Why do the Bolsheviks lose the Russian Civil War whenever the Central Powers win World War I?

[Polish Eagle]

A commentator above made a good point about almost all the bases for the Whites being on the German side of the Brest-Litovsk armistice line. The only other major one is Kolchak (sp?) in Siberia. And the British would not be able to funnel assistance to the Whites through the Black or Baltic seas.

The Germans did intervene in Finland against the Reds, so there is that. But I think they would allow White emigres to organize armies in Ukraine and the Baltics, but keep them from invading Russia and trying to overthrow the Bolsheviks. They would be held in place as threats so that the Bolsheviks would honor their agreements. I don't think there is a Russian Civil War in this situation.

A very good observation--and I think the reverse also applies. The existence of the Bolshevik RSFSR is also a threat making sure that Wrangel and any Ukrainian CP client, and anyone else broken out of the prison house of nations (Poland, Balts, Finns), play nice with Germany.

 

[athgtq16129]

I think the video game mod Kaiserreich (Hearts of Iron IV mod) is a big influence here. It's probably the most comprehensive German Victory in World War I, and many other timelines draw inspiration from it.

Kaiserreich also influenced the trope of Germany getting a massive Mittelafrika (and even Asian!) colonial empire because reasons, when in reality Germany was in no position to enforce its claims outside of Europe, and IIRC, Germany at a point admitted that not only it would lose its colonial empire, but that it would give their colonies to the UK/France as a compensation, and also for them to leave Germany as the sole power in continental Europe, while the UK focuses itself on colonial affairs.

 

[Grey Wolf]

This is an alternate history trope I see very often. Whenever the Central Powers win World War I, Russia either becomes a republic or a constitutional monarchy, but never becomes the Soviet Union. How plausible is this trope? What do the Central Powers bring to the table that the Allied Powers (with significantly more manpower and resources) didn't have?

What even IS the Soviet Union in this scenario? Do we assume that the Germans allow their puppet states to fall to the Bolsheviks? If not, then they are going to be intervening in Ukraine, Tauria, the Baltics, Poland, Georgia etc. Intervening is another word for fighting the Bolsheviks.

If we assume that the Bolsheviks avoid these conflicts, then we are looking at a Russian civil war in a diminished Russia, and one where the balance between Red and White forces is more balanced.

What do these puppet states do also? Does the new Kingdom of Finland push its claim to Karelia? Does it support Yudenich, even if this is not official German policy, allowing for a backdoor German support for the Whites?

 

[athgtq16129]

What even IS the Soviet Union in this scenario?

Perhaps this? this comes from a thread from 2009.

 

[Ambusher11]

Kaiserreich also influenced the trope of Germany getting a massive Mittelafrika (and even Asian!) colonial empire because reasons, when in reality Germany was in no position to enforce its claims outside of Europe, and IIRC, Germany at a point admitted that not only it would lose its colonial empire, but that it would give their colonies to the UK/France as a compensation, and also for them to leave Germany as the sole power in continental Europe, while the UK focuses itself on colonial affairs.

Do you have any proof of this claim? Even in May 1919, Germany wasn't willing to renounce any of its colonies (except for Kiaochou), as shown in the German counterproposal below:

[...]

The settlement of the Colonial question is also contradictory to the idea of a Peace of justice. The essence of State activities in colonial territories consists not in capitalist[ic] exploitation of a less developed race, but in the winning of backward peoples for a higher civilisation. It follows that the more advanced Powers have a certain natural claim to share in colonial activities. Germany also has this natural claim, for German efforts in colonial areas are indisputably great. The German claim is not satisfied by a Treaty which robs Germany of all its colonies.

[...]

10. COLONIES

Article 119 of the draft requires Germany’s renunciation of all her rights and claims to her over-seas possessions. This provision is in irreconcilable contradiction to point 5 of the speech in Congress of January 8, 1918, in which President Wilson takes position for an open, frank and absolutely unpartisan solution of all colonial claims. The basis of any impartial solution is that before a decision is reached the parties be heard and their claims examined. Article 119 begins by a rejection of the German claims without permitting Germany any chance of supporting them.

