What would become of the Revolution and the USSR as a whole if somehow both Trotsky and Stalin were killed before Lenin died. This most likely would happen during the Russian Civil War. Would the Revolution even succeed without them? Who would even succeed Lenin if both Trotsky and Stalin were dead?
Russian Revolution & Soviet Union without Trotsky or Stalin
- Thread starter Light_Star 1
- Start date
Zinoviev was an heir-apparent even with Trotsky and Stalin alive. But he was an unlikable fellow, even less popular in the party than Trotsky. Incendiary speeches without organizer's talent.
So, some kind of collective leadership.
Bukharin comes to mind, he was pretty influential in the party. Even more influential, though he was not a major theoretician, was Rykov.
Trotsky was very unpopular in the party, and even if Stalin alone had been taken out of the picture he would not have been the obvious alternative for the post of general secretary.
Trotsky was very unpopular in the party, and even if Stalin alone had been taken out of the picture he would not have been the obvious alternative for the post of general secretary.
If Stalin and Trotsky die, maybe this butterflies the death of Yakov Sverdlov? He was certainly a promising young Bolshevik that could play a significant role in the post-civil war leadership. He was close with Lenin, a capable organizer and administrator, and one of the key figures in the early Central Committee. Also, his relevant youth could have him living until the 1960's and 1970's..
Last edited:
I was actually thinking about this a while ago, A soviet union that neither went Trotskyist or Stalinist...
For what would happen to the Soviet Union? I assume somebody competent takes over, hopefully not as bloodthirsty, although there will probably still be a Red Scare amongst western liberal democratic nations.
For what would happen to the Soviet Union? I assume somebody competent takes over, hopefully not as bloodthirsty, although there will probably still be a Red Scare amongst western liberal democratic nations.
The conditions of the Soviet Union post revolution and civil war make it more likely than not that the person/people who take control will have authoritarian tendencies. Such conditions tend to produce totalitarians regardless of competence, though its hard to imagine someone more callous than Stalin could exist at the time.
Who would likely be the most competent choice to lead the Soviet Union after Lenin if both Stalin and Trotsky were dead?
ZenarchistI937
Monthly Donor
Not gonna lie, actually working on a Stalin dies TL right now. Trotsky dying during the revolution would be big, though, because he was one of the most influential figures in the Red Army and I haven't spent any time thinking on that yet. Depending on who he was replaced by, the Civil War might have ended rather differently. Still a Red Army victory almost definitely, but some countries that were or weren't under their thumb in OTL might switch over.
Purely spitballing, but seconding collective leadership. The Central Committee would remain incredibly strong and Leninism would be the unchallenged ideology of the country, but as soon as Lenin dies factions would emerge and it would be hard to keep them down because no one in the party seemed quite as ready as Stalin to oust political opponents. I would imagine that the transition to "socialism" would be a lot slower, because Trotsky was one of the biggest advocates for a rapid break from capitalism. Bukharin and Zinoviev would definitely be big players. Whether or not the regime would be stable for long is really up to the author, because the Great Purge being butterflied completely changes who is and isn't at the top of the party.
Purely spitballing, but seconding collective leadership. The Central Committee would remain incredibly strong and Leninism would be the unchallenged ideology of the country, but as soon as Lenin dies factions would emerge and it would be hard to keep them down because no one in the party seemed quite as ready as Stalin to oust political opponents. I would imagine that the transition to "socialism" would be a lot slower, because Trotsky was one of the biggest advocates for a rapid break from capitalism. Bukharin and Zinoviev would definitely be big players. Whether or not the regime would be stable for long is really up to the author, because the Great Purge being butterflied completely changes who is and isn't at the top of the party.
You wouldn't even have to kill off Trotsky, just keep him interned... he was stuck in NYC and then in an intern camp in Canada before the revolution really hit the fan....
Stalin, being rather pugilistic, could have gotten himself killed at numerous junctures...
As to who a logical successor might be when Lenin dies, I'll have to side with Cudymcar on the collective leadership thing - at least for a time. Of course, one would probably establish dominance, but I'm really not sure who....
Stalin, being rather pugilistic, could have gotten himself killed at numerous junctures...
As to who a logical successor might be when Lenin dies, I'll have to side with Cudymcar on the collective leadership thing - at least for a time. Of course, one would probably establish dominance, but I'm really not sure who....
Given that Lenin had some crazy tactical ideas before October, there is a plausible (though far from conclusive) argument that the insurrection would not have succeeded without Trotsky: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...u-kill-lenin-or-trotsky.396645/#post-13000244
Everyone seems to think that it's borderline-ASB for Trotsky to have emerged at the top - due to his unpopularity among the rest of the leadership, his inability to get on well with others, his arrogance and ass-o-holic tendencies - but I'm not so sure. Plenty of instances in history where the one judged least likely (or at least unlikely) to rise to the top, was the very one who did.
But with no Trotsky and no Stalin, it's pretty much an open field....
I could see Zinoviev doing ok. Like most Bolsheviks, he was an opportunistic slime ball, but there is decent evidence of him being more able to compromise than most (iirc Lenin actually disliked him because of said willingness to compromise). Honestly though, I think any leader post Kronstadt is sort of locked into totalitarianism.
Lenin actually liked him very much and made him (after the Revolution) his protegee as a Petrograd governor and heir apparent. But Zinoviev proved his incompetence again and again.
I noticed Grigory Zinoviev being mentioned as a good and probable candidate to succeed Lenin. What about Lev Kamenev, or Nikolai Bukharin? Would either of them stand any chance?