Lenin and oppressed slavs - was he right?

[lord of the mark]

"the Slavs who are oppressed by her ally Austria undoubtedly enjoy far more freedom than those in tsarist Russia, that real "prison of nations.""

V I Lenin.

[germanos]

Re: Lenin and oppressed slavs - was he right?

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"the Slavs who are oppressed by her ally Austria undoubtedly enjoy far more freedom than those in tsarist Russia, that real "prison of nations.""

V I Lenin.

Yes, he was right.

As he was on many things, not the least his opinioun on Stalin.

Lenin

[Dr Strangelove]

How differen would history have been if Stalin had died instead of his rival, or perhaps if he had been caught attemptng to assassinate his rival?

[Arrian]

You think that Lenin would've led the USSR into a period of sweetness and light?

I don't have much trouble believing Lenin > Stalin, but that's because of what Stalin was, not because Lenin was such a great guy.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

by Stalins "rival" i assume Doc means Trotsky, not Lenin.
Trotsky wasnt so nice either, and much of what Stalin did Trotsky probably would have as well (for example much of what happened in Ukraine), though Trotsky undoubtedly wouldnt have been as paranoid, and there would probably have been fewer high level communists purged.

[Lorizael]

Is there any way things could have turned out well in Russia?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Is there any way things could have turned out well in Russia?

My preferred what if is one where the western allies are wise enough to not pressure the Russians into offensive action in 1917, and somehow the Kerensky regime manages to make it through the winter, and survives to go to the peace conference after Germany surrenders, a few months earlier than in OTL. Its STILL a very weak base for a liberal democracy, its going to look like "Weimar Russia" and will have trouble getting really established before the great depression hits. On the other hand the advantage "Weimar Russia" will have, that OTL Weimar Germany did not, is that there isnt a USSR sitting around as an example of successful revolution, so its not real clear just what does happen.

Another possibility is that a sane and pragmatic right wing authoritarian takes over - in essence they get a Putin, 80 years earlier.


Im assuming of course that youre talking a post 1914 POD. If we go back before, their may well be other options, but im not familiar enough with Russian political history.

[Arrian]

by Stalins "rival" i assume Doc means Trotsky, not Lenin.

Indeed. I mixed up germanos' thumbs up for Lenin with Doc's post.

As you noted, Trotsky wasn't the nicest guy either.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian


Indeed. I mixed up germanos' thumbs up for Lenin with Doc's post.

As you noted, Trotsky wasn't the nicest guy either.

-Arrian

One of my English professors had been one of Trotsky's bodyguards.

Hey, Leon. As long as your up, get the door, will you?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Is there any way things could have turned out well in Russia?

I think that a smarter man might have saved Russia. Stalin was, by my modest estimate, a dumbass. Trotsky was an intelligent guy, as was Lenin. I think that when faced with evidence that something is really, really bad, they would have compromised (think NEP). Stalin on the other hand is the guy to stay the course even when it is clearly hurting even his own goals.

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

sane and pragmatic right wing authoritarian

Spread the love

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
by Stalins "rival" i assume Doc means Trotsky, not Lenin.
Trotsky wasnt so nice either, and much of what Stalin did Trotsky probably would have as well (for example much of what happened in Ukraine), though Trotsky undoubtedly wouldnt have been as paranoid, and there would probably have been fewer high level communists purged.

I was thinking of Sergi Kirov, whose murder in 1934 sparked the great purges. In the party meeting of 1934 Kirov received merely 3 "nyet" votes to Stalin's 292. Stalin had been in power for 6 years by this time.

In between Lenin's death and the purges which began after Kirov's death power in the SU favored between factions. Originally Stalin shared power with Kamenev and Zinoviev as a troika who assumed power after Stalin's stroke in 1922. Together they opposed Trotsky, but in 1925 Stalin allied himself with Bukharin and by 1927 Trotsky and Zinoviev were forced out of the government and Kamenev's role was reduced. In 1928 Stalin seperated from Bukharin. Disaffection with Stalin began to grow to the point where as I mentioned above he was voted the most unpopular party leader late in 1934. The murder of Kirov by Nikolaev gave Stalin the tools to oust his detractors.

