slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,327 
|
Post by slon on Aug 6, 2020 10:54:15 GMT
Any hope for us Mensheviks? Not much. Maybe ... Vlad was a realist and once in power might see the value of social structure in the chaos of the peasant-based proletarian revolution which was already in trouble and was partly responsible for the famine in 1920/21
evidence the New Economic Policy of 1921
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 6, 2020 11:12:17 GMT
Maybe ... Vlad was a realist and once in power might see the value of social structure in the chaos of the peasant-based proletarian revolution which was already in trouble and was partly responsible for the famine in 1920/21
evidence the New Economic Policy of 1921
Since the Bolshevik faction was formed in the first place by Lenin when he lost a vote against the Mensheviks over the composition of a revolutionary party, this seems unlikely. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,327
|
Post by slon on Aug 6, 2020 14:01:31 GMT
Maybe ... Vlad was a realist and once in power might see the value of social structure in the chaos of the peasant-based proletarian revolution which was already in trouble and was partly responsible for the famine in 1920/21
evidence the New Economic Policy of 1921
Since the Bolshevik faction was formed in the first place by Lenin when he lost a vote against the Mensheviks over the composition of a revolutionary party, this seems unlikely. Water under the bridge, Vlad & Leon were never ones to hold a grudge. For Joe politics was about remaining in power .... we knew too much so we had to go.
Vlad was beginning to see (see NEP) that the cost of placating the peasents would ruin the nation and destroy the ideals of communism .... something we had been saying since 1905
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Aug 6, 2020 15:06:15 GMT
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.
But would he have lost the revolutionary country he formed?
Taking your scenario as given, whether he loses or not doesn't that depend on other ww2 factors. For me the key is whether the USA gets involved and that depends on Japan more than Germany. For me Pearl Harbour still happens and the USA is involved, therefore its only a matter of time before Hitler is defeated.
The question then becomes how far East do the UK, USA and allies get before encountering the Soviet / Russian forces. Over all of Germany, into Ukraine and Poland or further? The size of the Soviet Union might be smaller but Russia would still be there.
The big question thererfore is whether the army has overthrown the communists yoke, personally I don't think so because the party and Russia would have been one and the same for war purposes. They might only have Russia and a rump smashed agrarian state but I think the Communist Party would hang on during WW2. Its survival in power after the war might be more difficult if its recovery does not occur quickly enough.
|
|
DrW
Conservative
Posts: 578
|
Post by DrW on Aug 6, 2020 16:57:53 GMT
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. I think of a significant part of the Heer that was in France in our timeline is tied up in Eastern Poland watching out for the Soviets then the invasion of France is likely to go differently. The Germans had a huge amount of luck for everything in the crucial stages to go their way and the butterflies unleashed by no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact may well alter the campaign in France decisively. Indeed the Germans may well be occupied dealing with the Poles in the Romanian bridgehead if there is no Soviet intervention. My impression of Lenin is that he is far less likely to go about purging the Party in such a violent fashion than Stalin. I’m no expert on the era but it seems that Stain encountered some resistance from CPSU members in applying the same brutality to Party comrades as they did to non-Communists. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 6, 2020 18:47:06 GMT
My impression of Lenin is that he is far less likely to go about purging the Party in such a violent fashion than Stalin. I’m no expert on the era but it seems that Stain encountered some resistance from CPSU members in applying the same brutality to Party comrades as they did to non-Communists. My understanding is that one of the factors driving the purges was Stalin's personal paranoia. Lenin does not appear to have had this particular personality flaw, so whilst it's likely there would have been some purges (this is, after all a totalitarian dictatorship), it seems very likely that they would have been less extensive.
It's also worth noting that without the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Nazi invasion of Poland might well have started later (since there would be less assurance of success) and would have taken longer (since he would have needed to conquer the entire country, rather than just half, and the Poles wouldn't have had to defend against the Soviets at the same time).
