What if the Soviet Union never existed?

[Reflection]

How would Russia and the world at large develop if the Soviet Union never came to be, as the White Army wins the Russian Civil War?

POD: Vladimir Lenin is killed in 1918, removing the glue that held the Bolsheviks together and causing the Red Army to collapse. Thus, the communist dream never becomes a reality. Russia is established as a constitutional monarchy and is firmly a part of both European and global affairs.

Removing the USSR from this timeline drastically changes everything on a level I can't begin to describe in full detail, so I'll list a few points of note:

1. Russian culture develops in a big way throughout the 20th century. Russia was a bastion of art, music, intellectual ideas and culture, which was effectively frozen for 70 years under the Soviets. The Soviet philosophy was against the ideals of religion and culture, as much as they were against individualism. Russian culture today is effectively a century behind without that development. So with that, you can imagine what would happen if Russia continued a natural path.
2. Russian population would be way higher. In 1910, Russia had a population of 125,000,000 compared to the US population being 92,000,000. Yes, at one point there were more Russians than Americans. However, that number has barely changed in the century since then: Russia today has a population of only 146,000,000, while the US is 310,000,000 (more than tripling its size). This was due to the USSR: Millions of deaths in famines and in World War II have taken their toll, as with the much lower birth rates that happened in this time. The people who died in these cases both heavily decreased the population, but they never went on to have families of their own. Today, if Russia remained, it would likely have a much larger population and would probably be the 3rd most population nation after China and India, to the tune 350-400 million.
3. The Russian population would be spread out more, likely with a lot more out east in Siberia. Today, despite the vast size of Russia, almost 80% of lives in the European portion on the west. Many imagine Siberian Russia as being a frozen wasteland, and with merit, but it's not entirely the case. There are parts of Siberia with temperate climates and good resources, and not to mention the Pacific Coast out in the far east. It's just that the population isn't there for these places to be worth that much. ITL, you can imagine more Russians spreading out, and forming cities throughout the better parts of Siberia, with Vladivostok in particular being much more important than OTL.
4. There would likely be Fascist movements in Europe, including Germany. However, it's unlikely that there would be fascists as extreme as the Nazis, and that's a direct result of no Soviet Union. The Nazi regime didn't just emphasize their hatred of Jews, but also of communism. The Germans and the Slavs had an antagonistic relationship throughout history, but when Russia went communist, and made it clear they wanted to destroy western civilization, those fears led to rising national extremism that gave Hitler more of a platform to rise on, as to be fair, those fears of the USSR were warranted. Instead, Fascism would be more akin to Mussolini and Franco than the Nazi Party. Not good to be sure, but also not to the horrific extent of Nazi Germany.
5. On a more negative note within Russia: While we emphasize the things the USSR did badly, there are a few negative effects as well. Most notably is that the Russians were known to be very racist even for the time, and would likely kick out Central Asian groups like the Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks into reservations so as to use the best lands for themselves. Likewise, they were known to be Anti-Semitic, and thus mass deportations would likely occur. Russia as a whole would be more focused on race than ideology, definitely leading to bad things happening ITL.

Anyways, that's just a few things I consider. Anything else to note?

 

[Lemonfish]

Vladimir Lenin is killed in 1918, removing the glue that held the Bolsheviks together and causing the Red Army to collapse. Thus, the communist dream never becomes a reality. Russia is established as a constitutional monarchy and is firmly a part of both European and global affairs.

You are not going to get constitutional monarchy in 1918, if I remember correctly most of White army general didn't want Romanovs back, so a far right military dictatorship is the most likely outcome.

 

[Resurgam]

I'm having real trouble seeing a benign, stable government emerging in Russia at this point in history. You need a person or cause to lead Russia in that direction, and I'm having trouble seeing that. You'll need an earlier POD.

 

[DrakonFin]

I'm having real trouble seeing a benign, stable government emerging in Russia at this point in history. You need a person or cause to lead Russia in that direction, and I'm having trouble seeing that. You'll need an earlier POD.

Being more benign (that is less murderous, repressive and totalitarian) and about as stable as Soviet Russia and the USSR under Lenin and Stalin is not a very high bar to clear, though.

 

[Resurgam]

Being more benign (that is less murderous, repressive and totalitarian) and about as stable as Soviet Russia and the USSR under Lenin and Stalin is not a very high bar to clear, though.

