Author Topic: No Russian Revolution  (Read 2410 times)

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
No Russian Revolution
« on: December 02, 2013, 02:51:45 PM »
A new idea.  What if there was no Russian Revolution or perhaps it was crushed?  Not sure of the exact details but it might make for some interesting what if scenarios...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline perttime

  • The man has produced a Finnish Napier Heston Fighter...need we say more?
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2013, 03:52:03 PM »
I think pretty troubled times were inevitable for Russia. The result of whatever happened would have been pretty life-changing for some countries that are now neighbors of Mother Russia.

What if Tsar Nikolai II died in 1915 while leading the troops?
... leaving Tsarina Alexandra at home with Alexei ( heir apparent) and Rasputin.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2013, 06:33:36 PM »
Well it was the Germans who dropped Lenin into the power vacuum after the removal (but not execution) of the Tsar to effectively steal the revolution from those who actually conducted it.  Animal Farm the lazy pigs took over after others had done the hard work and made the sacrifices.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2013, 11:19:57 AM »
It is well known that Tsar Nikolai II was a weak-willed man influenced by others to their advantage & the disadvantage of Russia.

So, What if;

  • Nikolai had been a stronger-willed man & had the strength of character to do what was right (or, at least, more that was right) for his country?
  • Nikolai had opted to follow the Constitutional Monarchy lead of his British cousins, rather than try to hold onto power?
  • Instead of abolishing his parliament (Duma) every time a decision didn't go his way, he adopted a concilliatory approach & negotiated?
  • Instituted a 2nd tier of government, so that Russia had the equivalents to both the House of Lords & the House of Commons?
  • He had ended the practice of purchasing commissions & had instituted a system of organised, professional training for his military leaders with a Sandhurst-(or similar)-style military college with entry based on academic grades & physical fitness?

This is, of course, a major change of character but, if he had been a better man & a more progressive king, could the revolution have been averted?

:)

Guy
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2013, 01:43:02 PM »
If memory serves me correctly, Lenin's older brother was executed in the 1870's for encouraging peasants to exercise their lawful right to appeal to the Tsar.  What if he'd been listened to and the Russian government had moved toward a more liberal style of government like Great Britain's?

Alternatively, the White Russian forces get more international support against the Bolsheviks and manage to defeat them soundly and, hopefully, permanently?

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2013, 02:42:49 PM »
Alternatively, the White Russian forces get more international support against the Bolsheviks and manage to defeat them soundly and, hopefully, permanently?

During the Bolshevik Revolution the Czechoslovak Legion (of which my paternal grandfather was one), with the assistance of White Russians, took control of the Trans-Siberian Railway &, in fact, cleared Siberia of any effective Bolshevik influence.

Now, if this rail link had also been used to move Allied troops - specifically Americans who (a) had not yet felt the true horrors of trench warfare, (b) were available in sufficient numbers as US mobilisation was still on the rise & (c) were not that far away by sea from Vladivostok - into western Russia, they may well have brought about the end of the Bolshevik Revolution & stabilised the Eastern Front.

With US forces in Russia & America's historical willingness to use its economic & military power to influence the internal affairs of foreign nations, the US may well have pressured the Russians into either a British-style Constitutional Monarchy or into a US-style capitalist-influenced Constitutional Democracy.

Either way, Russian history would be changed. Whether the Bolsheviks could rise to power in a constitutional Russia is where the answer lies to the potential for a resurgence of the communists.

:)

Guy
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 03:03:54 PM by Old Wombat »
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2013, 03:13:21 PM »
Any change in Russia pre-WW 1 that benefits their economy would have serious repercussions in the rest of Europe. Germany would not have appreciated a powerful country to it's east, Austrio-Hungary likewise, and Britain wouldn't want a powerful Russia moving south into the British controlled areas of India.

Under Nicholas II, things were beginning to move towards some openness, and it was troubling enough to Germany that it had been more or less decided they'd have only a couple years after 1914 to take on Russia before it was on equal or superior footing, so 1914 was as good a time as any.

Now, if you take Russia as it was in 1917, and somehow prevent the second revolution from happening, you'd have a fledgeling democracy facing huge economic problems and a very unhappy populace. Keeping the Communists out would likely prevent the Civil War that followed WW 1.

If they had remained in the war, the Germans wouldn't have been able to shift the forces they used to break the deadlock on the western front, and the allies would have had to wait for the Americans to show up so they could break it instead. Losses of life would have been tremendous, and possibly Russia could have demanded the Germans surrender in the East. This, of course, would potentially have made the rest of the allies upset at Russia leaving the fight earlier than desired.

What you might wind up with is an extremist seizing power later on, either in the 20s or the 30s, under the fascism brand that was so popular throughout Europe in those times. People like a strong leader, and Russia was certainly capable of generating those. Maybe a guy named Stalin, who'd been in the Tsar's secret police and might have been instrumental in crushing the communists, gets elected under dubious circumstances and uses gile and trickery to seize power, and make himself ultimate ruler of Russia. he then faces off against his traditional enemies, the British and the French for their punitive economic measures enacted at the end of WW 1, when Russia was denied a huge portion of the spoils divvied up at Versailles...

So you wind up with Russia starting to annex little surrounding countries, like the Baltic states, and eventually, Finland is threatened with invasion. A hastily convened conference at St Petersburg seems to solve the situation, with the British PM returning home declaring he had achieved "peace in their time". Within a year, WW2 breaks out when Russia invade Poland.

