20th Century without Stalin

HIST: Discussions about the last 4000 years of history, give or take a few days.

Moderators: Thanas, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5302
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

20th Century without Stalin

Postby Sidewinder » 2010-08-20 03:25pm

It's 1924. Lenin is dead, the USSR and its Communist Party need a new leader. Joseph Stalin is unavailable- he died four years ago, during the Polish-Soviet War. The Soviets are asking themselves, "Who's worthy? Who's worthy?"

How does the 20th century develop from here? Will Leon Trotsky continue sending the military west to install Communist governments in Europe? Will Lenin's successor begin a Great Purge to secure his position?

How will other nations respond? Will the US be as anti-Communist as it is historically, with no Stalin? Assuming there's no purge of Red Army officers, will Germany be hesitant to invade the USSR? Will Hitler become Chancellor at all, without Stalin as a "boogeyman" to help justify a preemptive strike?
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 19051
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: 20th Century without Stalin

Postby K. A. Pital » 2010-08-20 10:24pm

Sidewinder wrote:It's 1924. Lenin is dead, the USSR and its Communist Party need a new leader. Joseph Stalin is unavailable- he died four years ago, during the Polish-Soviet War. The Soviets are asking themselves, "Who's worthy? Who's worthy?"

How does the 20th century develop from here? Will Leon Trotsky continue sending the military west to install Communist governments in Europe? Will Lenin's successor begin a Great Purge to secure his position?

How will other nations respond? Will the US be as anti-Communist as it is historically, with no Stalin? Assuming there's no purge of Red Army officers, will Germany be hesitant to invade the USSR? Will Hitler become Chancellor at all, without Stalin as a "boogeyman" to help justify a preemptive strike?

It is too complex a question. The early Soviet government was a mix of people, where technically each could take power (or none). The USSR might well be ruled by a collective, without a strong single leader, for a longer time. The presence or absence of Stalin par se doesn't change Hitler's stance on communists and Slavs - untermenschen. A union between communists and social democrats during the German election wouldn't prevent Hitler from taking over. SDPG and CPG got 30,6% together, whereas NSDAP got 43,9%, and with allies (small nationalist and bourgeois parties) - 51,9%, a direct majority.

The US wasn't that anti-Communist in the 1930s and even helped the USSR to industrialize. I doubt much would change if someone else would be at the helm. The US intervention in the Russian civil war, it's largest anti-communist act against the Soviet Union, happened before Lenin's death.

Purges are not a given - in a collective rule purges would be hard to pull off, and even a individual leader can avoid them - dependign on the political course he takes, which is too much an unknown.
Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth,
the tyranny of a plutocracy.

Theodore Roosevelt

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27336
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: 20th Century without Stalin

Postby Simon_Jester » 2010-08-20 10:56pm

I don't think Stalin was seen as such a great villain at the time as he is today. Remember, this was an era when Mussolini got good reviews for being a 'strong reformer;' even Hitler earned respect for the impression that German was recovering from World War One on his watch.

It wasn't until after the Second World War, when we started to get a better collective feeling for how much totalitarianism can cost, that we started viewing totalitarian leaders as monsters.

User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5302
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

Re: 20th Century without Stalin

Postby Sidewinder » 2010-08-21 01:03am

Stas Bush wrote:The US wasn't that anti-Communist in the 1930s and even helped the USSR to industrialize. I doubt much would change if someone else would be at the helm. The US intervention in the Russian civil war, it's largest anti-communist act against the Soviet Union, happened before Lenin's death.

Do you mean Lenin's potential successors will keep trying to forment a Communist revolution in what the US sees as its sphere of influence (Mexico, Central and South America, the Phillipines)- instead of discouraging such reckless behavior to avoid being drawn into a war with the US, as Stalin seemed to be- and thus guarantee a Soviet-American conflict?
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 19051
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: 20th Century without Stalin

Postby K. A. Pital » 2010-08-21 01:15am

Sidewinder wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:The US wasn't that anti-Communist in the 1930s and even helped the USSR to industrialize. I doubt much would change if someone else would be at the helm. The US intervention in the Russian civil war, it's largest anti-communist act against the Soviet Union, happened before Lenin's death.

Do you mean Lenin's potential successors will keep trying to forment a Communist revolution in what the US sees as its sphere of influence (Mexico, Central and South America, the Phillipines)- instead of discouraging such reckless behavior to avoid being drawn into a war with the US, as Stalin seemed to be- and thus guarantee a Soviet-American conflict?

The "Socialism in one country" policy is by no ways guaranteed under a different leader(s).
Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth,
the tyranny of a plutocracy.

Theodore Roosevelt

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 29609
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: 20th Century without Stalin

Postby Thanas » 2010-08-21 04:11pm

Already asked and answered and we have a ton of such threads already. No need for another.

If you disagree, PM me.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs


Return to “History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest