Soviets in the Sun: A Timeline

[Libertad]

I agree with so much that you said. Although, I don't feel that socialism ceased in Soviet Russia after 1918. Sure, there were divergences from developing socialism in the short-term, but they were necessary to develop socialism in the long-term. Although, socialism never truly developed to its full extent. When the Soviet Union seemed close to completing socialism's development, it soon was derailed by capitalist elements.

It either degenerated into a "deformed workers' state" or it is totally a form of state capitalism to begin with. Take your pick. Socialism in one country is not going to work.

I believe that the Soviet Union's positives outweigh its negatives. There is a huge void in inspiring the working-class now that it is gone. If somebody was going to take the stick for "Stalinist apologism", I suppose it would be me. I believe there is a hugely clichéd caricature of the Soviet Union and its leaders that doesn't really add up to historical fact. Hell, Stalin spent half of his time apologising for things he had little to no control over. Therefore, apologism is redundant. Although, I do recognise the flaws and mismanagement in the Soviet system. You are also correct that comparing the Soviet Union with other states and systems is flawed. Russia and its neighbouring states were completely distinct in culture, economy and history.

The Soviet Union's dissolution is a big victory for socialism if you are going to ask me.

 

[Libertad]

"Real Socialism" was a name used by the Communist establishment at the time hence I use it as well. You completely missed when I said that lefty rhethoric was only a useful tool for holding power for the bureaucratic establishment. Communism in Warsaw Pact was not the ideology. It was a regime dedicate to holding power at all costs which used bloated bureaucracy and security apparatus to hold it. I can't stress it enough.

I never heard of this, calling themselves as "real socialists". Who are the fakes anyway? Trotskyists?

But I guess I'm getting what you mean.

 

[Libertad]

You are forgetting the outside pressure of the capitalist Western nations that was hell-bent on destroying the Soviet Union from its outset. Eventually, when the capitalists had infiltrated Soviet society to the extent that peaceful coexistence turned to defeatism. I mean, there was a Soviet poll held in 1990 that said that over 70% of the population did not want the union to be dissolved. Many people died for the Soviet Union as well. People suffered in the Soviet Union, of course. In all nations, in all periods of history, large amounts of people have suffered. But, the suffering in the Soviet Union was not caused through malicious or even murderous intent, which were two important causes of suffering all across the world. I do not wish to dismiss suffering, I just don't want the causes and solutions of such suffering to be dismissed.

I can't just stress focusing on the Black Book of "Communism" when the Black Book of Capitalism is even more horrible and lasting longer. It's just not being talked about in the establishment of course.

A "distinctly Russian beast"? I don't believe that the Soviet Union was dominated by Russian culture or Russian ideas. Promoting one culture in the Soviet Union over another was a "crime against society". It was plain social chauvinism and was treated as a subtler, though no less damaging, form of cultural supremacist ideas. It inspired the working class because it came into being through working class actions and it was propped up by working class actions. The Soviet Union was, in differing degrees throughout its history, in support of the rights of the working class. No other nation in the world could claim to do the same.

It is subtly dominated by the Russian establishment Comisario. Don't believe much of Moscow's supposed internationalism. It is all propaganda. Changing the national anthem from the Internationale to the one talking about the centrality of Russia is just one sign. It's not as bad as it was in the past of course, but the lack of true autonomy for the Union republics would mean that some cultural homogenization is going to be around.

Hundreds of thousands of people went to gulags. But, hundreds of thousands of people left them as well. Death rates were low, sentences were at a maximum of 10 years and the only time death rates went above 5% was the period between 1940 and 1946. There was a war on in this time period, so medical care for murderers, terrorists and subversives was not a priority. I'll admit, the NKVD were a harsh group of agents who did very little positive work. But, blaming an entire state for the work of one government agency is misplaced blame. The NKVD was the autonomous organ of the state. Stalin and the Soviet state condemned their actions and usage of physical force on political prisoners.

OH PLEASE... Don't make us leftists look bad by making this apologistic behavior. No. Just no. Having gulags in the first place IS NOT GOOD. So don't make an apology that at least it is not as bad as the capitalist media establishment portrays it to be. It doesn't matter.

It is true that the Warsaw Pact was an uneven agreement. Central Europe certainly was not as autonomous as it should have been. But, when you say that Central Europe does not remember the days of communism with fondness, I feel that is a generalisation. There is a certain nostalgia that is prevalent amongst the people of the post-Cold War states of Central and Eastern Europe, even if those new states condemn their communist predecessors. You may be glad the union is gone, but its legacy remains.

This is kinda true.

