What are some possible PODs for a "White" victory in the Russian Civil War, and what type of government is most likely to come out of the Civil War (from Theocratic Dictatorship to Liberal Democracy). Also bonus points if you are able to do a non-ASB, that takes place in later stages of WW1 or even post-Treaty of Versailles (for example Denikin taking Moscow in 1919, but no Lenin is assassinated by time travellers).
A "White" Russia
- Thread starter procomicnerd
- Start date
The problem is that the Reds were unified, whereas the Whites referred to many disparate factions all in dispute with one another, united mostly by not being the Bolsheviks. Whites were anything from tsarists loyal to Nicholas II to people in favor of the monarchy but with interest in reform to republicans, and they had different ideas about what Russia should look like and different loyalties. And they were mowed under as a result.
Not sure if a true western style democracy was feasible.
Maybe keeping the czar as a figurehead over a country run by the military which over time morphs into what they have today- a semi democracy run by a strongman leader
Maybe keeping the czar as a figurehead over a country run by the military which over time morphs into what they have today- a semi democracy run by a strongman leader
Best case may be a South Korea or Taiwan situation, in which a hardline figure decided to amp up industry and strengthen the nation. Probably harder to do absent a figure such as Chiang or Syngman Rhee, and also because Russia is frigging huge compared to SK or Taiwan, but the right person or group could do it. Then over time the country could evolve into a modern democracy, especially after WWII, but the best case - especially given how harsh the next war became - is an autocracy with an industrial goal that can evolve later.
I do not think the "Whites" (if by that we mean Denikin, Kolchak, Yudenich, etc.--see https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...kneyed-alternatives-to-the-bolsheviks.408832/ where I discuss the *socalist* alternatives to the Bolsheviks) had much chance to win. But suppose they did? What kind of government would they institute? They paid lip service to the idea of a Constituent Assembly. They kept on saying that everything--the status of the monarchy, the land question, etc.--would ultimately be determined by such an Assembly. (No doubt this was largely because they knew that such questions as monarchy versus republic would divide them, so talking about the Constituent Assembly was a convenient way of putting them off until the future. As Denikin wrote in 1918, "If I raise the republican flag, I lose half my volunteers, and if I raise the monarchist flag, I lose the other half. But we have to save Russia." "For this reason, the army's slogan was not any specific form of government, but 'great Russia, one and indivisible.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=NAZm2EdxKqkC&pg=PA209)
However, whether they would really allow such an Assembly to be freely elected is doubtful. Kolchak's testimony seems to indicate the Constituent Assembly the Whites had in mind (or at least that he had in mind, but I doubt that Denikin would think differently) was not the democratic one elected in 1917 (and which was overwhelmingly dominated by self-described socialists of one sort or another, as IMO any democratically elected Consituent Assembly in Russia at the time would be):
"The general opinion...was that only a government authorized by the Constituent Assembly could be a real one; but the Constituent Assembly which we got...and which from the very beginning started in by singing the 'Internationale' under Chernov's leadership, provoked an unfriendly attitude...It was considered to have been an artificial and a partisan assembly. Such was also my opinion. I believed that even though the Bolsheviks had few worthy traits, by dispersing the Constituent Assembly they performed a service and this act should be counted to their credit." (Quoted in Orlando Figes, *A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924*, p. 588) http://www.rulit.net/books/a-people-s-tragedy-the-russian-revolution-1891-1924-read-232715-217.html
Incidentally, a White government is going to have serious problems with the nationality question, due to their insistence on "Russia, one and indivisible." This implies opposition not just to separation but to federalism and autonomy. And this was as true of the Kadets as of more right-wing elements within the Whites. For the Kadets as well as Denikin, federalism would simply be the first step toward the disintegration of Russia. https://books.google.com/books?id=irWQQCXwhwwC&pg=PA143 (Denikin was willing to accept the independence of Poland, since it was a fait accompli, but even when he was desperate for Polish aid, he insisted that Poland extend no further east than the Curzon line. Which means it is hard to see how a war between a White-ruled Russia and Poland could be avoided.)
