Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group" - Douglas Adams
Posts: 6,263
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Aug 4, 2020 14:16:45 GMT
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, aka Lenin, died in 1924, aged 53. But what if he had recovered from his illness(es) and survived into old age? He was highly critical of Stalin, considering him unsuited to the role of Gen Sec of the Communist Party, and favoured Trotsky over him. So, some possibilities ...
1) He has Stalin removed and replaced by Trotsky. Stalin is sidelined, but works to build an alternative power base and waits for Lenin's demise anyway. 2) As above, but Stalin's career is over and he slinks back to Georgia. Trotsky takes over on Lenin's death (do we really expect Lenin to retire?) 3) Both Trotsky and Stalin are disgraced and flee, with someone else succeeding Lenin.
Other questions - the purges, do they never happen, or does Lenin carry out purges of his own? If so, on what scale?
- the development of the USSR, how does this differ from Stalin's model? - isolationist USSR vs interventionist? Does it get involved in WW2, and if so does it ally with UK/USA/France? - how long does the USSR survive as an integrated whole? Would Lenin keep as tight a grip on the SSRs as Stalin did?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 4, 2020 16:02:14 GMT
Lenin would have been just as ruthless as Stalin was
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 9,173 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 4, 2020 16:26:29 GMT
Lenin would have been just as ruthless as Stalin was Though Lenin was more federalist than Stalin. When Ukraine and Byelorussia decided to join the new Soviet Russia, Stalin drew up the details to make them part of the new Soviet Russia. Lenin told him to go back and "build another floor" to make Russia, Ukraine and Byeolrussia equally components of a larger entity. It's an interesting question that if Stalin's initial plan had been implemented, in 1991 there wouldn't have been 15 soviet republics to fracture into, but something in the region of 80 or more. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 4, 2020 16:41:46 GMT
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, aka Lenin, died in 1923, aged 53. But what if he had recovered from his illness(es) and survived into old age? He was highly critical of Stalin, considering him unsuited to the role of Gen Sec of the Communist Party, and favoured Trotsky over him. So, some possibilities ...
1) He has Stalin removed and replaced by Trotsky. Stalin is sidelined, but works to build an alternative power base and waits for Lenin's demise anyway. 2) As above, but Stalin's career is over and he slinks back to Georgia. Trotsky takes over on Lenin's death (do we really expect Lenin to retire?) 3) Both Trotsky and Stalin are disgraced and flee, with someone else succeeding Lenin.
Other questions - the purges, do they never happen, or does Lenin carry out purges of his own? If so, on what scale?
- the development of the USSR, how does this differ from Stalin's model? - isolationist USSR vs interventionist? Does it get involved in WW2, and if so does it ally with UK/USA/France? - how long does the USSR survive as an integrated whole? Would Lenin keep as tight a grip on the SSRs as Stalin did?
Lenin died in January 1924, not 1923. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group" - Douglas Adams
Posts: 6,263
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Aug 4, 2020 16:43:02 GMT
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, aka Lenin, died in 1924, aged 53. But what if he had recovered from his illness(es) and survived into old age? He was highly critical of Stalin, considering him unsuited to the role of Gen Sec of the Communist Party, and favoured Trotsky over him. So, some possibilities ...
1) He has Stalin removed and replaced by Trotsky. Stalin is sidelined, but works to build an alternative power base and waits for Lenin's demise anyway. 2) As above, but Stalin's career is over and he slinks back to Georgia. Trotsky takes over on Lenin's death (do we really expect Lenin to retire?) 3) Both Trotsky and Stalin are disgraced and flee, with someone else succeeding Lenin.
Other questions - the purges, do they never happen, or does Lenin carry out purges of his own? If so, on what scale?
- the development of the USSR, how does this differ from Stalin's model? - isolationist USSR vs interventionist? Does it get involved in WW2, and if so does it ally with UK/USA/France? - how long does the USSR survive as an integrated whole? Would Lenin keep as tight a grip on the SSRs as Stalin did?
Lenin died in January 1924, not 1923. Corrected, thanks, but he was still only 53. |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Aug 4, 2020 17:38:04 GMT
It's a good question. Lenin had become very critical of Stalin, so it's easy to imagine him being pushed aside. While Stalin might have moved more slowly if Lenin was well, Lenin was young enough that he could have been around for many more years. Stalin was big on plotting and poor at being patient, and while Lenin remained popular, he would have misstepped at some point and been removed.
