A Soviet Union without both Stalin and Trotsky

With Stalin out of the way, it is most likely that Trotsky would take his place but what if both were taken out of the picture? Leaving power in the Communist world to the hands of other notable names like Zioviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Radek, Bukharin, Pyatakov, etc. All of whom could have been the Soviet leader after Lenin. So how would history remember them were it not for their roles as victims of the Purges? What would they do as the leaders and builders of the USSR?

Say both Stalin and Trotsky are killed in the Civil War and Lenin dies around the same time in 1924. What happens from there?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Really depend on which leader take over after Lenin, they had quite different policies and conception of what it meant to be a Communist State. Another possibility is that the position of Chairman become very weak and other organs of the Communist Party become stronger.
 
You'd still have the Left-Right split, but without Stalin's machinations it would drag on through much of the 1920's under the cover of unified communal government.

However without Trotsky the Left is the likes of Zinoviev, the Old Bolsheviks, although they will have great influence, the Right dominated by Bukharin will only grow stronger as time passes, as the policies of NEP and Socialism in One Country (both Right babies) will still gain great support.

Meanwhile the loss of Stalin and Trotsky means others will fill their gaps in the Politburo. The likes of Kalinin, Sergo Ordzhonikidze, Molotov would gain greater influence, however some key figures like Kirov, although strong moderates relied on Stalin to rise so quickly. I can see Kirov, left to run Azerbaijan for a while, turning up on his own merit in the late 1930's, a possible heir or threat to Bukharin. Similarly Kaganovich relied entirely on Stalin to gain what power he did, so he's possibly butterflied away entirely.

Regardless, I can see the few commited Old Bolsheviks being quickly outmanouvered by the growing number of 'young turks' arriving in the 1920s. Groups like the Democratic Centralists and the Workers Opposition who were supressed at this time could become major levers for influence and possibly save the CPSU from its oligarchic rule that led to the coups and purges more than anything in my opinion. I see Bukharin and the Right Opposition siding with the Democratic Centralists, essentially giving the Party as a whole greater influence. By the late 1920s, with the Politburo at least having to listen to the Party, I have little doubt they'd side with Bukharin, Tomsky et al on the Right because of there moderate and seemingly successful economic policy, no doubt taking liberities to bring up Lenin's ghost over the issue.
 
Bukharin, for all his erudition, was not a politician, and didn't have enough support to ascede to the Chairmanship. I think Zinoviev would have a real shot at the Chairmanship, especially given the position he held in the Comintern and his familiarity with communist politics.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
You'd still have the Left-Right split, but without Stalin's machinations it would drag on through much of the 1920's under the cover of unified communal government.

However without Trotsky the Left is the likes of Zinoviev, the Old Bolsheviks, although they will have great influence, the Right dominated by Bukharin will only grow stronger as time passes, as the policies of NEP and Socialism in One Country (both Right babies) will still gain great support.

Meanwhile the loss of Stalin and Trotsky means others will fill their gaps in the Politburo. The likes of Kalinin, Sergo Ordzhonikidze, Molotov would gain greater influence, however some key figures like Kirov, although strong moderates relied on Stalin to rise so quickly. I can see Kirov, left to run Azerbaijan for a while, turning up on his own merit in the late 1930's, a possible heir or threat to Bukharin. Similarly Kaganovich relied entirely on Stalin to gain what power he did, so he's possibly butterflied away entirely.

Regardless, I can see the few commited Old Bolsheviks being quickly outmanouvered by the growing number of 'young turks' arriving in the 1920s. Groups like the Democratic Centralists and the Workers Opposition who were supressed at this time could become major levers for influence and possibly save the CPSU from its oligarchic rule that led to the coups and purges more than anything in my opinion. I see Bukharin and the Right Opposition siding with the Democratic Centralists, essentially giving the Party as a whole greater influence. By the late 1920s, with the Politburo at least having to listen to the Party, I have little doubt they'd side with Bukharin, Tomsky et al on the Right because of there moderate and seemingly successful economic policy, no doubt taking liberities to bring up Lenin's ghost over the issue.

Interresting, chance for a Soviet Union without a great leader, but instead frictions between the right- and left- wings of the party. Could that situation possibly carry on to the 30s, perhaps with a weak chairman without much influence on the party as a whole.
 
Bukharin wasn't a top dog certainly, but he did have major influence on the Right.

Zinoviev may very well become Chairman but I quite doubt his ability to keep hold of power in the face of the Right, he would at least have to acknowledge their popularity. Remember it wasnt until Stalin used his bureaucratic position to flood the CPSU with followers that the Bolsheviks were anything but an elite group, far from a mass party. The Left cant simply swamp the Politburo with supporters, in 1924 there's just not enough people, even with his efforts in took Stalin five years of politicking to swamp his opponents with outsiders.

As such, Zinoviev is the most likely heir, I'm not sure if he could pull off Stalinist style total power though, my knowledge of him is limited.
 
I really don't think Bukharin's that likely a figure to do anything major politically. If you'll cast the historical net back a few years, he was actually heading up the Left opposition within the Bolshevik party, when the main issue was to sign or not to sign the Brest-Litovsk treaty. He advocated, instead of Lenin's "breathing space", a practice of "revolutionary civil war" that would spark a similar response in the west.

After the signature, however, and during the Russian Civil War, Bukharin became a supporter of War Communism and other such measures. Bukharin's real political orientation wasn't simply Left or Right within the Bolshevik Party; his position was that of advocating and supporting military action by the Russian state. Given all this, nobody really trusts him.

In addition, seeing Stalin as the only reason the RCP (it wasn't the CPSU unti later) became flooded with followers is ignoring the social history of Russia at that time. During the period considered, the autonomous working class institutions (the soviets, the Red Guards, etc) had all been either eliminated or castrated or integrated into the Russian state. The RCP/CPSU was the only remaining outlet for working class politics left, which did lead to many workers throughout Russia joining the party. It wasn't simply some machination; there was no other choice.

Given all this, I could see Zinoviev end up with the Chairmanship and the ideological heirs of the Center retain it, while the Left and Right form autonomous fractions (the Left in exile).
 
If you have left-right feuding through the whole '20s, then won't the Crash in '29 some serious effects on Soviet politics? Suddenly, the Left is validated, with the Capitalists' economies collapsing. I would think that the Soviet leadership would view this as an opportunity.

Without Stalin, would the Soviet leadership: (a) have as much control over other national communist parties; (b) be open to the "popular front" political alliances between those communist parties and other left parties that Stalin opposed?

The liquidation of enemies was not something that Stalin invented. Lenin had used similar tactics during the Civil War, and probably would have continued to use those tactics. I don't know that even if Stalin is eliminated the possible liquidation of one side or another is avoided. The men who carried out Stalin's purges are still in the Party, and are still capable of doing those same things.

With Trotsky's death, who would emerge to head the Red Army? With the feuding between left and right, the Red Army could emerge as the strongest institution in the country, and could be used by its leader to assume power (Army intelligence taking the place of Stalin's secret police)
 
Top