Lenin lived over 20 years

Stuff like forced collectivization and rapid industrialization were gaining traction among the party leadership before Lenin bit it, so it probably happens anyways. It probably isn't as stupidly brutal as it was under Stalin, though... we're talking "just" hundreds of thousands dead instead of millions, with correspondingly less damage to Soviet agriculture. Similar story with purges: political purges are liable to still happen, but they won't be the all-consuming things they were under Stalin.

I don't think the NEP being terminated is a given - people like Bukharin and others were clearly in favor of it. It depends a lot on how the power struggles shape up and who is seen as 'winning', since a lot of people usually like to switch over to who they consider is the winning team
 

Asami

Banned
Whoever wins the resulting power struggle? With the losers getting sidelined into secondary positions? You know, like OTL when Lenin died but before Stalin started shooting the CPSU's leadership?

And the most likely candidates could be anyone of note in the 1920s and 1930s; provided they don't alienate themselves with Comrade Lenin; and can play the game of political chess and win against the other Politburo candidates for the highest leadership. My money, in 1942, would be on someone like Leon Trotsky -- though Stalin, even if he's outmatched, could still get power through Lazar Kaganovich, one of his main allies.

Khrushchev wouldn't be a major player yet in 1942; and likely wouldn't be around at all since he was a result of the Stalinist bureaucracy (he was made the de-facto leader of Ukraine in 1938, and helped participate in the Great Purge). Brezhnev likely wouldn't either -- so we're looking an entirely different Soviet leadership by 1950 due to butterflying away Stalinist USSR.

Kosygin is always a candidate, too.
 
I think, even Stalin might still be around, if Lenin remained healthy and capable. He was fairly loyal, and began his bid for power only seeing Lenin's decline. Of course he might as well perish in Lenin's purges...
As for cult of personality, I am afraid it could be even worse then Stalin's, given that Lenin was actually a revolutionary leader. It seems to be a feature of communist dictatorships, whatever actual ruler might think about it. It is usually not instigated by the cult target, but by sycophants, and even for a ruler who dislikes it, allowing it might seem a lesser evil, then to spend a lot of effort to shoot it down repeatedly, especially if there are more pressing matters.
 
And the most likely candidates could be anyone of note in the 1920s and 1930s; provided they don't alienate themselves with Comrade Lenin; and can play the game of political chess and win against the other Politburo candidates for the highest leadership. My money, in 1942, would be on someone like Leon Trotsky -- though Stalin, even if he's outmatched, could still get power through Lazar Kaganovich, one of his main allies.

Khrushchev wouldn't be a major player yet in 1942; and likely wouldn't be around at all since he was a result of the Stalinist bureaucracy (he was made the de-facto leader of Ukraine in 1938, and helped participate in the Great Purge). Brezhnev likely wouldn't either -- so we're looking an entirely different Soviet leadership by 1950 due to butterflying away Stalinist USSR.

Kosygin is always a candidate, too.

Unlikely, Trotsky as had far more enemys than friends in the party. Whoever takes over it is unlikely to be him.
 
When Trotsky and Lenin were discussing their potential successors, who they considered the next generation, they brought up Yakov Sverdlov and Nikolai Bukharin. Sverdlov died during the Civil War but Bukharin was still around. The problem is that Stalin in the early 1920's essentially controlled the party apparatus. He was appointed to the position of Orgraspred in that time and soon after his ally Kaganovich was appointed to the Uchraspred which essentially allowed them the powers to promote and demote who they wanted to, to transfer people out of the political heartlands and into the rural regions and to ensure that party congresses were attended only by those who wouldn't challenge the leadership and Stalin continued this trend as General Secretary.

Lenin defended these roles as a necessity during the civil war as the party was lacking in organisational structures due, in a large part, to deaths of party members but notably and consistently he decried the bureaucratisation of the party and likely would have taken steps to reduce their power and increase the representation of workers which would have involved reducing the influences of Stalin. Twenty years is a long time and even if it's a gradual process the party could look significantly different come the 1940's.
 
Top