what if ther was no Bolshevik revolution in 1917?

Ok, First we had this from Tommy Tater, which got the thread locked for good reasons, which might be summed up in the response:

JCFalkenbergIII
You do realize that there was a period of 21 years between the wars? Why would the Russian economy be in shambles in the first place and why for 21 years? Also you may want to flesh out your scenario more to meet the Forum requirements.

"Search the What If… section before posting to make sure your topic has not been discussed before. If it has, feel free to contribute to the existing thread. If not, create a new thread following these rules:

...and it has been discussed to some extent here & there in the side door manner of thread drift. Since there is a legitamate question buried in the original post mybe it is worth reviving for another round. Some fresh opinions would be interesting. So here goes...

What if the Bolshivik Revolution does not occur? There are several ways this does not happen. In no particular order of likelyhood & not intentionally excludding other possibilities:

1. The Bolshiviks are not able to establish a police state. Instead a weaker socialist government rules Russia from 1920. Would they develop a better military than Stalin controled in 1939? Would such a government ally itself with Poland or France?

2. Or, a more open republican & much less socialist government favoring the middle & business classes is established. Agricultural & industrial development take a different direction from that under Leninn & Stalin. What sort of military would such a socity develop, and would they be any more ikely to enter into alliances with France & its allies to contain a aggresive Germany.

3. I'll offer last: The Whites win in 1920. The old & conservative aristocratic familys return to power, joining with the remnants of the middle class to crush any reform. Instead of serving the Bolshiviks the secret police serve the grand dukes and their banker relatives. The peasants and factory workers are left without votes, rights, or opportunity. Would such rulers find any basis for alliance with democratic France & friends? How would industrial development occur and what sort of military would be organized?

Several other questions common to all three are: A. What would change if the new government is unable to hold the empire together as a single state. Would a collection of a half dozen nations independant of Russia deveop in radically different directions?

B. Given the economic problems of the 1920s & 1930s plus the racial, political, and social theorys in circulation would Facisim be likely to take hold in these hypothetical states?

C. Which of the three possibilites above is most likely to contribute ecomomically to the Europe and global ecomomys of the 1920s - 30s and relieve some of the underlyng economc stress of the era?

In my opinion options 1 & 2 are the most likely to shut in a nazi Germany. France wanted a alliance with another major power agaisnt Germany. Unfortunatly the negotiations of 1939 failed over conservative fears of Stalin. Number three is nearly as bad as a Communist USSR. The aristocracy could nonly retian power via a strong police state, their ultra conservative views would hinder economic growth, and they would like see further imperialism as a route to preserving their empire and increasing their wealth. That would make them a dangerous expansionist regime, increasing the likelyhood of wars in Asia or Europe.

 

All interesting questions.

Having studied the recent history of Russia and the Soviet Union as part of my college major, and in the process, met and talked with some of the people who were major players in the Soviet Union of the 1920's and later, such as Alexander Kerensky, I would be inclined to speculate that, regardless of which faction actually came to power, life, and the actual form of government, would not differ very much from the historical Soviet Union. After a period of political and economic instability, the government, no matter whose hands it fell into, would be authoritarian in nature, and the economy would be in the hands of, and closely controlled by, a favored few.

It would be safe to assume that any change in governmental or economic systems would be very much like the changes that resulted after the fall of Communism in 1989; a period of chaos and readjustment followed by different people seizing control of economic wealth (mostly by extra-legal means) and excluding the vast majority of ordinary people. Political power would also change hands, but would very probably follow the pattern of the new political leaders paying lip service to democratic/republican principles while establishing what is, in fact, a strongly authoritarian government with real political power closely held, and jealously guarded.

Look at the current Russian government and economic system and that would probably be a pretty good model of what would evolve. Just because the people in power change doesn't mean the political culture or way of doing business will change much, and that has been borne out by the last two changes in the political/economic structure of Russia.

The fact is, however, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia had such far-reaching ramifications in the rest of Europe that trying to predict the alliances which might result from it twenty years later is nearly impossible. Without the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which led to the end of WW I, the Treaty of Versailles might look much different, or might not exist at all. In fact, that could be said for all of the European boundaries created by the Versailles Treaty. Would WW II then have occurred, or occurred as it it did historically?

It's impossible to say.

 

The Bolshevik revolution was only a part of the overall revolution that was gripping Russia at the time. If we are to assume that the Socialists / Whites manage to win and become the post revolution government then I would think:

1. Russia remains more underdeveloped industrially than it historically was. The biggest impetus to industrialization was the ruthless forcing of it by the Communists on the nation. With a more democratic government this would have been difficult to have happen. Instead, I would think that foreign industrialists would begin to build factories in Russia but export most of their products elsewhere rather build for a non-existant domestic economy.

2. There would have been a far more thorough and ruthless exploitation of Russia's natural resources. Without the xenophobic Communists in charge Russia would have been a open market for the world.

3. The Russian military would have remained large but second or third rate at best in terms of technology. I can't see a democratic socialist government investing in tens of thousands of tanks or planes.

