A Lenin-less World

Hnau

Banned
Does the fact that Dmowski rules Poland, and there is no war in the East mean more expansion in the West as Poland is able to focus its efforts there (especially with the German civil war)? Also with the lack of threat of Bolshevik takeover more people wouldn't be afraid to vote for Poland. Do you believe Poland would be in better position without the Kresy region-as it would have more educated and more industrious regions without the underdeveloped East, and more ethnicly united territory? Historically Endecja was supportive of contacts between Slavic countries (neoslavism)-we could see defensive alliance with Czechs against possible German expansion and neutral relations with Russia.

I absolutely believe that Poland will receive more votes in the plebiscites, the reason many voted against it was not just because of German propaganda and ethnic loyalties, but because it was thought impossible for Poland to win the war against Soviet Russia. I actually was thinking of making Danzig a Polish city, due to Wilson's increased ruthlessness and the introduction of a similiar 'bleed 'em dry' Poincare, but I don't know, it seems like a move that some would find implausible... I mean, no one really protested for Poland's increased power, the debate was mostly on the Franco-German border... would their increased ruthlessness still call for more action after their stunt with the Rhineland? In any case, the plebiscites will give the Poles slightly more land in Upper Silesia.

As for their economic and political wellbeing... well, things aren't going to go well for the Jews under an extra decade and a half of National Democracy. Their is going to be an expulsion of Polish Jews just like Dmowski wanted, over time, similiar to the exodus of German Jews in OTL... the good thing is, the US and Palestine still have their borders open. That's going to be both difficult to track, hard to estimate the effects of, and very interesting. Without the Kresy, Poland will definitely do better economically, but will feel like less of a military power without winning the war, and that will likely fuel interest in the Little Entente, just like you said. In OTL, Poland thought it can stand by itself. After the Treaty of Lublin, there will be no illusions. I believe Poland will be just as anti-Russian as anti-German, though it matters where the two powers go in the timeline, and from where I am now, it looks like Russia will become more and more democratic and economically stable, while Germany is headed for fascism as in OTL.

Good thoughts! You helped me solidify my opinion on the matter.

Any reason Lithuania FR isn't getting Vilnius?

The RDFSR believed that the Lithuanians might not treat the Polish minority as well as the Belarussians... furthermore, Belarussia is regarded as more 'trustworthy'. Lithuania is probably the FR the most likely to break off when it can, and Moscow knows that, more or less... so it makes sense to hold Vilnius back from them.
 
Oh, and I corrected the map again:

1920.PNG
 

Hnau

Banned
I'm just doing some back-tracking to see if I've covered everything. Now that we are passed the Great War, things are going to get a lot more complicated, hard to predict, but also faster, as we don't have to trudge through every little triviality.

1920 First Quarter

- January 1: Following previously-passed legislature, nineteen new Federative Republics come into effect in the Russian Democratic Federal Soviet Republic. These include four new Siberian FRs: Baikalia, Kamchatka, Khabarovsk, and Yakutia; two new Central Asian FRs: Transcaspia and Turkestan; six new FRs in the Urals: Bashkiria, Chuvashia, Tatarstan, Mariyel, Mordovia and Udmurtia; five new Caucasian FRs: Astrakhan, the Don, Kalmykia, Kuban, and Terek; and two FRs in North Russia: Karelia and Komi. The Federative Republic of Erevan is separated from the Armenian FR and absorbs Azerbaijani territory as well, to settle territorial disputes between the two FRs.

- January: In the next two years in Poland, there will be nearly 100 Jews killed and 500 injured during anti-Semitic incidents.

- January to December: More than 360,000 Poles in Russian Lithuania, Belarussia, and Ukraine are repatriated to the Second Polish Republic, mostly on a voluntary basis. There still remains a significant Polish minority in the RDFSR, on the order of 5,790,000 largely in Belarussia.

- March: When the soviets of the Don and Kuban Federative Republics vote to begin the land socialization of traditional Cossack territory, which had been set aside during the last two years, many Cossacks begin to revolt. The National Assembly establishes a military committee to lead to the forceful socialization of the land there. The revolt and suppression of the Cossacks will lead to thousands of deaths.

---

Not much, but then again, I wasn't going to post anything until Saturday.
 
Last edited:
Cool. Look forward to Saturday then. Take as much time you need of course as the boards budding Sovietologist.

