Exaclt what it says! Would Russia had been more or less industrialized by the kick off of WW2 had the whites won?
Would Russia have ended up more or less as industrialized if the Whites had won?
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
If Russia would not have descended into warlordism, then Yes, very possibly. White Russia would not have benefitted from rapid 1930s-style industrialization, but this would have been at least somewhat compensated by the lack of War Communism:
Of course, it's far from clear that there would have actually been a Nazi rise to power in Germany in this TL (no Communist bogeyman, for instance) and even if there would have still been a Nazi rise to power in Germany in this TL, it could have been much easier for Russia to form alliances with other countries without the Communist threat. So, France might have never fallen if Germany would have had to fight a two-front war in World War II at the very beginning.
Of course, it's far from clear that there would have actually been a Nazi rise to power in Germany in this TL (no Communist bogeyman, for instance) and even if there would have still been a Nazi rise to power in Germany in this TL, it could have been much easier for Russia to form alliances with other countries without the Communist threat. So, France might have never fallen if Germany would have had to fight a two-front war in World War II at the very beginning.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Depends on whether they got loans to rebuild. I'd imagine they wouldn't repudiate the war loans, which is why the USSR got cut off, so they might have a better chance to rehabilitate the country without resorting to extreme measures.
They'd also have an easier time getting allies, though the Poles might still be suspicious of them, especially if the Poles will still have territories that the Russians are going to covet for themselves.
sillygoose
Well-known member
The Poles would always be suspicious of any Russian government. Question is if they could actually work together or if Germany manages to peel off the non-communist Russians and stick with the alliance. If even a less bad Depression happens Germany and Russia could do a lot of bartering. I doubt a White Russia would have many backers in the West as happened with the USSR even if they agreed to service the war loans unless they also agreed to let Wall Street buy up their raw material related industries. There was a reason Wall Street had been financing revolution in Russia since the 1890s.
In fact if there is a clandestine contact with the Reichswehr like IOTL with the Bolsheviks the White movement and revanchist German army would be quite compatible ideologically, rather than allies of convenience like with the Bolsheviks.
Last edited:
Wouldn't selling raw materials to the West have provided Russia with a lot of Western money, though?
sillygoose
Well-known member
I can't find good stats online, but IIRC Germany as by far their biggest trade partner IOTL and the 'west' was a minor player in their trade.
Then why would the West be so eager to get access to Russia's natural resources when they don't have a shortage of their own?
sillygoose
Well-known member
Because controlling financial interests mean they gain all the profits. Same deal with the Russian oligarchs after the USSR fell apart and why Putin is so hated by the US, since they lost out on control over the industries of Russia.
The Whites could also fall to infighting after they win the war given there was little holding them together other than united hatred of the Bolsheviks.
Last edited:
Were Russian oligarchs really Western puppets as opposed to them simply aiming to enrich themselves, though?
If so, then Russia would be seriously fucked over if the Nazis still seize power in Germany in this TL and eventually still launch Operation Barbarossa.
I would imagine they would be less industrialized off the top of my head. I feel like the Soviet Union oriented itself into heavier industries far more than most countries would've contemplated doing. Keeping in mind of course being more industrialized not meaning economically prosperous or successful since even back then economy was more then factories and industry.
sillygoose
Well-known member
No way to tell for sure, but the west got really pissed off when many were shoved out of power, as they were quite western aligned since they funneled money out of the country into various international assets.
They basically ran the Russian government and country:
Our Oligarch? Do Roman Abramovich's Donations Link Major Jewish Philanthropies to Putin?
Abramovich was one of a number of Soviet Jews, excluded from the Communist Party, who moved aggressively into the post-Soviet economy, amassed great fortunes, and either held or fell from favor with Vladimir Putin. Are his enormous donations to global Jewish charities reputation laundering?
historynewsnetwork.org
They kept Russia from going back to Communism and weakened enough through corruption to no longer be a threat to the US.
Disturbingly similar to how China has worked with US oligarchs to hollow out the US...
The Nazis wouldn't have an ideological problem with the basically Fascist Russians. In fact they'd probably ally if Hitler rose to power if they survived the Depression (the only way for Hitler to get into power is the Depression to play out like IOTL).
