed by the events of Red October, if I remember correctly, so the royal family is destroyed.

So is the monarchy reinstated, or a democracy (whether extremely corrupt or not) created? Or, like in Britain, a fusion of the two?

Who would likely take power in the first place, if the Reds are beaten? And what groups immediately fill the political power vacuum?

One more question: What if, instead of being killed or hated due to the pogroms as in RL, the Jews are welcomed by the Whites, and aid them in winning?
 
Which faction of the whites would be on top in this scenario? One of the weaknesses of that side of the War was that they were made up of various different groups of Monarchists, Liberals and other groups. If they do win the War, it's not going to be the most stable of nations formed afterwards.
 
1. One or several warlord states form, power-sharing arrangements are a must, a repeat of violence is likely.

2. No pogroms? That's a wierd POD. What suddenly changed?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
They'd probably try to model themselves on the British system, with Grand Duke Nicholas chosen as the new Tsar. He would largely serve as a figurehead and a rubberstamp to a resurrected Duma.

However, the Duma would probably be fairly corrupt and divisive, and I can see the military and nobility trying to continue their dominance of playing a big role in the government, a la Weimar Germany, with the ever-present threat of a coup if things begin to get out of hand in their eyes.

Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak, Krasnov, and maybe Yudenich would probably dominate the early political scene, along with some people like Milyukov, Guchkov, Ryabushinsky, and some of the less-militant Mensheviks.

However, this regime would most likely be terribly unstable and corrupt, again like Weimar Germany. If we are talking post-WWI Soviet borders, you are going to see irredentism crop up big time, forming the core of some sort of fascist movement based on the principles of "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationalism" like the Mladorossi movement. Similar to the Nazis, they would most likely be extremely xenophobic, outright reactionary, and extol some sort of corporatist platform (Mladorossi's slogan was "Tsar and the Soviets").

Chances are that, once Nicholas III dies in 1929, Cyril becomes Tsar. He was a noted supporter of Mladorossi and other White Emigre groups that had fascistic bents.

So you'll probably see a collapse of parliamentarianism by the early '30s and the imposition of a fascist-like government, probably headed by Kazembek, who was very popular and charismatic, though it would be more akin to Mussolini's Italy than Hitler's Germany.

There are of course huge butterflies given a Red defeat. We may very well not see Hitler rise without a communist bugbear to stir up crowds (anti-Semitism was a big part of the Nazi's platform, but anti-Communism was a bigger vote/support getter).

Anyways, you'll probably see a really antagonistic relationship with Poland and the Baltics. If Hitler or some other right-winger does come to power in Germany, I can certainly see the two powers making plans to divide Poland along pre-WWI lines.

As for the Jews, I can certainly see them being left largely unmolested by the earlier administrations, but a long history of Russo-Ukrainian anti-Semitism isn't just going to disappear, especially since most of the populace blamed the Jews for near-everything, especially communism. They'd probably be blamed for the Great Depression, too. They will probably suffer the same fate as their Weimar cousins; not extermination, but government-sponsored pogroms and discrimination, as in the Tsar's time.
 
What wolfpaw said sounds interesting but if the Reds are gone, who is to stop the White generals from fighting among themselves for power. I see something akin to warlord China emerge. There will probably be a some sort of weak central government (Russian Republic anyone) but I see large parts of Central Asia and the Russian Far East breaking away under warlords and Japan might take advantage of this. Perhaps Ungern von Sternberg makes himself Khan in Mongolia and the RFE breaks away under Kolchak who is sponsored by Japan.

With only a weak central government that only barely controls European Russia, some of the new states like Georgia might remain independent. Perhaps Ukraine will seek protection and Pilsudski's idea of some federation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miedzymorze) although the Ukraine will demand an equal status and I dunno how the Poles are gonna like that. The Lithuanians definitely won't join. If Germany makes a comeback under Hitler or under some other dictator (military junta perhaps) they'll waltz in and puppetize these countries to protect them from Russia. I hate to say it but the communists winning was a good thing, or at least in the short term. Imagine how such a weak and divided Russia would fare in a WW2 analogue.

