Had the White Army won, how would they have governed Russia?

Status
Not open for further replies.

lafollette

Banned
Kerensky iirc was leading the moderate socialists. Maybe the radicals only?
A few of the Right SRs would have been allowed back into the Constituent Assembly, although not the disgraced Kerensky. As for the Left SRs, they're finished.
Majority of the Provisional government iirc was like Kadets, who iirc put rights and everything to the people. Education probably still goes like Russia pre war where it's free and I'm not sure if mandatory but rather alot of literacy iirc 90%? or just majority is literate. Unlike the common misconception that it isn't.

Well if they have the money, I don't think they would neglect education. Probably even expand it as the Kadets and Kerenskyists the two main cliques stronghold seems to have wanted reform to be like a modern " western " state.

Unless they can't fund it though which is imo quite unlikely, probably the US and co sends some emergency loans and aid to prevent Russia's economy from collapsing totally.
Of course foreign aid would have played a key role in post-war rebuilding: in fact, aid would have been far easier to sell here to the Western public as a necessary measure to repair all the havoc and destruction caused by the Germans and their Bolshevik allies.
 
In the end it wouldn't matter, as the Nazis (who would absolutely still invade) would obliterate them.

Ok, something that always bothers me is the stereotype that Stalin, and ONLY Stalin could have defeated Nazi Germany because "Any other leader would have been too weak-willed."

Stalin's success against the Nazi's boiled down to just throwing bodies at the problem until the Nazi's broke, because Russia had more people to give a weapon to and throw in the meat grinder.

Russia's history is littered with leaders who were willing to do just that, in fact I think a lot of hypothetical leaders of Russia that weren't Stalin in WW2 would have fared better. They would have listened to the reports that the Nazis were planning to launch an invasion of Russia while still fighting in Western Europe.
 

lafollette

Banned
Why assume that there would even be a Nazi Party in a White victory scenario? The first raison d'etre of Nazism was 'anti-Bolshevism', fears of which will be far more diminished here.
 
Why assume that there would even be a Nazi Party in a White victory scenario? The first raison d'etre of Nazism was 'anti-Bolshevism', fears of which will be far more diminished here.
That does make me wonder how the Bolsheviks losing the Russian Civil War would affect the development of Communism. I'm sure some communist state would emerge somewhere eventually, but which nation would it be and how would they get there and what lessons would the Communist (and Socialist) movement take from this?
 
Why assume that there would even be a Nazi Party in a White victory scenario? The first raison d'etre of Nazism was 'anti-Bolshevism', fears of which will be far more diminished here.
Agreed. Germany could still see an authoritarian government take hold -- possibly a military dictatorship or a different flavor of fascism more along the lines of what existed in Italy -- but Nazism? No dice. The ascension of the NSDAP to power in OTL was already precipitated by immense amounts of sheer (bad) luck. There was no shortage of political alternatives available in 1930s Germany. That the Nazis won out was due in no small part to the German middle class's absolute terror of the neighboring Bolshevik menace.

Absent the USSR we may still see an authoritarian government in Germany, we may still see a war, but we almost certainly will not see a genocidal crusade hellbent on obtaining Lebensraum and the genocide of the eastern Slavs.
 
The logic of 'why Nazis will came to power in Germany if Reds loose the Civil War in Russia' is rather simple. Germany is a next logical focal point for the international communist movement, so defeat of the communism in Russia would make communism in Germany stronger.

Which would provoke a greater support of the German elites of the Nazi and Nazi-adjacent movements to combat greater communist influences. As an added bonus German communists would also be free of Moscow meddling and 'Russian puppets' brand that hampered them historically.

Logically, White Russia basically guarantees either Red or Brown Germany with latter being much more probable than the former.
 
That does make me wonder how the Bolsheviks losing the Russian Civil War would affect the development of Communism. I'm sure some communist state would emerge somewhere eventually, but which nation would it be and how would they get there and what lessons would the Communist (and Socialist) movement take from this?
The victory of the Bolsheviks and the subsequent creation of the USSR from the corpse of the Russian Empire was a watershed moment for global socialism, and so naturally removing it has equally tremendous effects. The biggest change I see is that revolutionary communism is discredited in favor of the more gradualist approach to achieving socialism professed by the social democrats. The apparent success of the USSR IOTL led to many social democrats splitting off to join more radical communist parties, often resulting in deleterious effects to political stability, as seen in the case of Germany. With a White victory, that doesn't happen, or if it does, it happens to a much lesser degree. Instead, I think that ITTL we see much stronger social democratic movements across the developed world, and less volatile politics in general.
 
