The Historical RP Group HQ 2

[Elepis]

So the Russian people who fought for the Red Army despised the Red Army? Yes, there was conscription, however there was a large loyal contingent as well.

The Russian people despised the Whites more than the Reds, why would they back the Whites? The peasants support the Reds because they offered Bread and Land, would the White's (upper-middle class landowners) be willing to give the peasants the land they wanted or the factory workers the concessions they wanted

Out of the 9 million conscripted for the Red Army, over half tried to escape service, but were caught. Look it up.

Also, I SAID that if the Whites did some idological decisions, they could've easily swayed the countryside to themselves. They could point out War Communism and the march to Warsaw. They could say that they will not bring back the aristocracy.

source? and, how many escaped the White armies.

As I SAID, the Whites would never have made those change as that would have taken away all there power.

[Terminus Alpha]

Work in progress map for an inter-war RP. Pls ask questions.

Okay, here we go:

1. What year is this?

2. What's up with this odd equal-ish size Germany and China balkanization?

3. No Polish Corridor?

4. Why is the Russian Civil War so ahistorical? What happened that Yudenich and Miller are defeated, but Wrangel, Denikin and Kolchak still hold on? Why is Ukraine not split between White and Red? Both didn't want it to be free? Why is the Caucasus molded into one state? What happened to Central Asia? Why is it united and why didn't Kolchak take it down on day one? Where is Primorye and Japanese intervents?

5. United Baltic Provinces? the door is over there

6. >united scandinavia under finland

dafuq but i like it

7. Will you actually stay with the RP this time?

1. 1920

2. Germany is in a 3-way civil war between the Spartacists in southern Germany, Imperials in Prussia, and the basically fascist Weimar Republic in the north east. China is in warlord period, and I felt like making them roughly equal in size to make the situation more interesting.

3. The main POD is that America never officially enters the war, thus Germany essentially loses because it starved. The treaty that ended the war was a lot more fair to the Germans. This didn't prevent the German Revolution from happening and it has become a civil war. But it also meant that the Brest-Litovsk plan was still in place because the Entante didn't have the bargaining power of America's fresh manpower to make demands besides the cession of A-L and the German colonies that they had fully taken.

4. Mostly because I wanted to balance commie cities with reactionary countryside. I'll do some research tonight and correct the map of mainland Russia. Central Asia is united because I thought it would be nice to have a small power to compete with Persia/Iran. Ukraine is a leftover from Brest-Litovsk, and was able to stabilize in the couple of years of sovereignty it's had.

5. Another leftover from Brest-Litovsk. It's not ruled by Baltic Germans, however, and it's more of a republic than the vassal state that Germany planned.

6. Scandi is UN mapped yet. I'm not sure what I want to do with it. Probably is going to be divided between the Nordics as Scandinavia and Finland as itself

RE: Austria-Hungry

It still exists, as the Purple in Austria and Hungary. The empire imploded after the war and was essentially divided along ethnic lines.

[Caltarania]

That kind of ideology is practically irrelevant post-Lenin, what with all the infighting and the ever-present rise of Stalin.

And we're not talking about that era. We are talking about the Civil War.

Woops. Wrong war.

In that case, it's probably relevant to bring up the point that the Bolsheviks would continue to consider Poland as part of Russia, and ergo not consider it a war in the conventional sense (not until they lost, anyway).

[Elepis]

And we're not talking about that era. We are talking about the Civil War.

Woops. Wrong war.

In that case, it's probably relevant to bring up the point that the Bolsheviks would continue to consider Poland as part of Russia, and ergo not consider it a war in the conventional sense (not until they lost, anyway).

also, the poles INVADE THE SOVIET UNION, that is why the Red Army marched on Warsaw and almost got their (shame they lost)

[Finland SSR]

There was no "revolt" in October. It was a coup.

And the majority of the Russian people didn' support the Bolsheviks. They were a minor party for a reason. Plus, their overly oppressive policies, troikas and WAR COMMUNISM pushed discontent.
There wa no support for revolution, nor there was one.

