What if the White Army had won?

 Nonsense everywere...
If the whites had won russia would be a puppet regime.
Stalin was the best Soviet president and the people loved him, he gave the poors the best conditions in the world, USSR defeat nazi Germany, was not the cold or the Americans or whatever was the genius of Stalin and the great people of USSR.
Have Stalin not been murdered and i can´t dream what a country will Soviet Union became.
There is not Stalinism that doesn´t exist.
Soviet Union was broken by people in the communist party pretending to be communists and...yes by the imperialists.
All the things that TRI said was rubish.

  
So in your opinion the goal of every country should not be maximizing it's prosperity but... not being a puppet. Even if it means hundreds of thousands of forced laborers dying in a single construction project.  If you want to taste it, claim a refugee status in North Korea and live there for some time.

dino00 wrote: Nonsense everywere...
If the whites had won russia would be a puppet regime.
Stalin was the best Soviet president and the people loved him, he gave the poors the best conditions in the world, USSR defeat nazi Germany, was not the cold or the Americans or whatever was the genius of Stalin and the great people of USSR.
Have Stalin not been murdered and i can´t dream what a country will Soviet Union became.
There is not Stalinism that doesn´t exist.
Soviet Union was broken by people in the communist party pretending to be communists and...yes by the imperialists.
All the things that TRI said was rubish.  

Portuguese irony - I love it!

As Sa'iqa wrote:  
So in your opinion the goal of every country should not be maximizing it's prosperity but... not being a puppet. Even if it means hundreds of thousands of forced laborers dying in a single construction project.  If you want to taste it, claim a refugee status in North Korea and live there for some time.

The goal of every country should be improve the life of his citizens, all not just 1%.
From your avatar i understand you have no problem with a governmant be a puppet.
The hundreds of thousands of billions that Stalin kill and next eat...is just Nazi propaganda, that the Americans in the cold war repeat and exagerate.
North Korea is a social fascist dictatership, i will not go there, but maybe you can made a tourism trip to Saudia Arabia or Somalia, it should be nice.

Portuguese irony - I love it!

That means a lot to me- Portuguese irony

dino00 wrote:

As Sa'iqa wrote:  
So in your opinion the goal of every country should not be maximizing it's prosperity but... not being a puppet. Even if it means hundreds of thousands of forced laborers dying in a single construction project.  If you want to taste it, claim a refugee status in North Korea and live there for some time.

The goal of every country should be improve the life of his citizens, all not just 1%.
From your avatar i understand you have no problem with a governmant be a puppet.
The hundreds of thousands of billions that Stalin kill and next eat...is just Nazi propaganda, that the Americans in the cold war repeat and exagerate.
North Korea is a social fascist dictatership, i will not go there, but maybe you can made a tourism trip to Saudia Arabia or Somalia, it should be nice.

What 1%? An unskilled laborer in the US was richer and had more freedom than even high ranking party members in the USSR. Even the land farmed by Soviet peasants did not belong to them but to the state. Countries that have a highly developed protection of private property are far more prosperous than countries where everything belongs to everyone or, in other words, no one possesses anything.

It was the Soviet Union where the rich owned everything. Pretty much the entire country belonged to a group of maybe a few dozen top party members and a typical person from lower social strata had absolutely no chance of becoming rich on their own. Even apartments that people lived in didn't belong to them but "to the people" which de facto meant, to the state. The US was great not because all people were equally poor... The US was great because everyone who came there could live as they please, work as they please and earn as much money as they want to. That's why that country is filled with stories of people catapulting themselves from rags to riches while the Ssoviet Union was full of stories of millions of people killed just because they disagreed with the policies of commie lunatics.

AIG from mp.net knows more about this than I... If anything, ask him.

As Sa'iqa wrote:

dino00 wrote:

As Sa'iqa wrote:  
So in your opinion the goal of every country should not be maximizing it's prosperity but... not being a puppet. Even if it means hundreds of thousands of forced laborers dying in a single construction project.  If you want to taste it, claim a refugee status in North Korea and live there for some time.

The goal of every country should be improve the life of his citizens, all not just 1%.
From your avatar i understand you have no problem with a governmant be a puppet.
The hundreds of thousands of billions that Stalin kill and next eat...is just Nazi propaganda, that the Americans in the cold war repeat and exagerate.
North Korea is a social fascist dictatership, i will not go there, but maybe you can made a tourism trip to Saudia Arabia or Somalia, it should be nice.

An unskilled laborer in the US was richer and had more freedom than even high ranking party members in the USSR.

