If the Whites won the Russians Civil War...

[Sidewinder]

As stated, how would 20th century history have changed if the Whites (anti-Communist forces) won the Russian Civil War and consolodated their control over the area now covered by present day Russia? Would Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltics, Finland, and other areas with non-Russian majorities maintain their independence, voluntarily (if grudgingly) rejoin Russia under the new Imperial government, be conquered and reincorporated in the new Russian Empire, become puppet states of one of the neighboring powers (Sweden in Finland's case, Poland in Ukraine's, maybe Russia itself in the Baltics and Georgia)? Would Hitler attempt to conquer a non-Communist Russia (assuming he becomes the German head of government in this AU)?

And what of the Commies if they lost the Civil War? Would they carve out a Communist state in a geographically isolated (and easier to defend) part of Russia, like Siberia? Flee to Poland or China, set up a government in exile there, and maybe continue the struggle with support from the Whites' enemies (maybe Germany, as the Allies supported the Whites to keep Russia on their side in WWI)? Go underground to avoid arrest by the White security forces, and be forced to forget about their dreams of revolution?

[K. A. Pital]

As stated, how would 20th century history have changed if the Whites (anti-Communist forces) won the Russian Civil War and consolodated their control over the area now covered by present day Russia? Would Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltics, Finland, and other areas with non-Russian majorities maintain their independence, voluntarily (if grudgingly) rejoin Russia under the new Imperial government, be conquered and reincorporated in the new Russian Empire, become puppet states of one of the neighboring powers (Sweden in Finland's case, Poland in Ukraine's, maybe Russia itself in the Baltics and Georgia)? Would Hitler attempt to conquer a non-Communist Russia (assuming he becomes the German head of government in this AU)?

Well, for one, there was a thread about it once (something like "Time Travellers in the Russian Civil War" or something by Norseman.

One: the kind of more or less competent forces that truly could unite Russia by force - like Admiral Kolchak - would have crushed Finland, Ukraine, and every other little place that decided it could be "independent", communist or not. If they manage to work for a swift win over national centrals (Petrograd, Moscow), Poland might also be crushed and the Entente will help to do it to ensure Russia stays in the war against Germany. Remember, most "independents" (Lettish, etc.) fought with the Bolsheviks for the goals of their little nations to keep the inependence that Lenin allowed them to have, and they fought to death, rarely even surrendering. The more capable Whites were strong on restoring the Russian Empire, and crushing "red rabble" and "traitors" which included "independence" movements.

Huge, gigantic grain and food exports as reparations to the Entente nation like France and Britain are in order, including the restoration of their ownership over factories and mines in lots of European Russia places, and control over a huge part of Ukraine's grain production (I don't recall offhand how much they demanded from Kolchak in exchange for support, but pretty much).

As for Hitler, his task would be much easier. With the heavy burden of debt and grain reparations, Russia's economy is unlikely to recover so fast after a Civil War - including the fact that Great Depression will trim investment in the 1930s... Russia will not be the heavy industry giant by the 1940s. Whether Hitler decides to attack Russia first, second or not at all will greatly depend on the fate of Entente as an alliance, the fate of Poland and so on. Too many factors.

If Poland is independent, protected by France and England and as virulently anti-Russian as in reality... I feel Hitler might just follow the RL course and come crushing them one at a time.

And what of the Commies if they lost the Civil War?

They are unlikely to flee as a capable force. As for Germany, it supported the White General Krasnov against the Red Army, but not the Red Army which was forced to use Russia's own production centers for arms producttion, etc. Unlikely that the Red Army, Lenin or another Bolshevik government would get a direct support from Germany.

Would they carve out a Communist state in a geographically isolated (and easier to defend) part of Russia, like Siberia?

Rather unlikely. Kolchak killed just about every socialist, even anti-communist Eser, in Siberia upon assuming power, and he was one of the most capable White commanders. There's little if anything a losing Red Army can do to capture a White stronghold such as Siberia.

Go underground to avoid arrest by the White security forces, and be forced to forget about their dreams of revolution?

Most likely, emigrate en masse, defeated, useless and bitter. Just like the Whites in RL.

[Sidewinder]

Thanks for the info, Stas Bush.

Well, for one, there was a thread about it once (something like "Time Travellers in the Russian Civil War" or something by Norseman.

I found it when I searched the site, but ignored it because it was a RAR! instead of something more realistic. (This thread assumes the Whites won WITHOUT the aid of time travellers and technology from the future.)

As for Hitler, his task would be much easier.

I'm not so sure about that. The real-life Allies (specifically, the UK and France) were willing to humor Hitler because they viewed the USSR as a serious threat (Stalin gave them good reason), and considered Nazi Germany the lesser of two evils, UNTIL Hitler attacked Poland. They're unlikely to do the same if Russia was under a government that relied upon their aid to come to power, and under the economic hardships you described, likely to remain reliant upon them.