Trotsky was in favour and there was no reason for that to change. Nine years younger than Lenin, he might have succeeded at some point, but that wouldn't have been any time soon. More likely, he would have remained second-in-command and by the time Lenin did stand down, some previously minor figure would be his successor.
Lenin and Trotsky would have pursued a much more internationalist approach. It's easy to imagine them sending enough troops to win the Spanish Civil War. It's interesting to consider whether the German communists, with stronger Soviet backing, could do anything about the rise of Nazism, and if it came to war, whether this would be much earlier than WWII, and how their approach might differ.
|
|
|
|
Post by boogieeck on Aug 4, 2020 18:19:33 GMT
Stalin was a nationalist. Trotsky was indeed more of a rootless cosmopolitan. And that is why he would never have succeeded Lenin.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 4, 2020 22:06:57 GMT
It's a good question. Lenin had become very critical of Stalin, so it's easy to imagine him being pushed aside. While Stalin might have moved more slowly if Lenin was well, Lenin was young enough that he could have been around for many more years. Stalin was big on plotting and poor at being patient, and while Lenin remained popular, he would have misstepped at some point and been removed. Trotsky was in favour and there was no reason for that to change. Nine years younger than Lenin, he might have succeeded at some point, but that wouldn't have been any time soon. More likely, he would have remained second-in-command and by the time Lenin did stand down, some previously minor figure would be his successor. Lenin and Trotsky would have pursued a much more internationalist approach. It's easy to imagine them sending enough troops to win the Spanish Civil War. It's interesting to consider whether the German communists, with stronger Soviet backing, could do anything about the rise of Nazism, and if it came to war, whether this would be much earlier than WWII, and how their approach might differ. Trotsky wouldn't have succeeded. He was an opportunist who jumped on the bandwagon of the revolution just before, and then jumped off again afterwards. He was not of the right temperament or personality to be a successful leader; he thought he could just issue orders and commands (as if he was a military commander) and things would just happen as if by magic. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 28,761
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 5, 2020 10:54:39 GMT
Lenin would have been just as ruthless as Stalin was Lenin showed in his lifetime he was quite capable of being ruthless and indeed brutal. But that he would have replicated Stalin's epoch making excesses had he lived a few more decades remains highly debatable. |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Aug 5, 2020 15:03:30 GMT
It's a good question. Lenin had become very critical of Stalin, so it's easy to imagine him being pushed aside. While Stalin might have moved more slowly if Lenin was well, Lenin was young enough that he could have been around for many more years. Stalin was big on plotting and poor at being patient, and while Lenin remained popular, he would have misstepped at some point and been removed. Trotsky was in favour and there was no reason for that to change. Nine years younger than Lenin, he might have succeeded at some point, but that wouldn't have been any time soon. More likely, he would have remained second-in-command and by the time Lenin did stand down, some previously minor figure would be his successor. Lenin and Trotsky would have pursued a much more internationalist approach. It's easy to imagine them sending enough troops to win the Spanish Civil War. It's interesting to consider whether the German communists, with stronger Soviet backing, could do anything about the rise of Nazism, and if it came to war, whether this would be much earlier than WWII, and how their approach might differ. Trotsky wouldn't have succeeded. He was an opportunist who jumped on the bandwagon of the revolution just before, and then jumped off again afterwards. He was not of the right temperament or personality to be a successful leader; he thought he could just issue orders and commands (as if he was a military commander) and things would just happen as if by magic. He'd been fomenting revolution for many years before 1917, and though you could argue his entry into the Bolsheviks was opportunist, by that point he basically agreed with them on every significant point. Then he spent the remainder of his life campaigning for revolutions and many years trying to work within the official communist movement. He was as committed to it as anyone. On his leadership style, he wasn't as persuasive as Lenin, and seemed comfortable with the role of military commander, but though the Trotskyist movement wasn't very successful, his leadership of it was far less dictatorial than Stalin's approach to the CPSU or the Comintern. |
|
finsobruce
Labour
Adopt an orphan ward now!