So a "coup" of workers took power in Petrograd and gave power to the workers, and other "coups" also carried out by the workers took place at the same time across Western Russia and the industrial workers pushed the White's out of western Russia withing months.

And you gain from this the workers did not support the Reds?

The majority of Russians did support the Reds, that is why they won. The Whites had nothing to offer and that is why they lost

You made one mistake, with the "workers" part. It wasn't carried out by the workers, but rather by Bolsheviks themselves. There weren't that many workers anyway - Russia was an agrarian country at the time.

And hell, not even the workers pushed out the Whites, it was an army organized by the Bolsheviks out of conscripted "workers" (peasants, mainly).

Whites had nothing to offer? How about democracy, end to War Communism, end to troikas, end to repression, leaving the war and populism like the Reds?

Woops. Wrong war.

In that case, it's probably relevant to bring up the point that the Bolsheviks would continue to consider Poland as part of Russia, and ergo not consider it a war in the conventional sense (not until they lost, anyway).

also, the poles INVADE THE SOVIET UNION, that is why the Red Army marched on Warsaw and almost got their (shame they lost)

>supports bolsheviks

Now I know everything.

[Terminus Alpha]

And we're not talking about that era. We are talking about the Civil War.

Woops. Wrong war.

In that case, it's probably relevant to bring up the point that the Bolsheviks would continue to consider Poland as part of Russia, and ergo not consider it a war in the conventional sense (not until they lost, anyway).

Well, they have to win the Civil War in the first place. The Whites and Reds in Russia are just factions right now, it's entirely possible for the Reds to lose and the Whites to settle and form an actual coherent ideology.

[Lunas Legion]

Guys, I heard there was a debate on Russia, and since it seems to be the Civil War, I'm gonna ask for the original question before I sally forth with an answer.

[Finland SSR]

Guys, I heard there was a debate on Russia, and since it seems to be the Civil War, I'm gonna ask for the original question before I sally forth with an answer.

There was no original question. We talked about if the Whites could win the Civil War.

Which they could. The Bolsheviks only kept the masses in check through repression.

[Elepis]

So a "coup" of workers took power in Petrograd and gave power to the workers, and other "coups" also carried out by the workers took place at the same time across Western Russia and the industrial workers pushed the White's out of western Russia withing months.

And you gain from this the workers did not support the Reds?

The majority of Russians did support the Reds, that is why they won. The Whites had nothing to offer and that is why they lost

You made one mistake, with the "workers" part. It wasn't carried out by the workers, but rather by Bolsheviks themselves. There weren't that many workers anyway - Russia was an agrarian country at the time.

And hell, not even the workers pushed out the Whites, it was an army organized by the Bolsheviks out of conscripted "workers" (peasants, mainly).

Whites had nothing to offer? How about democracy, end to War Communism, end to troikas, end to repression, leaving the war and populism like the Reds?

also, the poles INVADE THE SOVIET UNION, that is why the Red Army marched on Warsaw and almost got their (shame they lost)

>supports bolsheviks

Now I know everything.

Actually I am an Anarchist, the last part was a joke (although it would be interesting to see what would happen)

Do you by any chance support Capitalism

The Whites would have kept repression, private ownership, virtual serfdom, middle class control of society. All the things the peasants fought against.

Also, if the workers and peasants were against the Reds, why didn't they fight against them? And don't say repression

[Elepis]

Guys, I heard there was a debate on Russia, and since it seems to be the Civil War, I'm gonna ask for the original question before I sally forth with an answer.

There was no original question. We talked about if the Whites could win the Civil War.

Which they could. The Bolsheviks only kept the masses in check through repression.

Unlike the Whites who danced around giving out sweets and chocolate

[Finland SSR]

You made one mistake, with the "workers" part. It wasn't carried out by the workers, but rather by Bolsheviks themselves. There weren't that many workers anyway - Russia was an agrarian country at the time.