True, but I'm echoing the other posters - it's a bit too optimistic.

 

[marktaha]

How would Russia and the world at large develop if the Soviet Union never came to be, as the White Army wins the Russian Civil War?

POD: Vladimir Lenin is killed in 1918, removing the glue that held the Bolsheviks together and causing the Red Army to collapse. Thus, the communist dream never becomes a reality. Russia is established as a constitutional monarchy and is firmly a part of both European and global affairs.

Removing the USSR from this timeline drastically changes everything on a level I can't begin to describe in full detail, so I'll list a few points of note:

1. Russian culture develops in a big way throughout the 20th century. Russia was a bastion of art, music, intellectual ideas and culture, which was effectively frozen for 70 years under the Soviets. The Soviet philosophy was against the ideals of religion and culture, as much as they were against individualism. Russian culture today is effectively a century behind without that development. So with that, you can imagine what would happen if Russia continued a natural path.
2. Russian population would be way higher. In 1910, Russia had a population of 125,000,000 compared to the US population being 92,000,000. Yes, at one point there were more Russians than Americans. However, that number has barely changed in the century since then: Russia today has a population of only 146,000,000, while the US is 310,000,000 (more than tripling its size). This was due to the USSR: Millions of deaths in famines and in World War II have taken their toll, as with the much lower birth rates that happened in this time. The people who died in these cases both heavily decreased the population, but they never went on to have families of their own. Today, if Russia remained, it would likely have a much larger population and would probably be the 3rd most population nation after China and India, to the tune 350-400 million.
3. The Russian population would be spread out more, likely with a lot more out east in Siberia. Today, despite the vast size of Russia, almost 80% of lives in the European portion on the west. Many imagine Siberian Russia as being a frozen wasteland, and with merit, but it's not entirely the case. There are parts of Siberia with temperate climates and good resources, and not to mention the Pacific Coast out in the far east. It's just that the population isn't there for these places to be worth that much. ITL, you can imagine more Russians spreading out, and forming cities throughout the better parts of Siberia, with Vladivostok in particular being much more important than OTL.
4. There would likely be Fascist movements in Europe, including Germany. However, it's unlikely that there would be fascists as extreme as the Nazis, and that's a direct result of no Soviet Union. The Nazi regime didn't just emphasize their hatred of Jews, but also of communism. The Germans and the Slavs had an antagonistic relationship throughout history, but when Russia went communist, and made it clear they wanted to destroy western civilization, those fears led to rising national extremism that gave Hitler more of a platform to rise on, as to be fair, those fears of the USSR were warranted. Instead, Fascism would be more akin to Mussolini and Franco than the Nazi Party. Not good to be sure, but also not to the horrific extent of Nazi Germany.
5. On a more negative note within Russia: While we emphasize the things the USSR did badly, there are a few negative effects as well. Most notably is that the Russians were known to be very racist even for the time, and would likely kick out Central Asian groups like the Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks into reservations so as to use the best lands for themselves. Likewise, they were known to be Anti-Semitic, and thus mass deportations would likely occur. Russia as a whole would be more focused on race than ideology, definitely leading to bad things happening ITL.

Anyways, that's just a few things I consider. Anything else to note?

Stalin did do that to various nationalities.

 

[Kammada]

1. The White Russian government won't have any of the non-Russian countries becoming sovereign, so that what we know as the Russian Civil war doesn't go anywhere, with the White government trying to take back as much as possible, with the Entente not eager to intervene.
2. Russia is sidelined at Versailles, meaning that there's a rift between the Entente and Russia. Perhaps Russia even tries to default on its loans, and even if it doesn't and pays them with the last of its money, it doesn't make the Entente popular in Russia either.
3. Whatever agrarian reform has been started by the revolutionary government, the White regime is keen on rolling it back as far as possible. Perhaps it's not as bloody as the Bolshevik requisitions or Stalin's collectivization, but still you're getting a brushfire war against your own peasantry, with the pacification campaigns, hangings, and destruction of the foodstuffs.
4. Points 1 to 3 make the emergence of a right-wing dictatorship more probable than transition to democracy.
5. Russia pursues its industrialization that has started before and early in the WW1, but it is hampered by the landed gentry's interests, and Russia makes a poor choice for the foreign investment. If such investments are made, it happens on conditions disadvantageous to it. Weakened by the Civil war, it has few sources to make investments on its own. On the other hand, the economic downturn might be not as sharp as in OTL if the 'war communism' mismanagement is eliminated, so by the mid-1920s Russia might be slightly better off than OTL.
6. Internationally, Russia is isolated even after the dust has settled and a semblance of stability returned. Perhaps, sooner or later, it seeks rapprochement with Germany (something not unlike the Rapallo treaty). With bolshevism out of the picture, some kind of Russo-German power block may emerge early.
7. The Great Depression, with Russia being a vulnerable part of the world market, will hit Russia hard enough to erase much of the post-war recovery. An authoritarian regime might adopt some version of 'military socialism' to deal with it (which may result in something between Roosevelt's New Deal and Stalin's industrialization, with a fair bit of autarky thrown in), and opt for an outright imperialist expansion in the Middle East (clashing with the British and French interests), Central Asia and Far East (clashing with Japan), perhaps in the Central Europe (possibly in concert with Germany that may be interested in taking its Polish possessions back) and Balkans, too, again, clashing with the Great Powers.