[TC Pilot]

After all, Molotov-Ribbentrop was a fairly integral part of Germany's overall strategy, to prevent a two-front war. A White Russia (are we talking just Tsarist restoration here, or liberal democracy?) would probably be more inclined to favor, and be favored by, the Allies.

[Sea Skimmer]

After all, Molotov-Ribbentrop was a fairly integral part of Germany's overall strategy, to prevent a two-front war. A White Russia (are we talking just Tsarist restoration here, or liberal democracy?) would probably be more inclined to favor, and be favored by, the Allies.

It didn’t just prevent a top front war, Germany was heavily dependent on the resources the Soviets agreed to supply on credit, and for which Germany was incapable of paying while still engaged in a war with Britian. The Soviets refusal to continue expanding the this trade without being fully paid was a significant factor in Hitler’s decision to attack Russia when he did.

To a point Hitler tried to satisfy the Soviets by supplying armaments and technology instead of money, but it wasn’t enough and couldn’t be enough. Funny enough one of the pieces of this trade was Soviet designers got full access to German tank factories. When showed the Panzer IV the Soviets flat out refused to believe it was the heaviest German tank (the Russians were already working on KV-1 by this point, Tiger meanwhile was not yet even a prototype) and sent several letters of complaint to the Germans. The Germans on their part failed to correctly interpret the Soviet complaint as indicating that the Soviets were already working on much heavier vehicles.

[Sidewinder]

are we talking just Tsarist restoration here, or liberal democracy?

I didn't consider what kind of government the Whites would establish if they won, but as Stas Bush noted, it would likely be a right-wing military dictatorship. I don't think it really matters, as the UK and France (and later, the US) have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to make friends with military dictatorships, even brutal ones, as long as the dictators support their interests; a White Russia brought to power with the Allies' aid isn't likely to do stupid things that make the UK, France, and the US consider Russia to be a serious threat (and a fascist or even Nazi Germany the lesser of two evils), like promote anti-colonialism and forment revolutions in their backyards.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not so sure about that. The real-life Allies (specifically, the UK and France) were willing to humor Hitler because they viewed the USSR as a serious threat (Stalin gave them good reason), and considered Nazi Germany the lesser of two evils, UNTIL Hitler attacked Poland. They're unlikely to do the same if Russia was under a government that relied upon their aid to come to power, and under the economic hardships you described, likely to remain reliant upon them.

Yes, Russia would be reliant on France and Britain. However, as I said, it depends on whether Poland even exists in this scenario. If it does, France/Britain will have to choose between Poland+Germany destroying Czechoslovakia, or siding with Russia over Poland and Germany in 1938. If they do, Hitler is crushed in 1938, end of story. If they don't... or they waver - Hitler had achieved the goal of breaking his enemies up once again.

It didn’t just prevent a top front war, Germany was heavily dependent on the resources the Soviets agreed to supply on credit

Kinda hard to believe it...

The amount of trade between the both was insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and Germany also "kept sending trains" up to 22 June 1941, the trade went bothways.
Germany bought from the USSR (in costs):

Yellow - grain
Green - cotton and flax
Dark grey - oil products
Light grey - metals and ores
Orange - all else
Red - payments for transit of goods

In the "ores and metals" catergory the main positions were metals (half of it) and platinum (one third of it). The rest - iridium, chrome and manganese ore. The whole sum of our shipments to Germany constituted 426 million mark + 23 million for the transit of goods.

In absolute figures:
Grain - 1,27 million ton
Cotton - 100 thousand ton
Flax - 9 thousand ton
Oil products - 907 thousand ton

As one can see, the shipments were rather small. Only the oil products constituted a somewhat considerable part of German consumption (~10%).

What did trade with Germany give to the USSR in exchange?

Dark grey - coal
Light grey - metals
Blue - ships and vessels
Green - military orders
Light orange - industrial equipment
Orange - industrial machinery (lathe, presses, benches, steel-cutters, etc..)

The total sum of goods received was 250 million mark.

The industrial equipment was delivered only on 43 million mark, including license payments (~16% from total German shipments). In metals - it was quality high-grade steel, tubes, metae, wire.

The equimpent received breaks down the following way. Out of 43 million mark paid for industrial equipment, 12,7 million were for steel-cutting machines. The rest went on mining equipment (9,7 million, mostly excavators), oil industry equipment (8,9 million, mostly diesels and electric motors), equipment for chemical industry (4,4 million), equipment for electric stations and locomobiles (2,7 million). The number of steel-cutting machines received by this transfer was 1440 (a minor number - in 1940 the Soviet industry produced over 58 000 such machines).

All in all, the trade was fairly minor for both of the participants.

