WI No Lenin

[Derek Jackson]

Suppose he either was not born, was a girl or had died before 1904. I belive that he was key to the Bolshevik coup aka Great October Revolution.

What happens to Russia?

What happens to the progressive and left and socialist movements?

I am guessing that there is still a big movement against the far left?

How different would things be?

 

[Catsmate]

A rather weak Social Democrat government under Kerensky might continue for a while, but persisting in the war would either have to be ended or there would be an uprising against the government of some sort.


Perhaps the Brotherhood Church on Southgate Road in Stepney is demolished by a huge gas explosion on 17MAY1907?

 

[volantredx]

What happens to the progressive and left and socialist movements?

Lenin didn't invent the socalist movement in Russia and was actually deeply unpopular for most of his life. The one defining moment for the Communists that gave him legitimacy and power was that he was willing to end the war on any terms no matter how bad (he had assumed Germany was days away from its own revolution and thus it wouldn't really matter). This gave him enough support from the Moscow military and workers in the Soviets to lead a coup. Without him the group we know today as the Mensheviks would have likely stayed in total control of the Communists and there would have been some sort of effort to oust Kerensky due to his handling of the late war, but overall they were more willing to work within the system. Thus the Communists would have been just one party in the new Republic of Russia.

The true leftist power in Russia would be the SRs who were far more agrarian, Russian and anarchistic. They would have had a lot more power and likely been the leading party in Russia for decades.

 

[Slime_blob]

Either Kerensky becomes dictator as iirc he and Kornilov is planning a coup to install him dictator. Apparently Kornilov's coup was in support of Kerensky. Technically Kerensky as dictator leading a compromise coalition government.

Which would obviously stay in the war. Still lose territory if they still agreed to Polish and other independence, iirc usa wanted that.

After the victory in ww1, Russia ITTL would have access to reparations to Germany instead of the other way around as Lenin obviously signed a humiliating peace.

Huge credit, loans and grants probably from the USA, injected to them for reconstruction. Where probably debt driven rapid economic growth would do the job, going better till the world economy crash. As access to loans would definitely become harder.

Idk what happens next, either Kerensky be toppled by communist fascist or what or what

Or Nicky II finishes the war, mainly the same. Likely gets toppled after the roaring 20s when the world economy collapsed

 

[Sam R.]

The Moscow committee was all-party.

 

[The Ranger]

Best case-no Communists in power means no Fascists or Nazis in power, no WW2, no nukes as no need for them, no Holocaust, no Isreal to rile up the Middle East, and no Al-Quida to do 9/11. And a slowed down leaving of the colonies which means (at least in some cases) they have more chance to get ready and not fall into dictatorship, civil war or quite as much corruption as in OTL.

 

[Leonidas]

Best case-no Communists in power means no Fascists or Nazis in power

The Bolsheviks weren't the only communists in town. There would still be massive instability throughout Europe by the end of WWI, which would probably result in calls to revolution like the Spartacist Uprising and Biennio Rosso even without the Soviets providing an example. Even without the bogeyman of a successful socialist revolution, the domestic threat they posed to the elites of their countries would make fascism more attractive (on top of the postwar irredentism which would also drive politics). That's not to say their rise to power couldn't be derailed by random butterflies, but I don't think it follows when looking at broad trends.

no Isreal to rile up the Middle East

Although different conditions on the eastern front might make British overtures for Jewish support less important, the Balfour Declaration may well still happen, and even if not, the proposed international region of Palestine would face its own issues of stability. You would still see significant Jewish immigration to the area even with these differences, and I think that decades of imperialism in the Middle East would cause issues regardless.

And a slowed down leaving of the colonies which means (at least in some cases) they have more chance to get ready and not fall into dictatorship, civil war or quite as much corruption as in OTL.

If anything I think it would be the reverse. With less pressure to leave, the imperial powers would have an even freer hand to set up whatever tinpot dictators they liked and keep the colonies under their rule even after allowing them independence on paper.

 

[volantredx]

Either Kerensky becomes dictator as iirc he and Kornilov is planning a coup to install him dictator. Apparently Kornilov's coup was in support of Kerensky. Technically Kerensky as dictator leading a compromise coalition government.

The Bolsheviks did very little to actually prevent that despite what Lenin and his party argued. Kornilov and Kerensky's coup was a shambolic affair that was defeated by basically everyone else.

And a slowed down leaving of the colonies which means (at least in some cases) they have more chance to get ready and not fall into dictatorship, civil war or quite as much corruption as in OTL.

The countries under colonial rule were victims of horrific abuse, corruption, and usually genocide. Being colonies longer wouldn't help anyone but the colonizers. Britain and France weren't getting their colonies ready to be democracies at any point in their history.