AHC: "Soviet" doesn't mean Russian

The Soviets made great strides in supporting and promoting their minorities up until Stalin started reversing things. No matter how much they did, though, demographically the Soviet Union was majority Russian, majority Orthodox Christian, and overwhelmingly Slavic. No matter how hard they held to international ideas, they couldn't change the fact that the country was built by Russians while the minorities mostly tried to go their own way. The country was supposed to be new, but territorially it was just a smaller version of the Tsars'. Even Kaliningrad was made Russian through an extraordinarily thorough ethnic cleansing.

The question here is whether we can devise a Soviet Union that is inherently a multinational state by virtue of its inhabitants and more-than-Russian by virtue of its borders. In simpler terms, include from near the outset a large population and territory that were never within Imperial Russia.

What say you?
 
Germany goes communist following WWI and becomes an equal member of the USSR. Now, the union is a lot less Russian.
 
I doubt it could be done. As OP pointed out Russians were simply the biggest group and if you throw in related groups such as Ukrainians and Belorusians that expanded group becomes even more dominant, not only when it comes to pure numbers but also through importance of area they control.

In GPW after Red Army was mauled it was rebuilt more along the multiethnic lines as opposed to more slavic dominated pre-war. After the war it could continue, but again Russians and Slavs in general will dominate due to sheer numbers.

Adding more lands will not change that dramatically, if it's in Europe it will be either more Slavs (Poland, Czechoslovakia) or groups that are too small to tilt the ballance (Romania, Bolgaria). If it's Asia same with numbers. Unless it's China at which point ASBs making that possible will deterina how SU would look like in future anyway.
 
Germany goes communist following WWI and becomes an equal member of the USSR. Now, the union is a lot less Russian.

A Soviet Union that absorbed Germany at that time wouldn't really be a union. The Bolsheviks didn't have the strength to force a nonconsensual merger, and the Germans would never, ever consent.

Socialist internationalism is all well and good, but at the time these people were all more or less conventional Marxists. They knew perfectly well that Russia couldn't really be turned Socialist by mere regime change, as it was far from a capitalist society to begin with. Even ignoring dialectic in favor of conventional economics, it was obvious that any close relationship would largely involve Germany paying to industrialize Russia, indefinitely. That's not on the table.

So for Germany to be "in" a "Soviet Union," at least one of those terms must be rendered so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Either Germany's membership amounts to no more than a friendship treaty, or Germany is a full member and every SSR is that independent.

Now a Communist Germany with friendly relations to the USSR would make a great timeline. I suspect it'd run like the PRC-Soviet relationship rather than a longterm arrangement, but still. Worth doing.

Likewise I'd love to see a TL where, instead of a huge Eurasian communist state, there were a scattering of little ones (and Russia). No doubt they'd all be excommunicating each other left and right over dialectic while cutting deals with capitalist states as a matter of course. Feels like where the world of Fight and Be Right is headed as of 1940.

Neither of those, though, are relevant here. I'll clarify the challenge a little in a post or two, but I hope it's clear why.
 
Quite hard, because:
1) Soviet is a Russian word
2) Russians were the dominant ethnic group within the Soviet Union, and the Russian language was even more dominant. It's still widely spoken, either as a minority language or as the main 2nd language.
 
Trotsky succeeds Stalin and integrates China after a successful war against Japan.

As aktarian pointed out, that's flat out impossible. The Soviets took close to a decade just to subdue the Poles, and they were getting a nominally independent state, not being annexed.

They did annex Tannu Tuva, which had been Chinese. And before Barbarossa, they were actively beginning to digest Xinjiang (Sinkiang). That would certainly have been substantial! And of course the only reason they didn't annex Mongolia is that they didn't particularly want to. But China itself? No way.

Politically, I could envision the Soviets managing the Tuvans, Outer Mongolia, and Xinjiang. And that may end up being the way to go here. This challenge is, in a big way, about how the world saw the Soviets and how the Soviets saw themselves. That much wouldn't swing economics or demographics dramatically, but it'd be very clear on a map. Not exactly world-shattering, but the cultural effects would be real in the USSR, China, and USA. I think the right situation on the ground in Mongolia in 1917-1921 could have seen it and Tannu Tuva annexed right off the bat, which would have probably skewed Moscow's focus eastwards, allowing a Uighur SSR to be annexed down the road.

