Most likely Form of Government following a White Victory in the RCW

[Johnrankins]

Something to consider is that as bad Lenin was, he did do some basic things like created a free education system that alone was better than anything the white officers could plan.

That was already on the way . The reason literacy improved quickly under the Communists is that it was already improving at an accelerating rate. It takes decades to have literacy to really take off. You need enough literate adults to teach the children.

With a low starting literacy rate that means teaching some of the children, getting them through school, having some of them become teachers so they can teach the new batch of students so some of them can become teachers and so on. That doesn't happen overnight.

 

[Alexniko]

That was already on the way . The reason literacy improved quickly under the Communists is that it was already improving at an accelerating rate. It takes decades to have literacy to really take off. You need enough literate adults to teach the children.

With a low starting literacy rate that means teaching some of the children, getting them through school, having some of them become teachers so they can teach the new batch of students so some of them can become teachers and so on. That doesn't happen overnight.

But they not only tought children, but adults aswell. They had lots of extraordinary classes and it already began during the civil war. To quote Orlando Figes' "A People's Tragedy":

"The Bolsheviks were quick to realize the potential of the Red Army as a school for their future bureaucrats. Compulsory lessons in reading, writing and arithmetic were introduced for all ranks from as early as April 1918. More people learned to read in the barracks and bivouacs of the Red Army than the rest of the country put together during the first years of the Soviet regime. By the end of 1920, there were 3,000 Red Army schools, with over two million books. The first emblem of the Red Army showed a hammer and a sickle with a rifle and a book."

And that was not because the Red Army had an extraordinary amount of teachers amidst it's ranks.

(Yes, I just said that I didn't want to divert the thread, but I did want to answer to that one. Sorry.)

 

[Johnrankins]

But they not only tought children, but adults aswell. They had lots of extraordinary classes and it already began during the civil war. To quote Orlando Figes' "A People's Tragedy":

"The Bolsheviks were quick to realize the potential of the Red Army as a school for their future bureaucrats. Compulsory lessons in reading, writing and arithmetic were introduced for all ranks from as early as April 1918. More people learned to read in the barracks and bivouacs of the Red Army than the rest of the country put together during the first years of the Soviet regime. By the end of 1920, there were 3,000 Red Army schools, with over two million books. The first emblem of the Red Army showed a hammer and a sickle with a rifle and a book."

And that was not because the Red Army had an extraordinary amount of teachers amidst it's ranks.

(Yes, I just said that I didn't want to divert the thread, but I did want to answer to that one. Sorry.)

That was also done all through history including Tsarist times. The fact is you can teach large numbers of people to read only so fast. In fact adults tend to take longer than children.

 

[Gukpard]

That was also done all through history including Tsarist times. The fact is you can teach large numbers of people to read only so fast. In fact adults tend to take longer than children.

I agree in this part, but the bolsheviks made everything accessible, even universities!

Today in 2021 most of the world doesn't have "free" superior education, and they had that in 1930!

 

[mranibanerjee]

I agree in this part, but the bolsheviks made everything accessible, even universities!

Today in 2021 most of the world doesn't have "free" superior education, and they had that in 1930!

Kerensky and his moderate socialists would have done that too, at less of a butcher's bill.

 

[Reggieperrin]

A bunch of honest questions to all those who voted "A Military Dictatorship":

The Whites continuously emphasized that "the Army stood above politics". I mean, the claim was obviously dumb, but is them establishing a permanent military dictatorship really a realistic possibility? Furthermore, what about them promising to hold elections to a new Constituent Assembly? Was this just an empty promise in order not to alienate potential supporters?

Plenty of military dictatorships started on the premise of ”only the army can be trusted to put the welfare of the nation first” unlike those pesky corrupt foreign-influenced politicians. Ditto on the never-ending “interim stabilisation period until conditions are right for a return to democracy” or whatever.

To believe this, you'd have to believe that the Soviets had no influence on Western communism in the interwar period. Which is just, prima facie, ridiculous.

I'm not so conversant with the particulars of the German communists, but I do know that the CPGB was entirely dependent on Russian money for the whole of its existence.

No, to believe that you would just have to be aware that communist & socialist parties were widespread in every industrialised country well before the Soviet revolution, and that large parts of society had their knickers in a very considerable twist as a result. The CPGB only formed in 1920 but some of the organisations that merged into it dated back to 1903, when Russian funding seems rather unlikely.

What is IMO prima facie ridiculous is to assume that a defeat of the Bolsheviks in Russia would somehow either:

1. extinguish the whole vast array of anarchist/socialist/marxist/union/suffrage agitation that had been developing in Europe since 1850 or before.
2. Turn the ruling classes of Europe into eager social reformers, dedicated to bettering the economic conditions and political rights of the working class.

It seems much more likely that normal service will be resumed, but with both revolutionaries and reactionaries even more frenzied after events in Russia.

 

[suul'ken]

How plausible is Kaissreichs aftermath of RSW?

 

[Cymry-Korean]

How plausible is Kaissreichs aftermath of RSW?

Immensely implausible in my view. Kerensky was, shy of some massive amount of luck and happenstance, a spent force and would have remained so.

 

[Gukpard]

Kerensky and his moderate socialists would have done that too, at less of a butcher's bill.

The civil war began after Kerensky was removed, Didn't it?

I mean, I prefer Kerensky a thousand times more than the soviets, but I tough he was outside the scope of this scenario.