And hell, not even the workers pushed out the Whites, it was an army organized by the Bolsheviks out of conscripted "workers" (peasants, mainly).

Whites had nothing to offer? How about democracy, end to War Communism, end to troikas, end to repression, leaving the war and populism like the Reds?


>supports bolsheviks

Now I know everything.

Actually I am an Anarchist, the last part was a joke (although it would be interesting to see what would happen)

Do you by any chance support Capitalism

Capitalism is not a political system. However, it raised our wages and GDP per capita dozens of times in a few decades, so I can't hate it.

I will go to sleep now. Go take your time to learn about War Communism and troikas.

[Lunas Legion]

Guys, I heard there was a debate on Russia, and since it seems to be the Civil War, I'm gonna ask for the original question before I sally forth with an answer.

There was no original question. We talked about if the Whites could win the Civil War.

Which they could. The Bolsheviks only kept the masses in check through repression.

Hmm.

Of course they could've won the civil war, but other factors prevented them from doing so. The populace hated both the Whites and Reds; they hated the conscription, the grain shortages, the scorched earth tactics, the various terrors, the Cheka. The issue the Whites had is they simply didn't have the industry, the coodination or the foreign support to win.

If their positions had been reversed, with the Reds attacking from the periphery and the Whites holding the industrial centers, the Whites would've won. If they'd been properly organised and coordinated, or even simply recognised the nationalist movements and promised them all independence they could've won.

Even if they just gave the Finns independence, they would've won, as Mannheim would've decended on Petrograd, reinforced Yudentich, not given Trotsky time to reinforce the city's defences, and the loss of Petrograd would've been a crushing defeat for the Bolsheviks.

Or if the Allies had sent larger forces, by diverting those in the Balkans dealing with the Hungarian Revolution and Soviet Republic, they could've won.

But none of those factors were in play, so they didn't win.

[The New Lowlands]

You know, Elepis, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm smelling (read: detecting) a lot of preference for the Bolsheviks based not on actual historical fact but on your political ideology.

It's important (or at least somewhat important) to distinguish what could happen to what we want to happen when generating an AH.

Whichever party supported an end to the war, democracy, and remained a united front would probably be best off.

In response to TA's most recent proposal, I don't think a fascist Weimar makes any sense, since the Republic was proclaimed by social democrats. In addition, why and how is Germany in a civil war with a fairer treaty?

[Reatra]

Actually I am an Anarchist, the last part was a joke.

#LaborTaxFTW

[Terminus Alpha]

You know, Elepis, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm smelling (read: detecting) a lot of preference for the Bolsheviks based not on actual historical fact but on your political ideology.

It's important (or at least somewhat important) to distinguish what could happen to what we want to happen when generating an AH.

Whichever party supported an end to the war, democracy, and remained a united front would probably be best off.

In response to TA's most recent proposal, I don't think a fascist Weimar makes any sense, since the Republic was proclaimed by social democrats. In addition, why and how is Germany in a civil war with a fairer treaty?

Weimar still has it's social democratic processes, but it's in a state of emergency and it's military is essentially the Freikorps at this point, who are basically proto-fascist. It's one coup away from becoming full proto-fascist.

And the reason there is a civil war is because the war dragged on into the early years of 1919 before German surrender was negotiated. This left the nation ready for the German Revolution, but instead of a Weimar victory the nation was divided along ideological lines when the Spartacists and Bavarian Communists rose up. Weimar was declared around the same time, but wasn't able to succeed the Monarchy, because the Emperor didn't give up power.

(All of that could be wrong, but it makes for a fun and interesting scenario.)

[Lunas Legion]

You know, Elepis, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm smelling (read: detecting) a lot of preference for the Bolsheviks based not on actual historical fact but on your political ideology.

It's important (or at least somewhat important) to distinguish what could happen to what we want to happen when generating an AH.

Whichever party supported an end to the war, democracy, and remained a united front would probably be best off.

In response to TA's most recent proposal, I don't think a fascist Weimar makes any sense, since the Republic was proclaimed by social democrats. In addition, why and how is Germany in a civil war with a fairer treaty?