[Adrian Laguna]

There is a possibility of a White Russian win due to Germany winning the First World War. Germany was in a somewhat better position to send supplies, armaments, and even personnel over due to their land connection, and even less interested than France and Britain in the rise of a Red Russia. If the Germans managed to pull it off, they would be in a position of incredible power, with the resources of Russia beholden to them.

[Ma Deuce]

I frankly doubt the Nazis could have even risen to power without the existence of the Communists (especially given the unlikelihood of the German communist revolution happening at all after the Russian revolution fails), since much of their early rabble-rousing relied upon the convenient enemy the Commies provided.

[Sidewinder]

While discussing WWI history with my sister, I got the strange idea that many of the Allies would've been better off if Germany WON the Great War, as this would remove the need for a "stabbed in the back" myth to explain Germany's defeat, along with much of the anger and sense of betrayal that Hitler exploited to gain power. No Hitler means a considerably scaled back German rearmament (the amount of tax revenues available to the government, and the credit rating it has among other national banks, will serve as a limit), which in turn means Germany can't threaten France, the UK, and Russia the way it did in WWII.

[thejester]

Did you actually just read what you just wrote? The Allies wouldn't get threatened in WW2 cause they'd already be fucking beaten. That's 'better' in the sense that there's no Holocaust/lebensraum, but still a pretty shit situation given (IIRC) it means the virtual end of France and who-knows-what for Eastern Europe.

[Sidewinder]

Russian Empire: 1,811,000 (military deaths), 1,500,000 (civilian deaths), 3,311,000 (total deaths), 4,950,000 (military wounded).

Soviet Union: 10,700,000 (military deaths), 11,400,000 (civilian deaths), 1,000,000 (Jewish Holocaust deaths), 23,100,000 (total deaths).

No stabbed-in-the-back myth for Hitler to exploit, means he's less likely to come to power. No Hitler as the German head of government means no Operation Barbarossa. I'd say being alive and a free citizen of a democratic (if financially bankrupt) nation beats death, slavery, and military dictatorship.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, preventing WWII at the cost of Allied loss in WWI is a rational argument.

However, who is to say WWII is prevented? A reverse situation with a new "Axis" (hypernationalist "beaten" France, Britain and Russia) could arise.

[Pelranius]

The Jews for the most part would have a better time at least, and probably the Poles. However, whatever descendant of the Black Hundreds who takes power in Russia will make life pretty shitty for all the minorities. I wish Turtledove had explored Europe more in TL 191.

We could ask for Duchess's take on this.

[thejester]

No stabbed-in-the-back myth for Hitler to exploit, means he's less likely to come to power. No Hitler as the German head of government means no Operation Barbarossa. I'd say being alive and a free citizen of a democratic (if financially bankrupt) nation beats death, slavery, and military dictatorship.

Do you understand that if Germany wins, the Kaiser stays in power? Do you understand that Germany's enormous military remains intact? Do you understand that Germany's reckless, aggressive approach to the 1914 crisis would have been validated?

We have no idea what could have happened had Germany triumphed in WW1. As Stas points out, it could lead to a reversal of history, where both France and Russia create their own stab-in-the-back ideas and turn fascist. It could equally lead to another enormous European war in the future. The ingredients are certainly all there.

[Sidewinder]

Whatever Kaiser Wilhelm II's faults, he's still a significantly better choice as head of state/government than Hitler.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, but just about everyone in Europe was better than Hitler in RL. But the issue is, you don't know who will come to power in the wake of your alternative WWI in both Germany and the Entente nations - as people pointed out, those could be major assholes with policies similar to the Nazis (Black Hundreds and the like).

[Pelranius]

The question is if such assholes can do as much damage to humanity as Hitler did, who had Germany's industry and location (Action Francaise can't really do anything but march east and the Black Hundreds are unlikely to be industrialize Russia to any where near what the Soviets would acheive).

[irishmick79]

Getting back to Russia, I would say that a white victory would only extend the demise of the empire for a few years. Kolchak was a blustering fool who would have overplayed his hand had he won and somebody would have come along and pushed him out of the picture, whether it be at the hands of a foreign power or another faction of communists. The whites would have wasted their energy trying to re-establish a social order that had already been swept away by the time the civil war was raging, and fighting each other. Without the Czar for them to unify behind, they would have fractured badly.

[Pelranius]

The Whites also included the Mensheviks and a bunch of other socialists who didn't like the Bolsheviks. But given how reactionary Kolchak was, I can't really see them playing a big role in the event of a White victory.

[K. A. Pital]

The Whites also included the Mensheviks and a bunch of other socialists who didn't like the Bolsheviks.

Actually no. Those did not participate formally in the "White" movement - most of them were independent resistance. In many cases, Whites executed them as "red rabble" summarily (see Kolchak), or were themselves doomed by Menshevik or Eser leaning rebellions (Kolchak, heh).