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 6, 2020 18:59:34 GMT
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. Indeed the Germans may well be occupied dealing with the Poles in the Romanian bridgehead if there is no Soviet intervention. My impression of Lenin is that he is far less likely to go about purging the Party in such a violent fashion than Stalin. I’m no expert on the era but it seems that Stain encountered some resistance from CPSU members in applying the same brutality to Party comrades as they did to non-Communists. I very much agree. I think the most plausible scenarios are 1. Prolonged two-front war along the lines of 1914-18. If so, Germany is doomed due to British naval superiority and the dependence of all European nations on imports via the Atlantic This is what happened in 1918 even with German victory in the east and the scenario is much worse for Hitler because the main war materials in 1914 were coal and steel but mechanisation and air warfare had brought oil, rubber and aluminium heavily into the picture, all of which are to Germany's disadvantage since she possessed none and did not have colonies with them. 2. Rapid German victory in France as happened IRL David's scenario of a slow German victory in the west depends on France not collapsing but being worn down by Germany which seems very implausible; the reverse is much likelier. In a long campaign GB should gradually mobilise its resources in support of France. If we accept his premise of no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (plausible enough) the position for Germany gets much worse, and even raises the prospect of Soviet intervention against Germany in Poland (possibly in support of a puppet communist Polish government if the right wing government is discredited by German invasion, which I understand was the case IRL for many Poles who felt the right-wing had failed to take the threat of the Nazis sufficiently seriously relative to their fear of the USSR) Irrespective of who was leader of the USSR I don't think we can discount the really very impressive Soviet performance in military technology c 1930-1960. The T26 was regarded as the best tank of the Spanish Civil War, vastly outperforming the little German Panzer I and even more pathetic Italian tankettes. The T 34 was the best basic tank of WW2 and produced in much larger numbers than any other. The Kalashnikov produced just after WW2 was the outstanding rifle of the C20th. Soviet fighters and ground attack planes were very competitive and post war the early MiG fighters were a hell of a shock to the US in Korea. Quite how this was so given the general inefficiency of the Soviet system and the rubbish Soviet industry later pumped out but it was there nevertheless and added to the general difficulty of winning a war of aggression against Russia I think any German victory over the USSR is a long shot unless the communists screw up so badly as to bring down a civil war or 1917-style collapse on themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 6, 2020 19:09:26 GMT
Trotsky's skill was undoubtedly military strategy. Assuming he would have remained influential that may have had an impact?
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 7, 2020 9:33:40 GMT
Something that vanishes with no Stalin, and has an impact much later, does not make itself obvious until much later.
Stalin's purges essentially took out most Party apparatchiks over 40. In their place, a vast number of these posts were filled by one generation aged around 25-35, loyal to Stalin and to each other. With nobody above them, and no room for anyone else to be promoted, these became the gerontocracy that ruled from Brezhnev until the rise of Gorbachev. If you look at the years that various major figures were born, it's more clear: Brezhnev 1906, Andropov 1914, Chernenko 1911, Suslov 1902, Kosygin 1904. The same could be seen in several other Eastern Bloc countries, because the same older generation had been annihilated in the purges after fleeing to Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 7, 2020 9:51:55 GMT
Another question to ponder is- what is the impact on the surrounding countries? In the mid-Twenties, having effectively taken control of Mongolia and Tuva, the Soviets were meddling in China and even allied with Chiang. Chiang then fell out with them. If Lenin ends up spending more time pacifying Central Asia and trying to foment revolution in China, then the USSR is probably seen as less of a threat in the West- which very possibly means no Hitler, as we all know about the symbiotic relationship between fascism and communism in that era.
|
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Aug 7, 2020 10:03:52 GMT
Another question to ponder is- what is the impact on the surrounding countries? In the mid-Twenties, having effectively taken control of Mongolia and Tuva, the Soviets were meddling in China and even allied with Chiang. Chiang then fell out with them. If Lenin ends up spending more time pacifying Central Asia and trying to foment revolution in China, then the USSR is probably seen as less of a threat in the West- which very possibly means no Hitler, as we all know about the symbiotic relationship between fascism and communism in that era. They didn't see trying to foment revolution in China and in Europe as mutually exclusive. They would have given more backing to the European communist parties and would have committed more troops to the Spanish Civil War, so they would have been seen as more of a threat to the West, not less. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 7, 2020 10:08:19 GMT
Another question to ponder is- what is the impact on the surrounding countries? In the mid-Twenties, having effectively taken control of Mongolia and Tuva, the Soviets were meddling in China and even allied with Chiang. Chiang then fell out with them. If Lenin ends up spending more time pacifying Central Asia and trying to foment revolution in China, then the USSR is probably seen as less of a threat in the West- which very possibly means no Hitler, as we all know about the symbiotic relationship between fascism and communism in that era. They didn't see trying to foment revolution in China and in Europe as mutually exclusive. They would have given more backing to the European communist parties and would have committed more troops to the Spanish Civil War, so they would have been seen as more of a threat to the West, not less. I suppose there has to be a question of resources. I wonder as well if Japan finds itself maintaining the relations with the West of the First World War, with the promise of expansion on the Russian Far East coast. |
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by cj on Aug 7, 2020 18:04:31 GMT
Nobody seems to have raise the point yet about big-moustache leaders military purges (I know soo many purges soo little time) crippling the USSR military.
If this had not have happened there was no need for a weakened state to enter a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany (clause 1 anyway), although for Germany the need would have been greater.
Of course a more powerful and stable USSR could well have increased support for those in the west who sought to strengthen the Nazi regime as a bulwark against the Soviets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 8, 2020 10:20:06 GMT
Nobody seems to have raise the point yet about big-moustache leaders military purges (I know soo many purges soo little time) crippling the USSR military.
If this had not have happened there was no need for a weakened state to enter a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany (clause 1 anyway), although for Germany the need would have been greater.
Of course a more powerful and stable USSR could well have increased support for those in the west who sought to strengthen the Nazi regime as a bulwark against the Soviets.
If you take out the secret protocols of course...and after all, Molotov held talks about the Soviets joining the Axis and described the difference between communism and fascism as "a matter of taste". But yes, I can't see Lenin or a non-Stalin successor being up for that. But then again, a more aggressively revolutionary USSR might have led to more aggressive action against domestic communist parties in parts of western Europe, and in turn less of a communist threat for fascism to set itself against. Had Weimar Germany banned the KPD as a tool of a foreign power, as the West Germans did after the war, you're almost certainly looking at more stable government, probably dominated by the SPD and Zentrum. It would essentially guarantee a democratic government after every election including at the Nazi apogee in 1932. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Aug 8, 2020 14:11:02 GMT
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.
But would he have lost the revolutionary country he formed?
Taking your scenario as given, whether he loses or not doesn't that depend on other ww2 factors. For me the key is whether the USA gets involved and that depends on Japan more than Germany. For me Pearl Harbour still happens and the USA is involved, therefore its only a matter of time before Hitler is defeated.
The question then becomes how far East do the UK, USA and allies get before encountering the Soviet / Russian forces. Over all of Germany, into Ukraine and Poland or further? The size of the Soviet Union might be smaller but Russia would still be there.
The big question thererfore is whether the army has overthrown the communists yoke, personally I don't think so because the party and Russia would have been one and the same for war purposes. They might only have Russia and a rump smashed agrarian state but I think the Communist Party would hang on during WW2. Its survival in power after the war might be more difficult if its recovery does not occur quickly enough.
I don't agree with that. A Germany that stretches from Brest to the Volga would be unassailable on the continent. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Aug 8, 2020 14:13:45 GMT
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. I think of a significant part of the Heer that was in France in our timeline is tied up in Eastern Poland watching out for the Soviets then the invasion of France is likely to go differently. The Germans had a huge amount of luck for everything in the crucial stages to go their way and the butterflies unleashed by no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact may well alter the campaign in France decisively. Indeed the Germans may well be occupied dealing with the Poles in the Romanian bridgehead if there is no Soviet intervention. My impression of Lenin is that he is far less likely to go about purging the Party in such a violent fashion than Stalin. I’m no expert on the era but it seems that Stain encountered some resistance from CPSU members in applying the same brutality to Party comrades as they did to non-Communists. I would counter that the blitzkrieg via the Ardennes would still catch the Anglo-French-Belgian forces off guard and, as in our timeline, surround a vast chunk of them as the motorised parts of the Wehrmacht reached the Channel ports. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Aug 8, 2020 15:08:50 GMT
But would he have lost the revolutionary country he formed?
Taking your scenario as given, whether he loses or not doesn't that depend on other ww2 factors. For me the key is whether the USA gets involved and that depends on Japan more than Germany. For me Pearl Harbour still happens and the USA is involved, therefore its only a matter of time before Hitler is defeated.
The question then becomes how far East do the UK, USA and allies get before encountering the Soviet / Russian forces. Over all of Germany, into Ukraine and Poland or further? The size of the Soviet Union might be smaller but Russia would still be there.
The big question thererfore is whether the army has overthrown the communists yoke, personally I don't think so because the party and Russia would have been one and the same for war purposes. They might only have Russia and a rump smashed agrarian state but I think the Communist Party would hang on during WW2. Its survival in power after the war might be more difficult if its recovery does not occur quickly enough.
I don't agree with that. A Germany that stretches from Brest to the Volga would be unassailable on the continent.
Apologies if I wasn't clear, that's not what I meant.
Germany defeated in this WW2 and the Allies go East, so no Warsaw Pact and maybe free democratic Poland, Ukraine etc, with a united democratic Germany but on similar boundries to now. So the Communists are resricted more to Russian than Soviet land.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,789
|
Post by john07 on Aug 25, 2020 1:26:57 GMT
Stalin was Commissar of Nationalities) Stalin was rather like Militant in the 1980s UK, except that they wanted to nationalise the monopolies, and he wanted to monopolise the nationalities. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Aug 25, 2020 1:34:54 GMT
I'd recommend John Gray's book "The Immortalization Commission". www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/29/healthmindandbody-history"Such teleological wishfulness was as nothing compared to the mad dreams of the group of savants who hatched the scheme not only to embalm Lenin's body but to ensure that one day the man himself would be brought back from the dead." |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,789
|
Post by john07 on Aug 25, 2020 11:38:42 GMT
My impression of Lenin is that he is far less likely to go about purging the Party in such a violent fashion than Stalin. I’m no expert on the era but it seems that Stain encountered some resistance from CPSU members in applying the same brutality to Party comrades as they did to non-Communists. My understanding is that one of the factors driving the purges was Stalin's personal paranoia. Lenin does not appear to have had this particular personality flaw, so whilst it's likely there would have been some purges (this is, after all a totalitarian dictatorship), it seems very likely that they would have been less extensive. It's also worth noting that without the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Nazi invasion of Poland might well have started later (since there would be less assurance of success) and would have taken longer (since he would have needed to conquer the entire country, rather than just half, and the Poles wouldn't have had to defend against the Soviets at the same time).
Are you sure about that? The account I read stated that the Soviets conspicuously didn't move until the Germans had overrun the Polish Army. This was presumably an attempt to deflect blame. Either way, the Polish Army with its elite cavalry would never have been able to put up much resistance against Panzers. |
|
