The RCW history debate

[Ben Waterhouse]

What? I don't understand what you mean.
I say that a White Russia would have the same politics than Nazi Germany, so Whites and Nazis would ally with Italy and Japan against the world (even each of them say they are the best to rule the world).
There would be no third Soviet power doing the balance in WW2.

And I say they wouldn't. You are too hung up on the anti semitism thing. Nazis are racist socialists and would have more in common with Stalinist Communism; International Socialism meets National Socialism as it were
The Whites politically are either autocrat monarchists or military orienatated capitalists.

[Halibutt]

And I say they wouldn't. You are too hung up on the anti semitism thing. Nazis are racist socialists and would have more in common with Stalinist Communism; International Socialism meets National Socialism as it were
The Whites politically are either autocrat monarchists or military orienatated capitalists.

Well, if we drift into what-ifs, I believe it all depends on whether 1936 or 1939 White Russia would be more UK-like ("no eternal friends, no perpetual enemies, only eternal and perpetual interests") or more old Russia-like. If the earlier, it would agree to the unholy alliance just like Stalin did. If the latter, it would remain opposed to the Germans no matter what, even if it meant her own destruction, "because it is right".
Cheers

[ERISS]

We have at least 7 Revolutions in the hands :
- Mencheviks/socialist and liberals (all kind of parliament democrats) of the first revolution. (By the way, those i would like to know what they did or could do in the game, is a third way possible ? etc.)
- Bolchevik
- Anarchist
- Ukrainian nationalist
- Baltics nationalist
- Polish nationalist
- Kolchakist (i have doubts on the historical methods used by the current Russian goverment when he draw the new Kolchak official portrait now).

Menchevik were the true marxists. Bolsheviks (marxism-leninism) went marxist in the reverse!:
Instead of being elected in a bourgeois republic, then doing a 'kind' dictatorship,
they (as they didn't succeded in being elected) did a dictatorship, then they created a bourgeois republic (capitalist but anti-liberalist) by making a same parliament (where at first the elected from soviets decide (they were not elected to decide: soviet people had to decide, not the elected), then bolsheviks controled directly the soviets). The Party then was always elected (as there was no other).
EDIT: 'decide': I mean they seem to. The owner, the boss, the head of The Party had already decided all.
So, the Bolsheviks were not social-democratic as the mensheviks were, but demo-socialist (same thing in the reverse order :mdr

Denikin would finally be the only real white
Except that it's jewish policy may be a bit revolutionary comparing to the old Tsarist rules.
Or not, if the pogroms were already a national sport under Nicolas II.

Nicolas' Okhrana police was fond of the Protocol of Sion book. They even may have crafted it. Pogroms were not punished, if they were not provoked. Jews were the scapegoat for the poverty of Russia.

[Halibutt]

Nicolas' Okhrana police was fond of the Protocol of Sion book. They even may have crafted it. Pogroms were not punished, if they were not provoked. Jews were the scapegoat for the poverty of Russia.

Well, it was a long Russian tradition of applying the divide et impera to subjugated lands. In Russia proper the bad guys were the Jews, but the very same trend is visible also in other areas. Antagonising Lithuanians with Poles, Georgians with Armenians... it was a Russian way of dealing with a multi-national empire for pretty much the entire 19th century and well into the 20th century. Not the most successful in the long run, as when the right time came all those nationalities were more than happy to leave Mother Russia to her own fate. Be it Poles, Finns, Georgians or Latvians.

Not that there was a better solution to a problem of multi-national empire. Austria-Hungary did not have anyone to support it in 1918 either, even though that state was much, much more liberal and free, when it comes to various nations that constituted it.
Cheers

[Baris]

AFAIK Georgians natively live in Batumi along the eastern shore of the black sea while Armenians mainly populated in Van, Erzurum and Erivan(for thousand years as a core province) in which Russian Empire has no control.(Maybe had some control after RUS-Ottoman wars) I think Armenians clash with Georgians is some kind of virtual war in the beginning of RCW that they don't have much core provinces that they need to take revenge. But Azerbaijan trusted Ottomans, Armenians especially Tasnak party(Marxist-Leninist) trusted Reds as they have formed BAku commune with them. While Georgians threatened both by Ottomans and the Red army.

[Halibutt]

I was not talking of actual wars or the opening stages of the war. Rather the long history of Russian rule over subjugated nations and its' MO. Divide et impera is not a new tactics after all.

BTW, this practice of antagonising subjugated nations against each other often led to humorous effects. For instance under Russian rule Ukrainians were not even considered a separate nation, instead they were dubbed the "Lesser Russians". At the same time the Russian authorities had no problem with supporting the Ukrainian minority living under Austro-Hungarian rule.
Cheers

[Baris]

I was not talking of actual wars or the opening stages of the war. Rather the long history of Russian rule over subjugated nations and its' MO. Divide et impera is not a new tactics after all.

Divide et impera tactics can be correct on Bashkirs vs Volga Tatars in previous century but not sure about Caucasians. Divide et impera tactics doesn't explain subjugated nations faith in north and south caucasia in the beginning of RCW regarding the fact tribal or ethnic elements in Caucasia already forced to migrate other unknown regions in 19th century. But the main problem for caucasia were that they were so much divided and focused on national territories that they couldn't form a true union in early stages of RCW. But without forgetting some native elements served for bolseviks such as Sergo Ordzhonikidze and Sultan Galiyev.

BTW, this practice of antagonising subjugated nations against each other often led to humorous effects. For instance under Russian rule Ukrainians were not even considered a separate nation, instead they were dubbed the "Lesser Russians". At the same time the Russian authorities had no problem with supporting the Ukrainian minority living under Austro-Hungarian rule.
Cheers

This is tragically funny but this attitude somehow common amongs other nations also.

[le Anders]

For instance under Russian rule Ukrainians were not even considered a separate nation, instead they were dubbed the "Lesser Russians".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia
The term is older than the Russian Empire by several centuries.