 

[Comisario]

It either degenerated into a "deformed workers' state" or it is totally a form of state capitalism to begin with. Take your pick. Socialism in one country is not going to work.

I believe it sort of did. Then again, it was not the ideal anybody was hoping for in the Soviet Union. It was more of an unfortunate necessity.

The Soviet Union's dissolution is a big victory for socialism if you are going to ask me.

I get this. But, there are arguments in favour of the Soviet Union's continued survival. I'm sometimes for and sometimes against- it's a controversial subject.

 

[Comisario]

I can't just stress focusing on the Black Book of "Communism" when the Black Book of Capitalism is even more horrible and lasting longer. It's just not being talked about in the establishment of course.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here.

It is subtly dominated by the Russian establishment Comisario. Don't believe much of Moscow's supposed internationalism. It is all propaganda. Changing the national anthem from the Internationale to the one talking about the centrality of Russia is just one sign. It's not as bad as it was in the past of course, but the lack of true autonomy for the Union republics would mean that some cultural homogenization is going to be around.

Many of the union's leaders came from the soviet republics outside of Russia, but I understand where you're coming from. It sadly was a subtle overrepresentation of Russia, but it at least protected other nationalities. It was the home of Russians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Belarussians, Kazakhs, Finnish, Japanese, Turks, Ukrainians, British, Spaniards, French, Americans... just to name a few.

OH PLEASE... Don't make us leftists look bad by making this apologistic behavior. No. Just no. Having gulags in the first place IS NOT GOOD. So don't make an apology that at least it is not as bad as the capitalist media establishment portrays it to be. It doesn't matter.

I'm sorry if it sounded like an apology. I was just stating facts in response to RosoMC's comments about "enemies of the state" and "Siberia". I cannot apologise for the use of gulags, and I know nobody who does. I acknowledge that they were one of the many huge negatives of the Soviet Union. I oppose them on principle, but they must be understood before they are criticised. They were obviously not paradises, but they were still not comparable to concentration camps (as many try to compare). Of course, we needn't make these comparisons to know they were not positive things, but I use it to make sure people have a "frame of reference", if you will. I also would not try to make any leftist look bad. I speak only for myself. We are all comrades and I am supportive of all those who believe in the inevitability of communism, no matter what ideas I have on historical matters.

 

[Comisario]

Book I- The Spanish War of Liberation

Chapter 8

Turning Tides


The Spanish Republic now occupied advantageous positions across the mainland. Each one would serve to launch grand new offensives to break Franco's Spain. The military will of which was already failing as Nationalist ports were being seized by the Republicans at an alarming rate, meaning the flow of supplies from Germany and Italy was being stalled. Meanwhile, Negrín's constant calls for the reopening of the French border were being heeded once more. On the 27th January, the Pyrenean borders allowed for the free flow of arms and supplies. General Sebastián Pozas was particularly pleased about the opening of the borders, as they coincided with the launch of his new offensives for Irun and San Sebastián. In San Sebastián, on the 29th January, Pozas witnessed the beginning of the fall of the "Navarrese corridor". The city, which had been loyally Republican at the war's outset, had suffered hugely under Nationalist occupation. Small pockets of Republican resistance still existed in the city and around its outskirts. This fact became evident as the Army of the East reached the edge of the city. The garrison in San Sebastián was overrun by local Loyalists as the Army of the East secured both the western and eastern roads leading from the city. From the city's cathedral, priests were dragged away by the Republican fifth-columnists, who would then execute them for their role in the occupation of the city. Their bodies would later be found hanging from the María Cristina Bridge. The end of the Battle of San Sebastián came on the 1st February. Once the city was under Republican control, General Pozas commanded Lieutenant Colonel Federico Escofet to take a third of the Army of the East to encircle Irun. The city, now caught between the French border and the Spanish Republican Army, was almost ready to surrender. Few civilians chose to stay. The French authorities were overwhelmed by the influx of Spanish citizens. The small camps set up for those former inhabitants of Irun would one day grow into refugee cities at the end of the war [1]. On the 5th February, Irun was surrendered by the city's desperate garrison. Lieutenant Colonel Escofet made an effort to seize supplies bound for the Nationalist zone as they passed through the Pyrenean borders. The two-thirds of the Army of the East left in Pozas's hands turned their attentions west. Bilbao was the Republic's next target.