These are just my ramblings.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I certainly agree with you as to the potential of warlord-states emerging. And yes, there probably will be a White expedition to get rid of Ungern von Sternberg, as the Reds did. However, I can't see the Ukraine joining Poland, as it was basically the center of White resistance.

There would certainly be squabbles in the beginning, but I have (grudging) faith in the White leaders to come together and restore a semblence of centralized government, though I could cetainly see something like a "Privy Council" made up of the White Generals serving as a sort of permanent "advisory board" to the Tsar and Duma. I mean, pretty much all of them wanted to see Russia restored (except for Kolchak, who wanted a restored Russia all to himself.)

Me? I see Kolchak becoming the figurehead of the far-right for a while, like Ludendorff was in Weimar Germany. In the end, you'll probably see the old White generals purged by whatever fascist party comes to power. (Denikin, Wrangel, Yudenich; all were fairly anti-authoritarian.)
 
... but I see large parts of Central Asia and the Russian Far East breaking away under warlords and Japan might take advantage of this ...

... With only a weak central government that only barely controls European Russia, ...

Hmmmm, same thought and you might add a more dangerous and hungry neighbor to that in Poland. Poland did pretty well OTL giving the Bolshies lots of trouble. They are going to go to town in claiming themselves some territory in this TL. A lot of scenarios ... They can have the effect of uniting some of the various European territories against the common foe, or more likely I can see Poland playing them off each other and developing a relationship with the Baltic regions. Poland carves out some Polish land from Ukraine and Belorussia while the Baltic allies drive and establish territory in their own areas. Their north/south borders are secured respectively and are have the same motives. Historically they can call up images of the Polish-Litho background as well. Poland bit off more than they could chew IOTL, what would her war aims and limits be here? I tend to give her good odds in any case. Might change a few things if we see this on 1920's maps.

PolMap.JPG


PBW_June_1920.png


Above (top) map, just to offer possible limits to Polish aims for her Eastern border. I realize this isn't going to reflect likely N,S,W territory lines. (Unless people want to offer ATL's for such)
 

Zioneer

Banned
Keep in mind I know little of the politics of those years. In fact, I know relatively little about Russian politics at all, I just thought this was an interesting idea.

Which faction of the whites would be on top in this scenario? One of the weaknesses of that side of the War was that they were made up of various different groups of Monarchists, Liberals and other groups. If they do win the War, it's not going to be the most stable of nations formed afterwards.

I suppose the monarchists would be the rulers, but of course, they'd need to make concessions to the pro-democratic and especially liberal factions. Perhaps, as wolfpaw notes, a possible resurrection of the Duma, with Cyril ruling after Nicholas III dies?

1. One or several warlord states form, power-sharing arrangements are a must, a repeat of violence is likely.

2. No pogroms? That's a wierd POD. What suddenly changed?

1. So then decrease the power of the restored monarchy, and increase the power of the Duma, and the factions that defeated the communists. Perhaps a blanket ban of all communist and socialist groups, to begin with?

2. Meh, I just don't like the pogroms, honestly. Such a waste. Kind of odd that, in RL, neither the Soviets or the White Army used Jewish forces, when they had a good-sized population of them that were reasonably useful for that purpose, and who would unconditionally support the faction that didn't throw them out of the country.

Cut for length

Interesting, I didn't know half of that. Thanks. As for your solution for leadership, that sounds good, but kind of odd. Russia quickly devolving in fascism? Strange, seeing as they had a strong feudal tradition. I suppose it could happen, but...


As we know, Russia is rather hard to administrate, especially because of it's size, so what if, to get rid of even more headaches, the new White government makes concessions to the nationalists in the Baltics, perhaps a few deals with Poland to keep it from growing massively stronger?