I mean, the debate on whether the Nazis would rise to power in a world where the Bolsheviks lose is based on the same philosophical debate that all alternate history timelines have. Things could still happen like they did IOTL, and as The_Reformer pointed out, the Nazis were hardly isolated from the German right in their views. The Spartacist uprising and enduring popularity of socialism already gave German elites plenty of reason to lean into fascism. However, there’s also the chance that things could go very differently due to any number of tiny changes snowballing. For example, the German left will be very different without Thälmann’s deference to the Politburo. Bottom line, I don’t think that either outcome is guaranteed with this scenario.
The victory of the Bolsheviks and the subsequent creation of the USSR from the corpse of the Russian Empire was a watershed moment for global socialism, and so naturally removing it has equally tremendous effects. The biggest change I see is that revolutionary communism is discredited in favor of the more gradualist approach to achieving socialism professed by the social democrats. The apparent success of the USSR IOTL led to many social democrats splitting off to join more radical communist parties, often resulting in deleterious effects to political stability, as seen in the case of Germany. With a White victory, that doesn't happen, or if it does, it happens to a much lesser degree. Instead, I think that ITTL we see much stronger social democratic movements across the developed world, and less volatile politics in general.
I think this would be true in the short to medium term, but there were already reasons for the left to split, like the mainstream SPD and the pacifist USPD. It would be interesting to see how revolutionary movements like the KMT would fare without Soviet aid. Decolonization would be very different as well, but in order to answer that, I think we’d need to know what happens in the interwar period and WWII first.
 
Ok, something that always bothers me is the stereotype that Stalin, and ONLY Stalin could have defeated Nazi Germany because "Any other leader would have been too weak-willed."

Stalin's success against the Nazi's boiled down to just throwing bodies at the problem until the Nazi's broke, because Russia had more people to give a weapon to and throw in the meat grinder.

Russia's history is littered with leaders who were willing to do just that, in fact I think a lot of hypothetical leaders of Russia that weren't Stalin in WW2 would have fared better. They would have listened to the reports that the Nazis were planning to launch an invasion of Russia while still fighting in Western Europe.
I think you're confusing what I said with what you think I said. I said that the whites would be obliterated, you're assuming that means I think only Stalin could have won.

Those are different things.

The whites could probably even win, but I think it's worth recognizing that the communist (not Stalinist) rule of Russia allowed a unique degree of brutality in the creation of an industrial state, while still being able to justify that brutality ideologically to a degree. Now that could of course still happen under the whites, but given the fact even the People's army was run by Kappel, who was a self declared monarchist, and all of the leadership of the whites were either monarchists or aristocrats who could barely even agree on basic land reform, let alone the needs that'd be required for mass industrialization, I find it unlikely.

Russia's industrial capacity won the war, not Stalin, not communism. The whites were much less likely to have it - thus, it's pretty probable that the Russians would lose. Especially as any white regime I'd wager would almost certainly be unpopular among the working class and peasants needed to win the war.
 
Y
The presence of Russian grain in Western markets (controlled by tariffs, obviously) could have at least ameliorated the pre-Great Depression agricultural prices crisis.
You mean make prices even lower, as there was a glut without large Soviet Grain exports in the '20s.
Adding in White Russian Grain, and prices drop even more
 
Ok, something that always bothers me is the stereotype that Stalin, and ONLY Stalin could have defeated Nazi Germany because "Any other leader would have been too weak-willed."
And only Hitler and Stalin together could have cooked up the non-aggression pact and split Poland between them
 
Badly and briefly.

The Whites were not even remotely a coherent or unified block; their regime would begin tearing apart rather quickly as basically the only thing they agreed on was opposing the Reds. They had no plan for a government, no economic strategy or indeed any of the elements of a functioning state. They'd rapidly start settling scores with anyone who didn't fit their view of True Russians; socialists, Jews, political opponents et cetera.