Germany’s claims to her colonies are based primarily on the fact that she has acquired them justifiably and developed them by hard, successful and sacrificing toil. Her ownership has been recognised by all powers. Where conflicts with other powers over individual areas have arisen, they have been overcome by an understanding or by court of arbitration.

The possession of the colonies is for Germany more necessary in the future than in the past, as in view of the unfavorable rate of exchange Germany must have the possibility of obtaining the raw materials necessary for her economic life as far as possible from her own colonies. As a result of her decreased productivity in consequence of the outcome of the war Germany needs the profit of the production that she can derive from her own territory.

In addition Germany needs her colonies as an outlet for exports for her industry in order to be able more easily to pay for raw materials with her own manufactured articles, and also as a field of activity for her commerce. She hopes from this source to receive aid in order to meet the obligations laid down by the peace treaty.

Finally Germany needs her colonies as settlements for at least a part of her surplus population, all the more as through the result of the war the necessity for emigration is increased and the possibility of emigration is decreased.

As one of the great civilised races (Kulturvolk) the German people has the right and duty to co-operate in the scientific exploration of the world and in the education of undeveloped races, this being a common task of civilised humanity. Along these lines Germany has done remarkable service in its colonies. This assertion and the claim which follows from it is not diminished by the fact that in the administration of the German colonies mistakes and errors have been made, such as the colonial history of all peoples has exhibited. Germany has a moral claim to be allowed to continue its successful work.

The retention by Germany of her colonies is, however, equally based on the interests of the colored populations of these territories. The German administration has put an end to the prevailing and incessant wars of pillage of the aborigines, the tyranny of leaders and fanatics, the seizure of slaves and the slave trade, and all the attendant insecurity of life and property. German administration has brought peace and order into the land and created conditions for secure intercourse and trade. An impartial justice, and one that considered the habits and customs of the aborigines, offered protection from oppression or spoliation on the part of the white inhabitants, the construction throughout the land of roads and railways for world intercourse and commerce, and the improving of the local civilisation (Kultur) and the introduction of new culture, has raised the economic life of the natives to a higher plane. The German administration was also engaged in protecting the native population by far-reaching social measures, especially by laws regulating labor and the supervision of the conclusion of agreements between the whites and the natives. The scientific investigation and the campaign of fighting plagues of men and of animals (malaria, smallpox, sleeping sickness, cattle diseases, etc.), in which German specialists, such as Robert Koch, took active part, have had rich results for the life and health of the natives.

The well organised school system, which included schools of industry and of agriculture, served to advance the moral and economic education of the natives. The German colonies belong to the most quickly and most successfully developing fields of activity of the Christian missions of both confessions.

From all these points it results that Germany has protected the interests of its natives. It has especially from the very beginning strictly refrained from any militarisation of her native peoples, and would therefore unreservedly agree to an international prohibition of militarisation. Germany has already heretofore actively participated in all international regulations dealing with important colonial questions, such as abolition of the slave trade, suppression of the traffic in arms and of the abuse of alcohol, and the fight against sleeping-sickness. Furthermore, insofar as no international obligation stood in the way, Germany, unlike some other important colonial powers, has in her colonies always given effect to the principle of the open door coupled with complete equality of treatment to all persons of alien nationality.

Numerous testimonials by influential foreign writers on colonial subjects prior to the war, as well as the loyalty during the war of the natives within the German spheres of control, especially in East Africa, bear witness to the justice and to the great success of German Colonial work.

For the above reasons the demand made by the enemy, in Articles 119 to 125, that Germany shall renounce her Colonies is held to be unjust.

Without waiving or weakening in any way the opposition to the renunciation of our Colonies, the following remarks, which we reserve the right to expand, are offered as to the conditions under which the cession is required to be made:

The demand that all State property, both real and movable, in the Colonies shall pass to the Mandatory Powers without compensation of any kind is unacceptable and is an unjustified exception to the fundamental principle that the value of the State property within the territories ceded by Germany shall be credited to Germany. With respect to the question of debts, the Draft Treaty does not permit either the ceded Colonies or the Mandatory Powers to assume a share of the debts of the Empire and of the Federated States. In lieu of this it should be required that the State taking over a Colony shall make good to Germany all her expenditures, and that the territories to be ceded should themselves be burdened with all liabilities which they have incurred.

