Soviet succession without Stalin

[redjirachi]

Note: While the impact is after 1900, the POD is before 1900 so that's why it is here

Joseph Stalin, much like his hated enemy, was never destined for greatness. Ironically, were it up to his mother he would've become a priest. Which makes me wonder...what if Keke succeeded? One of history's biggest tyrants is instead remembered as a humble, though likely corrupt priest in the city of Gori. If one Ioseb Jughashvili never even becomes political, how would that impact the rise of the Bolsheviks? I don't think it'd be enough to stop Lenin getting into power or extend his life much either, so when Lenin dies in this timeline, who do you think will ultimately succeed him? And what would their reign be like?

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

Note: While the impact is after 1900, the POD is before 1900 so that's why it is here

Joseph Stalin, much like his hated enemy, was never destined for greatness. Ironically, were it up to his mother he would've become a priest. Which makes me wonder...what if Keke succeeded? One of history's biggest tyrants is instead remembered as a humble, though likely corrupt priest in the city of Gori. If one Ioseb Jughashvili never even becomes political, how would that impact the rise of the Bolsheviks? I don't think it'd be enough to stop Lenin getting into power or extend his life much either, so when Lenin dies in this timeline, who do you think will ultimately succeed him? And what would their reign be like?

Likely Trotsky due to his closeness to Lenin. He would be less domestically repressive but follow an agressive foreign policy which would be the USSR's undoing.

 

[Dude-a-Buck]

Likely Trotsky due to his closeness to Lenin. He would be less domestically repressive but follow an agressive foreign policy which would be the USSR's undoing.

I'm not so sure. I feel it's pretty well known that Lenin wrote a statement trying to discourage the party from elevating Stalin, people forget that he had similar reservations to Trotsky.

As for another potential successor, I'm part of a collaborative TL where we're using Alexi Rykov following Lenin's death. He was the second Premier after Lenin irl and was considered a leader of the parties moderate wing.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Trotsky's prominence as Stalin's great rival, and thus presumably politically strong, was in large party created by Stalin. Stalin knew that Trotsky was not especially popular with the Party rank and file and disliked by many of his colleagues on the Politburo. By depicting Trotsky as the key figure opposing him, Stalin effectively blocked anyone more effective.

Rykov is probably the most probable.

BTW, Lenin's relatively early death was due to being shot by Fanny Kaplan; that incident is very likely butterflied. He might have lived another 10-15 years. Which invites the question "Does he remain in power till death?" My impression is that Lenin was much less dominant in the Bolshevik leadership than Stalin, or even Khrushchev or Brezhnev, and might have been deposed.

 

[athgtq16129]

Wrong sub-forum!

 

[Lalli]

Wrong sub-forum!

Not because POD for OP is that Stalin continues his education as priest.

But for topic: Trotsky is indeed unlikely successor since he wasn't popular and trusted very much inside of the party. Other options would are either Rykov. Or then there is Kamenev-Zigoviev-Bukharin collective leadership.

And there is yet one intresting option. Sverdlov doesn't succumb to Spanish flu and he is able to succeed Lenin.

 

[LongVin]

Trotsky's prominence as Stalin's great rival, and thus presumably politically strong, was in large party created by Stalin. Stalin knew that Trotsky was not especially popular with the Party rank and file and disliked by many of his colleagues on the Politburo. By depicting Trotsky as the key figure opposing him, Stalin effectively blocked anyone more effective.

Rykov is probably the most probable.

BTW, Lenin's relatively early death was due to being shot by Fanny Kaplan; that incident is very likely butterflied. He might have lived another 10-15 years. Which invites the question "Does he remain in power till death?" My impression is that Lenin was much less dominant in the Bolshevik leadership than Stalin, or even Khrushchev or Brezhnev, and might have been deposed.

Revolutions eat their own. It is quite possible that a longer surviving Lenin gets declared not communist enough and gets knocked out.

 

[tus3]

But for topic: Trotsky is indeed unlikely successor since he wasn't popular and trusted very much inside of the party.

I remember that on earlier discussions it had been claimed that other things going against Trotsky were that was Jewish and that he also was good at making enemies. Though I do not know how much that mattered in reality.

 

[jacob ningen]

I remember that on earlier discussions it had been claimed that other things going against Trotsky were that was Jewish and that he also was good at making enemies. Though I do not know how much that mattered in reality.

Another thing is he was a latecomer to the party having sided with Martov initially.

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

I'm not so sure. I feel it's pretty well known that Lenin wrote a statement trying to discourage the party from elevating Stalin, people forget that he had similar reservations to Trotsky.

As for another potential successor, I'm part of a collaborative TL where we're using Alexi Rykov following Lenin's death. He was the second Premier after Lenin irl and was considered a leader of the parties moderate wing.

Thanks for correcting me; I did not know Rykov existed.

 

[Ana Luciana II]

Revolutions eat their own. It is quite possible that a longer surviving Lenin gets declared not communist enough and gets knocked out.

I’d disagree with this assessment. This isn’t just any Old Bolshevik it’s the founder and leading light of the Communist Party.