Posts: 34,033
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 5, 2020 15:49:37 GMT
Trotsky wouldn't have succeeded. He was an opportunist who jumped on the bandwagon of the revolution just before, and then jumped off again afterwards. He was not of the right temperament or personality to be a successful leader; he thought he could just issue orders and commands (as if he was a military commander) and things would just happen as if by magic. He'd been fomenting revolution for many years before 1917, and though you could argue his entry into the Bolsheviks was opportunist, by that point he basically agreed with them on every significant point. Then he spent the remainder of his life campaigning for revolutions and many years trying to work within the official communist movement. He was as committed to it as anyone. On his leadership style, he wasn't as persuasive as Lenin, and seemed comfortable with the role of military commander, but though the Trotskyist movement wasn't very successful, his leadership of it was far less dictatorial than Stalin's.it would be quite difficult to be more dictatorial than Stalin.  |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Aug 5, 2020 16:03:13 GMT
He'd been fomenting revolution for many years before 1917, and though you could argue his entry into the Bolsheviks was opportunist, by that point he basically agreed with them on every significant point. Then he spent the remainder of his life campaigning for revolutions and many years trying to work within the official communist movement. He was as committed to it as anyone. On his leadership style, he wasn't as persuasive as Lenin, and seemed comfortable with the role of military commander, but though the Trotskyist movement wasn't very successful, his leadership of it was far less dictatorial than Stalin's.it would be quite difficult to be more dictatorial than Stalin. Indeed, hardly a recommendation! But if Stalin could lead the Soviet Union, Trotsky could have done, though I doubt he had sufficient drive to position himself to the get job. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Aug 5, 2020 16:04:41 GMT
It's arguable that the USSR would have persisted with the New Economic Policy, tolerating some elements of capitalism within a regulated system as opposed to the appalling in human terms collectivisation and emphasis on heavy industry. However it's also arguable that the increasing emphasis on heavy industry - the mass production of simple, sturdy but effective weaponry - and a massive and collecively organised populaton provided the basis for the eventual defeat of Hitler.
|
|
finsobruce
Labour
Adopt an orphan ward now!
Posts: 34,033
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 5, 2020 16:05:52 GMT
it would be quite difficult to be more dictatorial than Stalin. Indeed, hardly a recommendation! But if Stalin could lead the Soviet Union, Trotsky could have done, though I doubt he had sufficient drive to position himself to the get job. ah, too busy with his other hobbies of basket weaving and butterfly collecting.  |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Aug 5, 2020 16:11:24 GMT
Indeed, hardly a recommendation! But if Stalin could lead the Soviet Union, Trotsky could have done, though I doubt he had sufficient drive to position himself to the get job. ah, too busy with his other hobbies of basket weaving and butterfly collecting. Haha! The impression I have is that he was reasonably satisfied with Lenin's leadership, and if he came to disagree sufficiently to want him replaced, he'd be more likely to set up an open faction which wouldn't get very far. Unlike Stalin, he hadn't spent much time plotting and building coalitions to take over when Lenin died, hence in real life he lost out, I think the same would have happened if Lenin lived and retired or died years down the line, unless perhaps he made it clear that he was only going if Trotsky succeeded him. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,420
|
Post by slon on Aug 5, 2020 16:36:52 GMT
Any hope for us Mensheviks?
|
|
finsobruce
Labour
Adopt an orphan ward now!
Posts: 34,033
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 5, 2020 17:21:57 GMT
Any hope for us Mensheviks? Not much. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 9,173
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 5, 2020 17:44:04 GMT
Stalin was Commissar of Nationalities, charged with drawing boundaries of the entities making up the Soviet Union. Surely that makes him an honorary member of this forum?  |
|
finsobruce
Labour
Adopt an orphan ward now!
Posts: 34,033
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 5, 2020 17:55:48 GMT
Stalin was Commissar of Nationalities, charged with drawing boundaries of the entities making up the Soviet Union. Surely that makes him an honorary member of this forum? Commissar for getting rid of nationalities more like.
Forum News:
Comrade Stalin has won the election for administrator of the forum 5,302, 702 votes to six. He also won Vote UK personality of the year for the seventeenth year running by the same margin.
The six were not available for comment. "They have been sent on holiday" said Uncle Joe "A long holiday". "To look at boundaries". "In Siberia".
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 2,887
|
Post by cj on Aug 5, 2020 23:23:54 GMT
Stalin was Commissar of Nationalities, charged with drawing boundaries of the entities making up the Soviet Union. Surely that makes him an honorary member of this forum? Nominal head that was absent from many of the meetings thrashing out the details, upset regions over his approach (The Georgian affair) and the big L himself in the end.
Doesn't that fit more with the BCE...
|
|