It was the Soviet Union where the rich owned everything. Pretty much the entire country belonged to a group of maybe a few dozen top party members.

What of the above theorys is your truth, can´t be both.

That's why that country is filled with stories of people catapulting themselves from rags to riches while the Ssoviet Union was full of stories of millions of people killed just because they disagreed with the policies of commie lunatics.

The American dream... what a beautiful... if you work 25 hours a day 8 days a week 3 jobs, don´t eat,drink as litle as possible, in 40 years you earn money to send your childrens to college to be as dumb as the fathers, in debt as the fathers, be foolished as the fathers and follow the cicle.
Work hard  

AIG from mp.net knows more about this than I... If anything, ask him.

From what i read about your posts, not only in this topic i have nothing to learn from AIG.
From what i read mp.net is a source to nothing.

dino00 wrote: Nonsense everywere...
If the whites had won russia would be a puppet regime.
Stalin was the best Soviet president and the people loved him, he gave the poors the best conditions in the world, USSR defeat nazi Germany, was not the cold or the Americans or whatever was the genius of Stalin and the great people of USSR.
Have Stalin not been murdered and i can´t dream what a country will Soviet Union became.
There is not Stalinism that doesn´t exist.
Soviet Union was broken by people in the communist party pretending to be communists and...yes by the imperialists.
All the things that TRI said was rubish.  

Lol.

As Sa'iqa wrote:

dino00 wrote:

As Sa'iqa wrote:  
So in your opinion the goal of every country should not be maximizing it's prosperity but... not being a puppet. Even if it means hundreds of thousands of forced laborers dying in a single construction project.  If you want to taste it, claim a refugee status in North Korea and live there for some time.

The goal of every country should be improve the life of his citizens, all not just 1%.
From your avatar i understand you have no problem with a governmant be a puppet.
The hundreds of thousands of billions that Stalin kill and next eat...is just Nazi propaganda, that the Americans in the cold war repeat and exagerate.
North Korea is a social fascist dictatership, i will not go there, but maybe you can made a tourism trip to Saudia Arabia or Somalia, it should be nice.

What 1%? An unskilled laborer in the US was richer and had more freedom than even high ranking party members in the USSR. Even the land farmed by Soviet peasants did not belong to them but to the state. Countries that have a highly developed protection of private property are far more prosperous than countries where everything belongs to everyone or, in other words, no one possesses anything.

It was the Soviet Union where the rich owned everything. Pretty much the entire country belonged to a group of maybe a few dozen top party members and a typical person from lower social strata had absolutely no chance of becoming rich on their own. Even apartments that people lived in didn't belong to them but "to the people" which de facto meant, to the state. The US was great not because all people were equally poor... The US was great because everyone who came there could live as they please, work as they please and earn as much money as they want to. That's why that country is filled with stories of people catapulting themselves from rags to riches while the Ssoviet Union was full of stories of millions of people killed just because they disagreed with the policies of commie lunatics.

AIG from mp.net knows more about this than I... If anything, ask him.

AIG is an idiot.
He is opposite side of the nonsense dino00 believes.

Well Im not sure who should have one, since the Whites were largely anti semitic reactionary aristocrats..

All I know is it really, really is too bad that the royal family was shot and killed in that basement.. someone should have smuggled them all out..  

that sounds like a hollywood script... I will take you all down into a basement with badly tied ropes and let you escape and in 5 years you will come back and overthrow the Bolshevik utopia we have created.

Only Seth Green will know the truth... just shoot them in the head and the problem is gone. Little kids are cute but they grow up to nasty adults when you kill their parents... look at Batman and Superman...

Killing the kids was disgusting and sick.

And it was a good measure of what was to come under the Bolsheviks.

TR1 wrote:Killing the kids was disgusting and sick.

And it was a good measure of what was to come under the Bolsheviks.

Those were the morals of the time. This was the result of the centuries long brutal reppression exercised upon the russian working class by the romanov dynasty.

Besides if the whites or a western imperialist power captured the family of a socialist revolutionary the exact same thing would've happened to them except there wouldn't be any uproar since they aren't pampered aristocrats.
Like how lenin's brother was murdered in by the tsarists before the revolution...

TR1 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:In 1917 major economical and social improvements were made by the socialists until the start of the civil war in which the feudal landlords and their western imperialist puppeteers started pillaging the land.

Socialists =/= Bolsheviks.