 

[mranibanerjee]

The civil war began after Kerensky was removed, Didn't it?

I mean, I prefer Kerensky a thousand times more than the soviets, but I tough he was outside the scope of this scenario.

Without the CPSU and their subsequently disastrous policies of the 1920s and the 1930s, one thing that is very clear to me is that both the Russian economy and their industry/infastructure would have been in much better shape overall in the long run, perhaps equivalent to Yugoslavia or Poland.

 

[Deleted member 90949]

Since the Kolchak I've read about had no more love for the SRs than he had for the Bolsheviks.

There is no contradiction between Kolchak hating the SRs and Kolchak signing a piece of paper recognizing them as the legitimate government of Russia so the Allies would give him supplies.

After he (or rather the officers in his name, Kolchak played a rather passive role in the coup of November 18th) overthrew the very government you mentioned, his regime cracked down brutally on not only the Bolsheviks but all self-described socialists. To quote Orlando Figes' "A People's Tragedy":

Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia despite signing the Munich agreement.

Personally, I tend to the assumption that the victorious Whites would've restored the monarchy, since most of their officers (including Alekseev, Wrangel, Lukomsky, Dragomirov, Krasnov, Kolchak and Yudenich) were monarchists.

Kolchak certainly would have supported a restoration of the Tsar. As I said earlier-

They would all fight each other if the reds were not a threat. There is no way Kerenskyite socialists and Tsarists are ever getting along. It was the Kerenskyites who overthrew the Czar in the first place.

Kolchak would have sided with the Tsarists against the SRs in a post-Bolshevik civil war.

 

[Johnrankins]

Or Hitler adapts his rant. the threat is Jewsh led Slavs. He frequently played to his audience & could be flexible in his political policy.

That is OTL.

 

[LNSS]

TNO-style Russian Warlord Era

 

[Johnrankins]

That is not to say that the Nazis would've innevitably risen to power in this scenario aswell. However their chances would be just as high or low as they were in OTL.

It might not be an auto no Hitler but the odds go down for him . Not having a Red Russia means you don't have a disaster area to point to when describing why you should be anti-Communist and that was part of his appeal.

 

[GameBawesome]

Well, if the Tsarist faction won out with the help of White generals, then I think the Tsar would be a figurehead, while a military oligarchy formed, with various White Generals carving the Russian Empire, creating autonomous warlord fiefdoms. There’s also going to be a lot of distrust among the White Faction, as some may still be Republicans

 

[Johnrankins]

Well, if the Tsarist faction won out with the help of White generals, then I think the Tsar would be a figurehead, while a military oligarchy formed, with various White Generals carving the Russian Empire, creating autonomous warlord fiefdoms. There’s also going to be a lot of distrust among the White Faction, as some may still be Republicans

Doubtful , IMO. If there is a Tsarist faction that wins, assuming it is a legitimate Romanov heir, they will probably fall in line behind said Romanov.

 

[Ijon Tichy]

To believe this, you'd have to believe that the Soviets had no influence on Western communism in the interwar period. Which is just, prima facie, ridiculous.

I'm not so conversant with the particulars of the German communists, but I do know that the CPGB was entirely dependent on Russian money for the whole of its existence.

If no major country falls to communism in the aftermath of World War I, anxiety over communism is going to be greatly lessened, if for no other reason than the fact that Western communists are deprived of a huge chunk of their funding.

CPGB's a special case, surely, given its low membership and support? The KPD stood at the head of a significant section of the German working class, and it was the power of that class which frightened the bourgeoisie, not just the threat of Moscow. You're right that it would be ridiculous to deny the influence of Moscow on the western Communist parties: it's equally ridiculous, in my view, to deny the existence of independent tendencies within those parties.

 

[Cudymcar]

There is no one "most probable" outcome, but a range of possibilities.
First of all, monarchy is gone for good. White movement was republican through and through. Tsarism in popular opinion was a drawback which impeded modernization.
Possible scenarios:
1) Denikin prevalent. Constitutional Assembly is restored, elections held, SRs come to power. Russia is a parliamentary republic.
2) Kolchak prevalent. Russia is a dictatorial republic with Kolchak as its Supreme Leader.
3) Krasnov and other Cossack generals prevalent. Russia exists only de jure, warlords rule de facto.
4) European Russia under Denikin, Siberia under Kolchak, Southern Russia under Krasnov. The former two Russias have some semblance of law and order.

 

[Thoresby]

I think interwar China is actually a very good model for 1920's post RCW White Russia. A heavily military influenced, nominally reformist central government with limited state capacity with a heavy dose of Warlordism and regionalism. Whether you would have a successful consolidation over time or the warlordism would persist is an open question. I think one big impact would be places like Finland, Poland and the Baltics would remain nominally part of the "Russian Empire" as far as Moscow is concerned even after their declarations of independence with whoever is in charge in Moscow unable to recognise any part of the 1914 Russian Empire as independent for fear of giving fuel to the various Warlords and cliques running parts of "core Russia". So when in all likelihood "core Russia" does consolidate again they have ready made causus belli. Which could be interesting...

 

[suul'ken]

Immensely implausible in my view. Kerensky was, shy of some massive amount of luck and happenstance, a spent force and would have remained so.

They changed the political situation a few months ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/mncjma

Boris Savnikov is now a leading figure!