Is a Fascist Russia likely to be an expansionist power or a status quo power?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#1
In real life, the fascist countries of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan were huge expansionist powers. Nazi Germany had dreams of conquering the entire European part of the Soviet Union and subsequently expelling tens of millions of Slavs from there while Fascist Italy essentially dreamed of recreating the Roman Empire and Imperial Japan had a vision of a Japanese-led Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere:







In turn, this made me wonder--if Russia would have somehow avoided Communism (for instance, if Kerensky would have cooperated with Kornilov in restoring order to Russia instead of arming the Bolsheviks to fight Kornilov) and instead became fascist in the 1930s as a result of the Great Depression, would a Fascist Russia have been an expansionist power like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan or a status quo power?

Any thoughts on this?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#3
I am not entirely sure they would not have done exactly the same thing a communist Russia did. Other than the partitioning of Poland.
They wouldn't need to make a pact with Hitler (assuming that he still comes to power in this scenario, which certainly isn't guaranteed) due to them already controlling eastern Poland, the Baltic countries, and Bessarabia, though. Anyway, the other European Great Powers aren't actually going to allow Russia to expand anywhere further in Europe, which in turn is only going to leave Asia and the Middle East as potential avenues for Russian expansionism--if Russia would actually be interested in this, that is.
 
Jan 2019
99
Finland
#4
A fascist-like Russia in the wake of the Russian civil war would remove a lot of steam from fascists in Europe elsewhere, for those that were primarily anti-bolshevik anyway. The Russian "fascists" might not be so much expansionists as try create a nationalism that could keep whatever they have together, which is what the Russian Empire was struggling with as well. Russian nationalism imposed on the other smaller nations was what made the whole empire come off at the seams, and it might be that the Russian nationalists post-Empire wouldn't be any smarter about that.
 
Likes: Futurist
Mar 2019
1,650
Kansas
#6
They wouldn't need to make a pact with Hitler (assuming that he still comes to power in this scenario, which certainly isn't guaranteed) due to them already controlling eastern Poland, the Baltic countries, and Bessarabia, though. Anyway, the other European Great Powers aren't actually going to allow Russia to expand anywhere further in Europe, which in turn is only going to leave Asia and the Middle East as potential avenues for Russian expansionism--if Russia would actually be interested in this, that is.
Well the Soviets did absorb the Baltic states had a crack at Finland (Which they should have won) They might have gone east to try and extract some revenge on Japan. But really the place was so big and resource rich, and without the imperitive to export their ideology may have just worked at developing their country.

As an after thought they might have tried expanding into the Balkans, or have it out with Turkey once and for all.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#7
Well the Soviets did absorb the Baltic states had a crack at Finland (Which they should have won) They might have gone east to try and extract some revenge on Japan. But really the place was so big and resource rich, and without the imperitive to export their ideology may have just worked at developing their country.

As an after thought they might have tried expanding into the Balkans, or have it out with Turkey once and for all.
A non-Bolshevik Russia wouldn't have lost the Baltic states to begin with, though. As for Turkey, it depends on just how much more severely Turkey gets beaten after WWI in this scenario. For instance, is the Turkish War of Independence much less successful if Russia isn't Bolshevik and a de facto Turkish ally?

A fascist-like Russia in the wake of the Russian civil war would remove a lot of steam from fascists in Europe elsewhere, for those that were primarily anti-bolshevik anyway.
In part, certainly--though there were other issues than generated anger among the European far-right. For instance, the humiliations at Versailles (both Germany's humiliation and Italy's mutilated peace) as well as the Great Depression for Germany and perhaps Japan as well. Also, the end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance probably didn't help matters in regards to Japan either.

The Russian "fascists" might not be so much expansionists as try create a nationalism that could keep whatever they have together, which is what the Russian Empire was struggling with as well. Russian nationalism imposed on the other smaller nations was what made the whole empire come off at the seams, and it might be that the Russian nationalists post-Empire wouldn't be any smarter about that.
Couldn't starting and winning a new war be a great way to rally the nation, though? Or would there have been a fear that any new war is likely to be as long and brutal as WWI was?

I agree with you that Russian Fascists are likely to engage in forced Russification much like the Russian Tsars tried to do. If anything, they might be even more brutal about this than the Russian Tsars were. The Russian Tsars were certainly authoritarian, but probably nowhere near as brutal and totalitarian as subsequent Fascist regimes were elsewhere in real life.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#8
Well, for one thing a fascist Russia allied with Nazi Germany would all but ensure the Second World War would have been an Axis Victory. Perhaps overwhelmingly so.
Yes--though one might wonder where exactly Hitler would aim to secure his Lebensraum if Russia would be off-limits. Hitler wasn't satisfied with the borders of 1914--as he made crystal-clear in Mein Kampf.
 
Jan 2019
99
Finland
#9
Couldn't starting and winning a new war be a great way to rally the nation, though? Or would there have been a fear that any new war is likely to be as long and brutal as WWI was?
After WW1 and the civil war? What do you think?

I agree with you that Russian Fascists are likely to engage in forced Russification much like the Russian Tsars tried to do. If anything, they might be even more brutal about this than the Russian Tsars were. The Russian Tsars were certainly authoritarian, but probably nowhere near as brutal and totalitarian as subsequent Fascist regimes were elsewhere in real life.
There were efforts by people like Stolypin to try to instill a sort of nationalism on the basis of Orthodox Christianity, but on the other hand the autocracy was wholly opposed to mass political movements, even those in support of it. The problem with the Russian Empire was the emperor, in other words. A fascist Russia, like communist Russia, is not going to be holding on to all the territory of the Russian Empire. Whether it's going to be expansionist or for status quo is a question of whether it would have been content with that or not.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#10
After WW1 and the civil war? What do you think?
There won't be a Russian Civil War in this scenario. Also, in real life, WWII was much more brutal for Russia than WWI was.

There were efforts by people like Stolypin to try to instill a sort of nationalism on the basis of Orthodox Christianity,
That would make it hard to appeal to the 30% or so of Russia's population that isn't Russian Orthodox, though.

but on the other hand the autocracy was wholly opposed to mass political movements, even those in support of it. The problem with the Russian Empire was the emperor, in other words. A fascist Russia, like communist Russia, is not going to be holding on to all the territory of the Russian Empire. Whether it's going to be expansionist or for status quo is a question of whether it would have been content with that or not.
A Fascist Russia is likely to lose Poland and Finland but probably not any other territory.