WI Lenin dies circa August 1917

[John Fredrick Parker]

In the Municipal Duma Elections of Moscow, before the insurrection, of the 710 members elected, 350 were Bolsheviks, 184 Kadets, 104 Socialist-Revolutionaries, thirty-one Mensheviks and forty-one other groups. Of the ~17,000 soldiers who vote in these elections, ~14,000 are Bolshevik supporters.

So... the Bolsheviks are popular in Moscow? Well fine, but the SRs still have more support in the countryside. And the Left SRs did work OTL with the Bolsheviks, until even they drew the line at Brest-Litovsk. Remember also that the Soviet delegation had already begun negotiations with the CP in November;* when Germany issues the ultimatum in February, Lenin isn't going to be there to split the Bolsheviks the socialists irrevocably over accepting it. ("We need both hands free to strangle the bourgeoisie" was his OTL rationale.)

Sure, Trotsky's "neither war nor peace" proposal will initially differ from Right SR war policies, but Operation Faustschlag will effectively force them into the same position. And remember, the key thing dividing the Left and Right SRs is the war. Only now the bulk of the Left SRs rejected the ultimatum passionately, so the factions (at least the rank and file) are likely to work more together; on top of that, a strong faction of Left Bolsheviks, under Bukharin, wanted to continue that war as a great European class struggle; and Trotsky, who here is the closest thing to an influential "dove", is much more likely to de facto agreeing with them as the Germans approach Petrograd (OTL it took a lot of pressure to get him to join Lenin in accepting BL, which here is now absent).

So no, absent Lenin, a conflict between the Bolsheviks and the other socialists is not inevitable. Do I even need to mention that the SRs didn't start trying to assassinate Bolsheviks until after their irrevocable split over Brest-Litovsk (which has already been noted as preventable TTL)?

<snip>

Ah, very informative, excellent post; much thanks. Would the CA necessarily "fall under its own weight" though, so much as simply ineffectively stumble along while the Soviet continued to rule Russia (at least for a time)? The Ukranian SRs as a faction is a very important note though, as even if the CA assumed full governance, the Right SRs could not hope to form a functioning coalition without the Bolsheviks.** AAR, as said, the German Ultimatum could do wonders for uniting these factions, so long as "conciliation" (like Kamenev and Zinoviev) and Left (like Bukharin) Bolsheviks are the key factions of said party.

*oh, and the CA doesn't even convene until January, so those negotiations should still go roughly as OTL
**even mathematically they could form a slim majority the Left SRs and the Mensheviks, I think we all know how well that would work out in reality

 

[What if]

Right, so however the institutions of the CA and the Soviet split power, the governing will still be done by a coalition of the SRs, the Bolsheviks, and possibly other socialist parties, correct? If the CA isn't abolished, Chernov will at least be the head of government, even as he has a complicated task.

Another thought -- if Lenin dies in August 1917, who becomes "leader" of the Bolshevik party? FWIG, OTL saw a proto-Politburo established this year with Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev,* Kamenev, Stalin, and a couple of other less known Bolsheviks as members; and I'd say only the first four were party leader material by this time. Meaning, if the Bolsheviks still have at least a plurality, the likely Chairman (or equivalent) of the Soviet Government will be one of three (or two) Jews... which, this still being Russia, will no doubt make sharing power with the CA all the more likely.

*Note that in one of Lenin's close calls mentioned by the OP, he and Zinoviev hid from a couple of duck hunting soldiers in a haystack, so he could also be killed if that's our PoD.

I assume Trotsky would initially take over but it might be a struggle like OTL but Stalin is in a less stronger position the originally.

 

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Trotsky might not be in a position to take over as he was still relatively new, like Joffe, and wouldn't be trusted by some amongst the Bolsheviks. Kamenev or Zinoviev would be my guess. Maybe Rykov but he was pretty radically different in ideas to Lenin at this point and I think in light of Lenin's death the workers might not accept him. There are of course the virtual unknowns who were on the Central Committee: Uritsky, Oppokov etc. If you wanted a good leader who could potentially maintain links with both the workers and the other 'socialist' groups maybe even Shliapnikov?

 

[What if]

Trotsky might not be in a position to take over as he was still relatively new, like Joffe, and wouldn't be trusted by some amongst the Bolsheviks. Kamenev or Zinoviev would be my guess. Maybe Rykov but he was pretty radically different in ideas to Lenin at this point and I think in light of Lenin's death the workers might not accept him. There are of course the virtual unknowns who were on the Central Committee: Uritsky, Oppokov etc. If you wanted a good leader who could potentially maintain links with both the workers and the other 'socialist' groups maybe even Shliapnikov?

But his connection with the Mensheviks might get him a position in the coalition though.