Pretty much every other revolutionary party in Russia would have been a huge improvement, but we got the WORST one of them all. One that was absolutely brutal and made no compromises in its retarded obsession with class struggle.
It's too bad Lenin's train did not hit a mine while going through Germany.

Why make compromises when your enemy(the white aristocrats) that want to kill you any chance they got because you rebbeled against there policies that was against your class interests? Obsession with class struggle? Your mistaking that one. It was the whites and western capitalists after all that started the civil war in order to rebond the working class back into their chains.

You actually read Bolshevik literature?

They were obsessed with class struggle from the start, and unlike all the other moderate, far better revolutionaries in Petrograd, they had no notions of compromising and negotiating with the various classes of Russia.

Talking about chains is funny, since the Bolsheviks promptly put the whole country in chains. All the while blaring about being democratic, lol.

If we ended up with pretty much any other revolutionary group in power, the standard of living would have raised eventually as well, but without the massive human rights violations in the process.

Class struggle was the only way to give the working class any improvement of living standards and political power. Why should've they compromised with the proven useless and detrimental capitalists, kulaks and dvoryans?

All empires at the time had their people in chains in some way. What more rights did the colonials subjects and working class of the british empire for example?

Only the bourgoisie had large political freedom at that time.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Killing the kids was disgusting and sick.

And it was a good measure of what was to come under the Bolsheviks.

Those were the morals of the time. This was the result of the centuries long brutal reppression exercised upon the russian working class by the romanov dynasty.

Besides if the whites or a western imperialist power captured the family of a socialist revolutionary the exact same thing would've happened to them except there wouldn't be any uproar since they aren't pampered aristocrats.
Like how lenin's brother was murdered in by the tsarists before the revolution...

No, they were not the morals of the time. Pretty much every other socialist party in Russia would have been against shooting the kids. But like I said, we got stuck with the Bolsheviks, a lot of shitheads.

The Commies oppressed the people far worse than the Romanov's did in their last 100 years of power.

Actually, more than the Romanov's ever did.

The working class developed very late, was small, and comparative to the peasants had it very well off.
Centuries of repression? Lmao! There was no working class to repress for that long. 1905 aside, they had it fairly easy. Anyways post 1917 the Bolsheviks executed far more people from any class background than the Romanov's did since the Napoleonic Times.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:In 1917 major economical and social improvements were made by the socialists until the start of the civil war in which the feudal landlords and their western imperialist puppeteers started pillaging the land.

Socialists =/= Bolsheviks.

Pretty much every other revolutionary party in Russia would have been a huge improvement, but we got the WORST one of them all. One that was absolutely brutal and made no compromises in its retarded obsession with class struggle.
It's too bad Lenin's train did not hit a mine while going through Germany.

Why make compromises when your enemy(the white aristocrats) that want to kill you any chance they got because you rebbeled against there policies that was against your class interests? Obsession with class struggle? Your mistaking that one. It was the whites and western capitalists after all that started the civil war in order to rebond the working class back into their chains.

You actually read Bolshevik literature?

They were obsessed with class struggle from the start, and unlike all the other moderate, far better revolutionaries in Petrograd, they had no notions of compromising and negotiating with the various classes of Russia.

Talking about chains is funny, since the Bolsheviks promptly put the whole country in chains. All the while blaring about being democratic, lol.

If we ended up with pretty much any other revolutionary group in power, the standard of living would have raised eventually as well, but without the massive human rights violations in the process.

Class struggle was the only way to give the working class any improvement of living standards and political power. Why should've they compromised with the proven useless and detrimental capitalists, kulaks and dvoryans?

All empires at the time had their people in chains in some way. What more rights did the colonials subjects and working class of the british empire for example?

Only the bourgoisie had large political freedom at that time.

LOL! Now you talk about Kulaks?!? A great symbol of Soviet imagination creating an enemy, justifying the execution and imprisonment of millions, and in the end contributing to the disruption of the agricultural sector.

Seriously, go read something else than BS Soviet "History", then come back to talk. This is comical at best.

You think peasants got political power in the USSR? Oh lawd jesus...

Also, I am sorry, but I have to address this...useless Kulaks?!?

It is well documented peasants (from all sorts of economic positions) had no widespread animosity to the imaginary "Kulak" class before Stalin began his campaign.
"Kulaks" were basically those peasants competent enough to use the land reform that happened in the late Russian Empire as well as NEP-era economic "liberalism"....how in gods name were THEY the useless ones?

So of course Stalin had hundreds of thousands of the most competent peasants arrested and shipped off and put into concentration camps.
Yay Soviet economics!