Nationalist civilians fleeing from Irun.​

In international circles, support for the Nationalists persisted, though not with the same passion as had been prevalent in the early days of the war. The original military effectiveness of Franco's army was being overshadowed by the constantly increasing size of Soviet arms shipments. Large sectors of Soviet industry were focused on the production of war materials and small arms for the Spanish Republic. Soviet advisors in Spain such as Enrique Líster's aide, Alexandr Rodimtsev, were praised for their military expertise and prowess in the battlefields of Spain. Rodimtsev himself was given the "Hero of the Soviet Union" award [2]. The private opinions of the European fascist leaders was also turning against the Nationalists, although public support for Franco's rebels grew with every humiliating defeat. Nobody could afford to lose face over their enthusiasm for the Spanish State, and so the rhetoric of Mussolini and Hitler turned to the idea of "Soviet aggression" against the "righteous moral crusade of Franco and his true Spaniards". This "righteous moral crusade", however, was straying further into the territory of unjustifiable actions. Pro-Republican revolts in San Sebastián and Malaga had facilitated the victory of the Loyalists in these two cities, instilling fear into the leaders of Nationalist Spain. The old arguments between the Carlists and the Falangists arose as each side accused the other of taking part in these anti-Nationalist uprisings. Both factions fell over each other in their attempts to convince Franco of the other faction's guilt. The Caudillo used this to his advantage. In the Falangist-held areas of old Castile and León, region-wide purges were held to prove that the Falangists were the most loyal to Franco. In the Carlist areas of the Basque Country (including the city of Bilbao), purges were also held for the exact same reason. Suspected socialists, anarchists, communists and anti-Franco Basques were rounded up and shot en masse, only to be dumped into mass graves. Historians would later dispute the variety of figures that would arise from these massacres, but most would agree that between 1,000 and 2,000 died at the hands of the Nationalists [3]. With these massacres came the deaths of two Nationalist officers. José Varela and Miguel Ponte were both executed on the 7th February as a warning to the Nationalists to stop their mass killings. The warning was not heeded.

Nationalist Civil Guardsmen leading suspected fifth-columnists to a mass execution.​

Yet, Bilbao would eventually be spared from the Nationalist massacres. On the 10th February, the Army of the East reached the ruins of Bilbao's Iron Ring. The antiquated defences, hurriedly built and now utterly useless, marked the outer limits of Bilbao's defences. They were unmanned, as the Nationalists had shown the labyrinth of fortification's weakness during the Battle of Bilbao, and so allowed for General Pozas to take the eastern approaches to the city. With little resistance, the 75,000-strong Army of the East entered the city. Almost 3,000 Nationalists were held up in and around the city, although most were in the west, holding the lines to the east of Santander and Santoña. With the Nationalist campaign in the Cantabrian Mountains still raging on and Soria under fire from the Army of the Levant, there was no hope of relief. Bilbao would fall on the 16th February, following a Republican bombardment of the city and an infantry sweep through the south side of the city, so as to push the remaining troops towards the northern coast on the Bay of Biscay. Bloody fighting throughout the city and towards the beaches of Biscay cost the lives of almost 1,500 Nationalists and just under 1,000 Republicans. But, the sacrifice of so many meant that the area held by the Army of the North was finally joined with the rest of Republican Spain. The ikurrina flew over Bilbao again and the Basque people were under the protection of the Spanish Republic [4].

President José Antonio Aguirre of the Basque Country, making a speech upon his return to Bilbao [5].​

In the spring of 1938, a new offensive was to open. It would cause the fall of one of the Nationalists most feared and powerful generals, and begin the process of unravelling the Francoist state.


***

[1] As they did in OTL for Republican refugees.
[2] Such an award is given to both individuals and collective groups.
[3] Well, only those fringe historians ITTL that do not deny the massacres because of their far-right Francoist beliefs.
[4] The ikurrina is the flag of the Basque Country. It was supressed under the Franco regime for its left-wing and Basque nationalist connotations. It will have similar connotations ITTL.
[5] Aguirre would occupy a controversial position in the history of Spain. Some will claim his legacy whilst others will view it with disdain.


"Eusko Gudariak" - the song of the Republican Basque Army.

 

[Patukov]

With so much Soviet support going for the Republicans I doubt that the Nazis will leave them alone during WW2.

 

[Razgriz 2K9]

Concerning the Basques, would they become a...for lack of a better term, a Soviet Republic within Spain?

 

[omnimercurial]

Wonderful update!

 

[Libertad]

I believe it sort of did. Then again, it was not the ideal anybody was hoping for in the Soviet Union. It was more of an unfortunate necessity.

Well, those Bolsheviks promoted socialism in one country more of as an unfortunate necessity rather than by principle, so I agree with you here.

