StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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?

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.

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.

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?

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).

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

If you disagree, PM me.