By the way, minor nitpick: I think you meant:

1920 First Quarter

- January 1: Following previously-passed legislation
instead of
legislature
.

Oh and the map shows a Karelian FR....is that right or a mistake?
 
I absolutely believe that Poland will receive more votes in the plebiscites, the reason many voted against it was not just because of German propaganda and ethnic loyalties, but because it was thought impossible for Poland to win the war against Soviet Russia. I actually was thinking of making Danzig a Polish city, due to Wilson's increased ruthlessness and the introduction of a similiar 'bleed 'em dry' Poincare, but I don't know, it seems like a move that some would find implausible... I mean, no one really protested for Poland's increased power, the debate was mostly on the Franco-German border

This actually isn't true; The British, well, Lloyd George thought that giving the Poles any German territory would be disastrous, but he was a but of a chauvinist and thought the Poles couldn't run a modern state.

But it's unclear to me why Russia gets along with Poland, when arguably it should have a stronger basis for invading...
 
I absolutely believe that Poland will receive more votes in the plebiscites, the reason many voted against it was not just because of German propaganda and ethnic loyalties, but because it was thought impossible for Poland to win the war against Soviet Russia.
True, but it is not only a matter of the votes. In your timeline Poland could focus it's political efforts on Western territories. Take the Cieszyn Silesia issue for example. In your timeline it's probable that Czechs won't be able to force the division of the area without a plebiscite.
- January: In the next two years in Poland, there will be nearly 100 Jews killed and 500 injured during anti-Semitic incidents.
That many? Was it a case of state sponsored violance? If so, why so severe?
But it's unclear to me why Russia gets along with Poland, when arguably it should have a stronger basis for invading...
I'd think that's partly because Russia already has the Ukrainian and Belarus lands it desired and partly due to influence of Dmowski, who can be described as a pro-Russian politician - meaning much more anti-German than anti-Russian.
 

Hnau

Banned
Indeed, legislation instead of legislature. Typo! Thanks, man. Forgot to include the Karelia FR as well.

This actually isn't true; The British, well, Lloyd George thought that giving the Poles any German territory would be disastrous, but he was a but of a chauvinist and thought the Poles couldn't run a modern state.

Hmmm... did a little research based on this, and you've got me convinced for Danzig and parts of East Prussia. But Silesia? More votes, more of a division in favor of the Poles. I couldn't see how Lloyd George could keep that from them.

But it's unclear to me why Russia gets along with Poland, when arguably it should have a stronger basis for invading...

That many? Was it a case of state sponsored violance? If so, why so severe?

In OTL, after the death of Pilsudski in 1935, who had been protective of minorities and specifically the Jews and fought against anti-Semitism, there was a sudden streak of oppression against Jews. This was also assisted by the tensions of the Great Depression. Well, Dmowski is blaming Poland's problems on the 'Judeo-Socialist' menace, maybe not directly, but certainly his government has that belief. This is going to accelerate anti-Semitism quite a bit.

I'd think that's partly because Russia already has the Ukrainian and Belarus lands it desired and partly due to influence of Dmowski, who can be described as a pro-Russian politician - meaning much more anti-German than anti-Russian.

Partly, partly. But it should be known that the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and especially the left wing which triumphs ITTL, favored the sovereignty of the Poles. It was felt that this Slavic kin-group could not be forced under Russian dominance peacefully, which is key to the SRs: if they really want out, Moscow isn't going to resort to purges and relocations, they are going to let them go their own way if they can absolutely not be negotiated with. Many felt that repression against one ethnic group would mean the very diverse imperial Russian unit would collapse with ethnic struggle, which I believe to be true. The Bolsheviks only triumphed because they were willing to kill any who opposed them and take complete totalitarian control. That doesn't work in a democracy very well.

War is necessitated by Polish aggression, but when the Russians force them to accept a minimum eastern border and forced friendly relations, they are willing to give them sovereignity. To invade and incorporate would encourage revolt and perhaps a civil war in which the SRs would be unable to cope and would be unseated from power.

Anybody have an ideas about how Russia would progress politically without the Civil War? I believe the Socialist-Revolutionaries are going to lose the support of the peasants or have to shift their ideals to regain that support: after a few years of partitions, land socialization, and Soviet superiority, the peasants will want at least a little more capitalism with their land. There will still likely be antagonism against big landholders, so I think even the peasants themselves will be wary of letting capitalism completely free. The Fabzavkomy are going to be completely comfortable with the way things are, with worker management of factories, if anything there will be a fringe movement to give the federal government more executive control to manage inter-soviet disputes and perhaps more taxation and fund-provision to industrialization, urbanization, healthcare, etc. They'll want the peasants taxed more, certainly, to provide cheaper food.