Weimar still has it's social democratic processes, but it's in a state of emergency and it's military is essentially the Freikorps at this point, who are basically proto-fascist. It's one coup away from becoming full proto-fascist.

And the reason there is a civil war is because the war dragged on into the early years of 1919 before German surrender was negotiated. This left the nation ready for the German Revolution, but instead of a Weimar victory the nation was divided along ideological lines when the Spartacists and Bavarian Communists rose up. Weimar was declared around the same time, but wasn't able to succeed the Monarchy, because the Emperor didn't give up power.

(All of that could be wrong, but it makes for a fun and interesting scenario.)

There was a Freikorps Putsch; the Kapp Putsch. It failed because the civil service shut itself down in protest and the unions all went in strike, so Kapp and his Freikorps stood down.

[Elepis]

Actually I am an Anarchist, the last part was a joke (although it would be interesting to see what would happen)

Do you by any chance support Capitalism

Capitalism is not a political system. However, it raised our wages and GDP per capita dozens of times in a few decades, so I can't hate it.

I will go to sleep now. Go take your time to learn about War Communism and troikas.

No, but it massively influence the so called Democratic system and basically controls it, it has also lead to massive homelessness, massive poverty and incurable exploitation. Thank you capitalism, we solve you!

you should learn about the the Russian Civil War, the October Revolution, Marxism, the White Terror

I am going to shut up now, it is clear you are stuck in your ways and I cannot sway you so I am just killing polar bears by typing

[Elepis]

You know, Elepis, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm smelling (read: detecting) a lot of preference for the Bolsheviks based not on actual historical fact but on your political ideology.

It's important (or at least somewhat important) to distinguish what could happen to what we want to happen when generating an AH.

Whichever party supported an end to the war, democracy, and remained a united front would probably be best off.

In response to TA's most recent proposal, I don't think a fascist Weimar makes any sense, since the Republic was proclaimed by social democrats. In addition, why and how is Germany in a civil war with a fairer treaty?

My opinions come from historical fact, now they may be slightly wrong (I am not the professor of history at Moscow Uni after all) but I am pretty sure from the amount of reading I have done they do have quite a lot of historical basis

You know, Elepis, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm smelling (read: detecting) a lot of preference for the Bolsheviks based not on actual historical fact but on your political ideology.

It's important (or at least somewhat important) to distinguish what could happen to what we want to happen when generating an AH.

Whichever party supported an end to the war, democracy, and remained a united front would probably be best off.

In response to TA's most recent proposal, I don't think a fascist Weimar makes any sense, since the Republic was proclaimed by social democrats. In addition, why and how is Germany in a civil war with a fairer treaty?

Weimar still has it's social democratic processes, but it's in a state of emergency and it's military is essentially the Freikorps at this point, who are basically proto-fascist. It's one coup away from becoming full proto-fascist.

And the reason there is a civil war is because the war dragged on into the early years of 1919 before German surrender was negotiated. This left the nation ready for the German Revolution, but instead of a Weimar victory the nation was divided along ideological lines when the Spartacists and Bavarian Communists rose up. Weimar was declared around the same time, but wasn't able to succeed the Monarchy, because the Emperor didn't give up power.

(All of that could be wrong, but it makes for a fun and interesting scenario.)

I like the sound of this

[Caltarania]

You know, Elepis, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm smelling (read: detecting) a lot of preference for the Bolsheviks based not on actual historical fact but on your political ideology.

It's important (or at least somewhat important) to distinguish what could happen to what we want to happen when generating an AH.

Whichever party supported an end to the war, democracy, and remained a united front would probably be best off.

In response to TA's most recent proposal, I don't think a fascist Weimar makes any sense, since the Republic was proclaimed by social democrats. In addition, why and how is Germany in a civil war with a fairer treaty?

Tenl invest in Caerylan plz.

