How different would history be without Stalin?

I think people confuse spreading the revolution with Comintern etc with spreading the revolution with fire and the sword.

Given how the Bolsheviks themselves took power, why wouldn't Comintern parties try the same thing in their own countries if they could?
 

Thande

Donor
Given how the Bolsheviks themselves took power, why wouldn't Comintern parties try the same thing in their own countries if they could?

I don't mean the revolutions themselves wouldn't necessarily be violent in nature, I mean the idea that the USSR would act as a military aggressor rather than a behind-the-scenes puppetmaster.
 
Given how the Bolsheviks themselves took power, why wouldn't Comintern parties try the same thing in their own countries if they could?

How many Communist states emerged after the USSR that weren't occupied by the Red Army or guerillas fighting against western imperialists?
 
How many Communist states emerged after the USSR that weren't occupied by the Red Army or guerillas fighting against western imperialists?

China, I would imagine. Neither the Japanese nor the ChiNats really count as "Western imperialists."

There's also the short-lived Communist government of Hungary in the aftermath of WWI.

Furthermore, just because these revolutions did not occur doesn't mean that the intent wasn't there.

Plus Communist parties did the bidding of the USSR--witness how they were antiwar until Barbarossa and *then* they conveniently became pro-war. That IMO gives credibility to the "icebreaker" hypothesis.
 
The example, IMO, is not Germany or Italy, but Poland. A backwards state with a stagnant industrial sector, a cabal of generals bumbling everything imaginable except shooting dissidents...


Didn't interwar Poland OTL manage considerable economic growth OTL? (despite a shortage of industrial raw materials, disconnection with it's traditional markets, and extreme hostility on the part of it's neighbors, at that)

Now, do we have any Polish contributers not members of the Raging Nationalist Loon party?

Bruce
 
1) Chronology-fail. The monarchy had already been deposed, this would mean the Kerensky government survives.

2) You mean like Kerensky actually did IOTL?

3) Trotsky would do a forced industrialization like Stalin but he lacked Stalin's ability to do realpolitik. Trotsky is the most likely Soviet leader to behave like the cartoon characters the Soviet leadership is often turned into, and the presence of Lev Bronstein as successor to Lenin will (horrible as it is to say) give Hitler a propaganda shot in the arm.

By the same token Trotsky had a greater degree of military competence than Stalin did, so it's likely if the USSR does fight a war against the Nazis they win much more quickly and with far less casualties than IOTL.
 
The first two options means that Russia remains a member of the victorious allied coalition in WW1 and might reap the expected rewards - which depending upon how weakened Russia is and what role it was able to play in the victory, could range from little more than honored membership in the League of Nations to virtually complete hegemony over many of the newly independent eastern and central European states. It might also mean no fully independent Poland - and certainly no independent Baltic Republics. The Allies were nothing if not hypocritical when they came to implementing Wilson's notions of self-determination.

As others have said, Stalin gets "credit" for industrializing a Russia that was already well on the way. Russia might not industrialize quite as quickly(or violently) as in OTL, but it would become a dominant power in Europe nonetheless - and also be smarter without all the purges of the army and landowning classes.

Defeated Germany would remain ripe for Communist revolution, as would Hungary and Austria. It's hard to say if "no USSR" would make successful revolutions in these places easier or harder. Allies might welcome Germany and the former A-H Empire being further weakened by revolution and civil war, or they might feel the need to intervene on the side of "Whites" (the same monarchist forces they supposedly opposed in WW1) or "Reds" (including socialists) to ensure the old forces did not reassume power. Either way, this could lead to a more thorough and long-lasting occupation of the former central powers as things get sorted out, which in the long run might not be a bad thing.

Completely impossible to project if there would be a WW2 anything like ours.

One question: which side of the war was Italy on? How well did that work out for liberal democracy in Italy?
 
One question: which side of the war was Italy on? How well did that work out for liberal democracy in Italy?

I'm not sure I said anything about a non Communist Russia becoming a "liberal democracy". In fact, I suspect that it would have become an autocracy (not totalitarian mind you, just illiberal) no matter who eventually came to power. Facsist? Who knows? without Communists to set themselves against, Fascists may not have come to power anywhere. As I indicated a lot would depend on how Russia came through WW1. If it was seen and treated as a main member of the victorious coalition and alowed to keep its empire and expand it like Britain and France did, Russia might behave like a responsible ally and could even democratize on its own. If it was treated like a poor stepchild (like Italy was) it's reasonable to believe something rather nasty would come out of Russia.
 
Argh. Why does everyone presume he will? He was one of the advocates of moderation during the Polish-Soviet War!

Yes, in fact he was *opposed* to spreading revolution militarily. He would of forced through a real united front in Germany and the Nazis would NEVER get to power. A communist Germany would ally with the now resurgent, un-purged and economically stronger USSR.

War would come *anyway* as the Imperialist powers wouldn't accept the new Workers Germany, now the lead nation in the Comintern, ripping up the Versailles Treaty. Germany in alliance with Russia and few other countries where the revolution would of spread, are attacked by the Brits and French. Trotsky, leading an international Red Army, along with this General Staff, would, after 2 years, be soaking their feet in the port of Oporto, Portugal, contemplating what to do about that FDR character in the US...
 
Whether the monarchy remains in power or not had nothing to do with Lenin, Lenin did not overthrow the monarchy.
Sometimes an "and" statement doesn't mean a causal relationship, but just that both associated sub-statements are true.
 
Top