Facism might still occur in Europe regardless. I would think it would be very likely in Italy and possible in Spain. Germany would be another matter though. Hitler's party in the prewar years never was hugely popular. I suspect without the threat of communism his party would have remained a minority faction rather than coming to power.

 

Now I hope tater sees this and can see how a well thought out and fleshed out "What If?" can be.

 

Industrial development depends on how long the fighting drags out and the general course of the postwar economy. If the European banking system follows the same couse as in the 1920s & 1930s then it may be slow. My take tho is the trend for industrial development had been upwards in the 1890-1910 era & that trend projected forward suggets a strong basis for industrial growth.

Certainly, many folks had been looking over that area before the World War. By necessity exploitation means industrial development. The machinery and infrastructure to extract those resources encourages local development and service.

I cant buy that, there were skilled engineers and examples of achivements in the latest technologys. I'd think there was a good foundation for post war technlogy development. Building on that is dependant on a end to the war and a effective system fo applying the resources. A inflow of European businessmen and capitol is one possible route. Stalins programs were another. I'm not ready to dismiss other variations in between.

Probablly. I'm not proposing multiple POD here. Communist & Socialist activity across the globe was encouraged by the Bolshivik sucess in Russia, but was also independant of it. The Berlin Spatacists, the Bavarian Commune, the Leftist Goverment in Hungary all are likely to come and go if there is no Lenninist government in Moscow.

Hitler political traction was based more on racism than the other factors. If there had not been "Jewish Bolshiviks" ruling the USSR he'd have been screaming about Jewish socialists, or Aristocrats, or bankers such as ruled the "racially degenerate US". Even a facist government of a Russian state would have been at cross purposes with Hitlers goal of subjugating the untermenchen Slavs.

 

I am somewhat at a loss here. If the revolution does not take place, that means that Russia is still a monarchy with the Czar still in control. That means that:

1. The war is still on in the East during WWI
2. The Germans do not transfer their armies from the East
3. That allows the allied forces, including the newly added Americans, to advance further and possibly forcing a surrender from Germany
4. The whole success of the Nazis coming to power is based on the hatred of the Versailles Treaty (which not have taken place), the stab in the back theory and the occupation forces.

I do not believe the Nazi take over would have succeed because some very important events and factors would have been missing.

 

I think what he means is targeted at the time after the main revolution that ended the war happened and when red and white were brawling. The wites would have a very tough time beating the reds (regarding your question three) Trotski managed to raise and train a 5,000,000 men army that was just wooping those whities around.

the first and second options are more viable in my PoV but could be easilly replaced by the "Lenin allows control to be seized from him instead of locking everyone in the social-democrat and Menchvik parties".

Now, here, we'd see less oppression but I don't know about the "oppening of borders". They were still very patriotic and recently, they were all involved in a fight against the British and American and all.
Hitler's party would still rise to power as even without communism, the "diktat" was still a major cause of concern to the German people and they wanted to feel powerfull once again. hitler's way to make speeches appealed just to that.

Regarding a Russian-France/Britain alliance, it would still be tough to achieve. Even without communism. Remember the western powers invaded Russia not long before and a non-communist Russia might feel less threatened by a Fascist Germany than a Communist one. The variables are immense and I have to dedicate further study to this subject.


Cheers...

 

well think of it this way with no revolution the propaganda and strict no retreat policy would mean russia would of been overwhelmed in world war 2 "if" that even existed.

 

You are confusing two different revolutions here. First the Czar was ousted by a coalition of factions amoung existing Russian leadership. That was in 1917. the government that followed that 'revolution' was known as the Krensky government, named after the principle leader who was approved by the Diet or legislature. A few months later in 1918 the Bolsiviks under Leninns leadership had gotten control of some key military posts and conducted a coup in Lenningrad, which they imeadiatly spread to Mscow and a few other cities. that was the Bolshivik revolution that started Communisim in Russia.

During the Krensky period there was a sort of defacto truce between the Russians and Germans while Krenskys represenatives negotiated a peace treaty. That was taken over by Lennins government as soon as they got control of the army facing the Germans. Lennin ordered the negotiations to be wrapped up as he needed tofocus on consolidating power in the cities. what were to become the White Armys were already forming and counter attacking the Reds.

This then is the POD. Either: Lennin and his Bolshiviks do not suceed in their coup and end up in the Narva River with Rasputin or something. That leaves the weak and chaotic Krensky era to continue until gels into one of the options I proposed or some other outcome. Alternatly: the Whites are quickly able to suppress the Bolshiviks and return to power.

That may occur if the Pro Allied factions in the Czarist government retain control somehow past 1916. One of the reasons Nicholas lost power was his loyalty to the Allied cause. His policy had bankrupted the government and was increasing economic stress that threatend to impoverish the urban middle classes. There was also a large portion of the upper classes including the aristocracy that saw no point to bankrupting Russia. Many of those had more sympathy for the German aristocracy than for the Allied democracys. In any case there was a strong feeling even before Nicholas left that Russia needed to make peace with Germany.

