No "Socialism in One Country"

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
 
Last edited:
What if, through whatever mechanism, the Soviet Union never explicitly abandons the idea of encouraging revolutions in the rest of the world?

It never did! Is this a DBWI? (When Stalin argued that if necessary the USSR could build socialism by itself, he never said it should be indifferent to the cause of revolution abroad. Of course he recognized the obvious--that there was no immediate revolutionary situation in western Europe in the mid-to-late 1920's--but that is another matter.)
 
It never did! Is this a DBWI? (When Stalin argued that if necessary the USSR could build socialism by itself, he never said it should be indifferent to the cause of revolution abroad. Of course he recognized the obvious--that there was no immediate revolutionary situation in western Europe in the mid-to-late 1920's--but that is another matter.)

No, not a DBWI, just trying to boil a complex process down into a few lines of text. Part of what I was trying to encapsulate the way folks on AH.com tend to interpret a few Stalin quotes as meaning that before WW2, Stalin had abandoned the idea of spreading revolution (which I think is demonstrably wrong, just like interpreting Stalin siding with Bukharin on his way to the top as being pro-NEP is wrong - Stalin said alot of contrary things).

I definitely could have said it better... Hopefully my edited version is more clear.

To get back to the WI, do you think a leader other than Stalin would have gotten the USSR bogged down in supporting some revolution or another?

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
To get back to the WI, do you think a leader other than Stalin would have gotten the USSR bogged down in supporting some revolution or another?

Just going by human-nature as consistently manifested in the world of politics, it's almost invariably the case that supposedly hardcore ideologues, after attaining power, blink when confronted with cold reality.

One doubts, for example, that President Ron Paul would have said "Okay, I've got my mandate, now every single overseas US military is gonna be closed tomorrow."

To go back to the reverse situation, whatever international realities compelled Stalin to scale back the overseas revolution-mongering, would likely confront a General Secretary Trotsky as well. My guess would be that Trotsky might have made more of an effort at putting on a good show, giving token support to revolutionary actions here and there, but at the end of the day, wouldn't do much more than Stalin did.
 
To go back to the reverse situation, whatever international realities compelled Stalin to scale back the overseas revolution-mongering, would likely confront a General Secretary Trotsky as well. My guess would be that Trotsky might have made more of an effort at putting on a good show, giving token support to revolutionary actions here and there, but at the end of the day, wouldn't do much more than Stalin did.

Hmmm. I wonder if "token support" might mean more foreign revolutionaries being allowed to study in the SU? That could have big effects, particularly if (unlike Stalin, who just about annihilated the pro-Soviet leftists who came to study OTL) he doesn't purge them in the 30s.

fasquardon
 
Trotsky's ideas against socialism in one country were little more than ideological posturing to gain a revolutionary leg up on Stalin, not a serious starting point for a foreign policy. Trying to export revolution is going to hamstring the Soviet Union's economic development and get it embroiled in conflicts it can't possibly win. At best, it will speed up the Nazi seizure of power and shift Japanese thinking to a 'strike the soviets first' approach. At worst, the USSR will lose territory and a much more moderate regime will come to power early.
 
If there was any potential Soviet leader who was likely to spend more effort than Stalin in futile attempts to provoke revolutions abroad, it was probably not Trotsky but Zinioviev (overcompensating for the "disgrace" of his having opposed the October insurrection in 1917).
 
If there was any potential Soviet leader who was likely to spend more effort than Stalin in futile attempts to provoke revolutions abroad, it was probably not Trotsky but Zinioviev (overcompensating for the "disgrace" of his having opposed the October insurrection in 1917).

On the other hand, Zinoviev became more cautious after the failed revolution in Germany. I suspect that a Zinoviev-led SU would zig-zag between caution and recklessness depending on what humiliation is uppermost in his mind or what his political opponents needled him about more...

fasquardon
 
Top