WI: Bolsheviks overthrown by leftist revolutionaries

What if in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War some event like the Kronstad Revolt sparks a leftist revolution against the Bolshevik government resulting in the Bolsheviks being overthrown. What kind of government would be set up, how would the world view the USSR after this.
 
Shouldn't this be in Post-1900?

That said I'm not sure what the odds were of the Kronstadters of succeeded in the second revolt. The Bolsheviks had already relocated operations to Moscow and I don't know if there was the popular support or organization at that point for them to sweep them aside. If they somehow did I'd imagine the methods and structures they adopt are going to look a lot more like CNT Spain than Stalin's Russia. That along with the reversal of Comintern's centralization under the Bolsheviks that would like follow and the Left, globally speaking, won't be anywhere near as hampered as they were OTL by the dictates of Moscow.

As to how successful it would be that depends on how it unfolds and when it succeeds. If the more libertarian/council communist wing of the movement ended up on top as long as the country manages to stabilize and start getting back on their feet economically that can only mean good things for that tendency in particular and for socialist ideas in general. The lack of the later Stalin disillusionment would be HUGE for the Left; up until the truth about his regime started to come out a lot of intellectuals and politicians even in the US looked on the USSR quite favorably. With no Stalin to muck things up if things are actually working out in the *USSR that would be an enormous boost to their credibility.
 
Shouldn't this be in Post-1900?

That said I'm not sure what the odds were of the Kronstadters of succeeded in the second revolt. The Bolsheviks had already relocated operations to Moscow and I don't know if there was the popular support or organization at that point for them to sweep them aside. If they somehow did I'd imagine the methods and structures they adopt are going to look a lot more like CNT Spain than Stalin's Russia. That along with the reversal of Comintern's centralization under the Bolsheviks that would like follow and the Left, globally speaking, won't be anywhere near as hampered as they were OTL by the dictates of Moscow.

As to how successful it would be that depends on how it unfolds and when it succeeds. If the more libertarian/council communist wing of the movement ended up on top as long as the country manages to stabilize and start getting back on their feet economically that can only mean good things for that tendency in particular and for socialist ideas in general. The lack of the later Stalin disillusionment would be HUGE for the Left; up until the truth about his regime started to come out a lot of intellectuals and politicians even in the US looked on the USSR quite favorably. With no Stalin to muck things up if things are actually working out in the *USSR that would be an enormous boost to their credibility.
Well, the Bolsheviks certainly regarded the Kronstadt mutiny as a major threat to the legitimacy of their regime. The Red Sailors of Kronstadt had been at the vanguard of the October Revolution, and so their actions carried an immense symbolic weight, thanks to the Bolsheviks own romanticization of their deeds.

What is notable is that the Bolsheviks did not trust most of the regular units or militia during the mutiny. They clamped down on communication hard, and Petrograd itself was under martial law.

It was perhaps the most important moment in convincing Lenin to abandon the First Period policy of world revolution in favor of a more conciliatory tone with Europe and social democrats, and to abandon War Communism for the NEP. I think the Bolsheviks would have to make a major mistake in order for the Kronstadt mutinty to seriously harm their government.

If the situation gets out of hand, especially if the Red Army cannot take the fortress with the men available, they may be forced to give concessions, as the mutiny would only spread.
 

Sulemain

Banned
I think it says it all about the fundamental flaws of the Bolshevik way of doing things that they ended up crushing a legitimate workers revolt.

And with regard to the OP, I suppose a leftist group winning the Civil War is likely, but far less likely then some rightist group.
 
Now we're talkin' ! :cool:

A soc-dem Russia, even if a bit authoritarian in the early years, would be certainly better than the unholy self-serving Bolshevik-led mess we got in OTL. :) :( Thanks again, Wilhelm II., real "promoting of democracy", right there... :rolleyes:
 
If the situation gets out of hand, especially if the Red Army cannot take the fortress with the men available, they may be forced to give concessions, as the mutiny would only spread.

What if some units of the Red Army mutiny, possibly even enough to scupper the attack, when ordered to assault Kronstadt? Is that plausible?
 
What if some units of the Red Army mutiny, possibly even enough to scupper the attack, when ordered to assault Kronstadt? Is that plausible?
It would take a major screw up for that to occur. There were attempts by the attacking units to do so IOTL, but the Bolsheviks were prepared to put a stop to them, and to prevent frontline units from sending people to parlay with the Kronstadt mutineers and find out why they were mutinying.
 
What if in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War some event like the Kronstad Revolt sparks a leftist revolution against the Bolshevik government resulting in the Bolsheviks being overthrown. What kind of government would be set up, how would the world view the USSR after this.

Everyone here seems to want to talk about Kronstadt 1921, but first how about the Left SR's taking over in the summer of 1918? As I note at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/Ymdstwd4BHc/qKDxTuEzo30J it would have been easy for them to seize the Kremlin if they wanted to: "They had 2,000 well-armed troops in Moscow, compared to 700 loyal to the regime. The bulk of the Latvian Rifles, the only reliably pro-Bolshevik military unit in the capital, were celebrating St. John's Day on the outskirts of Moscow, and were unable to get back because of poor weather. Lenin was as defenseless as Kerensky had been in October..."
 
Everyone here seems to want to talk about Kronstadt 1921, but first how about the Left SR's taking over in the summer of 1918? As I note at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/Ymdstwd4BHc/qKDxTuEzo30J it would have been easy for them to seize the Kremlin if they wanted to: "They had 2,000 well-armed troops in Moscow, compared to 700 loyal to the regime. The bulk of the Latvian Rifles, the only reliably pro-Bolshevik military unit in the capital, were celebrating St. John's Day on the outskirts of Moscow, and were unable to get back because of poor weather. Lenin was as defenseless as Kerensky had been in October..."

What would it take for that to be kicked off?
 
In principle, the Kronstadt Rebellion could succeed if White still held Crimea . The second condition - start a mutiny in the spring when the ice melts making Kronstadt inaccessible and it is hoped to help the British fleet . On the other hand - and the rebels could hold in the real world Kronstadt in shallow water 12 - inch shells break the ice in an area of ​​hundreds of square meters, which was demonstrated during the Second World War . But the rebels demonstrated their weakness, shoot at "their" do not want .
And again, only the Bolsheviks were able to keep the country from disintegration into nation-states . And what it could lead to the confrontation with Nazism - God knows .
 
Thanks again, Wilhelm II., real "promoting of democracy", right there... :rolleyes:
Was such a caricature: two thieves open rail car, and another one says, "Every time I split open a sealed rail car from Germany - the soul in the heels falls!":D
 
Kronstadt has somewhat diverted attention from the *other* rebellions that were taking place at the same time. There was actual armed rebellion by peasants, notably in Tambov (ultimately quelled by Tukhachevsky with the help of poison gas). For some reason, Tambov didn't become a cause celebre for the anti-Bolshevik left the way Kronstadt did. Presumably because peasants are seen as less "advanced" than sailors, especially the Kronstadt sailors, the "pride of the Revolution." Indeed, Trotsky and others were later to try to assimilate Kronstadt to the peasant "counterrevolution" by (falsely) claiming that the sailors of 1921 were not those of 1917, that proletarians had been replaced by "peasant lads in sailor suits" who were vulnerable to anarchist agitation, etc.--though in fact the Kronstadt rebels of 1921 were essentially the same as those of 1917. (One difference between the 1921 Kronstadters and the peasant rebels: Unlike the peasants who cried "Soviets without Communists!" the Kronstadt sailors were prepared to accept even Bolsheviks provided that the latter would renounce one-party dictatorship in favor of soviet democracy.)

Indeed, the situation in February 1921 looked like that of exactly four years earlier, with strikes in Moscow and Petrograd, and some soldiers refusing to fire on the strikers. Under these circumstances, as Orlando Figes writes, the Bolsheviks "could not wait for it [the Kronstadt uprising] to peter out. Revolts in other cities, such as Kazan and Niznhyi Novgorod, were already being inspired by it. The ice-packed Gulf of Finland, moreover, was about to thaw and this would make the fortress, with the whole of its fleet freed from the ice, virtually impregnable." (*A People's Tragedy*, p. 762) So an interesting POD would be the Gulf of Finland thawing a little early that year...
 
In principle, the Kronstadt Rebellion could succeed if White still held Crimea . The second condition - start a mutiny in the spring when the ice melts making Kronstadt inaccessible and it is hoped to help the British fleet . On the other hand - and the rebels could hold in the real world Kronstadt in shallow water 12 - inch shells break the ice in an area of ​​hundreds of square meters, which was demonstrated during the Second World War . But the rebels demonstrated their weakness, shoot at "their" do not want .
And again, only the Bolsheviks were able to keep the country from disintegration into nation-states . And what it could lead to the confrontation with Nazism - God knows .

Would there even be a Kronstadt Rebellion if the Whites still held Crimea? The Kronstadters definitely did not want a White victory, and as long as the Civil War with the Whites was going on, it would be hard to get them to rebel.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Kronstadt has somewhat diverted attention from the *other* rebellions that were taking place at the same time. There was actual armed rebellion by peasants, notably in Tambov (ultimately quelled by Tukhachevsky with the help of poison gas). For some reason, Tambov didn't become a cause celebre for the anti-Bolshevik left the way Kronstadt did. Presumably because peasants are seen as less "advanced" than sailors, especially the Kronstadt sailors, the "pride of the Revolution." Indeed, Trotsky and others were later to try to assimilate Kronstadt to the peasant "counterrevolution" by (falsely) claiming that the sailors of 1921 were not those of 1917, that proletarians had been replaced by "peasant lads in sailor suits" who were vulnerable to anarchist agitation, etc.--though in fact the Kronstadt rebels of 1921 were essentially the same as those of 1917. (One difference between the 1921 Kronstadters and the peasant rebels: Unlike the peasants who cried "Soviets without Communists!" the Kronstadt sailors were prepared to accept even Bolsheviks provided that the latter would renounce one-party dictatorship in favor of soviet democracy.)

Indeed, the situation in February 1921 looked like that of exactly four years earlier, with strikes in Moscow and Petrograd, and some soldiers refusing to fire on the strikers. Under these circumstances, as Orlando Figes writes, the Bolsheviks "could not wait for it [the Kronstadt uprising] to peter out. Revolts in other cities, such as Kazan and Niznhyi Novgorod, were already being inspired by it. The ice-packed Gulf of Finland, moreover, was about to thaw and this would make the fortress, with the whole of its fleet freed from the ice, virtually impregnable." (*A People's Tragedy*, p. 762) So an interesting POD would be the Gulf of Finland thawing a little early that year...

Or the Bolsheviks being delayed somehow until the thaw. Or the Red Army is ON the ice when it breaks up. That'd be dramatic!
 
Would there even be a Kronstadt Rebellion if the Whites still held Crimea? The Kronstadters definitely did not want a White victory, and as long as the Civil War with the Whites was going on, it would be hard to get them to rebel.

Possible. But already started peasant uprisings, and the Red Army was no longer monolithic.
 
Top