So, the Nazis would simply seek their desired Lebensraum in Poland, et cetera instead? With them aggressively pressuring Poles and Czechs to emigrate en masse in order to make extra room for German settlers?
sillygoose
Well-known member
Again you have to remember that Hitler's concept of Lebensraum was Austria and the Sudetenland coupled with the return of select German majority cities/areas in Poland and Lithuania (Danzig/Memel/a transport corridor for East Prussia to Germany). He just wanted Poland as an ally and confirmed shield against the Soviets. There wasn't actually a plan to invade the USSR before 1940 and that was driven by the food crisis caused by the British blockade as well as Stalin's military build up and hints of invasion plans when complete (basically the same as the 1914 situation and Russian military build up intended to be done in 1917). Without the ideological conflict Germany and Russia actually complement each other economically and could politically too if they shared similar ideas about running their countries. Plus there would be no White exiles in Germany influencing the Nazis to see the Soviets as literal Satan (there was a big influence on the Nazis in the 1920s from those groups).
AFAIK there are also no plans before July 1941 to even Germanize the Polish and Czech lands either and even then it was confined to schemes within the SS upper leadership that were still being worked out. No documentation has been found that shows that General Plan Ost that included full germanization of occupied lands was ever approved other than the 1st scheme to deport a few hundred thousand Poles to make room for ethnic Germans deported from the USSR.
So if they were able to get the White Russians as an ally against Britain after everything up to 1941 remains roughly the same in terms of the war then there is zero reason for Hitler to invade.
Navarro
Well-known member
Hmm ... turns out I posted an article just about this way back when!
foreignpolicy.com
tl;dr; Even a surviving Tsarist regime gets to the same level as Communist Russia did at the same time. You gotta remember that Russia in the early 20th century was rapidly developing to the point Germany was unsure it could take it if a war started after 1914. A non-Communist regime also means more access to foreign capital, no mass famines caused by collectivising agriculture, no mass purges, etc.
Russia would be less insulated from the Depression presuming it still happens, but that shouldn't affect industrialisation.
Would Russia have industrialized without Stalin?
The question, "Was Stalin necessary?," posed in a recent paper, by economists Anton Cheremukhin of the Dallas Fed, Mikhail Golosov of Princeton, Sergei Guriev of…
foreignpolicy.com
tl;dr; Even a surviving Tsarist regime gets to the same level as Communist Russia did at the same time. You gotta remember that Russia in the early 20th century was rapidly developing to the point Germany was unsure it could take it if a war started after 1914. A non-Communist regime also means more access to foreign capital, no mass famines caused by collectivising agriculture, no mass purges, etc.
Russia would be less insulated from the Depression presuming it still happens, but that shouldn't affect industrialisation.
Last edited:
Do you really believe that Hitler outgrew his beliefs in Mein Kampf and his Second Book that Germany's 1914 borders were inadquate for it? Granted, Austria and the Sudetenland are more than Germany's 1914 borders, but still, ...
I know that you're skeptical of Hitler's 1920s writings and focus more on what he did during his rule, but still, AFAIK, he never actually repudiated what he wrote in his 1920s writings--did he? Perhaps deemphasized some parts of them during his early rule, though.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Well for starters I'm not sure if you remember, but I don't believe the 2nd book is actually real. For one thing the guy who 'discovered' it believed the fake Hitler diaries were real and when he tried to get it published no one wanted to do it except for a friend who had conveniently just set up a new publishing house.
Mein Kampf also was rumored to also have had a lot of the foreign policy stuff cribbed from another right wing philosopher rather than being Hitler's original thoughts. So yes I think he could have easily outgrown them in a the very different political and economic environment that existed by the time he became chancellor.
Yeah Sudetenland and Austria were outside the German 1914 borders and dramatically increased the size of the country and population by more than the 1914 borders would have and added lots of resources and industry to Germany it wouldn't have gotten from restored 1914 borders plus it came with ethnic Germans rather than millions of Poles, semi-French/Belgians, and Danes.
At least that is my read of the situation of the 1930s. Certainly too Hitler did want to destroy the remnants of the ToV, which mean breaking up Czechoslovakia, especially after the stunt Benes pulled in May 1938, which would mean controlling quite a bit more resources and industry as well as eliminating a major trade rival when it came to dominating the Balkans through trade.
I'd also recommend a book called 'a low dishonest decade' by Hehn and the first volume of the Germany and the Second World War series, as both cover how after taking Austria Germany was able to largely dominate trade from the Balkans and occupying rump Czechia completed the process. Hitler wasn't simply about taking territories, he was also interested in created zones of influence that would be materials suppliers for the German economy as well as allies in case of war with the Soviets. By mid-1939 he had largely achieved that (as well as large trade networks around the world thanks to barter agreements) and all the remained was getting Poland on side to secure the eastern flank, ensure Poland wasn't going to side with France at some point, and ensure the flow of Polish trade to Germany.