These are my guesses, but they aren't going much further than the 1920s. As you can see, it looks fairly bleak. Perhaps it wouldn't be as invasive of the private citizens' lives and thoughts as the USSR was even in its milder times (such as the NEP or the post-Stalin , pre-Gorbachev era in general), but it still would be a rather backward, militaristic, authoritarian state rather than all the good things that the USSR wasn't. I just can't see any White leader as either a benevolent (and competent) dictator or as someone who solemnly relinquishes his power to democratically elected politicians. The logic of the (ongoing) multi-sided civil war doesn't produce that kind of leadership (what left-of-the centre White and nationalist governments emerged ended up sidelined by warlords or foreign interventionists), and history tells us that once crushed by force (Bavaria, Hungary...), a leftist revolution cannot bounce back soon.

 

[The Galaxy]

There was an election held in 1917 on the 25th of novemeber.

If Lenin dies in 1918 or perhaps just a bit earlier than that, then the Constituent Assembly is in charge. The monarchy has already abdicated, they will most likely not have any power.

Finland the Baltics and the Ukraine all showed willingness to stay in democratic Russia.

About the population.

The Population of the Russian Empire in 1913 was 180 million.

The number 125 million is from the 1897 census.


Because of the 2nd revolution these losses happened.

9-13 million dead in the civil war.
100K-200K in the Soviet-Polish war.
6-8 Million gone because of the Soviet-Polish war as Poland expanded.

1-2 Million Russian emigrants because of the Bolsheviks and the Civil War.
3,1 Million people when Finland left.
4,5 Million in the Baltics.

Total: About 27 million.

If Poland stays then that is another 24 Million. (51 million)

But lets say Poland goes.



The average woman gave birth to 7 children before the bolshevik revolution, however many children died early, the average life expectancy in Russia was 32 years.

Assuming there is a democratic Russia with according to the election will have a SR rule, then they will most likely expand medical care and do some form of land reform, both options will increase the life expectancy.

Depending on how the demographics change over the decades, the population of Russia today may be anywhere from 500 million to 1 billion maybe more.




But your question was about the Whites winning the civil war in Russia in 1918



In that scenario democracy might be established but perhaps a group of "elites" take power you may have that Finland leaves, there is a war when Poland leaves, and if the White army wins there will be oppression vs the Poles.

You may also have a situation where the whites do not do any land reform, and you have a series of peasant revolts that flair up now and again over the decades


No land reform, the country splits even more with "warlords" assuming power in some places and perhaps some form of democratic rule in other places, the country is split upon "ethnic" and maybe "religious" lines. Russia splits perhaps into 5-150 smaller nations. One of whom may be named Russia. That Russia may perhaps have an even smaller population or maybe bigger than today, there are too many unknowns

 

[Lalli]

Russia is not going return to monarchy not even constitutional one. Monarchy was strongly discredited in Russia very widely. And White Army wasn't any kind of unified group. Only thing what they could had agreed was kick Bolsheviks from power. When they would had managed do that, Russia was going to collapse to war lordism which might last many years, perhaps even some decades until strongest one can unite Russia.

 

[Alanith]

Capitalists and the right wing will have to find some other bogeyman for the 20th century and onwards.

 

[Lalli]

Capitalists and the right wing will have to find some other bogeyman for the 20th century and onwards.

