Female ruler of Russia/USSR
- Thread starter Bukabuck
- Start date
-
- Tags
- leadership russia soviet union
Sounds interesting. I never heard that there were influential women after 1920s.
Maybe if the hardliners manage to block Gorbachev's appointment they could back Nina Andreyeva as the next leader. #girlboss Stalinist hours
Elena Stasova - Wikipedia
Nadezhda Krupskaya - Wikipedia
Alexandra Kollontai - Wikipedia
Inessa Armand - Wikipedia
Angelica Balabanoff - Wikipedia
Catherine Breshkovsky - Wikipedia
Larissa Reissner - Wikipedia
Olga Shatunovskaya - Wikipedia
Nina Andreyeva was a nobody. A lab chemist, with no rank in the party.
Armand leadership is ASB, I guess. Kollontai and Krupskaya were very possible. No idea about rest of the list.Elena Stasova - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Nadezhda Krupskaya - Wikipedia
Alexandra Kollontai - Wikipedia
Inessa Armand - Wikipedia
Angelica Balabanoff - Wikipedia
Catherine Breshkovsky - Wikipedia
Larissa Reissner - Wikipedia
Olga Shatunovskaya - Wikipedia
Spiridonova was a revolututionary, not a politician. She has zero chances.
I can imagine that she would become leader of Russian SFSR if Left SRs succefully couped Bolsheviks during the civil war. She was leader of Left-Socialists-Revolutionares. (but tbh it would be very based, given to fact that she was literally a terrorist lol)
Last edited:
I think the biggest issue is that the Communist Party seemed to actively prevent women from having political positions of any serious power. Gaining power in the Soviet Union depended on having powerful friends and patrons, and I think there was too much prejudice within the ranks of the Party for a woman to make it very far, unless she was married to an already powerful figure, like Krupskaya.
Krupskaya most likely forged Lenin's testament so there is at least a chance she'd be interested, as it was plainly meant to slime all candidates for leadership
As for others, you could get a Romanov daughter surviving and eventually inheiriting the throne once pieces are put together.
As for modern Russia, I think one of the top people in United Russia in the duma is female so it's not inconceivable.
As for others, you could get a Romanov daughter surviving and eventually inheiriting the throne once pieces are put together.
As for modern Russia, I think one of the top people in United Russia in the duma is female so it's not inconceivable.
Probably the most influential woman in Soviet politics was Yekaternia Furtseva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekaterina_Furtseva who became a full member of the Politburo (or Presidium as it was known at the time). But I can't see her as a serious contender to succeed Khrushchev.
So here's my (admittedly improbable) proposal: the German Revolution of 1919 is successful, Germany becomes part of the USSR, and Rosa Luxemburg becomes the leader...
So here's my (admittedly improbable) proposal: the German Revolution of 1919 is successful, Germany becomes part of the USSR, and Rosa Luxemburg becomes the leader...
On Krupskaya allegedly forging Lenin's "Testament" I'll repeat what i posted here a couple of years ago:
***
The weird thing about the "Lenin's testament is fake" theory is that--as the Stalin-friendly Russian historian who is its leading advocate, V. A. Sakharov, acknowledges--Stalin himself accepted it as genuine! [1]
"It is a fact that Lenin’s authorship of these documents, publicly from the very beginning, unfortunately was never questioned. It was taken as an accepted fact that they were authored by V.I. Lenin. This was even accepted by J.V. Stalin himself." http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n1/LenTest.htm
However, it would not quite be fair to say that only Stalinist cranks take Sakharov's theory seriously. Stephen Kotkin has also expressed doubts that Lenin was really in a condition to dictate much of the Testament. I tend to agree with Christopher Reed's critique of Sakharov and Kotkin. After noting that Krupskaya herself did not think Stalin's "rudeness" to her was worth breaking relations with him, Reed observes:
"This last point also undermines recent interpretations which suggest Krupskaya actually forged the letter. A Russian historian largely favourable to Stalin, Valentin Sakharov, first questioned the authenticity of the testament along these lines. Kotkin has, more cautiously, adopted the view that Krupskaya's role in its production was decisive. However, he also points out that Krupskaya had no reason to favour Trotsky with whom she had had longer and deeper differences than the transient spat with Stalin. Also, why would Lenin's sister, Maria, close to Lenin, Krupskaya and Stalin, have gone along with such an attack? It is unlikely in the extreme. While there is no ultimate proof it seems the anomalies in the testament are most logically explained as a consequence of the conditions in which they were produced. In other words a sick Lenin was not at the height of his powers and his ideas were being filtered piecemeal through the intervention of his secretary, Fotieva, and Krupskaya, Maria Ulyanova and other members of his household. In fact, Kotkin agrees this might be possible — that 'someone knowing Lenin's thoughts, rendered some barely audible but genuine words and gestures into this form' — but favours the interpretation which emphasizes Krupskaya's intervention." Stalin: From the Caucasus to the Kremlin https://books.google.com/books?id=6iklDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA103
Moreover, Kotkin acknowledges that Lenin's sister Maria, who was certainly no enemy of Stalin, confirmed much of the substance of the Testament.