So yes you are correct if the pro Allied faction retains power then Germany is in a worse position. However weak Russias armys were in 1917 they did comprise some sort of threat.

More likely is whoever is in charge in late 1917 negotiates some sort of armistice that takes Russia out of the war. But, either way German is likely to lose the war.

 

If the Whites take power it will be with the aid of the Allies, so thats likely to keep good relations. If the Bolshiviks never get past their inital coup & are defeated before the Allies arrive to help the White governments then the issue is moot. Stalin was quite willing to talk alliance with France and Britian in 1939, so he at least was able to overlook the Allies role in 'counter revolution' in 1918-1919.

 

All 3 of Carl's scenarios assume the Bolsheviks initiate the Russian Civil War, but aren't able to win it. Thus, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk still happens which opens the door to more independent nations resulting from the Tsarist Empire. That means there is likely an independent Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine and Belarussia. There are maybe even independent Turkic states in Central Asia. Poland might also be greatly expanded. Maybe not all of those independent states are able to survive, but without the Red Army, I think many of them would. This alters the political landscape of Europe immensely. Above all, it gives Poland a whole bunch of potential allies. Eastern Europe, instead of being squeezed between Germany and Russia, has more room to maneuver.

Without an existing threat from Communism, I don't see Fascism developing as it does. There may be authoritarian nationalist movements, but not National Socialism. There may be dictatorial regimes, but they'll be more like the clique around Hindenburg, Horthy or Antonescu. In other words, Mussolini would be the worst of the lot, and while he might serve as an inspiration to would be sawdust caesars, he would not have been able to unite them in any alliance as most of their goals (revise various land borders) would be mutually exclusive. I see them working within the traditional diplomatic structure of Europe. And even Russia would be a member of the League of Nations.

I am sure that Germany would still want to overturn Versailles, but without Hitler I don't see the German government doing it by brinksmanship. I think they'd continue their 1920s tactic of diplomatically overturning parts of Versailles. There'd be no march into the Rhineland, no annexation of Austria, and no Polish War. All these events scared other Nazis besides the German military when they did happen. Without Hitler, I don't see any adventurism.

Mussolini might have attempted something like he did with Ethiopia, but without a scary Hitler convincing the British Empire they might need Italy in an anti-German alliance, I think Britan and France could have threatened to intervene and keep Mussolini in check.

While the Communists did develop heavy industry in Russia, they also destroyed the economy through their idiotic schemes, especially in the early 1920s. No Communists mean Russia (and other successor states to the Tsarist Empire) develop along the same lines as Finland, Poland, and Baltics. Their economies are probably stronger, even if Russia can't produce lots and lots of tanks. In this scenario, they don't even need to as the chances of a German war are much lower.

There may be revanchist Russian tendencies, but I see any wars involving Central and East Asia, not Europe and thus not really affecting the international situation in any meaningful way.

I'm sure there are lots of petty crises across Eastern Europe, but I think the British Empire and France sort things out and keep the peace. Since the League of Nations doesn't collapse around 1936, I think it becomes accepted as the new international system, reducing the chances that Germany uses force later on - say the mid 1940s or 1950s.

Japan probably still annexes Manchuria in 1931, and might even further invade Nationalist China later on, but I don't think it will risk war against the European colonial powers or the United States. Instead, it gets bogged down in China like it did, and eventually seeks a diplomatic solution that will allow it to save face and withdraw its troops. Without a Soviet Union, Chiang Kai Shek doesn't have to worry about a Chinese Communist Party. And without the need for an anti-Comintern alliance with Japan, Germany probably continues Sino-German military and economic cooperation. I see China being much strengthened compared to our timeline, making an eventual peace with Japan likely although Japan may be able to preserve an independent Manchuria and Mongolia. I'm not sure whether Tibet and Sinkiang would have kept their de facto independence.

Eventually, Great Britain gives some sort of Dominion status to India, or perhaps to several Indian states. But without the burden of war debts and the rhetoric from a "anti-imperialist" USSR, it should be able to hold onto its Empire.

The US gives the Phillipines its independence in 1946 per the Tydings-McDuffie act, and probably acts as an insufferable critic of colonial empires while not really disturbing any of the colonial empires.

 

So much of misd 20th Century history revolves around this one man. If he does not achive power as he did then the spasm of warfare is less likely to occur.

I disagree of course that a threat of Communist political victory was key to bringing the nazis to power. Hitler & Gobbels used the middle class fears of Communist revolution to gather votes, but racial doctrines were at the core of Hitlers Facist philosophys. After that his line about the restoration of Germany appealed to the embittered patriots. Third the Socialist economic doctrines of the nazis appealed to the laborers as much as Communism or other Socialist partys. Last we have to remember that the nazi party never took much more than one third of the vote in a legitamate election. All that is need is control of the key police departments and the rest can be managed. A Reichstag fire can be blamed on any convient target.

Beyond all that a lack of a Lennin or Stalin in Moscow does not automaticaly preclude violent revolutionary socialist partys making their brand of trouble across the globe, so the bogeyman of Communist revolution may verywell still exist.