 

[alexmilman]

Likely Trotsky due to his closeness to Lenin. He would be less domestically repressive but follow an agressive foreign policy which would be the USSR's undoing.

AFAIK, Lenin was promoting Stalin as a balance to Trotsky and I’m not sure that there was a lot of a mutual sympathy. The same goes for the most of Politburo (why would anybody like a person who openly despises his peers) . I may be wrong but it seems that after the RCW he was mostly interested in world-wide revolution and had close to zero involvement in governing the country.
Now, is there any factual reason to assume that he would be less “repressive”? His record during the RCW was extremely bloody. Then, AFAIK, many of his ideas were later appropriated by Stalin and, if so, where is a guarantee that their implementation would be “nicer” in any sense?

 

[alexmilman]

Trotsky's prominence as Stalin's great rival, and thus presumably politically strong, was in large party created by Stalin. Stalin knew that Trotsky was not especially popular with the Party rank and file and disliked by many of his colleagues on the Politburo. By depicting Trotsky as the key figure opposing him, Stalin effectively blocked anyone more effective.

Rykov is probably the most probable.

BTW, Lenin's relatively early death was due to being shot by Fanny Kaplan;

There is other, less flattering theory. 😉

that incident is very likely butterflied. He might have lived another 10-15 years. Which invites the question "Does he remain in power till death?" My impression is that Lenin was much less dominant in the Bolshevik leadership than Stalin, or even Khrushchev or Brezhnev, and might have been deposed.

Stalin created the apparatus . Lenin relied exclusively upon his personal authority. As was demonstrated by OTL events, the Politburo was quite happy to isolate him at the first opportunity. With a good health he could last longer but I’d bet on the apparatus.

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

AFAIK, Lenin was promoting Stalin as a balance to Trotsky and I’m not sure that there was a lot of a mutual sympathy. The same goes for the most of Politburo (why would anybody like a person who openly despises his peers) . I may be wrong but it seems that after the RCW he was mostly interested in world-wide revolution and had close to zero involvement in governing the country.
Now, is there any factual reason to assume that he would be less “repressive”? His record during the RCW was extremely bloody. Then, AFAIK, many of his ideas were later appropriated by Stalin and, if so, where is a guarantee that their implementation would be “nicer” in any sense?

I was referring to how Trotsky opposed Stalin's totalitarian policies during the 1930s, but I have conceded he likely wouldn't suceed Lenin if Stalin is out of the picture.

 

[alexmilman]

I'm not so sure. I feel it's pretty well known that Lenin wrote a statement trying to discourage the party from elevating Stalin, people forget that he had similar reservations to Trotsky.

As for another potential successor, I'm part of a collaborative TL where we're using Alexi Rykov following Lenin's death. He was the second Premier after Lenin irl and was considered a leader of the parties moderate wing.

In the system dominated by the Party premiership on its own was not very important (and neither was the presidency). IMO, the important thing is how the Party organization evolves in an absence of Stalin who in OTL together with Molotov created the Party apparatus as a real governing tool loyal to himself as the secretary general (initially almost unimportant position which he turned into the most important one) and making the independent figures in Politburo almost irrelevant.
So the real question (IMO) is how the Party organization evolves without Stalin. Succession depends upon the scenario.

 

[alexmilman]

Not because POD for OP is that Stalin continues his education as priest.

But for topic: Trotsky is indeed unlikely successor since he wasn't popular and trusted very much inside of the party. Other options would are either Rykov. Or then there is Kamenev-Zigoviev-Bukharin collective leadership.

And there is yet one intresting option. Sverdlov doesn't succumb to Spanish flu and he is able to succeed Lenin.

It seems that there are suspicions that the “flu” could be caused by unsuccessful attempt to use Lenin’s temporary incapacitation for replacing him with Sverdlov & Trotsky. 😂

 

[alexmilman]

I was referring to how Trotsky opposed Stalin's totalitarian policies during the 1930s, but I have conceded he likely wouldn't suceed Lenin if Stalin is out of the picture.

During the RCW Trotsky was as “totalitarian” as it goes and his ideas regarding creation of the labor armies and economic destruction of the peasants were picked up by Stalin. Whatever he was saying in emigration is quite irrelevant: these were just complaints of a loser who would most probably do more or less the same. Perhaps he would kill fewer Party members but who cares about those?

 

[athgtq16129]

Not because POD for OP is that Stalin continues his education as priest.

I need to be more attentive, thanks.

Kamenev-Zigoviev-Bukharin collective leadership.

Have there been any TLs of an USSR led by a collective leadership of multiple leaders? the "change one supreme dictator with another" trope is tired by now, I really like the concept of collective leadership.

 

[jacob ningen]

I need to be more attentive, thanks.

Have there been any TLs of an USSR led by a collective leadership of multiple leaders? the "change one supreme dictator with another" trope is tired by now, I really like the concept of collective leadership.

What is the general policy for where the PoD is before 1900 but the question is about after 1900 butterflies.

 

[jacob ningen]

Another question is how does the Civil War go without him and without him trying to take Lvov.