Say, the Whites win the Russian Civil War...

[The balkens]

Welcome to the 19th century.

Practically every world colonial power was doing it, probably even Russia.

I know. But the Nazis wanted to go much further. They were going to make 19th century colonial genocides look like the good old days when everyone was nice and friendly.

So why go on a good ole fashioned "single out america" rant using some (nowadays) buzzword when everyone and their syphilis ridden uncle was doing it when "Debating" an admitted racist and an actual Russophobe?

[The Archregimancy]

One of the great tragedies of the Russian Civil War is that almost every involved party were deeply unpleasant violent murderers of some form or another.

Arch... that's true of almost every war ever fought.

That's why I don't understand a lot of the present-day lamentations over the violent nature of the Bolsheviks. Of course they were violent. Everyone was violent.

There are degrees of violence. There are degrees of unpleasantness. Pretending otherwise is fatuous.

Excusing either the Bolsheviks or the Whites on the basis that 'everyone was violent' strikes me as one of the more pathetic justifications for breaking eggs to make impractical utopian blood-soaked omelettes I'll likely come across.

Forgive the Godwin, but on that justification we can similarly overlook what Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao because, hey, there were some wars on and everyone was violent. What's a genocide or two or a wholesale massacre of thousands of your co-religionists between friends if everyone was running around killing people?

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

The Japanese might concentrate on Siberia instead of SE-Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Khasan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

[Saiwania]

Also, uh... so I guess you're cool with letting all the Slavic peoples suffer genocide? I mean, I know US imperialism was already built on genociding the native inhabitants of one continent, but this is going a little far.

With no Bolshevism, the Nazi rise to power wouldn't be as likely. But assuming that Hitler still grabbed power, I'm convinced that he would've still done something stupid that would cause his Reich to lose. I suppose Germany could manage to conquer all the territory that it wanted to towards the east up to the Urals but could they actually govern such a large area for the long term? Probably not. Nazism would've fallen apart from within eventually.

[Constantinopolis]

Arch... that's true of almost every war ever fought.

That's why I don't understand a lot of the present-day lamentations over the violent nature of the Bolsheviks. Of course they were violent. Everyone was violent.

There are degrees of violence. There are degrees of unpleasantness. Pretending otherwise is fatuous.

Excusing either the Bolsheviks or the Whites on the basis that 'everyone was violent' strikes me as one of the more pathetic justifications for breaking eggs to make impractical utopian blood-soaked omelettes I'll likely come across.

Sure, but we're talking about a Russian Civil War that began while World War I was still raging. There are degrees of violence, yes. And the violence done by the capitalist powers during World War I is of the same degree as that done by the Bolsheviks. Indeed, if I recall correctly, Trotsky himself used this justification ("we're only doing what the bourgeoisie was doing just last year"), and the fact is, he was right.

I "excuse" Bolshevik atrocities in the exact same way and for the same reasons as I "excuse", for example, the firebombing of Dresden or the atomic bombings some 25 years later. Yes, they were war crimes. No, they were not a "necessary evil", in case you are thinking I might be inclined to call them that. They were mostly unnecessary. But they happened, and the side that did them was fighting for a good cause. I don't "excuse" such crimes in the sense that I say "what's a genocide or two between friends?", but rather in the sense that I say "I support the side that did these things anyway, in spite of these things, because they were still, on the whole, the good side."

How do you look at history, precisely? Do you support no side in bloody historical conflicts? Do you support sides that killed hundreds of thousands, but draw the line at killing millions, because there are degrees of violence? Don't you find that a little arbitrary?

Because let's be clear, these are your choices: either aloof neutrality, or supporting sides that still massacred, at minimum, at least a few hundred thousand innocent people here and there.

In bloody conflicts, I generally support sides based on what they are fighting for, not based on how they fight. Does that mean I support bloody utopians? Sure. But what better option is there? Supporting less-violent-but-still-quite-horrible conservative forces that, unlike the utopians, don't even promise an eventual end to the cycle of violence?

[Geilinor]

There are degrees of violence. There are degrees of unpleasantness. Pretending otherwise is fatuous.

Excusing either the Bolsheviks or the Whites on the basis that 'everyone was violent' strikes me as one of the more pathetic justifications for breaking eggs to make impractical utopian blood-soaked omelettes I'll likely come across.

Sure, but we're talking about a Russian Civil War that began while World War I was still raging. There are degrees of violence, yes. And the violence done by the capitalist powers during World War I is of the same degree as that done by the Bolsheviks. Indeed, if I recall correctly, Trotsky himself used this justification ("we're only doing what the bourgeoisie was doing just last year"), and the fact is, he was right.

