Could the Soviet Union under Lenin defeat Operation Barbarossa?

[Mimihitam]

Assuming that:
- Lenin was healthy, no assassination attempt by Fanny Kaplan, and lived to his 80s.
- The Nazis still rose to power and launched Operation Barbarossa to seize the oil fields in the Caucasus, with the ultimate goal of expanding the Lebensraum

Could the Soviet Union under the leadership of Lenin defeat Operation Barbarossa?

I have been pondering about this myself, because Stalin did industrialize the country and propelled the Soviet Union decades ahead. Without the gigantic industry that Stalin built, the Soviet would not be able to withstand Germany, and I remember listening to the recording of Hitler complaining to Mannerheim about how the Soviets could produce so many tanks in the Urals. At the same time, the Great Purge severely weakened the Red Army, which was thought to be responsible for the early successes of the Nazis during Operation Barbarossa. If Lenin survived, probably there would be no Great Terror, but OTL his early economic policies were such a failure that he was forced to implement the market-oriented New Economic Policy, and these were not as effective as Stalin's Five Year Plans. So I suspect that if Lenin lived longer, probably the Soviet Union would have been destroyed if the Nazis had launched a massive invasion, but I'm not sure. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Wolttaire]

There would have been no babbeosa because of the butterflies

 

[liberty90]

Wasn't American lend-lease much more important than native Soviet industry?

 

[twistedirregular]

Wasn't American lend-lease much more important than native Soviet industry?

IIRC, Lend-Lease provided more logistical support to the USSR whereas she produced her own weaponry.

 

[basileus]

Wasn't American lend-lease much more important than native Soviet industry?

Not "much more important" because guns and tanks were almost entire Soviet-made, as were most small arms and machine guns. Nonetheless Allied help was crucial, despite arriving in cornucopian quantity when it was already clear that Germany couldn't win, whatever. The Soviets needed above all canned food, boots, communication and medical materiel, locomotives (they received A LOT), and trucks.

 

[Mimihitam]

There would have been no babbeosa because of the butterflies

It does not have to take place exactly like OTL, it could be earlier or later.. it's just a hypothetical of WI the Nazis under any Nazi leader (Hitler, Himmler, etc) invaded the Soviet Union under Lenin's leadership.

 

[Hilarious Bolloc]

An important point would be "Will Lenin agree to the Nazi-Soviet Pact?"
OTL a large part of the grain and all the rubber used to invade the USSR had come FROM the USSR since the previous August

 

[Jukra]

. If Lenin survived, probably there would be no Great Terror, but OTL his early economic policies were such a failure that he was forced to implement the market-oriented New Economic Policy, and these were not as effective as Stalin's Five Year Plans. So I suspect that if Lenin lived longer, probably the Soviet Union would have been destroyed if the Nazis had launched a massive invasion, but I'm not sure. Any thoughts on this?

Barring Pol Pot, I wonder if anyone can mishandle Soviet Economy and military as bad as Stalin. Of course Lenin was a murderous crackpot like Stalin, and the true question is if he will go some kind of Pol Pot -route which is even more destructive to Soviet power.

As for NEP, it restored the agriculture very quickly, so with continuing NEP Lenin could have built state industry without resorting to Stalin's methods. But of course this is just a Red dream. Lenin's goal was armchair economy based on control, and NEP would not offer enough control.

 

[Lalli]

If Lenin lives to end of 1930's things would change dramatically. Not even sure how Western nations would react to Lenin's USSR. Would it seen even begger threat? Could Lenin make any agreements with non-socialist leaders?

 

[SandroPertini98]

Actually Lenin was not a (so) mad man and surely was less blood-loving than Stalin but unfortunately he died in 1924 so his goverment passed to History for the Russian Civil War measures as repression, emergency power, centralization and Cheka creation. When he died he was working on his new economic policies (NEP) and an industrialization plan but after his death Stalin stole it and started massacres. If Lenin survives probable Stalin is expulsed from the Party and replaced by Trotsky. Industrialization happens but farmers get their lands and Kulaki are not shooted in mass. During the '30s Lenin pushes for union in the Communist International so the European Left remains united or allied: in Germany Hitler wins thank a coup with Hindenburg's support but in Spain Republican Front prevailes on Nationalists and in France Leo Blum stays as Prime Minister. Marshal Tuchavesky is not purged so his plans for modernization of Red Army are successful and in 1939 Soviets have a modern, tank-armed, army and not a Slavic version of Chinese soldiers waves. Finland is totally defeat during Winter War and turn communist. Of course there is not the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact so when Germany attacks in 1941 the Soviets are ready and stops the Nazis on the Sebastopol-Kiev-Minsk-Riga Line. When World War II finish in 1944 I can imagine Red Army takes easily all Central and Eastern Europe, included Germany, and France and Northern Italy. Western allies mantein only Norway and Southern Italy. Spain joins in Communist Bloc and probably also Greece follows after the civil war. With Khalin Ghol question unsolved Soviet Union declares war immediately against Japan and General Zhukov takes quickly China and Corea. When Lenin dies in 1949 at 79 USSR is better economically, militarily, territorially and socially. His successors Trotsky and Tuchavesky will continue his policies, avoiding Stalinist Stagflation.