I get this. But, there are arguments in favour of the Soviet Union's continued survival. I'm sometimes for and sometimes against- it's a controversial subject.

I tend to be confused too on how to side on keeping the remaining "communist states" out there right now, especially China, or overthrowing them in favor of a more liberal bourgeois society.

 

[Libertad]

Many of the union's leaders came from the soviet republics outside of Russia, but I understand where you're coming from. It sadly was a subtle overrepresentation of Russia, but it at least protected other nationalities. It was the home of Russians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Belarussians, Kazakhs, Finnish, Japanese, Turks, Ukrainians, British, Spaniards, French, Americans... just to name a few.

The goal of the USSR's foundation is supposed to be incorporating future proletarian republics into this Union. It unfortunately did not came into fruition once Stalinism arrived. But anyway, you're right, Stalin is Georgian while Khrushchev is Ukrainian. And the USSR definitely did a better job for minorities rather than Tsarist Russia.

I'm sorry if it sounded like an apology. I was just stating facts in response to RosoMC's comments about "enemies of the state" and "Siberia". I cannot apologise for the use of gulags, and I know nobody who does. I acknowledge that they were one of the many huge negatives of the Soviet Union. I oppose them on principle, but they must be understood before they are criticised. They were obviously not paradises, but they were still not comparable to concentration camps (as many try to compare). Of course, we needn't make these comparisons to know they were not positive things, but I use it to make sure people have a "frame of reference", if you will. I also would not try to make any leftist look bad. I speak only for myself. We are all comrades and I am supportive of all those who believe in the inevitability of communism, no matter what ideas I have on historical matters.

Ah. Now I understand what you mean, as a frame of reference indeed and as a comparison to Nazi concentration camps of course. I'm sorry if I thought you are starting to act like a "Stalinist apologist". Hehehe.

 

[Comisario]

Concerning the Basques, would they become a...for lack of a better term, a Soviet Republic within Spain?

When the dust settles, the Basque Country will be a "soviet republic". I'm still unsure as what the term should be for the different regions.

 

[Comisario]

Well, those Bolsheviks promoted socialism in one country more of as an unfortunate necessity rather than by principle, so I agree with you here.

I suppose that when revolutions fail in other nations and you're on your own, developing socialism in one country would be your only hope. So, trying to promote it and make it work is an unfortunate necessity.

I tend to be confused too on how to side on keeping the remaining "communist states" out there right now, especially China, or overthrowing them in favor of a more liberal bourgeois society.

China hasn't adhered to communism for so long. It's bourgeois and state capitalist. It's what America wishes it could be. I'm sure that if the Chinese leadership were to be overthrown, a more Maoist state would appear in its place.

 

[Comisario]

The goal of the USSR's foundation is supposed to be incorporating future proletarian republics into this Union. It unfortunately did not came into fruition once Stalinism arrived. But anyway, you're right, Stalin is Georgian while Khrushchev is Ukrainian. And the USSR definitely did a better job for minorities rather than Tsarist Russia.

It certainly did a much better job. But, concerning what you said about "incorporating future proletarian republics", I feel that such a strategy would not achieve the goals of Soviet internationalism. If the union had tried to do so, then these proletarian republics could have become colonies for Russia. Instead, supporting proletarian republics to industrialise and collectivise on their own would create stronger states and an equal status between all proletarian republics.

Ah. Now I understand what you mean, as a frame of reference indeed and as a comparison to Nazi concentration camps of course. I'm sorry if I thought you are starting to act like a "Stalinist apologist". Hehehe.

It's okay. I would never apologise for the mistakes and crimes of some socialist states. But, I recognise both positives and negatives. I feel that we should promote the positive and condemn the negative, it's the only comradely thing to do!

 

[Comisario]

Wonderful update!

Thank you very much! If you liked this last one, I'm sure the next few will be equally "wonderful". Expect more war, suspense, treachery and... revolution...

 

[d32123]

This TL is awesome!

 

[Tsao]

Interesting premise; subscribed.

 

[Libertad]

I suppose that when revolutions fail in other nations and you're on your own, developing socialism in one country would be your only hope. So, trying to promote it and make it work is an unfortunate necessity.

In a way, Stalin did the "right thing" and he even went away from supporting the NEP towards a planned economy. Except that he executed it very badly, from the perspective of industrializing with too much human cost. It could have been done without all the famine and purges.

China hasn't adhered to communism for so long. It's bourgeois and state capitalist. It's what America wishes it could be. I'm sure that if the Chinese leadership were to be overthrown, a more Maoist state would appear in its place.

