[Political Interest]

Let us imagine the Russian fascists were able to take control of the Soviet Union and restore the Russian Empire under a fascist system of government in the early 1930s. This would take place after the Russian Civil War continuing for a longer period and where the Bolsheviks were defeated. What would their foreign policy have been? I think they would have had very good relations with the Japanese but this is not certain as they may have wanted to create their own sphere of influence in China. Maybe they would have wanted to support Chiang Kai Shek's Nationalists just in the same way the Americans did. No doubt they would have tried to maintain ties with Germany until Hitler chose to attack them. It would also seem the relationship with Britain would not be very strong and would be nothing different from the historic rivalry between the two colonial powers. The Russians might try to take control of India. I can imagine them instead of promoting Marxist internationalism in Europe instead supporting pan-Slavism. No doubt they would also be concerned about Pan-Turkism as were the Soviets.

This is a scenario based discussion.

[Potemkin]

I think they would have had very good relations with the Japanese but this is not certain as they may have wanted to create their own sphere of influence in China.

Imperial Russia had fought (and lost) a war against the Japanese in 1905. That rivalry would have continued into the 1930s and 1940s, especially since the Whites had an interest in carving out bits of Chinese territory (eg, Mongolia during the Russian Civil War). It would probably not have had very good relations with other Fascist states in Europe - it's often forgotten that the various fascist nations in central and eastern Europe were rivals and often fought against each other until Nazi Germany came along and gobbled up all the little fish. Hitler would probably have been just as eager to invade a fascist Russia as a communist one. After all, lebensraum is lebensraum. It's unlikely that a fascist Russia would have been able to repel that invasion, since they would almost certainly not have industrialised by then. On balance, then, the Russian people would probably have fared worse under a fascist regime than they did under a Bolshevik one.

[Preston Cole]

It's unlikely that a fascist Russia would have been able to repel that invasion, since they would almost certainly not have industrialised by then. On balance, then, the Russian people would probably have fared worse under a fascist regime than they did under a Bolshevik one.

I have to agree. Say what one will about Stalin, but he did save Russia from losing its European part. Ultimately, it all comes down to which system is better for a country. Stalinism was undoubtedly the best for the wellbeing of Russians, and Ustryalov was right when he said: "Fascism is far better implemented in the Soviet Union than in Italy or Germany since the State also completely covers the economy," or something like that.

The Russian Fascist Party would never have industrialized Russia like Stalin did; their program actually called for large privatizations (of healthcare and other things, don't remember much since I read it a long time ago), much like the Italian model, which I don't understand since I don't think Russia had a free market-happy conservative class to pressure the fascists into heeding their capitalism (correct me if I'm wrong, Potemkin).

[Potemkin]

The Russian Fascist Party would never have industrialized Russia like Stalin did; their program actually called for large privatizations (of healthcare and other things, don't remember much since I read it a long time ago), much like the Italian model, which I don't understand since I don't think Russia had a free market-happy conservative class to pressure the fascists into heeding their capitalism (correct me if I'm wrong, Potemkin).

No, I think you're right. In fact, one of the reasons for the success of the Bolshevik Revolution (or coup d'etat, if you prefer) was that Russia had failed to create a numerically or politically significant middle-class, due to the dead hand of the autocracy. What few middle-class professionals or entrepreneurs who existed were systematically excluded from having any political power or from playing any significant role in civil society. This meant that, whereas in the developed West the middle-class were respectable pillars of society who had political authority and had visibly helped to build up their societies' infrastructure and its civil institutions, in Russia they were merely 'moneybags', brutal and vulgar exploiters of the working class. People had no respect for them. This meant that when the autocracy fell in February 1917, there was a power vacuum which the numerically tiny middle-class was completely unable to fill. The Bolsheviks saw their chance, mobilised the working class, and seized power. As Lenin put it, "We found power lying on the streets, and simply picked it up." This weakness of the capitalist middle-class also meant that the Russian fascists were weak and, quite frankly, rather pointless. Who did they represent, aside from a few decadent aristocrats or expropriated merchants? Their support of a privatisation programme, in the absence of a middle-class which could push for that programme or even make use of it once it appeared, is very telling. The Bolsheviks successfully adapted their policies to the peculiar circumstances of Russia in the early 20th century, whereas the Russian fascists completely failed to do so. As Trotsky put it, their proper place was in the rubbish-bin of history.

[Section Leader]

Hitler was going to invade Russia no matter what form of government they had, socialist, fascist, military dictatorship or democracy. Stalinism is ultimately what saved European Russia from German domination. A fascist or a Trotskyist government would have been completely overrun and forced into Siberia and Central Asia.

