Could a moderate non-Communist democratic govt have survived in Russia after 1917, or was the likelihood of a Bolshevik takeover too great ? How would a hypothetical post-Tsriat Russia have looked like, based on the shortlived model of the Kerensky govt ?
Post-Tsarist democratic Russia
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
Melvin Loh said:
IIRC the Bolsheviks tried to take over in July and failed, which indicates to me that there was a good chance of them failing completely. However, against this you have to balance the Summer offensives which were disastrous for Kerensky, but even so there was no inevitability about the October Revolution - if there had been it would not have needed to be so well-planned by Trotsky etc, and would never have been a tense knife-edge affair in their minds.
But IMHO Kerensky needs to get out of the war. Remaining in it undermines anything else he tries to do
Grey Wolf
The Bolshevik victory was a VERY long shot. I would assume that in the event of any other outcome, a thread along the lines of "What if Lenin becomes head of state, in a vast effort of militarisation killing millions manages to make his 'Soviet Union' a world military power which could win a world war, then hold the United States in a 40-year Cold War?" would be rightly consigned to the ASBs. However:
there is, unfortunately, no guarantee for a democratic government emerging. Kerensky had enemies on both sides, and while most Russians were prepared to back any government that brought them peace and bread, his position made it hard for him to deliver either. He was in hock to a significant degree to interests opposed to a negotiated peace and the losses that would bring, in extreme cases even favouring a continuation in view of the profits it earned them (this last point aided the Communists no end). If he had managed to negotiate a peace with Germany in time, he might have won over enough of the army, workers, and peasants to face down the factory interests and officers. He would still have to make concessions to the extreme left, but a Communist state would not happen.
Unfortunately, the more likely alternative I see would be a national-fascist military regime. The surprising thing about the Russian Revolution was the relative solidity and cohesion on the left. Most Communist revolutions tended to fall apart (just look at the Spartakisten in Germany). If that had happened in Russia (a very likely prospect), the revolutionary potential would not have been less, but the military opposition would have had it easier. Imagine a Mother Russia ruled by the likes of Kolchak, Denikin and Rennenkampf (though I doubt it would mirror the worst excesses of the civil wars).
Without some faction in favour, and strong enough to make it stick, Kerensky would need a very generous settlement to justify a peace, and the Germans were very unlikely to let him have it. They knew they just had to sit back and watch things disintegrate, and as far as they could tell a stable, democratic Russia was not in their short-term interests (had they known...). The longer he stays in the war, the more he faces hostile workers and soldiers, and the more he needs to rely on the right, who oppose a peace... I don't think he could have held on long-term.
there is, unfortunately, no guarantee for a democratic government emerging. Kerensky had enemies on both sides, and while most Russians were prepared to back any government that brought them peace and bread, his position made it hard for him to deliver either. He was in hock to a significant degree to interests opposed to a negotiated peace and the losses that would bring, in extreme cases even favouring a continuation in view of the profits it earned them (this last point aided the Communists no end). If he had managed to negotiate a peace with Germany in time, he might have won over enough of the army, workers, and peasants to face down the factory interests and officers. He would still have to make concessions to the extreme left, but a Communist state would not happen.
Unfortunately, the more likely alternative I see would be a national-fascist military regime. The surprising thing about the Russian Revolution was the relative solidity and cohesion on the left. Most Communist revolutions tended to fall apart (just look at the Spartakisten in Germany). If that had happened in Russia (a very likely prospect), the revolutionary potential would not have been less, but the military opposition would have had it easier. Imagine a Mother Russia ruled by the likes of Kolchak, Denikin and Rennenkampf (though I doubt it would mirror the worst excesses of the civil wars).
Without some faction in favour, and strong enough to make it stick, Kerensky would need a very generous settlement to justify a peace, and the Germans were very unlikely to let him have it. They knew they just had to sit back and watch things disintegrate, and as far as they could tell a stable, democratic Russia was not in their short-term interests (had they known...). The longer he stays in the war, the more he faces hostile workers and soldiers, and the more he needs to rely on the right, who oppose a peace... I don't think he could have held on long-term.
Brilliantlight
Banned
carlton_bach said:
You could have the government fall and have new elections which are actually free and have the Duma force a peace agreement. Whether the army allows that to happen is questionable. It would depend on whether the army is so used to civilian control (out and out military coups have been the exception in Russian history not the rule.) that they simply follow orders regardless of what they think of the orders. Also it depends on whether the Russian general staff had confidence that their privates would follow orders that would ensure that they remain in their foxholes dying to German machine guns for months if not (From what the average Russian knew at that time) years.
OTOH it could feel that they COULD pull it off and would have to try to save Mother Russia's honor. Many of the senior officers would back that if they were sure enough of their troops.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Well, that does raise another possibility - the overthrow of Kerensky as in OTL, but then the collapse of the Bolsheviks
http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/kaiser/constassem.gif
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/russ/datesr.html
Elections to the Constituent Assembly actually went badly for the Bolsheviks, so you could probably create a timeline where Chernov's Socialist Revolutionaries take power
You would then have a less radical far left with a democratic mandate
Grey Wolf
http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/kaiser/constassem.gif
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/russ/datesr.html
Elections to the Constituent Assembly actually went badly for the Bolsheviks, so you could probably create a timeline where Chernov's Socialist Revolutionaries take power
You would then have a less radical far left with a democratic mandate
Grey Wolf
"Imagine a Mother Russia ruled by the likes of Kolchak, Denikin and Rennenkampf"
Kolchak I don't think was a nice guy and I know Denikin lacked the backbone to stand up to his pogrom-happy Cossack allies (he arrested some notorious ones, but then the Cossacks took a big city hostage and demanded them back), but who was Rennenkampf? That name sounds German.
Kerensky could have smashed the Bolsheviks in July (or after another one of their failed coup plots), but he feared Kornilov. Perhaps Kornilov doesn't head-butt with Kerensky as much (or at all) and Kerensky hangs Lenin, Trotsky, etc, or at least hounds the Bolsheviks so much that they can't make trouble.
Kolchak I don't think was a nice guy and I know Denikin lacked the backbone to stand up to his pogrom-happy Cossack allies (he arrested some notorious ones, but then the Cossacks took a big city hostage and demanded them back), but who was Rennenkampf? That name sounds German.
Kerensky could have smashed the Bolsheviks in July (or after another one of their failed coup plots), but he feared Kornilov. Perhaps Kornilov doesn't head-butt with Kerensky as much (or at all) and Kerensky hangs Lenin, Trotsky, etc, or at least hounds the Bolsheviks so much that they can't make trouble.
Pavel-Georges Karlovich von Rennenkampf (1854-1918) was a rather incompetent Russian officer who fought in the Boxer Uprising in China, in the Far East in 1904-05 and at the Russo-German front in 1914-15.Matt Quinn said:
Rennenkampf was executed in 1918 when he refused to served in the Red Army.
He was born in Estonia and was the son of some Germanio-Baltic noble, which explaines the very un-Russian last name. I've even seen him named Poul von Rennenkampf here and there.
What if the Provisional Government of Prince Lvov succeeded instead? Kerensky was minister in this, yes? The Lvov Gorvernment, if I'm not quite mistaken, implemeted quite a few modern reforms, including the introduction of basic civil liberties such as freedom of the press, the abolition of ethnic and religious discrimination and capital punishment and made plans for the introduction of universal suffrage. Without Brusiliov's summer offensive, this might have worked, I think?
Regards!
- Bluenote.
Mr.Bluenote said:
I think you mean the Kerensky offensive of 1917, not teh 1916 Brusilov offensive which was launched under the Tsar.
The Lvov governemnt fell (I think) because of suspiscions that it was pursuing "imperilist" war aims rahter thanmerely fighting to defend Russia.
And Russia in 1917 didn't need freedom and democracy, she needed peace.
WI the Russo-German peacce feelers of late 1916 had actually led to something?
You'd probably still get a 1917 revolution (the liberals will hate the Tsar for abandoning the war and demobilised peasant conscripts would no doubt have made some sort of land grab) but with the war over the potential of extremism will be less and the monarchists have more chance of holding on.
Alexi Brusilov was commanding the Russian Army at the time (Actually I think he was appointed by Kerensky as head og the war ministry - Did Kerensky have more than ministry?), so I kinda made the mistake, sorry...Matthew Craw said:
That might be true, Matt, but it's my opinion that Lvov was competent, had good men around him and could have been a rather good Premier. It was Lvov's lack of will to end the war that made him unpopular (and thus made him resign in favour of Kerensky), but what if he somehow did anyway, end the war that is? His Government might have survived and either avoided the revolution all together or won it (more troops would be loyal to the government who ended the war, I think).Matthew Craw said:
Still, it's an interesting thougth; a Russia without the terror af Lenin, Stalin and the other communist Maniacs.
Best regards!
- B.
Lvov's probably too closely tied in with the Western states to end the war, it was only really the left and right wing extremes who wanted a seperate peace, liberals like LVov and Kerensky loved the war, they were fighting alonside teh democracies against german militarism (whatever that was) and to defend Russia, there's also the issue of how the army wouldreact and let's not forget (as all too many do) that there were substantial pro-war demonstrations in early 1917, which remained more common than anti-war demos until after the Summer Offensive.
If he had made peace I agree that the Bolsheviks are finished. The problem is he's probably be fool enough to convene a Constituent Assembly, and teh liberals have l;ittle real mass support. The only difference from teh Assembly of OTl is that the urban working class vote would've been more evenly divided betweenthe Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and the S.R> s wouldn't have split.
In other words, the socialists would be in charge. I doubt the army would have accepted this, which means a military coup is likely and though the Socialists would no doubt win the resultant civil war the experience would tend to strengthen radical elements. Still, it wouldn't be as bad as teh Bolsheviks and a veneer of democracy would probably survive.
If he had made peace I agree that the Bolsheviks are finished. The problem is he's probably be fool enough to convene a Constituent Assembly, and teh liberals have l;ittle real mass support. The only difference from teh Assembly of OTl is that the urban working class vote would've been more evenly divided betweenthe Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and the S.R> s wouldn't have split.
In other words, the socialists would be in charge. I doubt the army would have accepted this, which means a military coup is likely and though the Socialists would no doubt win the resultant civil war the experience would tend to strengthen radical elements. Still, it wouldn't be as bad as teh Bolsheviks and a veneer of democracy would probably survive.
Straha
Banned
have some leading bolsheviks like stalin,trotsky or bukharin side with kerensky's mensheviks. With a democratic and not communist soviet union/Russia expect russina-american relations to be far better. Maybe Zhukov and Patton do wargames in siberia. Without the red scare expect a social democratic party to emerge in america and coopt one party. I wonder how fast Trotsky's red army have smashed the germans to the gate of berlin. Maybe we'd have a USA-USSR/Russian joint project with nukes. Maybe operation overlord would be accompanied with nukes on the beaches. Presidents Trotsky,Kerensky and Stalin would be remembering for cementing the russo-american alliance. With an unassailable democratic bloc, theres no need for dictatorships to be supported.
SurfNTurfStraha said:
You have forgotten the ASB brainwashing STALIN and TROTZKY
I would say with a moderate democratic government the russo-american relations are so that the US post ww1 don´t care a bit who runs the show over there.
And without the ouverture for the totalitarian ideologies taking over nations, I doubt that Hitler will ever come to power.
Good points, Matt!
What if we have General Kornilov, the commander of the Petrograd Garrison, have his way? Kornilov wanted to use more forcefull means (to say the least) to deal with the Communists, but the Minister of War, Gusjkov(?), was against, and nothing came of it. If Kornilov broke the Communists in a few days of volence, then a Constituent Assembly could be held without the Communists dominating, and hopefully a democracy of sorts introduced.
Oh, and wasn't Kerensky somewhat of a Socialist? I think he was exciled once...
Well, Straha, without Lenin, I hardly think Stalin would become anything more than another Caucasian bandit.
Regards etc etc!
- Bluenote.
What if we have General Kornilov, the commander of the Petrograd Garrison, have his way? Kornilov wanted to use more forcefull means (to say the least) to deal with the Communists, but the Minister of War, Gusjkov(?), was against, and nothing came of it. If Kornilov broke the Communists in a few days of volence, then a Constituent Assembly could be held without the Communists dominating, and hopefully a democracy of sorts introduced.
Oh, and wasn't Kerensky somewhat of a Socialist? I think he was exciled once...
Well, Straha, without Lenin, I hardly think Stalin would become anything more than another Caucasian bandit.
Regards etc etc!
- Bluenote.
What if Kornilovs bid for power in the fall of 1917 had been successful? Let's say Kerensky's forces stormed Petrograd, defeated the Red Guards that hade been mobilized for the defence (!) of Kerenskys government? (Historicaly his troops refused to storm the city.) A possible way for this to happen would be if Kornilov personally commanded the army. Then, what's next? Lets say Russia fight till the end of the war, that comes around the same time as historically, what would happen then? Surely Russia would get some kind of terriotorial concession in return for all her sacrifices. What would she get? My guess is German and Austrian Poland, Czechoslovakia, Turkish Armenia and control of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus.
I don't think we would have a post-Tzarist democratic Russia!Peter said:
But had Kornilov himself led the attack, it might have worked. That, I would say with some understatement, is a wee bit to much, Peter! It might be another century, but I really (REALLY) don't think the Brits would give Russia control of the Strait... Border adjustments here and there, yes, but large parts of Eastern Europe, no! Hmm, maybe they could be given Sweden?Peter said:
Sorry, I just couldn't resist! Best regards!
- B.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Matthew Craw said:
Socialist control does not necessarily lead to civil war - look at the pact in 1918 Germany between Ebert's government and the Supreme Command under (effectively) Groener. Because the alternatives were the Bolshevik uprisings breaking out everywhere, the German officer corps pledged itself (albeit reserving a lot of independence of action) to the Majority Socialist government. Groener was a realist and realised very quickly that anti-republican or pro-monarchist policies were fallacy in the changed political situation.
You could look for some kind of parallel in Russia. I don't know enough about Kornilov's character but if he could see 'the light' and back Kerensky as the lesser of all evils, then there may well be this Socialist-Army alliance of necessity.
During the period of late 1917 going into 1918 the Whites were much weaker than they would become because the Germans and Austrians occupied a huge swathe of the land, and established independent governments in several of the major areas. The main aim of the Germans is to weaken Russia - therefore, although ideologically it would seem more logical for them to back monarchists etc, for practical reasons they preferred inexperienced republicans and the resultant in-fighting and chaos.
If Kerensky and Kornilov could see things clearly and come to a better and longer agreement ?
Grey Wolf