[quote="TR1"]

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Killing the kids was disgusting and sick.

And it was a good measure of what was to come under the Bolsheviks.

Those were the morals of the time. This was the result of the centuries long brutal reppression exercised upon the russian working class by the romanov dynasty.

Besides if the whites or a western imperialist power captured the family of a socialist revolutionary the exact same thing would've happened to them except there wouldn't be any uproar since they aren't pampered aristocrats.
Like how lenin's brother was murdered in by the tsarists before the revolution...

No, they were not the morals of the time. Pretty much every other socialist party in Russia would have been against shooting the kids. But like I said, we got stuck with the Bolsheviks, a lot of shitheads.

As I said the whites or western imperialists would've done the exact same thing to a socialist worker's or jew's family(british colonials in india and other places and freikorps during german november revolution did the exact same thing), but only the romanovs get the mourning due to being arsitocrats. Only injusticises against them should be reported(I don't know how much of an injustice that would've been since these peoples rule had destroyed the lives of millions of upon millions of their subject's lives)

The Commies oppressed the people far worse than the Romanov's did in their last 100 years of power.


Actually, more than the Romanov's ever did.

Complete BS. Living standards comparison, eyewitness accounts(including my soviet relatives) and actual laws come in complete conflict with your assertion.

The working class developed very late, was small, and comparative to the peasants had it very well off.
Centuries of repression? Lmao! There was no working class to repress for that long. 1905 aside, they had it fairly easy. Anyways post 1917 the Bolsheviks executed far more people from any class background than the Romanov's did since the Napoleonic Times.

Yeah right very well off. Life expectancy less than 50 years, around 30% infant mortality, no right to union, around 30% litaracy rate, etc. This is worse than the victorian capitalist hellhole. Instead of being oppressed by a kulak or lord in a country manor, you would be oppressed in a factory.
Peasents were repressed for centuries. Marxist politics favoured the landless peasent class of the russian empire which comprised 90% of its population.

Comparing SU to Tsarist Russia is a worthless comparison if you don't compare it to other countries that were equally poor but remained capitalist.

If you look at the history of the Soviet economy, you'll see that various branches of industry developed unevenly and at a massive cost. In normal (i.e. free market) countries light and heavy industry develop side by side, according to the law of supply and demand - as long as there is demand, there will be someone who fills the niche. In the Soviet Union the only branch of economy that developed well was arms industry - and they only managed to achieve this kind of growth by directing pretty much all resources available. Consumer industry was stagnant and numerous projects were only accomplished due to the use of slave labor. Thousands of people died in single construction projects. By comparison, the construction of Hoover dam cost the lives of only about 100 people. That's how communism "cared" for it's workers.  

I will not forget watching a Polish newsreel from 1970s. Even though it lauded the successes of socialism and tried to blow them out of proportion as much as possible, still some remarks were laughable at best. One of the aforementioned successes was "full saturation of market with flour products" (yes, read that again). A world class achievement, indeed. 

TR1 wrote:Hard to say, very loaded question.

But a lot less people would have died between then and 1940.

The problem with the Whites is it wasn't a legitimate, popular revolutionary opposition to the Bolshevik shitheads. It turned into the symbol of the Ancien Regime, and the population just wasn't going to support that.

But yeah, the Bolsheviks coming to head during the 1917 revolution is one of the greatest tragedies for Russia.

Did the White Army even have a coherent platform/ideology? I was under the impression that they were a collection of various groups, royalists/monarchists, nationalists, conservatives, reactionaries, etc. They were not exactly united behind one specific world-view.


Reaction is generally unable to successfully oppose revolution. Revolutions offer the promise [often false] of a better future, reactionaries call for people to return to a past that few are old enough to remember and many cannot even grasp how to attempt to implement the return.

It takes a revolution to oppose a revolution.

If you look at the history of the Soviet economy, you'll see that various branches of industry developed unevenly and at a massive cost. In normal (i.e. free market) countries light and heavy industry develop side by side, according to the law of supply and demand - as long as there is demand, there will be someone who fills the niche. In the Soviet Union the only branch of economy that developed well was arms industry - and they only managed to achieve this kind of growth by directing pretty much all resources available. Consumer industry was stagnant and numerous projects were only accomplished due to the use of slave labor. Thousands of people died in single construction projects. By comparison, the construction of Hoover dam cost the lives of only about 100 people. That's how communism "cared" for it's workers.