German private property is given up to the arbitrary control of the Mandatory States. These may liquidate all property of Germans and all Companies controlled by Germans, they may maintain in force the war measures that have been suspended and enact new measures of the same kind. The Mandatory States may furthermore at their pleasure drive the Germans from house and home even though the latter may have been for years settled or even born there, and may close the country permanently to German activities. This regulation, in defiance of all principles of international and public law, deprives Germans of all rights in respect to private law and personal freedom of movement.

The demand that Germany shall make good to French subjects damages incurred before the war is contrary to the Armistice terms and is also inacceptable on other grounds.

In the highest degree objectionable is also the intention which, with respect to the future settlement of all matters dealt with in the Conventions of Berlin42 and of Brussels,43 would blindly and for all time subject Germany to the will of her foes.

The German Government therefore makes the following points in reference to the German spheres of control:

1) As to the method of treating Colonial questions the following proposal is made:

In the fifth of the 14 Points of President Wilson’s address to Congress of 8 January 1918, an absolutely impartial settlement of all Colonial claims is assured. An impartial settlement presupposes that both sides shall be heard before the decision. Such a hearing has not taken place. In pursuance of that assurance, and particularly of the principle that the settlement of Colonial claims should be made with equal regard for the interests of the Governments and for those of the inhabitants, it is hereby proposed that Colonial questions be referred to a Special Commission.

2) The following proposal relates to the substance of the Settlement. The demand set forth in Articles 119 and following of the Draft Treaty for the renunciation by Germany of her overseas possessions cannot, according to the convictions of the German Peace Delegation, be reconciled with the terms of the Armistice based on the 5th Point of the address to Congress of 8 January 1918. On the contrary the German Government regards the claim of Germany for the return of her Colonial possessions as being thereby justified. When, however, a League of Nations shall come into being, in which Germany is immediately admitted as a member with equal rights, Germany is prepared to carry on the administration of her Colonies according to the principles of the League, and if need be, as its Mandatory.

11. KIAOCHOW

Germany is prepared to renounce all her rights and privileges in respect to Kiaochow and Shantung.

But Germany must assume that the indemnification for State and private property, which is incurred according to Article 156, paragraph 2, and Article 157 will follow according to the general principles established with regard to such indemnification.

[...]

 

[athgtq16129]

Do you have any proof of this claim?

Wish that I had and I would appreciate if people point out any mistakes that I ever type on this forum, all of this comes from stuff that I read on random archived books circa 2014-2016, I also have a vague recollection of a German figure saying "our Africa is in Europe"

 

[ObssesedNuker]

What even IS the Soviet Union in this scenario? Do we assume that the Germans allow their puppet states to fall to the Bolsheviks? If not, then they are going to be intervening in Ukraine, Tauria, the Baltics, Poland, Georgia etc. Intervening is another word for fighting the Bolsheviks.

This is one of the intriguing questions, since subsequent events show that in a de-facto sense, the B-L treaty was highly provisional even to the Bolsheviks. While they paid vastly more lip service to the treaty than the Whites and studiously observed it in some senses, in others they were clearly still actively trying to undermine it.

German garrison commanders throughout 1918 complained how Ukrainian socialist and nationalist guerrillas were being aided by the bolsheviks and were attacking their increasingly scattered troops and they had effectively lost control of some eastern portions of Ukraine during the summer. Though, ironically, many of those groups would go on to be destroyed by the Bolsheviks after the Germans left and the Soviets moved to crush the Ukrainian People’s Republic in force.

We can sketch out a number scenarios here from “Germany keeps all the B-L gains, including those parts that would go onto be part of the RSFSR” to “the Soviets reconquer significant chunks of territory” to “the Soviets manage to get the 1921-'39 borders anyway”.

 

[Maponus]

This is one of the intriguing questions, since subsequent events show that in a de-facto sense, the B-L treaty was highly provisional even to the Bolsheviks. While they paid vastly more lip service to the treaty than the Whites and studiously observed it in some senses, in others they were clearly actively trying to undermine it.