Germany is utterly unprepared for this, and despite a hastily set up defence, is quickly over run, as it Austria and part of Holland and Belgium. Italy strikes into Hungary and Austria, keen to seize territory denied it after Versailles. France and Britain once again ally to defeat a common foe, and the long dark World War 2 begins to cast its' pall across Western Europe...Japan shifts the balance in 1941 when they attack Russia in the East, awakening a terrible angry bear. Several years of diplomacy by Britain has paid off, however, and Japan signs a treaty with Britain and France to defeat Russia.

Without any overt acts against the US by either side keeps the US handily out of the War, seen as a continuation of the previous one. American munition companies make a decent profit selling to both sides however, and the resulting boom in the US Economy helps end the Great Depression to much acclaim for the president, Alfred Landon.

The European war drags on and the Eastern Front quickly goes badly for Japan. They do well at sea, destroying Vladivostok, but their land forces are no match for the Russian tanks and troops. Commonwealth countries help shore up the British assets in Asia, and Australian and Canadian troops are diverted from the UK to the Mongolian frontier to assist the Japanese. Sympathy in the US for the Japanese rises after one of the American destroyers is attacked by Russian aircraft while in port in Korea, and Japanese naval aviators force back the attack.

Limited US assistance begins to be seen in the Far East, and warnings are given by Stalin for the US to mind it's own business. An attack on Anchorage by Russian naval units on August 17, 1943 drags the US into the war, albeit reluctantly.

Russian forces are sent to assist the hopeless Italians in North Africa, so we have the scenario of desert camo T-34s fighting Shermans at Kasserine pass!

Yaks tangling with Zeroes over China!

Spitfires in Japanese markings, Zeroes flying for the FAA!

No nukes, possibly longer range  bombers as the targets in Russia would be really far from RAF bases. France never falls, and French tanks and planes would be seen in action longer into the war. Lend lease and outright buyts would happen more for France, so the Douglas and Curtiss plane buys would go through, and the French Air forces would be flying P-39s and Douglas Bostons in those awesome 1939 type schemes.


I've no idea how it would end tho.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2013, 04:19:11 PM »
Now, if this rail link had also been used to move Allied troops - specifically Americans who (a) had not yet felt the true horrors of trench warfare, (b) were available in sufficient numbers as US mobilisation was still on the rise & (c) were not that far away by sea from Vladivostok - into western Russia, they may well have brought about the end of the Bolshevik Revolution & stabilised the Eastern Front.

As an addendum to this:

The rail link was used to move troops but too few & too late. The largest Western forces were 5,000 Americans (Sept 1918) & 4,000 Canadians (Jan 1919).

There were 56,000 surviving Czechoslovak soldiers who escaped, with the force numbering as many as 61,000 (high-end is 65,000 to 70,000 but this may include civilians) at its peak.

Japan put 70,000 troops into eastern Russia in an attempted land-grab in 1918.

If the Americans had equalled these numbers, & the Japanese had taken the war to the Russian front, & they had done so early then they, along with the 60,000 Czechoslovaks (who for much of the post-revolution period were the largest & most effective fighting force in Russia) could well have swung the pendulum of fate against the Bolsheviks, with a similar investment of Commonwealth troops the end of the Bolsheviks would almost certainly have been assured.

The Great War may then have dragged on into 1919/1920 but Austro-Hungary/Germany's fate would be sealed.

With the end of the war the Russians would have been without a Tsar or heir apparent, Lenin, Trotsky &, possibly, Stalin but have been heavily influenced by the large number of soldiers from Western democratic nations.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Nexus1171

  • SC
  • I go by many names...you may know one...
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2015, 05:22:10 AM »
Volkodav

Quote
Well it was the Germans who dropped Lenin into the power vacuum after the removal (but not execution) of the Tsar to effectively steal the revolution from those who actually conducted it.
Is that actually true or a scenario?  Who would have taken control otherwise?

Offline kerick

  • Responsible for all surrendered booty....Arrrr!!!!
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2015, 10:38:23 AM »
The Germans did allow Lenin and others to travel to Russia in 1917. The Germans figured anybody who could cause trouble for Russia during WW1 would work to their advantage.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 10:55:45 AM by kerick »

Offline MaxHeadroom

  • The man has built a jet Stuka, need we say more?
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2015, 02:07:51 AM »
...but, if Lenin and his co-fighters were killed or imprisoned by the Kerensky-administration (the Tzar was forced to resign in February 1917 and Lenin came back to Russia in April 1917), the civil government of Russia would still have had massive problems to keep the people calm and stabilizing the armed forces to continue the war against imperial Germany and Austro-Hungaria.
The only possible thing was a slow retreat and to wait for the US-expeditionary-forces coming to an important size on the western theatre.
If so, there wouldn't be any other result of the war:
We all know, imperial Germany only retreates a minor number of forces from the east to the west, because they were much too greedy to capture land and humble the soviet-administration after the peace-treaty of Brest-Litowsk.
So, if Kerensky withstand, the war in the west would be over at the same time (or a little bit earlier).
This means, Russia had get a chance to become a federal, democratic and peaceful country.
And if Kerensky had have successors as wise as Kerensky, we would have seen some independent republics in the spirit of emancipation of the nations.
And no cold war was happens.

Norbert 

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: No Russian Revolution
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2016, 09:40:16 PM »
... leaving Tsarina Alexandra at home with Alexei ( heir apparent) and Rasputin.

I am sure that Rasputin would take advance ... hehhehe