I "excuse" Bolshevik atrocities in the exact same way and for the same reasons as I "excuse", for example, the firebombing of Dresden or the atomic bombings some 25 years later. Yes, they were war crimes. No, they were not a "necessary evil", in case you are thinking I might be inclined to call them that. They were mostly unnecessary. But they happened, and the side that did them was fighting for a good cause. I don't "excuse" such crimes in the sense that I say "what's a genocide or two between friends?", but rather in the sense that I say "I support the side that did these things anyway, in spite of these things, because they were still, on the whole, the good side."

How do you look at history, precisely? Do you support no side in bloody historical conflicts? Do you support sides that killed hundreds of thousands, but draw the line at killing millions, because there are degrees of violence?

Because let's be clear, these are your choices: either aloof neutrality, or supporting sides that still massacred, at minimum, at least a few hundred thousand innocent people here and there.

"We're killing people because everyone does" is a pathetic justification - it doesn't show why your system is superior. If communists are just as violent as capitalists, why should I support communists?

[Constantinopolis]

"We're killing people because everyone does" is a pathetic justification - it doesn't show why your system is superior. If communists are just as violent as capitalists, why should I support communists?

Because we're fighting for communism, and communism is better than capitalism.

It's not our methods that are superior. Our methods are the same as those of many others. It's our goals that are superior.

[Geilinor]

"We're killing people because everyone does" is a pathetic justification - it doesn't show why your system is superior. If communists are just as violent as capitalists, why should I support communists?

Because we're fighting for communism, and communism is better than capitalism.

It's not our methods that are superior. Our methods are the same as those of many others. It's our goals that are superior.

I disagree. I don't believe that communism is better than capitalism.

[Constantinopolis]

Because we're fighting for communism, and communism is better than capitalism.

It's not our methods that are superior. Our methods are the same as those of many others. It's our goals that are superior.

I disagree. I don't believe that communism is better than capitalism.

And that is a perfectly good reason to oppose the actions of communists. You disagree with our goals, regardless of what methods are used to pursue them. Fair enough.

[The Conez Imperium]

"If the Whites had won the war, fascism would be a Russian word." -- attributed to Leon Trotsky

Think Mussolini's Italy or Hungary under Miklós Horthy, writ large. Russia would have been the first state to be ruled by the kind of government that in our timeline we call "fascist" (but in this alternate universe, a different name would be coined for it - probably a Russian word).

However, it would be a weak fascist government, so it may end up like Nationalist China in the 1920s and 30s (i.e. weak central government, provinces run by warlords, a state of near-continuous civil war). In this case, opportunistic foreign invasions would be inevitable, most likely by Poland from the West and Japan from the East. The British Empire might take Central Asia, too, due to their obsession with putting buffers around precious India.

Basically, Russia would be screwed. There may not be a Russian state in existence by the end of the 20th century.

And if Hitler still exists and still comes to power in this universe... the entire world is screwed. There is no way that a White government could withstand the Nazis.

I could not have said it better. Great interpretation.

[Nocturnalis]

Ah, I remember one of my best Victoria 2 games going like this.

Except the civil war was between Whites, Bolsheviks and Fascists...

...and the fascists won...by getting elected into office and then seizing power...while the capital (St. Petersburg) was being besieged by communists.

A war that ended with over 14 million deaths.

Victoria 2 is a strange game.

[Rio Cana]

The Japanese might concentrate on Siberia instead of SE-Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Khasan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

I would think the Japanese would have been in Russia sooner then that. After all, from 1918 to 1922 the Japanese were part of the Allied military forces in Siberia. Before that, the French had asked Japan to intervene but they turned it down. But then they changed there minds since they wanted to turn Siberia into a buffer State if the Russian Empire should fall. But then the UK. got involved and the allies decided to send expeditionary forces. In the end, Japan had 70.000 Troops in Siberia. And they also had 50.000 settlers with them.

Read this which explains it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ ... in_Siberia

Film of Japanese Imperial troops in Russia - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Bk4ZB9xGg

Another film. First 45 seconds show Czech troops in Siberia. After that Imperial Japanese troops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW65yBTbvMo

I think the above might have been filmed in Vladivostok but not sure. Vladivostok today is considered the Russian Far East not Siberia.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Things, probably would've been better. Without a major "communist" nation existing, alot of other revolutions probably wouldn't have taken off. That doesn't mean they wouldn't happen, but they'd probably stick to a couple of farmers. White Russia would probably end up a republic from outside and inside pressure. And without a real communist threat, America might've (key word might) been less keen on keeping around asshole dictators just to keep communism from popping up.