Chinese youth is polarizing between Maoists and neoliberals, even a revival of Trotskyism, which is the original ideology of the CPC in the first place. It is in the same way that American youth is polarizing between "socialism" (most likely, a misunderstanding of looking up to the European social democratic model as the correct socialism) and right-wing libertarianism.

 

[Libertad]

It certainly did a much better job. But, concerning what you said about "incorporating future proletarian republics", I feel that such a strategy would not achieve the goals of Soviet internationalism. If the union had tried to do so, then these proletarian republics could have become colonies for Russia. Instead, supporting proletarian republics to industrialise and collectivise on their own would great stronger states and an equal status between all proletarian republics.

The USSR was created at the time when the Bolsheviks are still committed to the idea of world revolution and convinced that the emancipation of the German proletariat would arrive in a few years time. That all changed when Bukharin and Stalin started to conceptualize "socialism in one country". So the original goal is really like that of Comintern's, creation of an international Soviet commonwealth of equal proletarian republics. When the Moscow bureaucracy started flexing its muscles under Stalin, the more liberal times of the 1920s and its remaining internationalism was gone. So yes, you're right in a way that it's not going to work. But with the rise of Stalinism, keeping proletarian republics as independent outside of Moscow's direct control seems to be a better deal for these new republics, even for the Warsaw Pact countries.

It's okay. I would never apologise for the mistakes and crimes of some socialist states. But, I recognise both positives and negatives. I feel that we should promote the positive and condemn the negative, it's the only comradely thing to do!

I think so. In a way, but I'm still quite confused.

 

[TheBerlinguer]

Hi Comisario! I diligently followed your TL since its first chapter but always held back from posting since I had nothing constructive to offer to the discussion. Really a great work: even if we're just into its second year I foresee only good things for this story!

But since 1939 gets closer and closer and some AH.commers already started talking about Spain's role in alt-WW2 a weird concept suddenly popped up in my thoughts: could this world be spared from a second World War? In other words, could it be that the great conflict the Nazis will inevitably start (German economy couldn't sustain peace time much longer in 1939) will be a one-front struggle against the Soviet/Slav giant in the East, so being remembered as the last Great European War but not as a World War?

When Hitler invaded France IOTL, the latter was the last non-Fascist continental power in Western Europe, leaving "only" the UK to deal with, but ITTL the Iberian peninsula will be in the hands of a virulently anti-Fascist republic that has just finished showing to the world the prowess in battle of its citizens in a long, bloody civil war. TTL Hitler will know that the Communist Spanish won't be friendly neighbours (like OTL Franco-ist Spain was) to an occupied/puppetised French state but will also know that an invasion of Iberia isn't going to be a stroll in the park like the fall of France ("Let's build only one half of the Maginot Line! It'll be more than enough.") since Germany and Italy were recently burned by the failure of their Falangist allies to seize power, even with all the supplies they sent them and the military expertise they provided. And we shouldn't forget that a long, expensive campaign and occupation in the West is just what Stalin needs to take his plan of full-modernisation of the Red Army by 1942 to its full achievement. In Dr. Strangelove's NSCW timeline the two front war was a possibility because the military capabilities of the Second Spanish Republic were unexplored territory for the Axis, due to the lack of the Civil War; here Germans and Italians have fought against the Spanish Soviet-supplied war machine and they have lost!

IOTL the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact meant the end to any chance of trying to bring Pilsudski's Poland in the Axis camp (and the Fascists really tried to accomplish this feat, because of the Russians being perceived as the greater danger in Warsaw too), since that nation would have formally ceased to exist after the invasion, resulting in Germany and the Soviet Union sharing a common border. But in a scenario with an aborted Western front we could actually see Poland obtaining full membership in the Anti-Comintern Pact and declaring war to the Eastern Colossus. After all, who would come to its rescue in any substantial way? Not the French,who would never risk a naked aggression to the Third Reich without an unshakable war alliance with the British Empire, which is presumably governed by Neville Chamberlain, a man whose strategy of looking the other way while Hitler annexed more and more land was finalised at making Hitler's oncoming war a showdown of Fascism against Communism, which should have resulted in the crippling or outright disappearance of one or even both blocs in the fires of the conflict, without spilling a single drop of British blood (and a Communist takeover of Spain won't do anything to paint the Soviet Union as a nation deserving military help. Spain could and would help the Soviets but it lacks almost anything it'd need for proper power projection at the other end of Europe.


Or maybe it's just me that's abusing the scope of the butterfly effect, but it would be funny to see the most important event in XX century history and the pivotal moment in the history of many nations being warped into a "dark grey vs. black" showdown between two evil empires.