The question is then how different would Russian history be if Kirov or Bukharin had won control of the government?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


My preferred what if is one where the western allies are wise enough to not pressure the Russians into offensive action in 1917, and somehow the Kerensky regime manages to make it through the winter, and survives to go to the peace conference after Germany surrenders, a few months earlier than in OTL. Its STILL a very weak base for a liberal democracy, its going to look like "Weimar Russia" and will have trouble getting really established before the great depression hits. On the other hand the advantage "Weimar Russia" will have, that OTL Weimar Germany did not, is that there isnt a USSR sitting around as an example of successful revolution, so its not real clear just what does happen.

Another possibility is that a sane and pragmatic right wing authoritarian takes over - in essence they get a Putin, 80 years earlier.


Im assuming of course that youre talking a post 1914 POD. If we go back before, their may well be other options, but im not familiar enough with Russian political history.

Russia had no chance of becoming a liberal democracy - the masses of the people ion the countryside supported socialism - not the rigid form of Bolshevism, but they certainly would not have supported a weak regime like kerensky. 1917 was too late already - the fact that a relatively small group like the Bolsheviks could overthrow him just shows his weakness. There was nothing the allies could have done. For that same reason, I doubt any authoritaria could have out the country back together.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Russia had no chance of becoming a liberal democracy - the masses of the people ion the countryside supported socialism - not the rigid form of Bolshevism, but they certainly would not have supported a weak regime like kerensky.

Kerensky WAS a socialist, a right SR. What the peasants wanted was land. Whether Kerensky could have delivered sufficient land reform, and fast enough, is not clear. He was weak in large part cause the army was dissolving, under the conditions of war.

1917 was too late already - the fact that a relatively small group like the Bolsheviks could overthrow him just shows his weakness.

The bolsheviks had the support of the left SRs, and used the conditions of war, including the disinclination of the Petrograd garrison to go to the front, and its preference for revolution as opposed to front line service, to achieve their revolution. The events leading up to November include numerous miscalculations on the part of Kerensky, the right, and the allies, making me dubious that things couldnt have gone differently.

There was nothing the allies could have done. For that same reason, I doubt any authoritaria could have out the country back together.

You mean a right wing authoritarian. IOTL an authoritarian DID put the country back together

IOTL several disunited, squabbling right wing authoritarians came surprisingly close to defeating the bolshevik state. Absent a November revolution, with a general taking power say in a coup from Kerensky, Im not sure that such a general couldnt have managed to hold on - he might have been forced to accept SOME land reform to strengthen his position, but that might have been limited.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Kerensky WAS a socialist, a right SR. What the peasants wanted was land. Whether Kerensky could have delivered sufficient land reform, and fast enough, is not clear. He was weak in large part cause the army was dissolving, under the conditions of war.

The Army was desitegrating before he took power. Even if the Russian army had not tried to take the offensive the Germans would have beaten them in the field. As I said, 1917 was too late.

The bolsheviks had the support of the left SRs, and used the conditions of war, including the disinclination of the Petrograd garrison to go to the front, and its preference for revolution as opposed to front line service, to achieve their revolution. The events leading up to November include numerous miscalculations on the part of Kerensky, the right, and the allies, making me dubious that things couldnt have gone differently

Things could have gone differently, in terms of the Kerensky government meeting some other end instead of a Bolshevik take-over. I seriously doubt that Kerensky or any right-SR leadership could have kept the situation afloat. After all, for example, could kerensky have offered the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison to make them want to continue the war? And land reform? Do you think the landlords would have just stepped aside? They would have fought, and if the peasants had to fight for their land, they would not stop at just minor, non-revolutionary reform.

A Bolshevik takeover was not assured, but a Kerensky government that in reality had to share power with the Soviets was not a viable government.

You mean a right wing authoritarian. IOTL an authoritarian DID put the country back together

What the hell is IOTL? And it took the Bolsheviks having to give up the empire and 3 years Civil War.

IOTL several disunited, squabbling right wing authoritarians came surprisingly close to defeating the bolshevik state.

You said it correctly, attacks from several fronts, against a group that began as a minority and also took it upon itself to purge the left. And without foreign support none of them would have done half as well.

Absent a November revolution, with a general taking power say in a coup from Kerensky, Im not sure that such a general couldnt have managed to hold on - he might have been forced to accept SOME land reform to strengthen his position, but that might have been limited.

Support from whom? Thye Army that had deserted? An discredited aristocracy?

There is a reason there never was a sinlge leader of the whites, and given that history shows us not one single military leader in Russia was even able to unit the anti-bolshevik forces after the revolution, what on earth makes you think these same men could have taken the reigns of power? And with what tools exactly?

And land reform? most of the men who lead the Whites were old fashioned autocrats who wanted a return to the old days.