[Constantinopolis]

Things, probably would've been better. Without a major "communist" nation existing, alot of other revolutions probably wouldn't have taken off. That doesn't mean they wouldn't happen, but they'd probably stick to a couple of farmers. White Russia would probably end up a republic from outside and inside pressure. And without a real communist threat, America might've (key word might) been less keen on keeping around asshole dictators just to keep communism from popping up.

"And if we just got rid of that nasty Saddam Hussein regime, the forces of democracy would be greatly strengthened in the Middle East..."

Replacing a stable, centralized dictatorship with a weak, fractured and disorganized mess of a government is never a good idea.

Doing it to a country as large as Russia (while, coincidentally and for different reasons, the same thing is happening in China) isn't just a horrible idea, it's an idea that would endanger the entire world.

[Nocturnalis]

Things, probably would've been better. Without a major "communist" nation existing, alot of other revolutions probably wouldn't have taken off. That doesn't mean they wouldn't happen, but they'd probably stick to a couple of farmers. White Russia would probably end up a republic from outside and inside pressure. And without a real communist threat, America might've (key word might) been less keen on keeping around asshole dictators just to keep communism from popping up.

"And if we just got rid of that nasty Saddam Hussein regime, the forces of democracy would be greatly strengthened in the Middle East..."

Replacing a stable, centralized dictatorship with a weak, fractured and disorganized mess of a government is never a good idea.

Doing it to a country as large as Russia (while, coincidentally and for different reasons, the same thing is happening in China) isn't just a horrible idea, it's an idea that would endanger the entire world.

And China, eventually, unified for the most part under a strong, centralized dictatorship; who's to say the same wouldn't happen to a splintered White Russia?

[Constantinopolis]

"And if we just got rid of that nasty Saddam Hussein regime, the forces of democracy would be greatly strengthened in the Middle East..."

Replacing a stable, centralized dictatorship with a weak, fractured and disorganized mess of a government is never a good idea.

Doing it to a country as large as Russia (while, coincidentally and for different reasons, the same thing is happening in China) isn't just a horrible idea, it's an idea that would endanger the entire world.

And China, eventually, unified for the most part under a strong, centralized dictatorship; who's to say the same wouldn't happen to a splintered White Russia?

China eventually unified for the most part under a strong, centralized, communist dictatorship... If the same thing happened to White Russia, then the White victory would end up being spectacularly pointless.

But, as I said above, it's more likely that White Russia would have ended up unified under a dictatorship of a more German sort, which would have spelled the end of the Russian people (among many others).

[Nocturnalis]

China eventually unified for the most part under a strong, centralized, communist dictatorship... If the same thing happened to White Russia, then the White victory would end up being spectacularly pointless.

But, as I said above, it's more likely that White Russia would have ended up unified under a dictatorship of a more German sort, which would have spelled the end of the Russian people (among many others).

The ideological standpoint of the dictatorship is irrelevant (hence why I explicitly did not state said ideology). A stable dictatorship is a stable dictatorship, and if White Russia is capable of unifying as such it would be in a powerful position. Nazi Germany was just as stable as Soviet Russia (at least until that whole shooty-shooty ordeal occurred). Hell, the Western Powers could even have a holiday in Russia and help prop up the White government (presumably a Republic) if we're setting the POD far enough back that they're still involved.

Who's to say that the bohemian corporal would come to power anyway? Deprived of one of his major platforms of fear of/fighting against the Bolsheviks, as there is no Bolshevik state to fight against. Maybe the KPD (who were also fairly popular in the interwar period) wins the elections instead, and we get a Communist Germany?

[Wolfenium]

Why does everyone assume that history stays on course despite just a single major change? If there were a White Russia, which would probably add a few more years to the civil war due to the fractured factions not having a single enemy to gang up on, there wouldn't be a WWII as we recognized it. Communism would not be seen as a threat until another major nation turned Red. Poland, Finland and other separatist states would become instant targets for a revanchist Russia and rally to contain it while it's weak. Hitler might have become a Spartacist to justify a war with Russia, or even stay outside of mainstream politics if Russia gained enough strength to prop up the Weimar government.

Cause and effect and butterflies, basically.

[The Conez Imperium]

Why does everyone assume that history stays on course despite just a single major change? If there were a White Russia, which would probably add a few more years to the civil war due to the fractured factions not having a single enemy to gang up on, there wouldn't be a WWII as we recognized it. Communism would not be seen as a threat until another major nation turned Red. Poland, Finland and other separatist states would become instant targets for a revanchist Russia and rally to contain it while it's weak. Hitler might have become a Spartacist to justify a war with Russia, or even stay outside of mainstream politics if Russia gained enough strength to prop up the Weimar government.

Cause and effect and butterflies, basically.

Hitler becoming a spartacist? The most interesting idea I've heard this week.