What if the White Army had won?

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?

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.

He saw the resources in the Soviet Union and he wanted them for himself... if those that currently occupied the land were not commies there is no reason to think he would not have tried to acquire these resources through alliances instead of through military invasion.

German/Soviet Cooperation during the 20s and early 30s was largely based on feelings both countries had been hard done by in WWI. Both countries lost land and were shut off from international relations to an extent and neither could be directly blamed for starting the war or helping it grow out of control like it did.

Of course without communism then there is a chance the Russians would have continued to fight the Germans till their surrender and the Russian Empire might have been the only other Empire to have survived WWI (the other being the British of course... though it was changing too). The Baltic states and Poland might not have existed, and when Hitler came to power he traded with communist Soviet Union... so likely he would have cooperated with Tsarist Russia too... but how far?

All that cooperation during the 20s and early 30s involved a lot of work on mobile warfare... neither side wanted trench warfare to be the norm as both had seen the results on the western front.

Without the sense of loss bringing them together to cooperate when no one else would cooperate with them they likely sewed the seeds of Blitzkrieg and developed their armour development and manufacturing industries in preparation for the war of revenge on the west. At the cost of Russian Jews the Russians might have been able to slip under Hitlers racist radar... after all he also had an alliance with Japan too... who hardly live up to his blonde hair blue eyes ideal either...

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.

The western allies were hardly friendly to the Soviets either... when asked why he was working with Stalin after all his anti commie rhetoric Churchill compared Stalin to Satan yet was ready to cooperate because he saw Hitler as worse. Once Hitler was out of the picture what sort of future could Stalin expect based on that?

Stalin was expecting a British double cross even after the German double cross (is that a swastika joke?). Could Tsarist Russia expect anything different?

I think it could because the human resources of Russia would be useful... the industrial potential interesting... the west supported the whites so if the whites did win then likely pressure to reenter the war against Germany would be high.. if they did that then the bond between Germany and Russia would be gone, as would collaboration on armour and other weapons and Russia would be much more in western Europes camp.

Of course having said that the support for Russia might have included British expeditionary forces and US expeditionary forces to fight on Russian territory against the Germans.

The permutations are enormous and complex.

BTW I just bought a book called Kirov, which is about an upgraded Kirov that travels through time back to WWII... whose side do they take? Knowing what they know now... having the firepower to end the war...

He was obsessed with an idea of "living space for germans", why would he bother with a small island instead of great russian spaces?

He was also quite practical and hated jews and commies most of all. As a food basket, a source of oil safe from western bombing, and a huge supply of soldiers that could be used against the UK to sink the unsinkable carrier.

His very racist views didn't stop him supporting the Japanese because they were useful to him in tying up a part of the British commonwealth in the pacific and later the Americans.

As a food basket, a source of oil safe from western bombing, and a huge supply of soldiers that could be used against the UK to sink the unsinkable carrier.

1) Hitler had nothing personal toward UK. Why would he really want to sink it? Battle of Britain was quite aimless, "Sea Lion" was just a fiction, the only thing Hitler wanted is to push Britain out of his business in Europe. 
2) Why would Hitler trust tsarist Russia after the WWI and Russia-France-England alliance?
3) Why would tsarist Russia support a socialist state with little low born maniac in it's head?

BTW I just bought a book called Kirov, which is about an upgraded Kirov that travels through time back to WWII... whose side do they take? Knowing what they know now... having the firepower to end the war...

Who could a single Kirov end WWII?

1) Hitler had nothing personal toward UK. Why would he really want to sink it? Battle of Britain was quite aimless, "Sea Lion" was just a fiction, the only thing Hitler wanted is to push Britain out of his business in Europe.

Apart from spending time in a trench during WWI fighting the British and French you are quite right... Hitler seemed happy to let British military personnel escape at Dunkirk, and orders for western occupation were rather different than for occupied areas in the east.

2) Why would Hitler trust tsarist Russia after the WWI and Russia-France-England alliance?

After WWII the British commonwealth because less inclined to be subservient to Britain... Britain was still the home country, but we were less likely to jump when Britain asked us to. I suspect after a nearly successful coup attempt by the Reds that a non communist, but less monarchist regime might have come in to force... something like Britain today where the Queen is largely symbolic and the government is shambolic.

...maybe an concession to win the civil war would include refusal to rejoin the war on Germany? This would result in poor relations with the west and isolation, so in the 20s and 30s they will have the same sympathies with Germany of being hard done by by the west... after all it was hardly a war Russia should have gotten involved in in the first place.

Who could a single Kirov end WWII?

Only just started reading it, but it is written in 2010 and is based on events a few years from now with a new upgraded Kirov that has been patched together from the four old Kirov class vessels. The Author is English I think so I don't hold high hopes of it being very flattering to Russia...

