Vladimir Lenin has become the luckiest person alive. Siberian exile, being hounded by police force after police force, and leading his faction through a revolution and civil war have not caused one stress-related health problem...If the POD is that he never had health problems and therefore lived a natural length life he could have lived well into the 1930s, or even the 40s (He was born 1870 i believe). Wouldn't that have been something?
What makes you think there would have been a Barbarossa?This could have drastically changed WW2, Lenin probably never would have done the purges that Stalin did, or the famines in Ukraine. The USSR might have been better prepared and wouldn't have been caught with its pants down come Barbarossa.
What makes you think there would have been a World War 2? What makes you think there would have been Nazis?On the other hand, its easy to see how differences in how this could change WW2. A stronger USSR might have kept the Nazis from ever invading at all.
What makes you think there would have been a non-aggresion pact?However, the Nazis honoring the non-aggression pact would almost guarantee them victory in the west, which would probably lead to a later invasion of Russia.
No he didn't. What he actually did was write a pamphlet/text denouncing Stalin and recommending that he be removed from his position near the levers of power, but said text was never published or distributed (stupid decision by Trotsky et al., who were supposed to do so). He also made some comments to that effect in one-on-one conversations. What he did not do was "call for Stalin to be removed" in the sense that he made such a call publically, or in person, or in any manner that might have been remotely effective. I'll say again that Molotov in a TL without Stalin ascending to the leadership of the USSR has no future; he's basically incapable of leading his own faction, and politically didn't really have any other place to go but into Stalin's lap. If Trotsky takes power, he has his own faction (see the Moscow Trials for a list of possible Trotsky successors). He doesn't need to go scraping the barrel of Stalin's.Lenin had called for Stalin to be removed early on, even though Stalin tried to hide it. Trotsky or Molotov would have been logical choices for successors. In the case of a neutral USSR I could see Trotsky taking over after Lenin, then Molotov after him.
Zinoviev was the nominal head honcho (there were other prima donnas, of course, but a gavel's gotta count for something) at the Comintern for most of its early life, and fairly close to a center-left position between Trotsky and Bukharin. Kamenev's probably a fairly reliable Bukharin ally ITTL, and might even supplant Bukharin as leader on the right of the Bolsheviks if Bukharin makes some inept decision or gets sidelined somehow.So I guess that leaves Bukharin or Zinoviev (Who I actually never heard before, so I need to search him up) as candidates, but is there anyone else?
How about Kamenav, is he a good contendor?
Oh, there's a bunch. Radek, Ossinsky, Vatseitis, etc. I'll again suggest the roster of defendants in the Moscow Trials for a good look at some prominent Bolsheviki who might have ascended to high positions if things had gone differently.What about Kirov? Without Stalin assassinating him he would still be very popular and continue to gain ground. He was a much more reform minded than Stalin and was not a dictatorial guy OTL.