And they both remove Ungern von Sternberg from power, and try to keep Kolchak from absolute power with an "advisory council" of ALL the generals, not just Kolchak. Maybe they make concessions to the Mongolians, to remove another headache?

Is any of this plausible?
 
Above (top) map, just to offer possible limits to Polish aims for her Eastern border.
Ekhem, no, Miedzymorze would mean Ukraine as part of this territory. For example Vohlyn was to be part of Ukraine acording to Pilsudski Miedzymorze plan. Neither Lithuania was to be annexed.
But this won't happen. This was supposed to be a Federation(not that it was possible since none of the people wanted to do anything with it).
Entente accepted Polish border in the East because it replaced Russia as protector from Germany. Without Soviet threat, the Entente will trust Russia more then Poland-as it did OTL and the eastern border gets likely reduced to modified Curzon Border, while Pilsudski gets a kick out his horse and is replaced by more Russian-friendly figure which gets French money and equipment.
This actually is ok, it means a richer, safer Polish state, that will be allied with Russia and any attempts of Germany to revise the Versailles treaty in the East will be much more difficult. Although I can see them using both Polish Pilsudski faction and Ukrainians as their tools to raise mischief.
 
Last edited:
Most, if not all of the Romanovs have already been killed by the events of Red October, if I remember correctly, so the royal family is destroyed.

Incorrect, they were actually killed during the Civil War because it looked like the Whites might be able to liberate them.

I think you'd either end up with a very repressive restored monarchy, headed by whoever was next in line for the throne if the Tsar still gets shot (the nice thing about monarchy is there's always someone next in line for the throne, no matter how distant the connection to his predecessor), or a military dictatorship of some sort. A lot depends on which particular group of Whites ends up winning out and how.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Interesting, I didn't know half of that. Thanks. As for your solution for leadership, that sounds good, but kind of odd. Russia quickly devolving in fascism? Strange, seeing as they had a strong feudal tradition. I suppose it could happen, but...


As we know, Russia is rather hard to administrate, especially because of it's size, so what if, to get rid of even more headaches, the new White government makes concessions to the nationalists in the Baltics, perhaps a few deals with Poland to keep it from growing massively stronger?

And they both remove Ungern von Sternberg from power, and try to keep Kolchak from absolute power with an "advisory council" of ALL the generals, not just Kolchak. Maybe they make concessions to the Mongolians, to remove another headache?

Is any of this plausible?

I forsee fascism taking root because of: irridentism; the political instability Russia would likely suffer since a country bankrupt and devastated by a civil war will probably have more political factions than you can shake a stick at; a historical attraction to authoritarianism and caesaropapism; and the economic fallout of the Great Depression. Yes, Russia had a strong feudal tradition, but so did Italy, Spain, Slovakia, Romania, etc. Germany, too, in the South and East, where the "national" (fascist) aspect of national socialism was predominant (as opposed to the north and west, where the "socialism" part was favored.)

Yes, Russia is hard to administrate. Especially for a democracy. A centralized, authoritarian regime is pretty much necessary to not only keep Russia functioning, but from fracturing, as well.

You might get some leeway on the Baltics, but that's really only because some of the higher Russian leaders were of Baltic German extract. But most Russians considered the Baltics as rightfully belonging to Russia, something evidenced by the Soviet annexation rather than just making them satellites.

The Russians regarded an independent Poland with even more outrage, disgust, and revulsion than Hitler could even dream of. The only reason Stalin let it survive independently was because he knew the Western Allies wouldn't tolerate him annexing it outright. You'll see them try and annihilate it as soon as possible if fascists or ultranationalists take over. There's actually an old saying in Russian: "A hen is not a bird, Poland is not foreign." It rhymes in the original Russian.

I think you're overestimating Ungern von Sternberg. He did rule Mongolia, but only as a sort of batshit insane warlord who never had to fight a real army, except for a few woefully undertrained and underequipped Chinese Nationalists. The Soviets got rid of him without much trouble at all, and quite quickly, too. Since pretty much everyone by that time realized that Ungern von Sternberg had gone off the reservation, you can pretty much assume that the Whites would have done the same thing and reconsolidated their hold over Siberia.
 
Last edited:
The Russians regarded an independent Poland with even more outrage, disgust, and revulsion than Hitler could even dream of. The only reason Stalin let it survive independently was because he knew the Western Allies wouldn't tolerate him annexing it outright. You'll see them try and annihilate it as soon as possible if fascists or ultranationalists take over. There's actually an old saying in Russian: "A hen is not a bird, Poland is not foreign." It rhymes in the original Russian.
Excuse me ? Russians never tried to exterminate Poles as Nazi Germany did. Nor did they classify Poles as "untermenschen" denied any human dignity,
Do you actually realise that tsar in WW1 promised to unite Polish lands, and Russian foreign minister promised them several territories in autonomous statehood with Russia ?
Not to mention that out of two main factions in WW1 Poland one was pro-Russia, the other pro-AH.
 
Last edited:
A militaristic, conservative government under Kolchak could probably work for Russia. But violence would probably re-emerge during the 30's as the Great Depression hits Russia and the Bolshevik movement is resurrected and clashes with homegrown Russian fascists. So, we mind even end up with the strange possibility of the Nazis giving military assistance to the Russian fascists as they did with the fascists in Spain.
Also, the possibility that a white victory might put von Sternberg in power doesn't bare contemplation. Russia under him would be worse than under Stalin!
 
Also, the possibility that a white victory might put von Sternberg in power doesn't bare contemplation. Russia under him would be worse than under Stalin!
He was a madman, who is known for his craziness. His mental state wouldn't allow him to succesfully achieve any significant power.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Excuse me ? Russians never tried to exterminate Poles as Nazi Germany did. Nor did they classify Poles as "untermenschen" denied any human dignity,
Do you actually realise that tsar in WW1 promised to unite Polish lands, and Russian foreign minister promised them several territories in autonomous statehood with Russia ?
Not to mention that out two main factions in WW1 Poland one was pro-Russia, the other pro-AH.

You misunderstood me. I didn't say the Russians viewed Poles in a more negative light than the Nazis did. I said that they saw an independent Poland more negatively than did the Hitlerites.

And the Tsar was concilliatory towards Poland during World War I not because he believed in freedom for the Poles, but because he needed something to counter the Central Powers' promise of an independent Poland. It was something done out of political expedience, not goodwill. In fact, knowing Nicholas, he would have renegged on his promises to the Poles had Russia come out of that war victorious.
 
nd the Tsar was concilliatory towards Poland during World War I not because he believed in freedom for the Poles, but because he needed something to counter the Central Powers' promise of an independent Poland.
Tsar's manifest was made on 14 August 1914.
Central Powers Declaration was made on 5th of November 1916. Two years later.
You really have your facts wrong. While Russians were not (for good reasons) happy about indepedent Poland, by IWW the view was being generally accepted that some kind of autonomous statehood was to be established.
As to the question of Polish state-for Russians the main issue was the borderlands between Poland and Russia. Russia never intented to annex central Polish territories during WW2, like Germany did.
 
Last edited:
Really, I can't think of a way for the Whites to win. That's not something I like, but there it is. There was no "White army" in the sense that there was a Red one. the Red Army was an army with a general staff and backed up by the mobilised industrial base of the Russian heartland. The whites were bands, enormously vairant in size and ideology. The one common feature of all whites was that they were willing to resist the Reds with force, but they fought eachother often enough. They had no securely controlled industrial base and no unified command. They were basically a lage of number of peripheral rebellions which strained the Bolshevi state but had no serious hope of overthrowing it.

So, lets handwave a bit and say the Bolshevik coup misfires. All the various "white" groups still arm themelves, there's still a scuffle, and the brief Red grip of Petrograd and Moscow throw into question who the government of Russia is (all the bigger white generals accepted a deferment of that question until the reds were defeated). What happens next depends on who captured the industrial heartland of the country and is therefore in the best position to force his will on the rest of the country, which in my opinion will probably be Denikin and/or Yudenich, maybe Kolchak. All of them strike me as rather Caudillo-like figures: having little ideology beyond a conservative patriotism, fear of socialism, and a belief that the military needed to step in and save the country. You'd probably end up with an somewhat fascist-favoured dictatorship of generals, landowners, and clergy with some rather feeble democratic showpieces, and if it's Kolchak maybe a Tsar.

As to fragmentation, hmm. Finland will very likely stay independent. Ukraine and Belarus will certainly not, as who's going to stop Russia from taking them back? Poland will probably have less in the east The Baltics are tricky to predict. Russia will sure as hell want at least Estonia and Latvia back, and it really depends on Britain's stance. The Caucasus is another thing I'm not sure about, but I really don't see Japan getting anything. They were warned not to get two agressive by America OTL: imagine how kindly the other Entente powers will take to imperialist muckings around in a non-communist Russia.

This actually is ok, it means a richer, safer Polish state, that will be allied with Russia and any attempts of Germany to revise the Versailles treaty in the East will be much more difficult. Although I can see them using both Polish Pilsudski faction and Ukrainians as their tools to raise mischief.

But what of those of us who like self-determination, and thus think that in the best case Poland should have Lwow and Wilno, Germany Danzig?

I hate to say it but the communists winning was a good thing, or at least in the short term. Imagine how such a weak and divided Russia would fare in a WW2 analogue.

:rolleyes:

"This rise of Hitler is inevitable! Inevitable! For this reason, and because pnly communism can possibly do anything for Russia, millions of Russians must die in gulags or be subject toa totalitarian state. Sucks to be you, condemned millions!

Of course, the Whites wouldn;t ahve been all fun and games (they'd have beaten Stalin, but so does practically anything) but hey, I Blame Communism.
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
Tsar's manifest was made on 14 August 1914.
Central Powers Declaration was made on 5th of November 1916. Two years later.
You really have your facts wrong. While Russians were not (for good reasons) happy about indepedent Poland, by IWW the view was being generally accepted that some kind of autonomous statehood was to be established.
As to the question of Polish state-for Russians the main issue was the borderlands between Poland and Russia. Russia never intented to annex and central Polish territories, like Germany did.

Actually, I believe you'll find that your facts are wrong. The circumstances of World War I allowed the Poles political leverage since both Russia and the Central Powers offered pledges, concessions, and promises of future autonomy in exchange for Polish loyalty and army recruits. Austria-Hungary had for a long time wanted to absorb Congress Poland into Galicia and were very open about that, so even before the war they allowed Polish nationalist organizations to form within their empire, especially Galicia.

The Russians recognized the Polish right to autonomy and allowed formation of the Polish National Committee, which supported the Russian side, after the war had started. In 1916, attempting to increase Polish support for the Central Powers and to raise a Polish army, the Central Powers declared that they would establish an independent Kingdom of Poland.

I don't understand what you mean by "Russia never intented to annex and central Polish territories". They already owned that territory and considered it their own. Do you mean they didn't plan to pump it full of Russian settlers? Because they were doing that elsewhere (Central Asia, for example.) Instead, they pursued the policy of Russification in Poland with the expressed intent of wiping out Polish culture. The main issue wasn't border disputes, it was a long-held Russian belief the Poland belonged to Russia by right.

So before you go accusing others of having incorrect facts, you'd do well to check your own.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Really, I can't think of a way for the Whites to win. That's not something I like, but there it is.

We've had this conversation before, IBC. If Denikin had managed to take Moscow in 1919 (which he would have had he been victorious at the rather close Battle of Orel), the Reds would have lost. I'm not saying that whatever state the Whites hammered out would be pretty (since, as you pointed out, there were so many competing factions) but the White Movement (not "Army," "Movement";)) could have won.
 
Top