Lenin survives into old age

[Chris from Brum]

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?

[johnloony]

Lenin would have been just as ruthless as Stalin was

[J.G.Harston]

Aug 4, 2020 16:02:14 GMT johnloony said:

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.

[greenhert]

Aug 4, 2020 14:16:45 GMT Chris from Brum said:

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]

Aug 4, 2020 16:41:46 GMT greenhert said:

Aug 4, 2020 14:16:45 GMT Chris from Brum said:

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.

[warofdreams]

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.

[johnloony]

Aug 4, 2020 17:38:04 GMT warofdreams said:

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]

Aug 4, 2020 16:02:14 GMT johnloony said:

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.

[warofdreams]

Aug 4, 2020 22:06:57 GMT johnloony said:

Aug 4, 2020 17:38:04 GMT warofdreams said:

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]

Aug 5, 2020 15:03:30 GMT warofdreams said:

Aug 4, 2020 22:06:57 GMT johnloony said:

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.

[warofdreams]

Aug 5, 2020 15:49:37 GMT finsobruce said:

Aug 5, 2020 15:03:30 GMT warofdreams said:

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.

[matureleft]

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]

Aug 5, 2020 16:03:13 GMT warofdreams said:

Aug 5, 2020 15:49:37 GMT finsobruce said:

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.

[warofdreams]

Aug 5, 2020 16:05:52 GMT finsobruce said:

Aug 5, 2020 16:03:13 GMT warofdreams said:

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]

Any hope for us Mensheviks?

[finsobruce]

Aug 5, 2020 16:36:52 GMT slon said:

Any hope for us Mensheviks?

Not much.

[J.G.Harston]

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]

Aug 5, 2020 17:44:04 GMT J.G.Harston said:

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]

Aug 5, 2020 17:44:04 GMT J.G.Harston said:

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...

[Forfarshire Conservative]

This is an interesting question and I'll have a crack at it. matureleft has expressed some of my points, but I'll make them anyway😅.

If Lenin survives into old age, I'm assuming the thirties and the forties are the area of play here, then I don't think he would've been succeeded, so I'm going to conveniently ignore succession speculation.

I think a few things would've happened😉.

First, the NEP would've lasted. This means that Lenin's Soviet Union would've allowed much more international trade and capital in the USSR as "The Great Break" wouldn't have happened. Thus, I believe, that the Soviet Union would've been impacted by the Great Depression much more than in our reality. I further believe that the industrial revolution that occurred in the USSR wouldn't have occurred to the same extent either. Meaning that the USSR's war machine would've been much less prepared than it actually was.

In terms of foreign policy, Lenin admired Western Europe, particularly Germany, and believed that Russia should emulate it. He believed that Russia was a backwards Asian country and looked down upon the Russian peasantry. The initial attempts to instigate revolutions in Europe failed and Russia essentially attempted to pursue a policy of detente. An example is the Treaty of Rapallo with Weimar. This would've continued, with FDR coming to power and recognising the USSR this would've been cemented. Upon Hitler's ascension, things would've played out similar to our timeline until 1939. I do not believe that Lenin would've signed a pact with Hitler, and even if he did sign a non aggression pact, I don't believe he would've went for the territorial expansion that Stalin went for. He may well have wanted to reintegrate the Baltic's, but he wouldn't have went for Finland in my view. Thus the lack of the Winter War wouldn't have exposed the Red Army's lack of preparedness for a war and the consequences that has for Barbarossa. The Great Purge was only part of the reason for the Red Army's catastrophic showing in that war.

As for the war in the east, it would've eventually come. Hitler wanted his Lebensraum and that was his main goal. If things go similar to our timeline, France falls, not in six weeks in this scenario, but it eventually does and the Wehrmacht is halted by the Channel and the Luftwaffe kept at bay by the RAF. France takes longer to capitulate because Hitler has to keep forces in Poland, which without a pact he fully occupied, to guard against any Soviet incursion as presumably the threat, from Moscow's POV, has become obvious by this point. When Barbarossa happens it's more successful than in our timeline but isn't the total defeat of our dystopian imaginations. The lack of industrial capcity and the lack of a war with Finland to expose Russian weakness means the Nazis push further, probably taking Leningrad, Moscow and perhaps Tsaritsyn. The Rasputitsa still bogs down the Germans however and with this providing the Russians time and I think they'll eventually fight themselves to a standstill along Volga. In the end the situation resembles WW1 on the Western Front and eventually the phony war/sitzkrieg. Lenin, if he didn't die in the fall of Moscow, or at the hands of a coup, dies in Kazan as the man who led a revolution to build the world's first Communist state and ultimately lost it.