And good ole' Makhno was a wildcard, sure

[irishmick79]

The Whites also included the Mensheviks and a bunch of other socialists who didn't like the Bolsheviks.

Actually no. Those did not participate formally in the "White" movement - most of them were independent resistance. In many cases, Whites executed them as "red rabble" summarily (see Kolchak), or were themselves doomed by Menshevik or Eser leaning rebellions (Kolchak, heh).

And good ole' Makhno was a wildcard, sure

I thought the Mensheviks did try and work with the whites under Denikin for a brief period of time until they came to their senses and remembered that they hated each other, before they went independent.

Anyways, the Bolsheviks were already establishing control of the government by the time the whites started to mount a serious challenge. The whites were heavily backed by the allies, and didn't have much loyalty on a local level. So basically, if the whites won, you'd have a group of people in power who are heavily dependent on Western Europe for support, and don't have strong political support from most Russians. I would be surprised if there's a scenario where the whites survive past 1930 without massive assistance from the western allies.

The next question becomes what does the chaos in Russia mean for Germany? They might have an easier time securing resources, since the Russian government would most likely be badly fractured and incapable of negotiating for the most favorable terms. The real question is how long could they tolerate a pro-western government in Moscow, even one constantly teetering on the brink of collapse. It might actually be in their interests at this point to offer tepid support to the whites, so that Russia stays unstable and divided, thus buying time for Germany to build up its own military capacity.

[Darth Hoth]

Do you understand that if Germany wins, the Kaiser stays in power? Do you understand that Germany's enormous military remains intact? Do you understand that Germany's reckless, aggressive approach to the 1914 crisis would have been validated?

In most such scenarios, it is posited that the victorious German Empire would have to liberalise, something that they bargained with the Socialists on in order to retain their support. There will likely be shifts towards a more democratic society as a "reward" to the people for carrying through the dark days of the war. There will be major pressure for it, if nothing else, and Ole' Kaiser Bill is not among the monarchs I could see ruling by military dictatorship in peacetime like some Tsar. For all his faults, he did have his streaks of well-meaning populism. In fact, the case might be made that a German transition to democracy would be much smoother in this scenario than in @, given that democracy will not be seen as a foreign implant or the product of defeat.

As for "validating the reckless approach"... will the people of Germany, having starved under the English blockade and seen millions of their young men ground down in the trenches, feel new land in the East and landing the Frogs one is worth it all? The Junkers, perhaps; the lower classes, probably not. Did the Entente powers, who (in the West, at least) suffered less than the Germans, view their victory as an encouragement to wage more such wars? In Germany, too, the war will most likely be viewed as a horrible experience by the vast majority, whether they think it "just" or "right" or not.

This all assuming, of course, that we are discussing a late point of divergence; if it is an (unlikely) successful Schlieffen Plan and a prophesied "quick victory" of the kind everyone expected/wished for, naturally that does go a long way towards validating the war, which would then also be an altogether less oppressing experience.

We have no idea what could have happened had Germany triumphed in WW1. As Stas points out, it could lead to a reversal of history, where both France and Russia create their own stab-in-the-back ideas and turn fascist. It could equally lead to another enormous European war in the future. The ingredients are certainly all there.

The difference is that unless the German leadership in the new super-Reich are complete and utter fucktards, a reduced France and/or Russia will not be anything approximating the kind of threat Nazi Germany was to the Allies. Revanchism would be a dream of the right, which only the lunatic fringe would attempt to put into practice. And if such a group managed to get into power (which is rather unlikely), the Reich could still land on them or - in a worst-case scenario - contain it with a much lesser effort than what our WWII demanded..

[Samuel]

How much land is the victorious German state thinking of taking? I know that they would probably annex Belgium and the rest of Poland- what else?

[K. A. Pital]

The difference is that unless the German leadership in the new super-Reich are complete and utter fucktards, a reduced France and/or Russia will not be anything approximating the kind of threat Nazi Germany was to the Allies.

Really? Russia - of course not, not with the burden of reparations and Tsar debt to pay. But France? It's an industrial powerhouse. And Britain as well.

Revanchism would be a dream of the right, which only the lunatic fringe would attempt to put into practice. And if such a group managed to get into power (which is rather unlikely), the Reich could still land on them or - in a worst-case scenario - contain it with a much lesser effort than what our WWII demanded.

Um... "The difference is that unless the Anglo-French leadership in the Entente are complete and utter fucktards, a reduced Germany and/or Italy would not be anything approximating the kind of threat Franco-Anglo-Fascists represented to the Reich. Revanchism would be a dream of the right, which only the lunatic fringe would attempt to put into practice. And if such a group managed to get into power (which is rather unlikely), the Anglo-French would still land on them - or in a worst-case scenario, contain it with a much lesser effort than our WWII demanded".