I also predict a move towards utopian collectivism by the fringe, they are going to radicalize with their successes. Something like a desire for Cultural Revolution from the ground-up. Which means more executive control to make sweeping policy changes, less concessions to minorities, industrialization, hostility to religion, etc. This will also garner support from the unemployed, which will remain a problem unlike in OTL. Workfare will be a very popular idea. Probably beginning by 1923 or so. Perhaps some violent radicalism as well. Another not-so-separate development: hostility against 'NEPmen' even though there is no NEP. The economy is going great, certainly there will be some Reconstruction-profiteers, 'kulaks' though not named so, who have profited from both bureaucratization, the illegal but unthreatened and open black market, and so forth. When they start going to nightclubs and running businesses, there might be some who want to share the wealth and violently force these groups and individuals to fork over the goods. This will probably rear its head mid-decade as well, but in this timeline, the Party isn't going to join them or be part of it, which makes a big difference. Sooner or later, though, this social-spiritual echo from the Revolution will calm down to a more practical level, most likely by 1928.

The constitutional system, as well as the name 'Russia' is flawed. By 1922 there will be a new Constitution of the Federation of People's Republics, which I am writing up. Should make politics very interesting. The Chernov era isn't going to come to an end until 1925, though. It should be known that Chernov is a kind of apathetic intellectual... in an American comparison, he's a socialist Calvin Coolidge mixed with Jimmy Carter. His government isn't active as much as it could be, with a lot being spent on slow wrangling between internal factions: progress is made by hand-picked men by Chernov (given quite a bit of independence), who organize executive committees who get the work done. So, its the men working under the men chosen by the Chairman that is creating policy for the entire country. You can see how it would be inefficient, subject to frequent reversals, shifting power structures, etc. The good thing is that this lack of power at the center is decentralizing authority a great deal.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... did a little research based on this, and you've got me convinced for Danzig and parts of East Prussia. But Silesia? More votes, more of a division in favor of the Poles. I couldn't see how Lloyd George could keep that from them.

Because the Soviets and Poles don't get along?

Sure, you can argue that the S-R favors Polish sovereignty, as fraternal kinsmen. So what? They can be every bit as sovereign as part of the new regime! Certainly, Poland would be freer than it is under Dmowski. This is certainly the argument the S-R would make.

Moreover, Dmowski was basically hated at Versailles; that being so, he will make Poland less popular in the West....
 

Hnau

Banned
I totally agree that the Soviets would not get along with Dmowski, but they unseated Pilsudski who was in their view a democratic, fair, if expansionist and aggressive leader. Dmowski came after their disengagement with Poland, and will only cement his control slowly. Furthermore, some study of the SRs inter-party conferences over foreign affairs reveals that many were in agreement that while war for imperial gains should never be waged, war for the purpose of liberation from an authoritarian, un-democratic and hostile regime was not only necessary but a first priority. I believe that as soon as Dmowski or a spiritual inheritor of his makes an official move to anti-Semitism, one-party rule, invalidating agreements made at Versailles, Russia is going to at the very least threaten them with invasion and begin to play hard-ball in negotiating. War wouldn't be too far around the corner.

As it stands during the Polish-Soviet War and during negotiations for the Treaty of Lublin, and with the research I've done, I can't be convinced that Chernov and the SRs would push for annexation. Its certainly a later possibility, but likely under a different ruler.
 

Hnau

Banned
I apologize for my inactivity Chris S, but I will have you know that I do intend to finish this timeline (up to the year 2008) by this next June. I have a lot of work ahead of me, I know. As for why I haven't been working on it lately is due to three factors:

A) I have decided to move my work off of AH.com from now on. You can find A Lenin-less World at the board at www.counter-factual.net

B) Gearing up for finals lately.

C) Have been somewhat distracted by other artistic pursuits.

But I honestly do want to finish this by next June, so I will return to the timeline very shortly, perhaps after Christmas.
 
How long do you plan to continue this timeline?
Note that his comment said he hoped to finish it by June of last year. Since (about) then, he's been on Mission and away from computers and such secular distractions. IIRC for 2 years? So, if he ever does finish it, it'll likely be over a year from now...
 
Top