There would be still socialist movements altough probably much more moderate than communism. And Germany probably still experience Spartacist revolution and Béla Kun might still establish socialist state in Hungary.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Remove the Bolsheviks from play, and IMO you probably end up with a Socialist Revolutionary(-dominated) socialist Russia.

 

[stodge]

As others have said, I'm not 100% sure the POD is coherent.

I presume the POD is the assassination attempt in January 1918 which was thwarted by Felix Platten literally taking the bullet meant for Lenin.

The key players in the Bolshevik hierarchy would have included Sverdlov and Bukharin as well as Trotsky. Indeed, I think it probable Sverdlov would have taken over as Bolshevik leader following Lenin's death.

Sverdlov, in OTL, was a victim of the Spanish Flu dying in March 1919 but we could butterfly that away. He was no friend of Stalin and orchestrated the murders of the Romanovs.

I don't know if anyone has ever done a "Sverdlov lives" thread but he would have been charismatic and utterly ruthless. Whether the Revolution would or could have survived him is debatable. He was four years older than Hitler so could very well have been ruler of Communist Russia for decades.

 

[Ijon Tichy]

How would Russia and the world at large develop if the Soviet Union never came to be, as the White Army wins the Russian Civil War?

POD: Vladimir Lenin is killed in 1918, removing the glue that held the Bolsheviks together and causing the Red Army to collapse. Thus, the communist dream never becomes a reality. Russia is established as a constitutional monarchy and is firmly a part of both European and global affairs.

Removing the USSR from this timeline drastically changes everything on a level I can't begin to describe in full detail, so I'll list a few points of note:

1. Russian culture develops in a big way throughout the 20th century. Russia was a bastion of art, music, intellectual ideas and culture, which was effectively frozen for 70 years under the Soviets. The Soviet philosophy was against the ideals of religion and culture, as much as they were against individualism. Russian culture today is effectively a century behind without that development. So with that, you can imagine what would happen if Russia continued a natural path.
2. Russian population would be way higher. In 1910, Russia had a population of 125,000,000 compared to the US population being 92,000,000. Yes, at one point there were more Russians than Americans. However, that number has barely changed in the century since then: Russia today has a population of only 146,000,000, while the US is 310,000,000 (more than tripling its size). This was due to the USSR: Millions of deaths in famines and in World War II have taken their toll, as with the much lower birth rates that happened in this time. The people who died in these cases both heavily decreased the population, but they never went on to have families of their own. Today, if Russia remained, it would likely have a much larger population and would probably be the 3rd most population nation after China and India, to the tune 350-400 million.
3. The Russian population would be spread out more, likely with a lot more out east in Siberia. Today, despite the vast size of Russia, almost 80% of lives in the European portion on the west. Many imagine Siberian Russia as being a frozen wasteland, and with merit, but it's not entirely the case. There are parts of Siberia with temperate climates and good resources, and not to mention the Pacific Coast out in the far east. It's just that the population isn't there for these places to be worth that much. ITL, you can imagine more Russians spreading out, and forming cities throughout the better parts of Siberia, with Vladivostok in particular being much more important than OTL.
4. There would likely be Fascist movements in Europe, including Germany. However, it's unlikely that there would be fascists as extreme as the Nazis, and that's a direct result of no Soviet Union. The Nazi regime didn't just emphasize their hatred of Jews, but also of communism. The Germans and the Slavs had an antagonistic relationship throughout history, but when Russia went communist, and made it clear they wanted to destroy western civilization, those fears led to rising national extremism that gave Hitler more of a platform to rise on, as to be fair, those fears of the USSR were warranted. Instead, Fascism would be more akin to Mussolini and Franco than the Nazi Party. Not good to be sure, but also not to the horrific extent of Nazi Germany.
5. On a more negative note within Russia: While we emphasize the things the USSR did badly, there are a few negative effects as well. Most notably is that the Russians were known to be very racist even for the time, and would likely kick out Central Asian groups like the Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks into reservations so as to use the best lands for themselves. Likewise, they were known to be Anti-Semitic, and thus mass deportations would likely occur. Russia as a whole would be more focused on race than ideology, definitely leading to bad things happening ITL.

Anyways, that's just a few things I consider. Anything else to note?

At best you get something like Turkey under Ataturk. At worst you get something like Imperial Japan. With all that that implies.

 

[Alanith]

There would be still socialist movements altough probably much more moderate than communism. And Germany probably still experience Spartacist revolution and Béla Kun might still establish socialist state in Hungary.

True, but it’d be much harder for the elites to distract the lower classes sufficiently with Hungry as the big socialist red menace that goes bump in the night, as opposed to a USSR that has nukes and has colonized half of Europe.

 

[mial42]

How would Russia and the world at large develop if the Soviet Union never came to be, as the White Army wins the Russian Civil War?

POD: Vladimir Lenin is killed in 1918, removing the glue that held the Bolsheviks together and causing the Red Army to collapse. Thus, the communist dream never becomes a reality. Russia is established as a constitutional monarchy and is firmly a part of both European and global affairs.

Removing the USSR from this timeline drastically changes everything on a level I can't begin to describe in full detail, so I'll list a few points of note:

1. Russian culture develops in a big way throughout the 20th century. Russia was a bastion of art, music, intellectual ideas and culture, which was effectively frozen for 70 years under the Soviets. The Soviet philosophy was against the ideals of religion and culture, as much as they were against individualism. Russian culture today is effectively a century behind without that development. So with that, you can imagine what would happen if Russia continued a natural path.
2. Russian population would be way higher. In 1910, Russia had a population of 125,000,000 compared to the US population being 92,000,000. Yes, at one point there were more Russians than Americans. However, that number has barely changed in the century since then: Russia today has a population of only 146,000,000, while the US is 310,000,000 (more than tripling its size). This was due to the USSR: Millions of deaths in famines and in World War II have taken their toll, as with the much lower birth rates that happened in this time. The people who died in these cases both heavily decreased the population, but they never went on to have families of their own. Today, if Russia remained, it would likely have a much larger population and would probably be the 3rd most population nation after China and India, to the tune 350-400 million.
3. The Russian population would be spread out more, likely with a lot more out east in Siberia. Today, despite the vast size of Russia, almost 80% of lives in the European portion on the west. Many imagine Siberian Russia as being a frozen wasteland, and with merit, but it's not entirely the case. There are parts of Siberia with temperate climates and good resources, and not to mention the Pacific Coast out in the far east. It's just that the population isn't there for these places to be worth that much. ITL, you can imagine more Russians spreading out, and forming cities throughout the better parts of Siberia, with Vladivostok in particular being much more important than OTL.
4. There would likely be Fascist movements in Europe, including Germany. However, it's unlikely that there would be fascists as extreme as the Nazis, and that's a direct result of no Soviet Union. The Nazi regime didn't just emphasize their hatred of Jews, but also of communism. The Germans and the Slavs had an antagonistic relationship throughout history, but when Russia went communist, and made it clear they wanted to destroy western civilization, those fears led to rising national extremism that gave Hitler more of a platform to rise on, as to be fair, those fears of the USSR were warranted. Instead, Fascism would be more akin to Mussolini and Franco than the Nazi Party. Not good to be sure, but also not to the horrific extent of Nazi Germany.
5. On a more negative note within Russia: While we emphasize the things the USSR did badly, there are a few negative effects as well. Most notably is that the Russians were known to be very racist even for the time, and would likely kick out Central Asian groups like the Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Tajiks into reservations so as to use the best lands for themselves. Likewise, they were known to be Anti-Semitic, and thus mass deportations would likely occur. Russia as a whole would be more focused on race than ideology, definitely leading to bad things happening ITL.

Anyways, that's just a few things I consider. Anything else to note?

I think there are a series of issues with both the POD and the scenario. First, the issues with the POD:
1) By 1918, the Bolsheviks were already firmly in control of the central Russian state apparatus and were not dependent on Lenin's personal leadership. Lenin was personally crucial to the Bolsheviks from the February Revolution to Brest-Litovsk, but afterwards he was replaceable. Even if he's killed, the Bolsheviks will not disintegrate and the Red Army will not collapse. If you want Lenin's death to lead to no USSR, best have it pre-October 1917. Or use a different POD.
2) The Whites were very much not a unified force. Even if the Bolsheviks lost the civil war, that wouldn't mean the "White Army" winning. It would mean a White army winning (and possibly negotiating with other White armies). White victory doesn't necessarily mean "warlord Russia," but it will be seriously chaotic and it's hard to know how it would shake out...
3)...But one thing we can say almost for sure is that Russia would not be a constitutional monarchy. That ship sailed in February 1917. Military Junta? Fascist dictatorship? Warlords? Generic right-wing authoritarian oligarchy? All plausible. But not constitutional monarchy. Even some sort of illiberal democracy, although unlikely, is more probable.

Issues with the outlined scenario:
1) The USSR wasn't against culture. It was against "bourgeoisie culture," but it had its own culture (and certainly intellectual ideas!). The mass exodus of artists from Russia during the Civil War will still happen (caused by the Civil War), and the brief flowering of avant garde art in the early USSR won't happen (since the artists who did that will probably be either in exile or purged by the new government). There may or may not be less restrictions in art from the late 1920s (which is when the Soviets actually started suppressing art) onwards, but that depends on the type of White government (which is tremendously variable, since the Whites were not a unified group). Furthermore, culture is not a linear thing. The Soviets did not freeze Russian culture in 1924. They developed a different culture. Russia is not "100 years behind" culturally because that's not a concept that even makes sense.
2. Russian population would probably be higher because of lower urbanization and later women's education, but your figures are misleading. Russia's population is 146 million today, but modern day Russia is only one part of the Russian Empire/USSR. At the time of its collapse, the USSR had 286 million people, compared to the US with 248 million. Furthermore, the main reason for a higher population, aside from slower urbanization/women's education, would be no WW2, which may or may not happen (obviously OTL WW2 is butterflied away, but that doesn't mean no WW2 will happen). The USSR was not primarily responsible for WW2.
3. On the contrary, it would probably be even more concentrated in Europe. The Soviets had an active policy of settling their periphery for military and autarkic reasons. After the USSR collapsed, the subsidies dried up and people flooded back to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and southern Russia, since that's where it makes economic sense to live. Assuming a market-economy Russia, there probably wouldn't be massive subsidies for living in Siberia in the first place.
4. This seems more like a combination of wishful thinking and victim blaming then anything else. No USSR would probably butterfly the rise of the Nazis, since that was highly contingent and any huge change like that would probably get rid of them, but the USSR was not directly responsible for their rise. Anti-semitism, slavophobia, and a desire for land in the East were strong themes of the German Right for decades prior to WW1, revanchism from WW1 and the Great Depression aren't going away, and there was a strong (and hated by the German right) German Communist movement to direct anti-communist ire towards. The Great Depression in particular was the main trigger for the Nazi's rise, and every major part of their ideology had strong antecedents in the German Right and was not dependent on the existence of the USSR. Fascism may or not be "better" then OTL; in particular I'd be worried about a *Fascist Russia.

tl;dr: The POD isn't very plausible and the implications drawn from it seem to be very much a best case scenario rather than an average case.

 

[snerfuplz]

The founding of the Soviet Union was THE event of the 20th Century. The rest of the 20th Century was consumed by the reaction to the Soviet Union. Without the Soviet Union, world history will be very different

 

[Wendell]

May I suggest her effort succeeding as the POD?

 

[stodge]

The more I think about it, the harder it becomes to kill off Soviet Russia at an early stage. It wasn't as though the Bolshevik take over was universally popular as the Constituent Assembly elections demonstrated but the weakness and unattractiveness of any alternative at that time was stark. Nobody, to misquote Animal Farm "wanted the bourgeosie back" and only the Bolsheviks had the required ruthlessness (as was seen in the French Revolution) to establish a firm military line against the Whites.

There was incredible political violence in the aftermath of the October Revolution with frequent assassination attempts on top Bolshevik leaders but of themselves they wouldn't have destroyed the political movement - compare and contrast with the Nazis, would they have survived had Hitler been killed at Munich?

The truth was the Bolshevik Revolution occurred in two parts - the initial seizure of power in October 1917 and the shutting down of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918. Both events went largely unopposed - the Bolsheviks were thus able to consolidate power quickly and effectively making the removal of that power all the more difficult.

 

[JesterBL]

Maria Spiridonova and the Left SRs probably could have beat the Bolsheviks to the punch in August or September of 1917. The Bolsheviks weren't alone in ruthlessness (I mean, the SRs were pioneers in terrorism and political assassination), but Lenin was definitely better than his contemporaries at reading the stakes which he had been presented. It is an open question how different an SR Russia would have been from a Bolshevik Russia, however, but their wider popularity and their peasant friendly ideology would probably do them favors.