I think we should accept the Testament as basically authentic, even if "filtered." However, what we should not do is accept it as Holy Writ. Lenin was ill, touchy, and may have overreacted to things like Ordzhonikidze slapping a Georgian Bolshevik who had called him "Stalin's mule" or Stalin using impolite language to Krupskaya.
Moreover, we should remember that the Testament criticizes all the leading Bolsheviks, not just Stalin--which would limit the use his opponents could make of it:
"He [Trotsky] is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work." https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm
This may not seem like very severe criticism, but it alludes to two of Trotsky's least popular characteristics: his arrogance, and his inclination to rule by fiat ("administration" being a euphemism for this).
Lenin also alludes to Trotsky's "struggles against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat for Communications" and in one sentence scores hits against Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky:
"I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky." (In other words, Lenin was pointedly reminding his comrades of the things about Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky that in the next breath he says shouldn't be held against them...)
The other Bolsheviks don't fare much better, e.g.: "Bukharin is not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favorite of the whole Party, but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with the great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of dialectics, and, I think, never fully appreciated it)." Translation: We all love Comrade Bukharin, but let's face it, he is no politician.
If there is anything to be drawn from this, it is that Lenin did not consider any of the Bolshevik leaders to be worthy of succeeding him. Some of the others seem to be guilty of things at least as bad as Stalin's "rudeness."
[1] "It is said that in that "will" Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin's "rudeness" it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin's place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.
"What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.
"A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post.
"What else could I do?
"As regards publishing the "will," the congress decided not to publish it, since it was addressed to the congress and was not intended for publication..."
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm Stalin here quite clearly accepts the authenticity of the documents in question even if he objects to calling them Lenin's "will" (and he is actually right to reject that word IMO--the party was not Lenin's property to be disposed of according to his wishes). He defends the decision not to publish the documents in question, not by saying they were forgeries but by saying they were intended for the Congress. He actually accepts the allegation of "rudeness" and tries to put a positive spin on it.
***
The weird thing about the "Lenin's testament is fake" theory is that--as the Stalin-friendly Russian historian who is its leading advocate, V. A. Sakharov, acknowledges--Stalin himself accepted it as genuine! [1]
"It is a fact that Lenin’s authorship of these documents, publicly from the very beginning, unfortunately was never questioned. It was taken as an accepted fact that they were authored by V.I. Lenin. This was even accepted by J.V. Stalin himself." http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n1/LenTest.htm
However, it would not quite be fair to say that only Stalinist cranks take Sakharov's theory seriously. Stephen Kotkin has also expressed doubts that Lenin was really in a condition to dictate much of the Testament. I tend to agree with Christopher Reed's critique of Sakharov and Kotkin. After noting that Krupskaya herself did not think Stalin's "rudeness" to her was worth breaking relations with him, Reed observes:
"This last point also undermines recent interpretations which suggest Krupskaya actually forged the letter. A Russian historian largely favourable to Stalin, Valentin Sakharov, first questioned the authenticity of the testament along these lines. Kotkin has, more cautiously, adopted the view that Krupskaya's role in its production was decisive. However, he also points out that Krupskaya had no reason to favour Trotsky with whom she had had longer and deeper differences than the transient spat with Stalin. Also, why would Lenin's sister, Maria, close to Lenin, Krupskaya and Stalin, have gone along with such an attack? It is unlikely in the extreme. While there is no ultimate proof it seems the anomalies in the testament are most logically explained as a consequence of the conditions in which they were produced. In other words a sick Lenin was not at the height of his powers and his ideas were being filtered piecemeal through the intervention of his secretary, Fotieva, and Krupskaya, Maria Ulyanova and other members of his household. In fact, Kotkin agrees this might be possible — that 'someone knowing Lenin's thoughts, rendered some barely audible but genuine words and gestures into this form' — but favours the interpretation which emphasizes Krupskaya's intervention." Stalin: From the Caucasus to the Kremlin https://books.google.com/books?id=6iklDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA103
Moreover, Kotkin acknowledges that Lenin's sister Maria, who was certainly no enemy of Stalin, confirmed much of the substance of the Testament.
I think we should accept the Testament as basically authentic, even if "filtered." However, what we should not do is accept it as Holy Writ. Lenin was ill, touchy, and may have overreacted to things like Ordzhonikidze slapping a Georgian Bolshevik who had called him "Stalin's mule" or Stalin using impolite language to Krupskaya.
Moreover, we should remember that the Testament criticizes all the leading Bolsheviks, not just Stalin--which would limit the use his opponents could make of it:
"He [Trotsky] is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work." https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm
This may not seem like very severe criticism, but it alludes to two of Trotsky's least popular characteristics: his arrogance, and his inclination to rule by fiat ("administration" being a euphemism for this).
Lenin also alludes to Trotsky's "struggles against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat for Communications" and in one sentence scores hits against Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky:
"I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky." (In other words, Lenin was pointedly reminding his comrades of the things about Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky that in the next breath he says shouldn't be held against them...)
The other Bolsheviks don't fare much better, e.g.: "Bukharin is not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favorite of the whole Party, but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with the great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of dialectics, and, I think, never fully appreciated it)." Translation: We all love Comrade Bukharin, but let's face it, he is no politician.
If there is anything to be drawn from this, it is that Lenin did not consider any of the Bolshevik leaders to be worthy of succeeding him. Some of the others seem to be guilty of things at least as bad as Stalin's "rudeness."
[1] "It is said that in that "will" Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin's "rudeness" it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin's place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.
"What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.
"A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post.
"What else could I do?
"As regards publishing the "will," the congress decided not to publish it, since it was addressed to the congress and was not intended for publication..."
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm Stalin here quite clearly accepts the authenticity of the documents in question even if he objects to calling them Lenin's "will" (and he is actually right to reject that word IMO--the party was not Lenin's property to be disposed of according to his wishes). He defends the decision not to publish the documents in question, not by saying they were forgeries but by saying they were intended for the Congress. He actually accepts the allegation of "rudeness" and tries to put a positive spin on it.
Last edited:
People have mentioned Alexandra Kollontai--but as an opponent of Brest-Litovsk in 1918 and a leader of the Workers' Opposition in 1920-21, the surprising thing is not that she did not reach the top leadership but that she died of natural causes in 1952...
Even if she had avoided all political heresies, I just don't see her reaching the top. She was People's Commissar for Social Welfare in the first Soviet government--the sort of job that in the twentieth century was often given to women in communist and capitalist nations alike. (Think Oveta Culp Hobby, Patricia Roberts Harris, Margaret Heckler, Donna Shalala...)
Even if she had avoided all political heresies, I just don't see her reaching the top. She was People's Commissar for Social Welfare in the first Soviet government--the sort of job that in the twentieth century was often given to women in communist and capitalist nations alike. (Think Oveta Culp Hobby, Patricia Roberts Harris, Margaret Heckler, Donna Shalala...)
I realize Stalin accepted it and in fact offered to resign several times in the 1920s with allusions made to the Testament. While the topic was suppressed often, in party circles, after 1929 especially, he never called it a forgery.
However, I mostly agree with Kotkin on the improbability of Lenin being in a position to actually write such a document. His health problems were such that his motor skills were severely hampered, especially in the late 1922-early 1923 timeframe. Dictation is possible, and yes, I don't think Krupskaya was petty enough to go after Stalin just because he was a bit short with her on the phone. But the document itself was drafted somewhat in bizarre fashion , not having been entered into the logs of his secretariat and being typed only, missing Lenin's normal process for documentation of his correspondence or political writings.
The point is more that of the people who had access to Lenin, and who were known to in their own correspondence write in arcane Bolshevik administrative language, she was pretty much the prime suspect. It's not clear what her own political inclinations were or how they shifted over time. It's also not clear that she or Lenin understood what the role of General Secretary of the party had actually become. It was not a role that was ever supposed to be as all reaching as it was, it only became that because Lenin had a stroke shortly after creating it.
But the fact that the testament criticizes everyone to a degree seems to indicate that if she was indeed the forger, she had complaints about the system of current party leadership itself and not just individual figures and wanted to weaken all potential successors.
Last edited:
That's point, yeah. Also, what do you think about Spiridonova's leadership if Left SRs succefully couped Bolsheviks in 1918?
She was a woman of great courage but not very good political judgment. She and the other Left SR's did not want to take power in July. They simply hoped that the assassination of Mirbach would lead Germany to resume the war. When it didn't, even the subsequent "Left SR uprising" was not actually aimed at seizing power:
"When Dzerzhinsky demanded that the assassins be turned over for arrest, the Left SRs in the Cheka arrested him instead. At this point the Left SRs could easily have seized power. They had 2,000 well-armed troops in Moscow, compared to 700 loyal to the regime. The bulk of the Latvian Rifles, the only reliably pro-Bolshevik military unit in the capital, were celebrating St. John's Day on the outskirts of Moscow, and were unable to get back because of poor weather. Lenin was as defenseless as Kerensky had been in October.
"The Left SRs, however, did not press home their military advantage (by seizing the Kremlin) largely because they did not really want to seize power. What they wanted was to set off a popular uprising that would force the resumption of the war. Just where the uprising would lead, they did not know; they would leave that to the "revolutionary creativity of the masses." In any event, the Bolsheviks were able to capture the Left SR headquarters, liberate Dzerzhinsky, and arrest the Left SR Central Committee.
"Steinberg later said that the uprising had failed'"not because [the] leaders were not brave enough, but because it was not at all their purpose to overthrow the government.'" Left SRs uprising successful | alternatehistory.com
OK, I probably shouldn't do this, as it's not realistic at all and this has been a rather serious discussion thus far, but a TL where Makhno's Anarchists emerge victorious in the RCW, and Ukrainian "rail pirate" Marusya Nikiforova lives and succeeds Makhno as "leader" of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary "State" would certainly make for an entertaining read!
en.m.wikipedia.org
(I know, I know, "move to ASB"...
)
Maria Nikiforova - Wikipedia
(I know, I know, "move to ASB"...
)