Logistically they could do much better of course - Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, and perhaps Gansu or Qinghai/Inner Tibet. But any of the latter four would mean accepting the perpetual enmity of China, something OTL's Soviet leaders wouldn't go for. Not to mention Chinese citizens would be like the Baltic States (feeling occupied), never real Soviets. And expanding the category of "real Soviets" is after all what we're talking about here.
 
Trotsky succeeds Stalin and integrates China after a successful war against Japan.

Integrating China into the Soviet Union wouldn't solve anything, rather it would only make things worse IMHO.

Coping with the sheer size of China's population, not to mention dealing with each and every last ethnicity, would be a strain on the Soviet Union.

If China was to merge with the USSR, autonomous regions based on ethnicity could very well be created such as was seen in the Caucasus, with the federal structure (theoretically) giving the Chinese communists a say in Soviet affairs as a member state.

A Soviet Union that absorbed Germany at that time wouldn't really be a union. The Bolsheviks didn't have the strength to force a non consensual merger, and the Germans would never, ever consent.

It depends. IMHO Germany could very well willingly join the Soviet Union assuming that it was given a great degree of movement within the federal structure.

Furthermore, Germany joining the USSR would become a large asset for the RSFSR insofar as industrialization and trade is concerned.

and the German Communist Party (KPD) would effectively have jurisdiction over Germany, and theoretically the KPD leadership would be allowed to make their own decisions.
 
Have the National Communists in the Ukraine and Central Asia succeed in achieving their goals - this will make the Soviet Union into a more plural alliance of states without having to expand it. Ukraine will be similar to Russia in all but language - but Sultan-Galievite central Asia will provide a striking contrast to Russian style Bolshevism.
 
Last edited:
I doubt it could be done. As OP pointed out Russians were simply the biggest group and if you throw in related groups such as Ukrainians and Belorusians that expanded group becomes even more dominant, not only when it comes to pure numbers but also through importance of area they control.

In GPW after Red Army was mauled it was rebuilt more along the multiethnic lines as opposed to more slavic dominated pre-war. After the war it could continue, but again Russians and Slavs in general will dominate due to sheer numbers.

Adding more lands will not change that dramatically, if it's in Europe it will be either more Slavs (Poland, Czechoslovakia) or groups that are too small to tilt the ballance (Romania, Bolgaria). If it's Asia same with numbers. Unless it's China at which point ASBs making that possible will deterina how SU would look like in future anyway.

While largely I agree, percentages and GNP counts aren't everything. Soviet peoples who were never Russian subjects; "loyal minorities"; and as I mentioned above even the shape of the country on a map.... It all has knock-on effects.

Say it's just Hungary-with-Slovakia. Including only that much reorients the regimes focus hard into southern Europe, binds the Little Entente together with bonds of steel, utterly alters the role of left-wing parties in the Balkans, shifts the balance against the Cyrillic alphabet, and puts firm limits on the ability of the central government to centralize anything like it did historically. And - where my interest is - it will utterly alter both Soviet and anti-Soviet myth making.

Or what if the civil war lines sweep back across Latvia and Estonia in 1919? Suddenly the Latvian force that singlehandedly defended St. Petersburg during the revolution's nadir don't look weird. Instead they're a defining part of the Soviet "national" mythos, and (without quotes) the Latvian one as well.
 
Last edited:
Quite hard, because:
1) Soviet is a Russian word
2) Russians were the dominant ethnic group within the Soviet Union, and the Russian language was even more dominant. It's still widely spoken, either as a minority language or as the main 2nd language.

And Russia is a Swedish word. It doesn't exactly hold a people back, where a word came from.

The language, though, that's not going away. Although it could be a very different matter if expansion renders the alphabet standardization a non-starter.
 
Impossible. Although IMO, during the Soviet years Russians actually had a disproportionately low amount of representation, especially at the higher levels, any state that covers most of the territory of Russia, has a capital at St Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad or at Moscow is going to be considered "Russia" by the rest of the world. Even if the USSR survived until today and the population growth imbalance between Slavic Russians and Muslim ethnic groups was even wider, it would still be considered Russia. It'd be considered Russian even if the Russians were only a plurality.
 
Integrating China into the Soviet Union wouldn't solve anything, rather it would only make things worse IMHO.

Coping with the sheer size of China's population, not to mention dealing with each and every last ethnicity, would be a strain on the Soviet Union.

You have a talent for understatement.