Excuse me for necroposting, but I see an aspect not discussed here.
Had the revolution failed and the Whites won, then of course no emigration from Russia. This would have meant that the Aufbau organisation would not have been formed and consequently no very valuable collaboration with Hitler in the very early years 1920-23. I would point out that perhaps a majority of senior Aufbau members did not have Russian family names, but German, Baltic and Ukranian ones, Bork, Vinberg, Scheubner-Richter, Poltavets-Ostranitsa etc. However, they saw themselves politically as Russian and wanted revenge against the Bolsheviks and, as the strong Jewish element at top of Bolsheviks is undeniable, also against Jews. Hitler, even in those very early years, was clearly the man to assist, and they did. I do not say that without Aufbau there would not have been an NSDAP, but without their help things may have turned out differently, and I suggest anything different to what eventually did happen could hardly have been worse. So, in very general and arguable terms, a White victory and Hitler may not have gained power.

Khepesh wrote:Excuse me for necroposting, but I see an aspect not discussed here.
Had the revolution failed and the Whites won, then of course no emigration from Russia. This would have meant that the Aufbau organisation would not have been formed and consequently no very valuable collaboration with Hitler in the very early years 1920-23. I would point out that perhaps a majority of senior Aufbau members did not have Russian family names, but German, Baltic and Ukranian ones, Bork, Vinberg, Scheubner-Richter, Poltavets-Ostranitsa etc. However, they saw themselves politically as Russian and wanted revenge against the Bolsheviks and, as the strong Jewish element at top of Bolsheviks is undeniable, also against Jews. Hitler, even in those very early years, was clearly the man to assist, and they did. I do not say that without Aufbau there would not have been an NSDAP, but without their help things may have turned out differently, and I suggest anything different to what eventually did happen could hardly have been worse. So, in very general and arguable terms, a White victory and Hitler may not have gained power.

That would not change much. Briten and US wanted a war because germany was economically strong and growing and that was unwanted by anglo-saxons, Hitler or somebody else the war would come anyway the terms of Varsaille "Peace" Treaty set WW2 in stone, by humiliating countries with unbearable terms and unsolved territorial problems which Poland and France were to blame mostly and economical burden for Germany due the territoral disputes.

Khepesh wrote:Excuse me for necroposting, but I see an aspect not discussed here.
Had the revolution failed and the Whites won, then of course no emigration from Russia. This would have meant that the Aufbau organisation would not have been formed and consequently no very valuable collaboration with Hitler in the very early years 1920-23. I would point out that perhaps a majority of senior Aufbau members did not have Russian family names, but German, Baltic and Ukranian ones, Bork, Vinberg, Scheubner-Richter, Poltavets-Ostranitsa etc. However, they saw themselves politically as Russian and wanted revenge against the Bolsheviks and, as the strong Jewish element at top of Bolsheviks is undeniable, also against Jews. Hitler, even in those very early years, was clearly the man to assist, and they did. I do not say that without Aufbau there would not have been an NSDAP, but without their help things may have turned out differently, and I suggest anything different to what eventually did happen could hardly have been worse. So, in very general and arguable terms, a White victory and Hitler may not have gained power.

The problem is that had the Soviets not won the Revolution, Russia would have ended like the Ottoman empire. That much was a done deal. In a way, the Soviets were a blessing in disguise because their resilience and then foreign adventures insured that the battles for Russia would be long and bloody. That coming in the heels of the biggest Conflict the humanity has seen, helped Russia maintain the bulk of its assets. I can't help myself of seeing Russia follow the footsteps of Germany in the case of a Soviet defeat.

Russia would have been Europe's next "sick man". Gitler on the other side was clearly a byproduct of WW1 (see Mussolini) and of the secret diplomacy and deals as well as the hyper-explosive social situation in Europe.

Europe was in the need of a " rebuild and cleaning", it simply ended up being a paint job.

Yes, to both posts above. There would still have been war as Versailles saw to that, and war in the Pacific would have happened regardless. The point I want to make is that tho a war in Europe would have happened eventually, if it happened without Hitler and without the extreme ideological divide between Left and Right, then perhaps it may have been a "normal" war without the nazi nightmare we got. Tho Aufbau was not the creator of NSDAP and faded from the scene in 1923, it may just be possible that without their help at the very beginning, things may have turned out differently as regards Hitler. If he still came to power, which is likely, then maybe without the early help perhaps a bit later than he did, and giving allied powers more time to prepare. Tho with a Russia, not a Soviet union, seriously damaged and struggling to recover from the war, maybe in 1939, if it still happened then, no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and not likely an equivalent, and maybe Hitler invaded Poland and did not stop until the Volga, or Urals...