 

[David T]

FWIW, Trotsky's own expressed view (in his diary in exile) was:

"Had I not been present in 1917 in Petersburg, the October Revolution would still have taken place -- on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October Revolution : the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring -- of this I have not the slightest doubt ! If Lenin had not been in Petersburg, I doubt whether I could have managed to overcome the resistance of the Bolshevik leaders. The struggle with "Trotskyism" (i.e. with the proletarian revolution) would have commenced in May 1917, and the outcome would have been in question..." http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/frank/works/diary.htm

 

[What if]

FWIW, Trotsky's own expressed view (in his diary in exile) was:

"Had I not been present in 1917 in Petersburg, the October Revolution would still have taken place -- on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October Revolution : the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring -- of this I have not the slightest doubt ! If Lenin had not been in Petersburg, I doubt whether I could have managed to overcome the resistance of the Bolshevik leaders. The struggle with "Trotskyism" (i.e. with the proletarian revolution) would have commenced in May 1917, and the outcome would have been in question..." http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/frank/works/diary.htm

Plus Russian anti-semitism might have been against him but the question is would the Soviet during the Kornilov attempted coup might have taken control?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

FWIW, Trotsky's own expressed view (in his diary in exile) was

Does this mean there wouldn't be an "all power to the Soviets" uprising prior to the CA assembling, or that the Bolsheviks wouldn't have taken over as they did? Cause the later, we all more or less agree on, but the former might really change things...

 

[What if]

Does this mean there wouldn't be an "all power to the Soviets" uprising prior to the CA assembling, or that the Bolsheviks wouldn't have taken over as they did? Cause the later, we all more or less agree on, but the former might really change things...

I think the Kornilov incident might have led to the Soviet taking power as Kerensky gave the revolutionaries weapons. So Lenin or no Lenin the provisional government was never going to last long because it wouldn't make important desirous until elections. And the need for the Soviet to agree to everything.

 

[What if]

Yeah, that's my sense as well.

Out of curiosity what was Kornilov aim any way? Assume power for himself or get the Tsar back.

 

[What if]

According to Figes, he basically revolted to assume power because Kerensky has accused him of doing that, which Kornilov felt forced his hand.

Well thats dumb. No offense meant but given his failure to reach the city and the reason why he revolted makes me question why he was appointed head of the army/defense minister (can't remember which).

 

[What if]

An equally dumb story, as Figes tells it -- after the June Offensive, Brusilov, his predecessor, didn't greet Kerensky at a train station, so the Defense Minister just threw him under the bus and had him fired. (There was also some general stuff about restoring order among the troops, but even there Kornilov was nothing special.)

Bloody hell I see why Kerensky didn't last long. I mean come one being fired for not greeting someone I think it might have been a disaster if the provisional governments ruled any longer.

 

[David T]

Out of curiosity what was Kornilov aim any way? Assume power for himself or get the Tsar back.

Kornilov was definitely not a monarchist. In fact, monarchist support was negligible in Russia in 1917, even on the Right. What Kornilov wanted was a strong, authoritarian government that would suppress the Petrograd Soviet . It is not even clear that he (initially) wanted to overthrow Kerensky; he may have gotten the impression that Kerensky would go along with his plans for a show of force in Petrograd (the objectives being to dissolve the soviets and give the military a direct role in the government).

I must again emphasize what I have said here before: that *none* of the White leaders ever made restoration of the monarchy a declared political objective.

 

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Kornilov's proclamation on September the 9th: "Our great country is dying. Under pressure of the Bolshevik majority in the Soviet, the Kerensky government is acting in complete accord with the plans of the German General Staff. Let all who believe in God and the temples pray to the Lord to manifest the miracle of saving our native land." The bourgeoisie liked him because he reintroduced capital punishment for soldiers and promised 'blood and iron' to restore the country. A proto-fascist if there ever was one.

Also, you refer to Figes' A People's Tragedy and, while I've got opinions about the book, it's very well written and informative. What other books have you read around the subject? David T as well, since you seem to have a wide knowledge of the Essers and the Mensheviks, what books would you recommend?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Also, you refer to Figes' A People's Tragedy and, while I've got opinions about the book, it's very well written and informative. What other books have you read around the subject? David T as well, since you seem to have a wide knowledge of the Essers and the Mensheviks, what books would you recommend?

Alas, it's one of only two books in my city's whole library system that was: (1) covers in depth the revolution in 1917, and (2) was written after the start of perestroika. (I haven't checked out Richard Pipes, author on the other available criteria meeting book, and probably won't for a good long while, since I'm trying now to shift back to reading about WWI in general.)

 

[What if]

Kornilov was definitely not a monarchist. In fact, monarchist support was negligible in Russia in 1917, even on the Right. What Kornilov wanted was a strong, authoritarian government that would suppress the Petrograd Soviet . It is not even clear that he (initially) wanted to overthrow Kerensky; he may have gotten the impression that Kerensky would go along with his plans for a show of force in Petrograd (the objectives being to dissolve the soviets and give the military a direct role in the government).

I must again emphasize what I have said here before: that *none* of the White leaders ever made restoration of the monarchy a declared political objective.

Really I thought the one leading the Cossacks might as a lll their power issue to the Romanov's.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I feel we might be drifting from the OP here. So, to summarize my thoughts so far:

After the Kornilov Affair, the Bolsheviks still distrust the Kerensky government enough that they still intend to overthrow it and deliver "all power to the Soviets". Only TTL, they decide to wait for said Soviet to actually convene, then vote with the Left SRs to do just that. Because this is not given to them as a fair accompli, the Right SRs and Mensheviks don't walk out. When the Constituent Assembly convenes, the Soviet does not abolish them, but since the former is still getting their bearings governance largely resumes under the Soviet (at least at first). Helping things further, in the Soviet and Consituent Assembly alike, Bolsheviks and SRs have to form coalitions with each other.

Meanwhile, the Soviet has initiated armistice negotiations with the CP (roughly as OTL). When the Kaiser pushes the negotiators to issue the ultimatum, Russia responds one of two ways: (1) the CA and Soviet alike resume hostilities; (2) Trotsky convinces the Soviet to adopt a position of "neither war nor peace" (as OTL). If the latter happens, the Germans advance as OTL, only this TL the Soviet (and CA) continue to refuse German conditions. As the Germans approach Petrograd, the various socialist parties and institutions rally together to call on Russian to defend itself; the biggest divider between Left and Right SRs, and between Left (Bukharin) and Right Bolsheviks, dries up in this context.

The war ends sooner than OTL, with German defeat, and representatives of Russia's socialist state will be at the peace negotiations. With the various socialist parties and factions more or less working together, the Russian Civil War is far shorter and less destructive. Things are looking up in the Motherland.

 

[What if]

I feel we might be drifting from the OP here. So, to summarize my thoughts so far:

After the Kornilov Affair, the Bolsheviks still distrust the Kerensky government enough that they still intend to overthrow it and deliver "all power to the Soviets". Only TTL, they decide to wait for said Soviet to actually convene, then vote with the Left SRs to do just that. Because this is not given to them as a fair accompli, the Right SRs and Mensheviks don't walk out. When the Constituent Assembly convenes, the Soviet does not abolish them, but since the former is still getting their bearings governance largely resumes under the Soviet (at least at first). Helping things further, in the Soviet and Consituent Assembly alike, Bolsheviks and SRs have to form coalitions with each other.

Meanwhile, the Soviet has initiated armistice negotiations with the CP (roughly as OTL). When the Kaiser pushes the negotiators to issue the ultimatum, Russia responds one of two ways: (1) the CA and Soviet alike resume hostilities; (2) Trotsky convinces the Soviet to adopt a position of "neither war nor peace" (as OTL). If the latter happens, the Germans advance as OTL, only this TL the Soviet (and CA) continue to refuse German conditions. As the Germans approach Petrograd, the various socialist parties and institutions rally together to call on Russian to defend itself; the biggest divider between Left and Right SRs, and between Left (Bukharin) and Right Bolsheviks, dries up in this context.

The war ends sooner than OTL, with German defeat, and representatives of Russia's socialist state will be at the peace negotiations. With the various socialist parties and factions more or less working together, the Russian Civil War is far shorter and less destructive. Things are looking up in the motherland.

I think that is the best summery plus maybe no stabbed in the back as lead astray from the top myth as war situation has dramatically swung against them even propaganda can't hide that. America, Britain France on the West, Soviets on the east and Italy on the South Hitler would have a harder time trying to take over if the war ended this way so it might be all around win.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I think that is the best summery plus maybe no stabbed in the back as lead astray from the top myth as war situation has dramatically swung against them even propaganda can't hide that. America, Britain France on the West, Soviets on the east and Italy on the South Hitler would have a harder time trying to take over if the war ended this way so it might be all around win.

Speaking of Germany, interesting thought is how this affects the Spartacists. They won't have the example of the Bolsheviks to look too, on the other hand a more defeated Germany might mean a more demoralized Right (so Freidkorps suppression may not work) and Russia might be pressuring the SPD to work with were far left factions. There's also the thought of what happens in Hungary, Slovakia, etc, which otl saw brief Soviet states established; add to that, Russia holding onto (with provisions for local self-rule) Poland, Finland, et el. All told, Central Europe could be a lot more socialist postwar.

 

[What if]

Speaking of Germany, interesting thought is how this affects the Spartacists. They won't have the example of the Bolsheviks to look too, on the other hand a more defeated Germany might mean a more demoralized Right (so Freidkorps suppression may not work) and Russia might be pressuring the SPD to work with were far left factions. There's also the thought of what happens in Hungary, Slovakia, etc, which otl saw brief Soviet states established; add to that, Russia holding onto (with provisions for local self-rule) Poland, Finland, et el. All told, Central Europe could be a lot more socialist postwar.

Maybe even an early cold war? But It does raise question over states like Poland and Finland and the Baltic's but President Wilson of the USA wanted new nation states so there might be conflicts there. Plus I wonder if the Soviets would recognize the Japanese as equal in the race question that was brought up but mostly put down by (my country shamful during the White Australia policy where we pretended to be Europe) Australia.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Plus I wonder if the Soviets would recognize the Japanese as equal in the race question that was brought up but mostly put down by... Australia.

Curious as to what you're referring to here. Do you mean Asian immigration to Russia, Japanese claiming spheres of influence, what?