If China was to merge with the USSR, autonomous regions based on ethnicity could very well be created such as was seen in the Caucasus, with the federal structure (theoretically) giving the Chinese communists a say in Soviet affairs as a member state.

Well for starters, they're 95% all one ethnicity. Member states, though, had very little say in Soviet affairs. Obviously this would have to change, but how could it? Either they'd be grossly under represented in their powers (and so fight for and win independence) or they'd more or less own the USSR. There's no way I can see to square that circle.

It depends. IMHO Germany could very well willingly join the Soviet Union assuming that it was given a great degree of movement within the federal structure.

Furthermore, Germany joining the USSR would become a large asset for the RSFSR insofar as industrialization and trade is concerned.

Obviously Lenin would be thrilled at the chance. But how can you give the Germans the amount of movement they'd need and still even call it a federation? Where do you put the capital? They'll demand their own foreign policy and military, for sure, and will be condescending to the Russians every step of the way. And they're going to be both less radical economically and more radical socially - who referees a Marxist doctrinal dispute? The German communists are in power on the backs of workers and clerks who want comfortable retirements - how much money will they want to put into building up a Russian superpower that's "doing Socialism wrong?"

You'd need the call to be made dictatorially, and whoever was making that decision would need one firm grasp on power. I don't suppose you know enough about late-teens Germany to suggest names?

and the German Communist Party (KPD) would effectively have jurisdiction over Germany, and theoretically the KPD leadership would be allowed to make their own decisions.

Eh.... But if the German SSR had that power, so inevitably would the Polish SSR and the Ukrainian SSR and.... It'd be an interesting mess, but a mess it'd be.
 
Last edited:
While largely I agree, percentages and GNP counts aren't everything. Soviet peoples who were never Russian subjects; "loyal minorities"; and as I mentioned above even the shape of the country on a map.... It all has knock-on effects.

It's not everything but it's a lot. In you look at OTL SU slavic population controled European SU which means majority of food production, majority of industrial areas and popualtion centres. It also controls significant part of exploited natural resources though this depends on period in question. If you equate ethnic grops with respective republics it becomes even more slanted in their favour with Russia doinating over all.

While steps can be taken to increase representation of other groups slavs will dominate by sheer size. The question is degree of this domination.

Say it's just Hungary-with-Slovakia. Including only that much reorients the regimes focus hard into southern Europe, binds the Little Entente together with bonds of steel, utterly alters the role of left-wing parties in the Balkans, shifts the balance against the Cyrillic alphabet, and puts firm limits on the ability of the central government to centralize anything like it did historically. And - where my interest is - it will utterly alter both Soviet and anti-Soviet myth making.

It would change things but when it comes composition of SU itself probably not that much. I agree that it would likely improve conditions of latin alphabet, probably puting it on equal footing nation-wide and in dominant position in this new SSR(s). Even more so if you throw in Balts as well.

But yes, such inclusion would probably mean SU isn't seen as next phase in evolution of Russia but rather an union of socialist states. Sort of tighter post-WW2 Eastern bloc, if you wish.

Or what if the civil war lines sweep back across Latvia and Estonia in 1919? Suddenly the Latvian force that singlehandedly defended St. Petersburg during the revolution's nadir don't look weird. Instead they're a defining part of the Soviet "national" mythos, and (without quotes) the Latvian one as well.

More equal status for "white"/European republics? Maybe sort of how Scots and Welsh have their separate identities but are both part of UK?
 
Have the National Communists in the Ukraine and Central Asia succeed in achieving their goals - this will make the Soviet Union into a more plural alliance of states without having to expand it. Ukraine will be similar to Russia in all but language - but Sultan-Galievite central Asia will provide a striking contrast to Russian style Bolshevism.

Yes. This is the kind of thing I want involved. [Though with some demographic and territorial changes as well.] Homegrown Turkic communists would create enormous change.

But how? The Ukrainian communists had so much trouble because they were sitting on top of one of the main anti-Soviet fronts. And the Central Asians were trying to discover and impose an ideology at the same time.
 

Incognito

Banned
The Soviets made great strides in supporting and promoting their minorities up until Stalin started reversing things. No matter how much they did, though, demographically the Soviet Union was majority Russian, majority Orthodox Christian, and overwhelmingly Slavic. No matter how hard they held to international ideas, they couldn't change the fact that the country was built by Russians while the minorities mostly tried to go their own way. The country was supposed to be new, but territorially it was just a smaller version of the Tsars'. Even Kaliningrad was made Russian through an extraordinarily thorough ethnic cleansing.