 

[James Ricker]

Not "much more important" because guns and tanks were almost entire Soviet-made, as were most small arms and machine guns. Nonetheless Allied help was crucial, despite arriving in cornucopian quantity when it was already clear that Germany couldn't win, whatever. The Soviets needed above all canned food, boots, communication and medical materiel, locomotives (they received A LOT), and trucks.

And high octane aviation fuel, that really increased the performance of Russian military aircraft.

 

[Jukra]

Actually Lenin was not a (so) mad man and surely was less blood-loving than Stalin but unfortunately he died in 1924 so his goverment passed to History for the Russian Civil War measures as repression, emergency power, centralization and Cheka creation. When he died he was working on his new economic policies (NEP) and an industrialization plan but after his death Stalin stole it and started massacres.

Lenin, like Hitler, only had so little years in office that it's difficult to see how they would have fared eventually. Lenin is after all a tyrant who looks good when compared to Stalin or Hitler.

Body count from Russian Civil War and subsequent terror, including man-made famines, was enormous and would have been a lot smaller if Lenin had humanitarian instincts. Lenin set up Cheka and dismantled the Russian justice system which was very lenient by Soviet standards. In his writings and orders he had a certain bloodthirsty streak. There's no telling what he would have done when reality started it's intrusion to Bolshevik ideals of a command economy. Would he have responded with more terror? Possibly, but not necessarily.

 

[SandroPertini98]

Lenin, like Hitler, only had so little years in office that it's difficult to see how they would have fared eventually. Lenin is after all a tyrant who looks good when compared to Stalin or Hitler.

Body count from Russian Civil War and subsequent terror, including man-made famines, was enormous and would have been a lot smaller if Lenin had humanitarian instincts. Lenin set up Cheka and dismantled the Russian justice system which was very lenient by Soviet standards. In his writings and orders he had a certain bloodthirsty streak. There's no telling what he would have done when reality started it's intrusion to Bolshevik ideals of a command economy. Would he have responded with more terror? Possibly, but not necessarily.

I think that is hard make a comparison between Hitler and Lenin: the first was a tyrant, cruel dictator who starts a global war and order maybe not the biggest but surely the most methodic genocide in Mankind History, the second was a revolutionary leader who make a bloody revolution against an absolutist and tyrannic regime finishing in a terrible civil war. Lenin can be considered as more similar to a Russian version of Maximilian Roberspierre and his revolution against French Monarchy and consequent Jacobin Terror. I don't see as the Civil War body count can be attributed only to Lenin: it was a war, after all. According to Wikipedia communists had greater losses than whites: 100 000 people died during Red Terror but 300 000 died also during White Terror. We know that, without Lenin, Revolution and Civil War would have happened the same, so I can not accuse him for this. Cheka, the terrible first soviet secret police, was terrible, of course, but during a civil war (I see examples in Spain, Mexico, France, Italy, England, China, Nigeria and many others unfortunate nations) emergency measures are normal: not good, certainly terrible, bloody, but not comparable to Hitler government. And Lenin did not dismantle anything of previous Russian judicial system: the Czar had his secret police, Ochrana, and its methods during peace time were not so different by Lenin war measures. When Civil War finished in 1923 Lenin was just dying but his New Economic Politics are public so we know what he was projecting: it seems that reality won on ideology, because NEP tended more to free market/private propriety than to commanded economy. It seems reasonable suppose that Lenin would have continued his policies and so no crackdown of farmers and Kulaki, no destruction of agricolture sector, no man-made famine against Ukrainans and others people (Holodomor was a genocide but was Stalin to order it.Soviet famine of 1932–33 ,Holodomor - Wikipedia). No doubts, Lenin/Trotsky in lead=USSR stronger.

 

[Phalamus]

I think most of you guys are far too optimistic about soviet economic development under a continuing NEP. I think it's clear that the USSR could not industrialize as fast under this policy as it did under Stalin.

NEP Russia was an economy of small farmers and merchants. That's simply not a recipe for rapid industrialization.

If you want to industrialize a country as fast as possible you need to produce enough food to feed a huge number of industrial workers, and for that you need vast swathes of land worked by an organized workforce with advanced farming equipment, not family farms. So, in my opinion, to get to OTL levels of industrialization you need to either have collectivization or a sovit enclosure act.

That said, I don't a USSR under Lenin would necessarily loose wwii. Generals can't make up for tanks, but the soviets still have russian winter on their side

 

[Catsmate]

And high octane aviation fuel, that really increased the performance of Russian military aircraft.