German garrison commanders throughout complained how Ukrainian socialist and nationalist guerrillas were being aided by the bolsheviks and were attacking their increasingly scattered troops and they had effectively lost control of some eastern portions of Ukraine during the summer. Though, ironically, many of those groups would go on to be destroyed by the Bolsheviks after the Germans left and the Soviets moved to crush the Ukrainian People’s Republic in force.

We can sketch out a number scenarios here from “Germany keeps all the B-L gains, including those parts that would go onto be part of the RSFSR” to “the Soviets reconquer significant chunks of territory” to “the Soviets manage to get the ‘39 borders anyway”.

An alternate version of the Polish-Soviet War where the Germans are initially pushed back by a Soviet offensive supported by sympathetic uprisings but manage to eventually stop, them resulting in an awkward peace that neither side is happy could be very interesting. On the Soviet side it would be a harsh brush with the reality that no German Revolution is coming, and for the Germans it would give a sense that their victory in WWI (which is as people say most likely some kind of grubby compromise with the Entente out of mutual exhaustion) is a mutilated one and exacerbate already existing antipathies towards Eastern Europeans. The Soviets will have to face the same difficult debates about Revolution and Socialism in One Country but with a hostile Empire on their border, and the German Right and the Military Brass will no doubt start blaming Jews and politicians for losing Ukraine.

It would also be interesting to see what would happen to Poland in all this. In OTL there were anti-Polish riots in Germany when news of the Soviet defeat near Warsaw reached them because of how angry people were about Silesia, and one of the first green shots of National Bolshevik type politics I've encountered was Lenin noting the existence of strange "young" right-wing Germans who were supporting the Soviets against Poland. With a small Poland under the German boot there's a lot of tension to be had with all sides, considering how the many territorial quarrels the much larger Versailles Poland had, but I imagine the result might be a less fervently anti-Soviet Poland than OTL.

 

[Fatt Shea]

Not all. In fact, lots of the more radical Whites were very Germanophilic, considering Germany the natural ally of Tsarism against Anglo-French liberalism (the Entente's lukewarmness toward the Tsar after 1917 enhanced this tendency). This is why a lot of them ended up moving to Germany after the war (and playing a key role in setting up the Nazi Party). And, similarly, lots of right-leaning German officers promoted the White cause after Brest-Litovsk, believing that a unified "White Russia" could be made into a German ally (you can find more information on these in the first three chapters of The Russian Roots of Nazism). There were anti-German whites, but it wasn't a uniform tendency.

That's true but their view would probably be quite different if Germany was in the process of occupying what they considered Russia. In OTL the whites fought the Ukrainians just as hard as they did the reds as they were trying to take Russia's core territory away from Russia. In this scenario Germany would be doing the exact same. Keep in mind they were Russian patriots first and foremost. I do agree that they wouldn't hate the German governmental system and they would probably be inspired by the Hindenburg Ludendorf dictatorship, seeing as they were also a group of millitary generals controlling territory and they might attribute that system to Germany winning the war, but they would still have animosity towards them for actively occupying great Russia.
The reason that some whites wanted to ally with Germany after the war was because Germany was no longer on their land and they had a common interest in overthrowing communism, it was also because the whites had lost the war and kind of had to rely on a foreign backer like Germany since they didn't actually control any territory, some other whites did the same with Japan.
But its true that some whites (like Krasnov) would accept aid from the Germans, seeing the reds as the more immediate threat and seeing German occupation as undefeatable for the moment, thinking that taking back Ukraine can wait, and they would definitely not be Germanophiles

 

[athgtq16129]

one of the first green shots of National Bolshevik type politics I've encountered was Lenin noting the existence of strange "young" right-wing Germans who were supporting the Soviets against Poland.

I was just going to ask about what the doctrines National Bolshevism would look like ITTL, where both the Central Powers and the Bolsheviks win, assuming that it would even exist in the first place.

 

[Maponus]

I was just going to ask about what the doctrines National Bolshevism would look like ITTL, where both the Central Powers and the Bolsheviks win, assuming that it would even exist in the first place.