Khepesh wrote:Yes, to both posts above. There would still have been war as Versailles saw to that, and war in the Pacific would have happened regardless. The point I want to make is that tho a war in Europe would have happened eventually, if it happened without Hitler and without the extreme ideological divide between Left and Right, then perhaps it may have been a "normal" war without the nazi nightmare we got. Tho Aufbau was not the creator of NSDAP and faded from the scene in 1923, it may just be possible that without their help at the very beginning, things may have turned out differently as regards Hitler. If he still came to power, which is likely, then maybe without the early help perhaps a bit later than he did, and giving allied powers more time to prepare. Tho with a Russia, not a Soviet union, seriously damaged and struggling to recover from the war, maybe in 1939, if it still happened then, no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and not likely an equivalent, and maybe Hitler invaded Poland and did not stop until the Volga, or Urals...

Maybe but just maybe the war would have been less of totalitarian slaughterhouse, but the goal of british was to use germans against russians so both are killing each other so by the end they could have run their preplaned Operation Unthinkable, where the remaining side would have been attacked by British and US without a halt of WW2 and immidiate entering and intitiating the WW3 and in that case it would be Soviet Union.

Operation Unthinkable (Ger)

So if the WW2 would be a normal war the following Operation Unthinkable would have made it again a totalitarian war for survival.

Khepesh wrote:Excuse me for necroposting, but I see an aspect not discussed here.
Had the revolution failed and the Whites won, then of course no emigration from Russia. This would have meant that the Aufbau organisation would not have been formed and consequently no very valuable collaboration with Hitler in the very early years 1920-23. I would point out that perhaps a majority of senior Aufbau members did not have Russian family names, but German, Baltic and Ukranian ones, Bork, Vinberg, Scheubner-Richter, Poltavets-Ostranitsa etc. However, they saw themselves politically as Russian and wanted revenge against the Bolsheviks and, as the strong Jewish element at top of Bolsheviks is undeniable, also against Jews. Hitler, even in those very early years, was clearly the man to assist, and they did. I do not say that without Aufbau there would not have been an NSDAP, but without their help things may have turned out differently, and I suggest anything different to what eventually did happen could hardly have been worse. So, in very general and arguable terms, a White victory and Hitler may not have gained power.

How would a few displaced aristocrats give hitler enough financing and influence? The reason NSDAP rose to power was by the will and funding of the capitalist colonial empires banking loans, corporations and the nonjewish german bourgeois industrialist familes like krupp who saw hitler as a tool to crush worker's rights movements and anticapitalist dissent.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Khepesh wrote:Excuse me for necroposting, but I see an aspect not discussed here.
Had the revolution failed and the Whites won, then of course no emigration from Russia. This would have meant that the Aufbau organisation would not have been formed and consequently no very valuable collaboration with Hitler in the very early years 1920-23. I would point out that perhaps a majority of senior Aufbau members did not have Russian family names, but German, Baltic and Ukranian ones, Bork, Vinberg, Scheubner-Richter, Poltavets-Ostranitsa etc. However, they saw themselves politically as Russian and wanted revenge against the Bolsheviks and, as the strong Jewish element at top of Bolsheviks is undeniable, also against Jews. Hitler, even in those very early years, was clearly the man to assist, and they did. I do not say that without Aufbau there would not have been an NSDAP, but without their help things may have turned out differently, and I suggest anything different to what eventually did happen could hardly have been worse. So, in very general and arguable terms, a White victory and Hitler may not have gained power.

How would a few displaced aristocrats give hitler enough financing and influence? The reason NSDAP rose to power was by the will and funding of the capitalist colonial empires banking loans, corporations and the nonjewish german bourgeois industrialist familes like krupp who saw hitler as a tool to crush worker's rights movements and anticapitalist dissent.

Aufbau exerted a strong influence on Hitler, creating a stronger dynamic in his views. Alfred Rosenberg was a prominent member of Aufbau, so tho as an organisation they dissapeared after 1923, people like Rosenberg did not, and in 1923 became editor of Volkischer Beobachter. While it is known that before WWI Hitler was not anti-semitic, these ideas appeared after he had contact with Aufbau. This is not insignificant, and without such virulent anti-semitism coupled with anti-Bolshevism/Russophobia, then Hitler may not have been as we know him. Hitler was a sort of socialist, Goebbels had in the early days proposed that left and right should join forces against capitalism, so they had no specific reason, other than nationalism, to be so anti Bolshevik and anti Russian, except when the anti-semitism and massive butthurt of the dispossed Aufbau is added. As I mentioned before, most of Aufbau were not really Russians, but people from areas with butthurt, Rosenberg was from Estonia, many others Galicians, and people in OUN and UPA looked to Rosenberg as a sort of philosophical father figure, like this caricature from 1936. Remove the anti Jew/Bolshevik/Russian elements from Hitler, and not much is left, and those elements are strongly from Aufbau proto banderas and maidanuts. btw, this is not to excuse Hitler at all, more an attack on banderas....