I don't get this pro-German World War I view that the world would have been so much better if they had won. Events don't occur in a vacuum.
If France lost, there is a good chance the Third Republic fell and that would result in the creation of a government dedicated to restoring its former glorly. That could easily be a fascist dictator.
Also, Russia was in an abyss of rioting in 1914. Knowledge of this actually made things worse, because the German diplomats fueled the notion in Berlin that Russia was a paper tiger and could not possibly stand up to the Central Powers. Patriotic fervor temporarily papered over these problems, but a swift defeat by Germany probably plunges the country into revolution. Considering their history, an iron man on a horse is the most likely outcome.
Who said anything about a communist Russia. I said iron man on a horse. As in a proto-fascist military dictatorship that rose to power by bathing the country in blood.
Remember Communist Russia was a fluke produced by the fact that the war had continued and the Bolsheviks were the only group that was both organized and anti-war. Once in power in Moscow and Petrograd, the central nature of their controlled areas, superior organization and quite frankly, ruthless leadership allowed Communist Russia to emerge from the ensuing Civil War. They also channeled Russian nationalism in response to the foreign interventions.
Without the war, a Russian Revolution probably produces a weak gov't followed by a military dictator as the more likely course. It might even be in the form of Tsarist hard liners seeking a counter-revolution.
Tsarist Russia had a long history of persecuting Jews. Depending on the dictators in of
France and Russia especially, mass extermination of people is highly likely and a Russian holocaust is plausible in that scenario.
There was no way for anybody to win WW1 without the other side feeling cheated. Russia felt cheated out of its land because it surrended so much to get peace and then when Germany lost, it got nothing. The Reds blamed the West of course for that. Germany likewise. Revanchist sentiment, anti-semmitism, ruthless right-wing dictatorship. Stalin easily exceeded Hitler in the body count department as it was, I think the same is possible in Russia.
And another thing. a better led and equiped Russian Army could not be defeated by Germany. As it was Russia held up remarkly well when under competent commanders in the first year of World War I. The disasters at Tannenburg were the result of incompetence leadership and rushing into battle head of schedule to relieve the Frence at Marne. German planning even accounted for the fact that Russia would be unbeatable by 1917 as the country had been aggressively industralizing in the early 1900's and more importantly, building up its railway network.
And that gets me to another point, better management of the railway network would have prevented the extreme food and fuel shortages in Petrograd that sparked the rioting that would turn into a full Revolution in February 1917.
Russia under the leadership of such an iron man on a horse, would likely steamroll Germany.
Those German projections of an unbeatable-Russia-in-1917 were probably excessively negative, though. Plus, a defeated Russia is probably not going to be able to acquire large-scale loans from France due to France's loss of iron ore-rich Briey and Longwy after its defeat in World War I. Thus, unless a Stalin-like figure comes to power in a defeated Russia and becomes the absolute ruler of Russia, a defeated Russia will need to find loans (for industrialization) from elsewhere--something that might be difficult given the likely hostility of wealthy Jewish British and U.S. bankers to Russia's anti-Semitism.
Poll