Plus fuel additives (TEL), radios, copper wire, vacuum valves.....

 

[James Ricker]

I think yes, without Stalin there would be a lot of talent still alive and Lenin wouldn't have been as stupid as Stalin was before and after the German invasion.
If all else fails there would be several million more bodies to throw at the Germans.

 

[Jukra]

I think yes, without Stalin there would be a lot of talent still alive and Lenin wouldn't have been as stupid as Stalin was before and after the German invasion.
If all else fails there would be several million more bodies to throw at the Germans.

Considering Lenin invented a time machine - he sent Russia backwards to 1880's - and started Soviet Communist planned economy I think I have to disagree with the notion "Lenin was not as stupid as Stalin". Of course, if we're assuming there will still be a Barbarossa -analogue I see no reason why Lenin would not ally with Nazi Germany if there seemed tactical reasons to do so. Stepping stone towards True Communism, you know.

 

[basileus]

Actually Lenin was not a (so) mad man and surely was less blood-loving than Stalin but unfortunately he died in 1924 so his goverment passed to History for the Russian Civil War measures as repression, emergency power, centralization and Cheka creation. When he died he was working on his new economic policies (NEP) and an industrialization plan but after his death Stalin stole it and started massacres. If Lenin survives probable Stalin is expulsed from the Party and replaced by Trotsky. Industrialization happens but farmers get their lands and Kulaki are not shooted in mass. During the '30s Lenin pushes for union in the Communist International so the European Left remains united or allied: in Germany Hitler wins thank a coup with Hindenburg's support but in Spain Republican Front prevailes on Nationalists and in France Leo Blum stays as Prime Minister. Marshal Tuchavesky is not purged so his plans for modernization of Red Army are successful and in 1939 Soviets have a modern, tank-armed, army and not a Slavic version of Chinese soldiers waves. Finland is totally defeat during Winter War and turn communist. Of course there is not the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact so when Germany attacks in 1941 the Soviets are ready and stops the Nazis on the Sebastopol-Kiev-Minsk-Riga Line. When World War II finish in 1944 I can imagine Red Army takes easily all Central and Eastern Europe, included Germany, and France and Northern Italy. Western allies mantein only Norway and Southern Italy. Spain joins in Communist Bloc and probably also Greece follows after the civil war. With Khalin Ghol question unsolved Soviet Union declares war immediately against Japan and General Zhukov takes quickly China and Corea. When Lenin dies in 1949 at 79 USSR is better economically, militarily, territorially and socially. His successors Trotsky and Tuchavesky will continue his policies, avoiding Stalinist Stagflation.

Troppo ottimismo.
The trouble with Soviet Communism was not certainly entirely with Stali. There was a number of fanatics and henchmen ready to follow and serve him. And incompetence, corruption, poor quality and inefficiencies of sort would plague any Russia, I'd say Communist or not, throughout the XXth xcentury. What can and should be avoided are the wholesale genocidal massacres and purges by Stalin, limiting state repression to a, ahem, physiological level of, say, "a few thousands shot/worked to death/perished into jail/camp per year". Considering it's a totalitarian state, that would already be a good result.

 

[iVC]

The main preference about Lenin staying healthy and in power would be that Bolshevik Party will remain an unified body managed by the politicians with pre-1917 experience.
Pre-1924 party struggles were chaotic but did not resume in the cleanup mess and political purges, the authority of the Old Bolsheviks was enough to consolidate the party even after the heated discussions.

So the main silver bullet would be the political leadership which is tied together and not trying to wage an inner war. Such a different persons like Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Krestinsky, Bukharin, Tomsky, Radek, Kamenev and Rykov were able to work together successfully until they started to divide the Lenin's political heritage.

This means no use of economic and scientific management rallying cries for the political infighting, this means more stable and plain collectivization and industrialization.

And this means co-operation with labourites and social-democratic parties across the world after it becomes clear that wave of revolutions had passed.

 

[SandroPertini98]

Troppo pessimismo.
I didn't say the Soviet Union became Slavic Switzerland but it's a fact that the Lenin (and his designated successor Trotsky) approach was different from Stalin one.
Surely some others Gulags will be built (they existed under Nicholas II and Lenin didn't dismantled them) and suspect counter-rivolutionaries will be jailed but many normal people and Left activists probable will be spared. Of course, Soviet Union was and will be a totalitarian communist state, with one Party and one ideology but, I repeat, the Lenin approach was different: his way to make a more collegial decision-making process and his less paranoid psyche can make difference.
And if some good administrators, generals, politicians, economists and artists will be not shooted by Stalin madness (to be replaced by some authoritarian sycophants, best students of "Stalin School") I don't see why Russian people (and others Soviet nationalities) could not hope in a better goverment.