The question here is whether we can devise a Soviet Union that is inherently a multinational state by virtue of its inhabitants and more-than-Russian by virtue of its borders. In simpler terms, include from near the outset a large population and territory that were never within Imperial Russia.

What say you?
Didn't we have thread on this not too long ago? https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=276497
 
The Soviets made great strides in supporting and promoting their minorities up until Stalin started reversing things. No matter how much they did, though, demographically the Soviet Union was majority Russian, majority Orthodox Christian, and overwhelmingly Slavic. No matter how hard they held to international ideas, they couldn't change the fact that the country was built by Russians while the minorities mostly tried to go their own way. The country was supposed to be new, but territorially it was just a smaller version of the Tsars'. Even Kaliningrad was made Russian through an extraordinarily thorough ethnic cleansing.

The question here is whether we can devise a Soviet Union that is inherently a multinational state by virtue of its inhabitants and more-than-Russian by virtue of its borders. In simpler terms, include from near the outset a large population and territory that were never within Imperial Russia.

What say you?

Hungary and Germany go Communist in 1919 and proclaim themselves to be Soviet Republics.
 
It's not everything but it's a lot. In you look at OTL SU slavic population controled European SU which means majority of food production, majority of industrial areas and popualtion centres. It also controls significant part of exploited natural resources though this depends on period in question. If you equate ethnic grops with respective republics it becomes even more slanted in their favour with Russia doinating over all.

While steps can be taken to increase representation of other groups slavs will dominate by sheer size. The question is degree of this domination.

And the attitude toward it.

Do the people and organizations see SSR-ship as being a member of an unbalanced federation? Things like Belarus, Moldova, the Caucasians, and arguably the Muslims in the USSR, plus Romania, Bulgaria, and pre-1968 Czechoslovakia in WarPac. Or do they see themselves as a conquered people held by threat of force? Feeling like the Balts, East Germans, and Poles post-WWII, Hungarians and Czechs post you-know-what, and Ukrainians post-Holodomor.

Out of time, but this is key, and it's little addressed in either thread.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
The use of the word "Soviet" already implies Russian domination. Russian was not a prestige language nor the preferred language of communists. The terminology of Marxism is in French and German. If the communist revolution starts or is largely directed from Russia, then it's demographically impossible for Russians not to dominate. The areas that an ATL Soviet Union could conceivably consolidate given the best circumstances are largely areas that already had a history of heavy-handed Russian imperialism.

The OP asks:

"The question here is whether we can devise a Soviet Union that is inherently a multinational state by virtue of its inhabitants and more-than-Russian by virtue of its borders. In simpler terms, include from near the outset a large population and territory that were never within Imperial Russia."

To rephrase what I said before, an inherently multinational communist state would not call itself the Soviet Union. If it calls itself the Soviet Union, it means that they roughly control the area of the former Russian Empire. If a communist state incorporated, say both Germany and Russia on an equal basis, they would call themselves the People's Revolutionary State or the International Socialist Union or some such.

It's like asking for a Scandinavian union called the "Danish Confederacy" in which Denmark is not dominant. It's physically possible for that to happen, but it would require a statesman proposing a nonsensical and politically inflammatory name for his country, and for Swedes and Norwegians who have as much say as the Danish to be just fine with that. It doesn't make sense. "Russian" may not literally be in the name of the USSR, but Soviet is a specifically Russian word not used by Marx or Engels. If a federation of the USA, Canada and Mexico came into existence 400 years from now, and it was called "EUNA" by foreign countries after "Estados Unidos de Norteamérica", then clearly Mexico is the dominant partner and Spanish is the lingua franca. Why would an English speaker not call it "USNA" (United States of North America) if Mexico and the Spanish language didn't take some kind of precedence?

What you might conceivably have, is a Marxist state that calls itself "The Union of Socialist Workers' Councils" in English (just as an example, it doesn't have to be exactly that), with the constituent states translating the name into their own languages. The Russians might say "Soviet" in their language to mean council. Of course, this ignores the fact that a socialist state of that size is basically impossible. I don't see both Germany and Russia having revolutions, and even if they do, I don't see them forming a unitary state without significant problems that will lead to inevitable disintegration or chaos.
 
Last edited:
Top