What if, through whatever mechanism, the Soviet Union never moves away from the idea of encouraging revolutions in the rest of the world in the pre-war period? This is something that comes up occasionally in "WI Trotsky!" and "No Stalin!" WIs, I've not seen it ever discussed in depth though.
The unspoken assumption on AH.com seems to be that Stalin was vital in stopping the Soviet Union from destroying itself in the 20s and 30s by getting itself involved in wars with the capitalist powers to try and spread Communism. Personally, I am suspicious of any argument that credits Stalin with any good ideas, so I am suspicious of this meme also.
Based on Soviet policy in Sinkiang and Mongolia during the pre-war era, even when the official line was "Socialism in one country", the Soviets were helping build Socialism in foreign lands. And based on Soviet behavior after Stalin's death (where more effort was spent restraining Communist revolutions in the 3rd world than was spent aiding Communist revolutions in the 3rd world), my feeling is that a Soviet Union without Stalin would only try to export revolution in cases where the leadership thought there was a benefit for Russian interests. Further, my feeling is that Russian interests are likely to dictate that not much exporting would happen before 1950 - certainly not to Europe. I can see the Soviets using "revolutionary exports" as a tool of quasi-imperialism in China and maybe even the Japanese colonies though.
I'm curious what other people think though. Would a Troksky-ite SU get involved in dumb wars for the sake of ideology? What about a SU led by a longer lived Lenin? Or Bukharin?
And if people do think the Soviets would export Socialism under a different leader in the 30s and 40s, where do they think the "exports" would go?
fasquardon
The unspoken assumption on AH.com seems to be that Stalin was vital in stopping the Soviet Union from destroying itself in the 20s and 30s by getting itself involved in wars with the capitalist powers to try and spread Communism. Personally, I am suspicious of any argument that credits Stalin with any good ideas, so I am suspicious of this meme also.
Based on Soviet policy in Sinkiang and Mongolia during the pre-war era, even when the official line was "Socialism in one country", the Soviets were helping build Socialism in foreign lands. And based on Soviet behavior after Stalin's death (where more effort was spent restraining Communist revolutions in the 3rd world than was spent aiding Communist revolutions in the 3rd world), my feeling is that a Soviet Union without Stalin would only try to export revolution in cases where the leadership thought there was a benefit for Russian interests. Further, my feeling is that Russian interests are likely to dictate that not much exporting would happen before 1950 - certainly not to Europe. I can see the Soviets using "revolutionary exports" as a tool of quasi-imperialism in China and maybe even the Japanese colonies though.
I'm curious what other people think though. Would a Troksky-ite SU get involved in dumb wars for the sake of ideology? What about a SU led by a longer lived Lenin? Or Bukharin?
And if people do think the Soviets would export Socialism under a different leader in the 30s and 40s, where do they think the "exports" would go?
fasquardon
Last edited: