Which country if Russian Revolution fails would become communist ?

Without the Russian Revolution, some groups do not get the funding they did, but neither do governments set out on witch hunts to kill them off. A part of the reason the Russian Revolution really worked was that it was the first of its kind, and everyone underestimated the Russians. (Then again the Bolshies did get very lucky, and the timing was just right... etc. etc.)

Ah, I wondered if anyone was going to look at it in a logical fashion - ie what happens if there is no Russian Revolution (I am assuming that is what the POD means, rather than it happens but fails)

So, you have a Kerensky-ite Russia, co-operating in some fashion with the workers soviets, remaining in the war but not particuarly effectively...

Supposing that this Russia remains stable enough to remain on a defensive posture until the end of the war, then what end of the war do we actually see ?

There would be withdrawal of German forces from the East, so no Michael Offensive in the West so no collapse in response to that, so probably we are looking at a Spring 1919 Allied offensive after a Winter of shortages, hardship and unrest in the German Empire

Presume the offensive breaks the front and succeeds in breaking through into Germany, then we have an analogy of late 1918 but with harsher conditions and a potentially more angry populace. Also there are no free forces in the East to bring back, so a Leftist revolution might conceivably take root in Berlin ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I suppose that it all really depends on how the revolution in Russia failed. Was it due to Lenin being assassinated after the revolution started (but not completed)? Kerensky being shrewed enough to stop the war with the Germans? The Whites succeeding in a counter-revolution? We really need to know the POD, to make a decision.

However, I do recall reading that Marx thought that Britain was the prime candidate to undergo a Communist revolution as, under Marxism, there is a required social progression that requires the creation of a pervasive, enlightened proletariat who are ready to take on their ‘role’ in both the revolution & subsequent governance.

Mind you, under this theory, Russia was not ‘politically mature’ to be converted into a socialist paradise and this was the reason that ‘corrective measures’ were needed in these countries to impose socialism (& incidentally instituting reigns of terror, starve millions to death & lock up millions in gulags).

S

PS. I've trawled the net, and, annoyingly, I cant give a reference for this comment about Marx.
 
Quite possibly Russia just at a later date.

For there to be a revolution you probably need reaction. A violent 'communist' take over makes little sense if social-democrats are on the verge of being democratically elected. By the late 19th century the bourgeoisie establishment had twigged that some sort of redistribution of wealth had to occur else the proletariat might seek to take it by force. The example of Russia just confirmed this. It always seemed a mystery to me that Marx never realised the Bourgeoisie didn't have to keep the proletariat at a stage where they could just about propagate their species. Even if there is a risk some might become capitalists with their discretionary income the truth is that most will not and their ventues shall fail.

No USSR might be a bad thing for active communist parties, but it might well be a good thing for communist revolutions. The forces of reaction might feel more bold after they crushed the reds (or there were simply no reds to crush) in Russia. More reaction, less social policies, more proletariat misery and subsequent revolution.

As for whether a revolution would certainly be crushed, kind of depends when it happens. In the case of a great depression (which in the aftermath of WW1 is.. well, very likely) nations may be too concerned about their own potential revolutionaries to embark on expensive forrays into foreign countries.
 
Doubtful - though the Communists managed to acquire a great deal of influence during the Civil War, it was due to Soviet influence, not a homegrown movement. If the loyalists win, Spain would be rather more federalist with different regions varying widely from one another in their economic policies.
Spain had a lot of poweful homegrown left movements, not associated with USSR at all (in fact, being bitter enemies with it). Google on POUM.

No victorious Bolsheviks ITTL. The Finland did not became communist OTL, that is a fact. How is it going to become communist with defeat of communism in Russia?
Assuming that Russia went through failed revolution (losing colonies in the process of doing so) and emerged as shauvinistic right-wing dictatorship, I see it quite possible that Finns and Poles will use Socialism as their battle cry in fight against Russians. After all, Pilsudsky was social-democrat and soc-dems were the biggest party in Finnish parliament pre-1917. And then one of them can go in their playing with socialism one step too far.
 
Top