The EU is simply a development of what Germany was setting up economically in the 1930s, but one sanctioned by Britain and the US.
I've seen it written that he had, but haven't checked out the memoir in question that claims it. But yeah again I'm more of the 'see what people do, not what they say' school and prior to the war actually starting there were any plans discovered that he wanted to invade the USSR and in fact was more scared of the Soviet designs on Central Europe since Soviet intelligence was extremely active in Europe and in cultivating spy networks as well as were rapidly modernizing and had the world's largest army, air force, artillery park, and tank force.
TheRomanSlayer
Unipolarity is for Subhuman Trogdolytes
I was going to say that while Russia might not have industrialized quickly in a White victory as the OTL Soviet Union's quick industrialization, the main advantage that the White regime would have is that much of the people that would have died in the famine of the 1930s that was engineered by the Stalinist regime would still be alive. We'd also avoid the collectivization episode that screwed up agricultural production, meaning that White Russia would not have to experience various famines, though the population would still stagnate and increase.
Another thing is that a White Russia might still have various intellectuals who wouldn't flee from their country if the Reds had lost, though the instability of the White regime would also mean that we'd still see various attempts by those same intellectuals to flee.
Another thing is that a White Russia might still have various intellectuals who wouldn't flee from their country if the Reds had lost, though the instability of the White regime would also mean that we'd still see various attempts by those same intellectuals to flee.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
A lot depends on the nature of the White regime. I think in most cases, it's going to be fairly "normal", and widely accepted by the wider world. This alone is a great boon, compared to OTL. It means access to foreign investment. As has been mentioned, the lack of needless genocides and purges is a massive advantage. The retention of the educated/moneyed class is also a sure bet in the case of a fairly moderate White regime, so that's a plus as well. In fact, many Russian exiles will return.
It must also be understood that the myth of Soviet progress is just that: a myth. It's bullshit. Their industrialisation was highly inefficient, ludicrously selective towards what Stalin and his thugs figured they'd need, and not-at-all ideal for long-term benefits of growth. It was also almost entirely done via commie-typical "redistribution", which means they just looted money and materials and energy elsewhere, and dedicated to the programmes the regime wanted to prioritise. They essentially emptied their right pocked to fill the left pocket. Gain in absolute terms: minimal. (And ultimately even zero, because of efficiency losses involved.)
Almost any other regime would have done better than the USSR, which was ultimately a total failure in every conceivable way. It became a dirt-poor shithole with a tiny economy and a beaten-down dwindling populace, and all available means were pillaged to put into the over-sized army (which was in itself a bureaucratic nightmare, and far from an efficient machine). The USSR was a disaster, which inevitably collapsed in on itself.
Even a totally insane White regime, with the worst loons in charge, would probably not be as inefficient as the USSR. After all, Nazi Germany (which was just such a regime) was economically retarded, too, but not as moronic as the USSR. Rle of thumb: the closer you get to a full command economy, the worse it is.
It must also be understood that the myth of Soviet progress is just that: a myth. It's bullshit. Their industrialisation was highly inefficient, ludicrously selective towards what Stalin and his thugs figured they'd need, and not-at-all ideal for long-term benefits of growth. It was also almost entirely done via commie-typical "redistribution", which means they just looted money and materials and energy elsewhere, and dedicated to the programmes the regime wanted to prioritise. They essentially emptied their right pocked to fill the left pocket. Gain in absolute terms: minimal. (And ultimately even zero, because of efficiency losses involved.)
Almost any other regime would have done better than the USSR, which was ultimately a total failure in every conceivable way. It became a dirt-poor shithole with a tiny economy and a beaten-down dwindling populace, and all available means were pillaged to put into the over-sized army (which was in itself a bureaucratic nightmare, and far from an efficient machine). The USSR was a disaster, which inevitably collapsed in on itself.
Even a totally insane White regime, with the worst loons in charge, would probably not be as inefficient as the USSR. After all, Nazi Germany (which was just such a regime) was economically retarded, too, but not as moronic as the USSR. Rle of thumb: the closer you get to a full command economy, the worse it is.
Of course,after reforms made by Stolypin Russia was on the road to replace USA as first world economical power.
Why do you think Wall Street send Trocky&his thugs there? becouse tsar killed some jews? the same Wall Street did nothing to save them from Hitler during WW2.
No,Lenin was Wall Street tool for destroing competitor.