Lovely polish nonsence Anticommunists always point out to early USSR as if it was "normal" country or an example of "communist state". It wasn't a communist state, it was socialist state, and it wasn't normal country, it's ecomony was deeply militarized thanks to 20 years of civil war and imminent military threats from it's western neighbours. So, thanks to the west with all it's nazism and cold war the soviet people had to live not according to the modern consumer society's standards. Even with enormous military budget the USSR managed to build independent industry with agriculture, light industry and ect. You may question it's quality and logistics, as there are drawbacks of all systems, the USSR pioneered planned economy after all, without calculaton resources of modern computers and ERP systems. Still it was able to hold on it's own against the world's biggest economies pushing satellites forward all other the world, building schools and infrastructure in "occupied" Afghanistan, ect. Not buying eastern europe major industry companies for bankrupting like Germany and France did in the EU.
And about "slave labour" and other nonsence. Yes, there were labour camps for criminals. Not for workers. And many of them returned back from GULAG (or who the hell told about GULAG during 60s?!). Death rate was high compared to modern prisons, but not as high as in... polish prison camps for soviet captives, for example.

Pros and Cons.

Cons:
Restoration. Even with compromise for liberalism etc. We know what that did to Germany.
Ineffective and regressive internal policy
- Neglection and opression of the proletariat and the starving population
no Lenin and Stalin and all the other Soviet leaders
most likely no super industrial capabilities and war machinery any time soon
most likely no enlarged super power that lasted more than half a century

Pros:
Probably no extreme famine and starvation for a higher cause like super industrial capabilities
Probably no deportation, political persecution and murder in a scale of Stalin.
no Lenin and Stalin
- probably no invasion of South Caucasus

The problem is simply that the provisional goverment was doing anything but not to put the population in worse misery than it already was.

We only know that bolshevik victory lead to the rise of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union became a super power. Sure the price for that was enormous. Many people died by starvation and war. Many deportatons, resettling etc. In general nobody can really say those things wouldn't have happened if the Whites won. Maybe, maybe not. Something like famine was and would be there regardless of who took power. The more important thing to think about is the different environment Russia would have found itself in case they had won. Different internal and foreign policy. We also have to consider all the other events going on in Europe. What if the Whites had won, there was no Stalin and his 5 year plan and Hitler still became the ruler of Germany who performed his 4 year plan ? would you really have wanted that the Whites had won when thinking about that ? a monarchical Russia most likely wouldn't have the same industrial capabilities if another world war had broken out. This is something serious to consider. From my POV the war would have happened in any case.

Another factor... Hitler hated communism so there was little chance of an alliance with the Soviet Union under Stalin or anyone else.

However WWII was pretty much inevitable because of the treatment by the western allies of Germany.

If the white Russians had won and a Tsar was in power in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, then Hitler would not have broken off military cooperation of the 1920s and early 30s like he did when he took power. Instead of an invasion in the east it could have been an alliance. Further with Russia and Germany united Japan could buy resources from Siberia instead of trying to invade in 1939 and failing and then looking south for oil and resources like it did. The war in the Pacific might have been delayed by 5 years, but it could have been 5 years of growth and development in Japan that could have better prepared it for war. Germany, with plenty of human and material resources now coming from the East would not need to bother with Africa or the Middle East and could easily have focused all its resources on blockading the UK... and invasion... even with heavy losses using its new Russian allies as cannon fodder probably would have take the UK out of the war... the combined air power would have been impressive... remember Sikorsky would have remained in Russia and might still be building bombers...

GarryB wrote:If the white Russians had won and a Tsar was in power in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, then Hitler would not have broken off military cooperation of the 1920s and early 30s like he did when he took power. Instead of an invasion in the east it could have been an alliance.

The only problem with this idea if you look at Hitlers views and ideology is that one of his primary goals was expansion to the east and it pretty much didn't matter if it were Soviets ruling or Whites. Soon or later he would have invaded. Only do I think that without a massive transformation into an industrial power a White Russia wouldn't have survived a German attack. So from my POV such an alliance would most likely just serve as military calculus to lull the Whites into a false sense of security just like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did to Stalin.

If the white Russians had won and a Tsar was in power in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, then Hitler would not have broken off military cooperation of the 1920s and early 30s like he did when he took power. Instead of an invasion in the east it could have been an alliance.

Hitler hated russians (all slavs to be correct). He thought they are subhumans like jews. It is written in Mein Kampf. There would be no alliance. Germany had an alliance with Poland - and so what? He was obsessed with an idea of "living space for germans", why would he bother with a small island instead of great russian spaces?