In Germany itself? Doubtful. Very possible something like it turns up somewhere else though. France would be very fertile ground, maybe even in Britain, growing out of war-time "Patriotic" Labour organisations, like the Socialist National Defence Committee, National Socialist Party, British Workers League, etc .

 

[WeissRaben]

Because, as others have said, "Germany wins WW1"-TLs are often just a thinly-veiled attempt by the authors to right the "wrongs" of the 20th century: Progressivism, internationalism, communism.

I can't see that, to be honest, as the Soviet Union was possibly one of the most regressive countries of the 20th century. Wiping out its existance - especially if while managing to preserve the results of the first revolution - would have done the world a great deal of good.

 

[HelloThere]

I can't see that, to be honest, as the Soviet Union was possibly one of the most regressive countries of the 20th century. Wiping out its existance - especially if while managing to preserve the results of the first revolution - would have done the world a great deal of good.

The White Army committed the largest mass murders of Jews before the Holocaust. They behaved similarly toward other non-Russian (and therefore, in their eyes, automatically disloyal) groups. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, supported the non-Russian peoples (at least until 1928-1930) and partly institutionalized their languages. And this progress was not completely reversed even during the years of Stalinist re-Russification. If this collection of diverse political groups, but especially militant right-wingers, had won, Russia would be a warlord China at best and a far-right, fascist and neo-imperial dictatorship at worst. The SR or 'pragmatic' Mensheviks would not have gained power, it would have been the reactionary generals and supporters of the 'Black Hundreds'.

 

[WeissRaben]

The White Army committed the largest mass murders of Jews before the Holocaust. They behaved similarly toward other non-Russian (and therefore, in their eyes, automatically disloyal) groups. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, supported the non-Russian peoples (at least until 1928-1930) and partly institutionalized their languages. And this progress was not completely reversed even during the years of Stalinist re-Russification. If this collection of diverse political groups, but especially militant right-wingers, had won, Russia would be a warlord China at best and a far-right, fascist and neo-imperial dictatorship at worst. The SR or 'pragmatic' Mensheviks would not have gained power, it would have been the reactionary generals and supporters of the 'Black Hundreds'.

While stuff like the Black Book of Communism is hogwash, Stalinist Soviet Russia killed millions - even just the Holodomor killed up to five million people. In Kazakhstan, one and a half million people starved. Just as many died in gulags during the Stalin era. 700,000 dead is the lowballing for the dead of the Great Purge, mostly not included in the gulag deaths. The upper bounds for the White Terror, including the upper bounds for the pogroms incited by the Whites, is around a quarter of a million.
I maintain my position: a world without the Soviet Union would have been a better world. Not as much as a world without Nazi Germany, but a better world by far nonetheless.

 

[JohnnyFive]

It would have been a better world without the Soviets as we know it. Though what the Whites would have done…. Could they have allied with the Nazis and decided to split the world? We could have ended up with a much worse world. One split between Nazis and Fascist Russia. It might have been 10x worse.

An Axis of Nazi Germany and the White Russia and Japan and Italy would be an interesting alt history. I think the Nazi racial policies would be different if there was a fascist Russia… though I think eventually the two would end up fighting each other. Russia is an autocracy. It will historically just go there. Just which side will it take?

Hell, in a CP victory I can see Russia blaming France and the UK and communists for the victory and eventually allying with the Germans for doing round two against the west. Even in a CP defeat of the whites win they may still take the same mindset especially if their leaders see common cause with Weimer Germany and it’s anti-France/UK views.

Regardless they still end up fighting each other. I think CP victory or defeat the “allies of convenience” only lasts u til one decides they can beat the shit out of the other and stabs them in the back.

 

[flyingbat]

While stuff like the Black Book of Communism is hogwash, Stalinist Soviet Russia killed millions - even just the Holodomor killed up to five million people. In Kazakhstan, one and a half million people starved. Just as many died in gulags during the Stalin era. 700,000 dead is the lowballing for the dead of the Great Purge, mostly not included in the gulag deaths. The upper bounds for the White Terror, including the upper bounds for the pogroms incited by the Whites, is around a quarter of a million.
I maintain my position: a world without the Soviet Union would have been a better world. Not as much as a world without Nazi Germany, but a better world by far nonetheless.