Interestingly, there *was* one exception. "On one point, however, Kornilov's views departed considerably from the ideals espoused by the White leaders — on the all-important question of Russia's territorial integrity. Not only did Kornilov show readiness to grant broad autonomy to the borderland states even before the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, but he was also willing to recognize the separate political status of Poland,27 Ukraine, and Finland: 'Poland, Ukraine, and Finland, having formed themselves into separate national state entities,' reads article fourteen of [Kornilov's draft] program, 'should be supported by the Russian government in their strivings toward state regeneration in order that in this manner the eternal and indestructible union of the brotherly peoples might grow even stronger.' [That almost sounds like "unbreakable union of free republics" as the later Soviet national anthem would have it...--DT]
"Kornilov's program did not remain a closely guarded secret for long. When rumors regarding its existence reached Alekseev, the old and generally self-composed soldier became so incensed that he angrily demanded to see it immediately. Miliukov, after studying the document, indignantly branded Kornilov an 'adventurist' and 'political dilettante,' and warned Alekseev that if the program was publicized, broad support for the VA [Volunteer Army] would immediately disintegrate.
"Kornilov's program would have constituted a landmark in the evolution of the nationality policy of the White movement and undoubtedly caused a bitter conflict, perhaps even a schism, within the VA, if the events that followed--the costly Kuban campaign and Kornilov's sudden death--had not consigned the document to oblivion..." https://books.google.com/books?id=irWQQCXwhwwC&pg=PA42
The idea of recognizing Ukrainian nationality on the same level with Polish and Finnish was, for a White--well, let's say, unusual! Most likely, if Kornilov had lived, the attitude of other White leaders would be, "You're a fine general, Lavr Georgiyevich. Stick to that and leave politics to us..."
However, whether they would really allow such an Assembly to be freely elected is doubtful. Kolchak's testimony seems to indicate the Constituent Assembly the Whites had in mind (or at least that he had in mind, but I doubt that Denikin would think differently) was not the democratic one elected in 1917 (and which was overwhelmingly dominated by self-described socialists of one sort or another, as IMO any democratically elected Consituent Assembly in Russia at the time would be):
"The general opinion...was that only a government authorized by the Constituent Assembly could be a real one; but the Constituent Assembly which we got...and which from the very beginning started in by singing the 'Internationale' under Chernov's leadership, provoked an unfriendly attitude...It was considered to have been an artificial and a partisan assembly. Such was also my opinion. I believed that even though the Bolsheviks had few worthy traits, by dispersing the Constituent Assembly they performed a service and this act should be counted to their credit." (Quoted in Orlando Figes, *A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924*, p. 588) http://www.rulit.net/books/a-people-s-tragedy-the-russian-revolution-1891-1924-read-232715-217.html
Incidentally, a White government is going to have serious problems with the nationality question, due to their insistence on "Russia, one and indivisible." This implies opposition not just to separation but to federalism and autonomy. And this was as true of the Kadets as of more right-wing elements within the Whites. For the Kadets as well as Denikin, federalism would simply be the first step toward the disintegration of Russia. https://books.google.com/books?id=irWQQCXwhwwC&pg=PA143 (Denikin was willing to accept the independence of Poland, since it was a fait accompli, but even when he was desperate for Polish aid, he insisted that Poland extend no further east than the Curzon line. Which means it is hard to see how a war between a White-ruled Russia and Poland could be avoided.)
Interestingly, there *was* one exception. "On one point, however, Kornilov's views departed considerably from the ideals espoused by the White leaders — on the all-important question of Russia's territorial integrity. Not only did Kornilov show readiness to grant broad autonomy to the borderland states even before the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, but he was also willing to recognize the separate political status of Poland,27 Ukraine, and Finland: 'Poland, Ukraine, and Finland, having formed themselves into separate national state entities,' reads article fourteen of [Kornilov's draft] program, 'should be supported by the Russian government in their strivings toward state regeneration in order that in this manner the eternal and indestructible union of the brotherly peoples might grow even stronger.' [That almost sounds like "unbreakable union of free republics" as the later Soviet national anthem would have it...--DT]
"Kornilov's program did not remain a closely guarded secret for long. When rumors regarding its existence reached Alekseev, the old and generally self-composed soldier became so incensed that he angrily demanded to see it immediately. Miliukov, after studying the document, indignantly branded Kornilov an 'adventurist' and 'political dilettante,' and warned Alekseev that if the program was publicized, broad support for the VA [Volunteer Army] would immediately disintegrate.
"Kornilov's program would have constituted a landmark in the evolution of the nationality policy of the White movement and undoubtedly caused a bitter conflict, perhaps even a schism, within the VA, if the events that followed--the costly Kuban campaign and Kornilov's sudden death--had not consigned the document to oblivion..." https://books.google.com/books?id=irWQQCXwhwwC&pg=PA42
The idea of recognizing Ukrainian nationality on the same level with Polish and Finnish was, for a White--well, let's say, unusual! Most likely, if Kornilov had lived, the attitude of other White leaders would be, "You're a fine general, Lavr Georgiyevich. Stick to that and leave politics to us..."
Last edited: