WI Lenin Never Made it Into Tsarist Russia in 1917?

[SyntaxGenocide]

In April 1917, Lenin famously arrived in Petrograd on a sealed train provided by the Germns, and gave out his April Theses. This shocked the party into activity, and it was largely through Lenin's powers of persuasion that the October revolution took place.

What if; the Germans had failed to cotton on to Lenin's potential usefulness?

Lenin would obvoiusly attempt to gain access to Russia anyway. Let us presume for the moment he is discovered, arrested and sent to the gulag by the Provisional Government (PG). The Bolsheviks, lacking Lenin's motivation, fail to launch the revolution, though they remain a political party. The PG then, by hook and by crook, manage to hold on to power for the next year, until the end of the war. In Versailles, Germany is made to give back the land it took from Russia.

The question is, with no Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, would the Liberal members of the PG have actually improved the lives of the peasants?

Without losing 74% of its coal and iron ore, and 27% of its best farm land,would Russia have recovered much faster?

If/when Lenin is released/escapes, what would he do, now the PG is on the receiving end of an upsurge of popularity?

Wothout a Communist Russia, would Hitler have got to power? If so, how would WW2 have gone for the Russians?

Without Stalin, would Russia still have a massive leap forward in industrial capacity, or would it have taken baby steps?

Without collectivisation, what wuld happen to agriculture?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Wothout a Communist Russia, would Hitler have got to power? If so, how would WW2 have gone for the Russians?

I doubt it. During the early days, the German people responded much more to the Communist bogeyman than to the Jewish bogeyman.

Without Stalin, would Russia still have a massive leap forward in industrial capacity, or would it have taken baby steps?

Czarist Russia was already on the road to industrialization. If anything, it would have been more effective without Stalin- particularly as workers are more efficient when they're not dead.

Without collectivisation, what wuld happen to agriculture?

It would have been vastly better and millions of people would not have starved to death.

 

[Tizoc]

In Versailles, Germany is made to give back the land it took from Russia.

Only? I think you haven't seen the maps that show how Allies were planning to divide war spoils - Russia after won WW1 would have eastern border at Oder and Nisa (like today's Poland western border). Not counting a division of Germany into several independent states: Wurtemberg, Westfalen, Hanover, Bavaria, Saxony and Prussia And Kiel Channel in Dunes' hands Or northern Tirol becoming part Swiss

 

[Derek Jackson]

I think that the likelyhood is that some other vaguely left revolutionary government would have tried to get Peace out of Germany. If it were not Bolshevik maybe it would not have been so clearly peace at any price.

 

[SyntaxGenocide]

Once the PG took power, they continued with the war, not wanting to upset the Allies. If they stayed in power, they probably would've seen it out to the end, though Russia would be much the worse for wear.

 

[Tizoc]

Once the PG took power, they continued with the war, not wanting to upset the Allies. If they stayed in power, they probably would've seen it out to the end, though Russia would be much the worse for wear.

I'm not sure about this. If there was no Bolshevik Revolution then Russia would avoid the whole civil war(1918-1922), so I think that in the end Russia would have been in much better condition compared to OTL.

More thoughts on the peace treaty after The Great War:
1. Russian borders - no Oder (UK wouldn't like that), but nonetheless Russia would reach up to Polish western border of 1921 also including the rest of Higher Silesia, Gdansk and Eastern Prussia.
2. To keep France and Russia becoming too strong, Englishmen would persuade their American, Italian and Japanese allies to allow Austria to join Germany
3. Also, Germany could count on retaining more warships, say, 8 battleships of those that were staying at Scapa Flow after cease-fire of 1918 - after all, British wouldn't like too much ships falling into hands of Frenchmen or Russians.

And because of a point 3, the Washington Naval Treaty (1921) would be a tad different:
Fleet proportions:
UK, USA - 5
Japan - 3
France, Italy, Russia, Germany - 1,75

So Germany, instead of being allowed to have only 6 battleships of 10,000t max each, would've been allowed to have max 8 battleships with a limit for a single unit of 35,000t and 16 inch (406mm) guns and tonnage of 8 battleships together not exceeding 175,000t total.

 

[The Mists Of Time]

Lenin was one of if not the major driving force behind the Russian Revolution. My sense is that there would still have been a revolution without Lenin because Russia was ripe for that at the time, but that it would have been smaller and less effective. My guess is the revolution would have failed without Lenin.

I feel without the Russian Revolution as it was, Russia would have struggled, and yes it would have been a major struggle for them, but they would have remained in WWI beyond March 1917. Tat would have put added presure on Germany and the war might not have lasted quite as long.

Russia would have been another victorious European Allied Power seeking reparations from Germany after the war. That would have added to Germany's humiliation and the presure on Germany in the post WWI era and might have been a factor in the leadup to WWII.

In response to that revolution even though it was a failed one, reforms of some kind and to some degree might have come in Russia in the 1920's and early 30's. A move to some form of true constitutional monarchy. Russia was very slowly but surely moving in that direction. Tsar Nicholas's power was not quite as autocratic as that of some of the tsars before him. An assessment I read once about Nicholas was that he would have made an excellent constitutional monarch but was raised in a Russia that still viewed the Tsar's power as autocratic.

I think in the 1920's and 30's then we would have seen a move to some form of constitutional monarchy in Russia. The continuation of the Russian Monarchy in some form might have had an effect on the staying power of some of the monarchies we have lost since, especially in Europe.

I think the biggest difference would have come in the post WWII era. Would Communism have taken hold like it did or just been an isolated thing? Would there have been any kind of cold war. My guess is that without a strong Communist Soviet Union to spread and support Communism like they did, we would still have seen Communism and Communist governments in the world, but not anything like we did have in OTL. As a result there would have been no cold war, and the world from the end or WWII to the present would have been very different.

 

[SyntaxGenocide]

More thoughts on the peace treaty after The Great War:
1. Russian borders - no Oder (UK wouldn't like that), but nonetheless Russia would reach up to Polish western border of 1921 also including the rest of Higher Silesia, Gdansk and Eastern Prussia.
2. To keep France and Russia becoming too strong, Englishmen would persuade their American, Italian and Japanese allies to allow Austria to join Germany
3. Also, Germany could count on retaining more warships, say, 8 battleships of those that were staying at Scapa Flow after cease-fire of 1918 - after all, British wouldn't like too much ships falling into hands of Frenchmen or Russians.

And because of a point 3, the Washington Naval Treaty (1921) would be a tad different:
Fleet proportions:
UK, USA - 5
Japan - 3
France, Italy, Russia, Germany - 1,75

So Germany, instead of being allowed to have only 6 battleships of 10,000t max each, would've been allowed to have max 8 battleships with a limit for a single unit of 35,000t and 16 inch (406mm) guns and tonnage of 8 battleships together not exceeding 175,000t total.

Going off of that, would it be entirely unplausible to have a Russia vs. GB and Germany situation emerging in Europe, each making their own alliances and power blocs? Maybe as an alternate beginning to WW2, with the Russians or German-British as agressors instead of the Nazis? Who would side with who? Any likely theories on the outcome?

Is this worth writing up a timeline for?

 

[arctic warrior]

I think it would have a lot of influences on the last 2 years of WWI. Not being able to transfer troops to the west the 1918 offensives would not have the same initial successes. The troops simply wouldn't be there. The Imperial navy might have sortied for the last time to meet the Grand Fleet in the Nort Sea. The road to armastige would have been shortened considerably. The German army in the west would have been worn down a lost faster.
The Kaiser would still have to abdicate and flee to the Netherlands.

Post WWI would also have been different.
Russia might have gained some land in Germany and perhaps Constantinoble!? Finland would have gained independence at some point perhaps around 1925. The zar would probably continue to reign as a constitutional monarc.
But what about the Poles? They would want their nation to be restored. A Polish insurrection against Russia? Given at least moral support by Britain??

Germany would have been quite different with no great revolution in Russia to get inspired from! The period might have become much different with much less communist, spartakist etc. revolutions and uprisings in. So no need for the Freikorps, the police and Reichswehr would have been capable of keeping law and order. A much better place in which for democracy to flourish.

The depression might be the joker.
Depending on how much land Germany would be made to cede to Russia. Then a lot of the reparations should have been paid at this time. Making things better with France. With no communism and a stock market crash, where would the aveage citizen look for a scape goat? Towards the capitalists - and make communism seem the alternative?
But the facist movement in Italy would still evolve and bring Mussolini to power?

 

[HueyLong]

You guys overestimate Lenin.

There were enough Bolsheviks and enough people to hate the Tzar to start a revolution.

No Lenin, you just get a different Soviet Union, with a slightly more bitter Civil War.

 

[Justin Pickard]

You guys overestimate Lenin.

There were enough Bolsheviks and enough people to hate the Tzar to start a revolution.

No Lenin, you just get a different Soviet Union, with a slightly more bitter Civil War.

I disagree - for a movement to remain united and have a hope at success, it needs a figurehead.

Without Lenin, you get a *dramatically* more bitter Civil War, and one that the Reds definitely won't win.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Regarding the last few posts: Do you guys actually know any Russian history?

Keep Lenin out of Russia, and what? The revolution that overthrew the Tsar had already happened before he got into the country.

It was a popular revolt, supported by most of the population of Russia, of all classes, and was not particularly socialist in nature. This revolution - the March Revolution - put the Provisional Government into power and peacefully deposed the Tsar. The Provisional Government was a liberal-leaning, representative government in favor of continuing the war (and passing able to do so).

Russia's socialists were largely excluded, and set up a parallel government - the Petrograd Soviet. It was composed of a variety of Socialist parties: mostly Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, but including tiny, forgettable little groups of fringe nuts with no popular support, one of which was the Bolsheviks.

At this point Lenin was imported because the Germans knew he'd screw things up. The Provisional Government was forced eventually to cooperate with the Soviet, and Socialists were invited in. This was when Lenin mattered, because he refused to compromise and kept the Bolshies out. They were not tainted, like other parties, with the failures of the PG, and began to grow. He also pretty much dragged his party into the coup - noone else wanted to do it on the (accurate) grounds that the party was not ready to govern a province, much less the largest state in the world.

That should correct the situation. Apologies to more competent people upthread.

 

[HueyLong]

1. The Provisional Government never enjoyed popular support.
II. The only difference in policy between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was WHEN to start the revolution. Elements in the Bolshevik partyu wanted a revolution.
III. Many elements of the PG went on to join the Whites- who were extremely unpopular.

The Red Army won not due to Lenin, but due to popular support, organisation and numbers.

 

[Admiral Matt]

I. The Provisional Government never did earn popular favor, no. But it was brought to power by a popular revolution.

That's in contrast to the Bolsheviks' "Revolution," which was really a coup of a tiny armed band against the seat of government and only succeeded because there was noone defending the damn place who was prepared to fight.

II. Umm... Not sure what your point is. Suffice to say, "wait for and encourage a revolution" and "make a revolution now" are decisively different strategies when you get down to practical terms.

Of course some Bolsheviks wanted a revolution. But every Bolshevik of influence in the party wanted to make their move at some date much later than Lenin proposed. They weren't prepared to govern a state effectively, and they knew it. Lenin argued that it didn't matter (Europe was about to have it's revolutions, after all, and the state would cease to matter).

III. Yes. Ran out of time at the end. It bears mentioning that the "Whites" didn't coalesce until the Commies had been in force for a time. And that most were not interested in bringing back the monarchy.

"The Red Army won not due to Lenin, but due to popular support, organisation and numbers."

Lenin didn't matter to the Red Army, true. But the Red Army didn't exist until Lenin brought the Bolsheviks to power, so it's rather a moot point, eh?

There was no popular support for the Red Army during the Civil War. Russian peasants (so, pretty much all Russians) were opposed to whichever side happened to be occupying their land at the moment. Yes, it was better organized than its opponents, and managed to produce larger numbers (that'll tend to happen when both sides have mass draft armies and one has the main population centers).

 

[arctic warrior]

Regarding the last few posts: Do you guys actually know any Russian history?

Keep Lenin out of Russia, and what? The revolution that overthrew the Tsar had already happened before he got into the country.

It was a popular revolt, supported by most of the population of Russia, of all classes, and was not particularly socialist in nature. This revolution - the March Revolution - put the Provisional Government into power and peacefully deposed the Tsar. The Provisional Government was a liberal-leaning, representative government in favor of continuing the war (and passing able to do so).

Russia's socialists were largely excluded, and set up a parallel government - the Petrograd Soviet. It was composed of a variety of Socialist parties: mostly Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, but including tiny, forgettable little groups of fringe nuts with no popular support, one of which was the Bolsheviks.

At this point Lenin was imported because the Germans knew he'd screw things up. The Provisional Government was forced eventually to cooperate with the Soviet, and Socialists were invited in. This was when Lenin mattered, because he refused to compromise and kept the Bolshies out. They were not tainted, like other parties, with the failures of the PG, and began to grow. He also pretty much dragged his party into the coup - noone else wanted to do it on the (accurate) grounds that the party was not ready to govern a province, much less the largest state in the world.

That should correct the situation. Apologies to more competent people upthread.

Okay - the abdication by Nicolas II after the March Revolution slipped from mind. But then I wasn't the only one. How do you like the rest?

 

[Justin Pickard]

Regarding the last few posts: Do you guys actually know any Russian history?

Keep Lenin out of Russia, and what? The revolution that overthrew the Tsar had already happened before he got into the country.

It was a popular revolt, supported by most of the population of Russia, of all classes, and was not particularly socialist in nature. This revolution - the March Revolution - put the Provisional Government into power and peacefully deposed the Tsar. The Provisional Government was a liberal-leaning, representative government in favor of continuing the war (and passing able to do so).

Russia's socialists were largely excluded, and set up a parallel government - the Petrograd Soviet. It was composed of a variety of Socialist parties: mostly Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, but including tiny, forgettable little groups of fringe nuts with no popular support, one of which was the Bolsheviks.

At this point Lenin was imported because the Germans knew he'd screw things up. The Provisional Government was forced eventually to cooperate with the Soviet, and Socialists were invited in. This was when Lenin mattered, because he refused to compromise and kept the Bolshies out. They were not tainted, like other parties, with the failures of the PG, and began to grow. He also pretty much dragged his party into the coup - noone else wanted to do it on the (accurate) grounds that the party was not ready to govern a province, much less the largest state in the world.

That should correct the situation. Apologies to more competent people upthread.

Well, duh. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that we were talking about the November Revolution.

 

[Max Sinister]

Russia had suffered pretty much from the war. If the PG doesn't make peace with Germany, many soldiers will simply desert. Russia would break down. I expect a longer Civil War, or even Russia falling apart. (Nobody has the power to control all of it, but nobody wants to fight fanatically after four years of war, since the Communists aren't around, so warlords grab as much power as they can and stop fighting after they consolidate.)

 

[Justin Pickard]

- No Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to withdraw Russia from WW1 in 1917; the Germans remain forced to fight on both fronts, allowing the Allies an early victory in the West.

- In the aftermath of WW1, there would not be the fear of Communism to colour the peace plans and territorial adjustments. We wouldn't see a bunch of new states conjured up from nowhere to provide a 'buffer zone' with which to contain the 'red menace'. Without the Bolsheviks, Russia probably would have been one of a 'big four' determining the outcome of the Paris peace talks, which probably would have focused more on breaking the threat of Germany.

- I do think that, without the centralizing tendencies of the Bolsheviks, the Russian Empire probably wouldn't have survived the 1920s intact, with Poland, the Baltic States, and much of Central Asia lost to nationalist independence movements. It seems that it was the centralised ruthlessness of the Bolshevik party that managed to hold the Empire together.

- The Bolshevik Revolution had a profound effect on other European ideological movements; serving to radicalise the right-wing, whilst dividing the left. Without the revolution, I think that we could be looking at a more unified left in the period immediately prior to the economic crisis of the Wall Street Crash.

- I think there is a distinct policy that we could see Rosa Luxembourg and her allies emerge successful in Germany in TTL. A Red Germany is definitely not out of the question.

 

[Tizoc]

Well, I believe that some sort of Bolshevik Revolution would've taken place in, say, 1931 (2 yrs after start of the Great Depression). Which would've been followed by Polish and Finish, and probably Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian and central Asia insurrections... There would be Germany thinking about regaining lost eastern territories - but ONLY thinking, because of the French and British disapproval of those plans. Hitler would have became the ruler of Germany, as per OTL.

Hmm. Also, Communist threat (with a creation of Communist Russia, as per OTL, only 14 yrs later) could cause France and UK to try to get out of The Great Depression through more spending on military. Which, in turn, would enbolden them when dealing with Italy and Germany. Thus, when Hitler tries to gain more land, Allies would have squoshed Germany instead of going to Munish -> no WW2 then