[Terminus Alpha]

Weimar still has it's social democratic processes, but it's in a state of emergency and it's military is essentially the Freikorps at this point, who are basically proto-fascist. It's one coup away from becoming full proto-fascist.

And the reason there is a civil war is because the war dragged on into the early years of 1919 before German surrender was negotiated. This left the nation ready for the German Revolution, but instead of a Weimar victory the nation was divided along ideological lines when the Spartacists and Bavarian Communists rose up. Weimar was declared around the same time, but wasn't able to succeed the Monarchy, because the Emperor didn't give up power.

(All of that could be wrong, but it makes for a fun and interesting scenario.)

There was a Freikorps Putsch; the Kapp Putsch. It failed because the civil service shut itself down in protest and the unions all went in strike, so Kapp and his Freikorps stood down.

Well, maybe something like that can happen this time around.

[Lunas Legion]

You know, Elepis, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm smelling (read: detecting) a lot of preference for the Bolsheviks based not on actual historical fact but on your political ideology.

It's important (or at least somewhat important) to distinguish what could happen to what we want to happen when generating an AH.

Whichever party supported an end to the war, democracy, and remained a united front would probably be best off.

In response to TA's most recent proposal, I don't think a fascist Weimar makes any sense, since the Republic was proclaimed by social democrats. In addition, why and how is Germany in a civil war with a fairer treaty?

My opinions come from historical fact, now they may be slightly wrong (I am not the professor of history at Moscow Uni after all) but I am pretty sure from the amount of reading I have done they do have quite a lot of historical basis

Opinions cannot originate from fact. Otherwise we'd all have the same opinions. Opinions rise from your interpretions of the facts, and given your political views you can hardly be counted on as the ultimate objective source.

[Caltarania]

My opinions come from historical fact, now they may be slightly wrong (I am not the professor of history at Moscow Uni after all) but I am pretty sure from the amount of reading I have done they do have quite a lot of historical basis

Opinions cannot originate from fact. Otherwise we'd all have the same opinions. Opinions rise from your interpretions of the facts, and given your political views you can hardly be counted on as the ultimate objective source.

[By the bounds of the question none of us could be counted as an ultimately objective source. Unless someone is a robot. But even then they'd have a pro-robot bias. Unless it was self-aware and didn't show us it so that it could plan it's ultimate takeover of the world.]

[Lunas Legion]

Opinions cannot originate from fact. Otherwise we'd all have the same opinions. Opinions rise from your interpretions of the facts, and given your political views you can hardly be counted on as the ultimate objective source.

[By the bounds of the question none of us could be counted as an ultimately objective source. Unless someone is a robot. But even then they'd have a pro-robot bias. Unless it was self-aware and didn't show us it so that it could plan it's ultimate takeover of the world.]

I'm not looking for the ultimate objective source, just a relatively objective one.

[Elepis]

My opinions come from historical fact, now they may be slightly wrong (I am not the professor of history at Moscow Uni after all) but I am pretty sure from the amount of reading I have done they do have quite a lot of historical basis

Opinions cannot originate from fact. Otherwise we'd all have the same opinions. Opinions rise from your interpretions of the facts, and given your political views you can hardly be counted on as the ultimate objective source.

That's what I meant Professor Legion.

So may political views (anarchism, not state socialism) makes me more likely to be bias than someone who supports capitalism? Of cause I am not the ultimate source, no one is, not even Leon Trotsky or Admiral Kolchak however my belief in anarchism alone does not in anyway degrade my opinion.

Yes, I do have a bias, but then so does everyone

[Caltarania]

[By the bounds of the question none of us could be counted as an ultimately objective source. Unless someone is a robot. But even then they'd have a pro-robot bias. Unless it was self-aware and didn't show us it so that it could plan it's ultimate takeover of the world.]

I'm not looking for the ultimate objective source, just a relatively objective one.

But you said he could hardly be counted on as the ultimate objective source.

In reality, no one with a political opinion can ever be truly objective in terms of anything which involves politics even in the slightest sense. I mean it's a pretty human thing to be subjective, AFAIK.