The soviets had years longer than the whites to play that out and there were plenty of cruel bastards on that side of the civil war so im not convinced its quite an adequate point of comparison. Not to say the Soviets weren't horrible,they were, but we truly can't say if a theoretical white Russia would have ended up being any better than them or not, its all speculation influenced by our own unavoidably biased worldviews

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

It would have been a better world without the Soviets as we know it. Though what the Whites would have done…. Could they have allied with the Nazis and decided to split the world? We could have ended up with a much worse world. One split between Nazis and Fascist Russia. It might have been 10x worse.

Given that the Nazis' only serious ambition outside of Western Europe was lebensraum in Russia and Ukraine, and Generalplan Ost, I doubt that.
There simply wasn't much of Europe to split with them outside of Poland, and doing so would deny the Nazis their overriding goal anyway.
It's about as likely as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact not being broken 2-4 years later by either party.

Also, while I'm sure plenty of White officers would like certain parts of Nazism, especially the more antisemitic ones, the whole "Slavs are untermensch" thing is kinda hard to miss, and that's assuming they're not metis like Lavr Kornilov. There simply is no room for "co-lordship over the East" in that ideology.

 

[JohnnyFive]

Given that the Nazis' only serious ambition outside of Western Europe was lebensraum in Russia and Ukraine, and Generalplan Ost, I doubt that.
There simply wasn't much of Europe to split with them outside of Poland, and doing so would deny the Nazis their overriding goal anyway.
It's about as likely as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact not being broken 2-4 years later by either party.

Also, while I'm sure plenty of White officers would like certain parts of Nazism, especially the more antisemitic ones, the whole "Slavs are untermensch" thing is kinda hard to miss, and that's assuming they're not metis like Lavr Kornilov. There simply is no room for "co-lordship over the East" in that ideology.

I think a white Russia could butterfly some Nazi ideology. Is it -that- important to be so anti-Slav? There was a lot the Nazi’s went after. A potential alliance (until the back stab) could moderate views. Like not by much sure but enough to cooperate until the back stab?

 

[CHKeeley]

Not all. In fact, lots of the more radical Whites were very Germanophilic, considering Germany the natural ally of Tsarism against Anglo-French liberalism (the Entente's lukewarmness toward the Tsar after 1917 enhanced this tendency). This is why a lot of them ended up moving to Germany after the war (and playing a key role in setting up the Nazi Party). And, similarly, lots of right-leaning German officers promoted the White cause after Brest-Litovsk, believing that a unified "White Russia" could be made into a German ally (you can find more information on these in the first three chapters of The Russian Roots of Nazism). There were anti-German whites, but it wasn't a uniform tendency.

I think the only problem with this is that a lot of these more radical Whites were not in serious leadership positions in any of the White movement armies throughout the course of the Civil War. Even candidates like Wrangel, who were installed from the right, tended to be more reactionary than radical and remained Germanophobic and committed to continuing the war. This inability to adapt to the circumstances was one of the key factors harming the White movement and ensuring the Bolsheviks generally retained the edge of local opinion among soldiers, workers, and often peasants (that is, when the peasants didn't form 'green' militias and fight both sides). The Cossack leaders tended to be a bit more pro-German, like Krasnov for instance, but after the first months of 1918 the Cossacks fate became intertwined with that of the White movement and they failed to make significant overtures to the Germans while they were around. Other than that, a lot of the more radical men in the White movement were more popular with the junior officers rather than the movers and shakers. It would take a generational shift to bring these almost proto-fascist junior officers to the surface. A generational shift which would take far longer than the Civil War to affect, unless you can somehow wipe out the older officer class. The best bet, to my mind, for a pro-German White movement is a guerrilla army maintaining a war of movement in the Brest-Litovsk borderland after the end of the Civil War. It would be pretty similar to what happened with Ukrainian nationalists like the OUN, I'd imagine.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

I always felt that post-CP victory Russia would end up like interwar China- fractured into warlords, with the Germans setting up a Manchukuo style puppet state in Novgorod or something.

TLIAW ending with a fascist Imperial Germany getting Instant Sunshine over Cologne courtesy of the US.