After it fell apart, again, you'd see a second civil war, more warlordism and probably the final dissolution of Russia.
 

lafollette

Banned
That does make me wonder how the Bolsheviks losing the Russian Civil War would affect the development of Communism. I'm sure some communist state would emerge somewhere eventually, but which nation would it be and how would they get there and what lessons would the Communist (and Socialist) movement take from this?
A Socialist Revolution elsewhere is perfectly possible, but outright Communism would have been discredited by its military defeat.
The logic of 'why Nazis will came to power in Germany if Reds loose the Civil War in Russia' is rather simple. Germany is a next logical focal point for the international communist movement, so defeat of the communism in Russia would make communism in Germany stronger.
Makhno's defeat in Ukraine did not lead to an anarchist anywhere...
Which would provoke a greater support of the German elites of the Nazi and Nazi-adjacent movements to combat greater communist influences. As an added bonus German communists would also be free of Moscow meddling and 'Russian puppets' brand that hampered them historically.
The KPD was effectively the party of the unemployed, which severely limited its electoral viability and won't be changing here.
Logically, White Russia basically guarantees either Red or Brown Germany with latter being much more probable than the former.
In a White Russia scenario, the far more likely outcome are right-wing dictatorships across continental Europe(excluding the UK and the USA), not fascism or even communism.
 

lafollette

Banned
I mean, the debate on whether the Nazis would rise to power in a world where the Bolsheviks lose is based on the same philosophical debate that all alternate history timelines have. Things could still happen like they did IOTL, and as The_Reformer pointed out, the Nazis were hardly isolated from the German right in their views. The Spartacist uprising and enduring popularity of socialism already gave German elites plenty of reason to lean into fascism. However, there’s also the chance that things could go very differently due to any number of tiny changes snowballing. For example, the German left will be very different without Thälmann’s deference to the Politburo. Bottom line, I don’t think that either outcome is guaranteed with this scenario.
The Spartacist uprising was based on a direct misinterpretation of the Bolsheviks' October coup: the impetus for the creation of the KPD from the USPD just won't be there if Communism is merely a defeated form of radical socialism.
I think this would be true in the short to medium term, but there were already reasons for the left to split, like the mainstream SPD and the pacifist USPD. It would be interesting to see how revolutionary movements like the KMT would fare without Soviet aid. Decolonization would be very different as well, but in order to answer that, I think we’d need to know what happens in the interwar period and WWII first.
The Fengtien Clique would almost certainly have won without Soviet intervention, with greater social and technological modernization for China as a result.
 

lafollette

Banned
I think you're confusing what I said with what you think I said. I said that the whites would be obliterated, you're assuming that means I think only Stalin could have won.

Those are different things.

The whites could probably even win, but I think it's worth recognizing that the communist (not Stalinist) rule of Russia allowed a unique degree of brutality in the creation of an industrial state, while still being able to justify that brutality ideologically to a degree. Now that could of course still happen under the whites, but given the fact even the People's army was run by Kappel, who was a self declared monarchist, and all of the leadership of the whites were either monarchists or aristocrats who could barely even agree on basic land reform, let alone the needs that'd be required for mass industrialization, I find it unlikely.

Russia's industrial capacity won the war, not Stalin, not communism. The whites were much less likely to have it - thus, it's pretty probable that the Russians would lose. Especially as any white regime I'd wager would almost certainly be unpopular among the working class and peasants needed to win the war.
The Five Year-Plans were economically disastrous: even Bukharin and the Right Opposition's ideas were far more sound.

But even that isn't saying much. Russia would have continued to industrialize at the pace which it had under the Romanovs in the event of a White victory: a Russia with close ties to the UK, USA and France and their financial loans would have been more industrially advanced than a Russia without.
 
The issue with the idea of White Russia being friendly with Entente is very simple too: Tsarist debt. Either Whites do what Bolsheviks did and refuse to pay up or they try to pay up and smother the whole industrialization in the cradle.
 
The issue with the idea of White Russia being friendly with Entente is very simple too: Tsarist debt. Either Whites do what Bolsheviks did and refuse to pay up or they try to pay up and smother the whole industrialization in the cradle.
As long a party agrees to pay _someday_, loans can, and have been, renegotiated.
Russia owed a lot of money. The Banks want to get paid.
This didn't happen with the Communists in charge.
Whites, it would be done.
There's still just too much money to be made in Russia, even with unrest.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top