Speaking of which, I bought a copy of Fatherland today.

[Political Interest]

Could the Russian fascists not have undertaken five year plans as well and pulled massive resources and labour efforts into seeing the industrialisation of Russia? Hitler and the NS also had a planned economy to some extent. Also why would fascists want to privatise health care? It does not seem like something they would be interested in doing.

[Potemkin]

Could the Russian fascists not have undertaken five year plans as well and pulled massive resources and labour efforts into seeing the industrialisation of Russia?

They were committed to retaining the private ownership of the means of production. This would have made it almost impossible for them to launch the kind of crash industrialisation which the Bolsheviks were able to undertake in the 1930s. Five Year Plans only really work if the state has its hands on the levers of economic power, which requires state ownership of the means of production.

Hitler and the NS also had a planned economy to some extent.

Only to a very, very limited extent. And the Nazi economy turned into shit once Schacht was fired.

Also why would fascists want to privatise health care? It does not seem like something they would be interested in doing.

The Russian fascists were always ideologically weak. In fact, Russian conservatism in general was ideologically weak, much more than its Western counterpart. The Black Hundreds, for example, who were the closest thing Russia had to a fascist party before the 1917 Revolutions, had little ideology beyond the slogan "Kill the Yids!" This ideological weakness meant that the Russian fascists were completely unable to adapt themselves to the peculiar social and economic conditions of early 20th century Russia, and therefore became increasingly feeble and irrelevant. This all goes back, of course, to the dead hand of the Tsarist autocracy, which prevented the development of a sophisticated civil society in Russia during the 19th century. If the Decembrists had succeeded in their attempted revolution, then Russian history might have taken a very different course....

[Cookie Monster]

Hitler would probably have been just as eager to invade a fascist Russia as a communist one. After all, lebensraum is lebensraum.

Indeed, Hitler made it very clear in his book about his beliefs that Germany needed a lebensraum to become powerful and that in order to achieve this the Slavs of the east would need to make room one way or the other. I wonder though how, in the presence of a Russian fascist regime, Italian and Romanian fascist governments would have conducted their diplomacy. Italy might have resisted Austria's annexation more fiercely and Romania might have aligned with Russia or, perhaps more likely, remain neutral in the war between Germany and Russia.

[Preston Cole]

I wonder though how, in the presence of a Russian fascist regime, Italian and Romanian fascist governments would have conducted their diplomacy. Italy might have resisted Austria's annexation more fiercely and Romania might have aligned with Russia or, perhaps more likely, remain neutral in the war between Germany and Russia.

I imagine Italy would have had very little problems with Fascist Russia; it would have actually been its closest friend both militarily (former allies in the first war) and ideologically. Romania's behavior would depend on whether Fascist Russia would still annex Bessarabia like the USSR did in '40. I have no doubt it would have still done that, and Romania would still have sided with Germany in order to get it back.

[Cookie Monster]

I imagine Italy would have had very little problems with Fascist Russia; it would have actually been its closest friend both militarily (former allies in the first war) and ideologically.

I agree, hence the reason I believe Italy might continue its resistance against Austria's annexation by Germany more fiercely.

Romania's behavior would depend on whether Fascist Russia would still annex Bessarabia like the USSR did in '40. I have no doubt it would have still done that, and Romania would still have sided with Germany in order to get it back.

I don't think fascist Russia could annex Bessarabia unilaterally. It would need Germany's involvement, lest it was willing to declare war against Germany.

[Section Leader]

I imagine Italy would have had very little problems with Fascist Russia; it would have actually been its closest friend both militarily (former allies in the first war) and ideologically. Romania's behavior would depend on whether Fascist Russia would still annex Bessarabia like the USSR did in '40. I have no doubt it would have still done that, and Romania would still have sided with Germany in order to get it back.

Interestingly, Italy had fairly good relations with the Soviet Union prior to Abyssinia so I can certainly see how a close relationship could develop between the Duce and a Russian fascist leader. It could lead to some quite interesting scenarios, for instance Italy might not have been so thoroughly condemned in annexing Ethiopia, and thus might have joined WWII against Germany or even started the war itself in 1938 over Austria when Hitler was still building his war machine.

[Preston Cole]

and thus might have joined WWII against Germany

A funny video comes to mind.

or even started the war itself in 1938 over Austria when Hitler was still building his war machine.

And probably would have still gotten its ass kicked. Italy had a good navy, but the infantry couldn't even hold against the tough but ill-equipped Greek army. What makes you think Italy would have survived a war with Germany in one piece?