WI Stalin died during the Russian Civil War?

As a counterpoint to the "without Hitler" threads, how would history - in particular the USSR - proceed with Stalin dead during the RCW?
 
I think the general consensus here is that Lenin wouldn't be replaced by Trotsky no matter what, really. I don't know who it would likely be, then. Zinoviev, perhaps.
 
I think the general consensus here is that Lenin wouldn't be replaced by Trotsky no matter what, really. I don't know who it would likely be, then. Zinoviev, perhaps.

That has been the consensus for a while, but when looking at the opposition to Trotsky ascending to leadership - chiefly Zinoviev and Bukharin, I'm not so sure. Neither of those two men had the leadership capabilities of Trotsky.

Of course, they could always form an effective coalition to block Trotsky. But if Lenin takes the time to kind of anoint Trotsky his heir outright (helped by the absence of Stalin) then it becomes more likely that he will ascend to leader of the Soviet Union.

What would a Zinovievite Soviet Union be like anyway?
 
I don't see the Soviet Union falling under control of one dictator. I see some kind of collective leadership that keeps Trotsky out of control, but still within the Soviet Union and still a member of the Politburo. While Zinoviev may remain top dog for a while, he will never consolidate power like Stalin nor be as ruthless and it is always possible some other Old Bolshevik rises to topple him.

I think by default the Soviets will run a middle course between the Leftists under Trotsky and the Rightists (NEP) under Bukharin with limited and tactical dashes to the left or right based on whatever the politics called for at the time. I think so much effort would be spent simply beating off Trotsky that no one would dominate like Stalin did. But given enough time, who knows what may happen.
 
I don't see the Soviet Union falling under control of one dictator. I see some kind of collective leadership that keeps Trotsky out of control, but still within the Soviet Union and still a member of the Politburo. While Zinoviev may remain top dog for a while, he will never consolidate power like Stalin nor be as ruthless and it is always possible some other Old Bolshevik rises to topple him.

I think by default the Soviets will run a middle course between the Leftists under Trotsky and the Rightists (NEP) under Bukharin with limited and tactical dashes to the left or right based on whatever the politics called for at the time. I think so much effort would be spent simply beating off Trotsky that no one would dominate like Stalin did. But given enough time, who knows what may happen.

It sounds like a far more "democratic" Soviet Union.

Especially with Trotskyists and the Right-Opposition both jockeying for influence within the government. Perhaps the ban on factions may even be lifted?
 
It sounds like a far more "democratic" Soviet Union.

Especially with Trotskyists and the Right-Opposition both jockeying for influence within the government. Perhaps the ban on factions may even be lifted?

Democratic Soviet Union ?!

Trotsky was reckless just like Stalin
He belief in Soviet System, but was ready to sacrifice million peoples , if it give a benefit for USSR
He push His Idea to industrialize the Soviet Union, Stalin filched that plan after Trotsky was exiled from USSR.

A Soviet Union under Trotsky would have heavy Industrialization and armament of Red Army, Trotsky would give dam if million soviets died in process...
Biggest divergence , Trotsky is not the short temper Paranoid Isolationist called himself Stalin
Trotskyists in contrast to Stalinism, Export the People Revolution to other Nations

Means in 1930s the USSR will be active player in World Politic much to hate of Capitalist Nation
like active role in Spanish and Chinese civil war, support the Communist in Weimar Republic, France, Britain, USA etc. also in there Colonies.
It will make allot Bad Blood under Europan Leaders

It would be logic if European nations would form a coalition against the USSR, even begin war against Communism
Wildcard in this scenario is Weimar Republic it will fall but what rise out it's ashes ?
Fascistic Third Reich or communist German People Republic ?
 
Neither did Trotsky; the man had a ludicrously inflated opinion of himself and never failed to let everyone know it.

Yes he was extremely arrogant and had a knack for alienating peers because of it, but Trotsky was also basically the co-leader of the Bolshevik coup IMO and all the other contenders - Stalin, Zinoviev and Bukharin - identified him as the main threat and banded together against him. It took their combined efforts and Stalin's unparalleled Machiavellism to take him down. I think that shows Trotsky had real leadership capability.

Anyway I acknowledge that it would be very unlikely for Trotsky to rise to unchallenged leadership after Lenin's death; a collective leadership is more likely, one that includes Trotsky and his faction.

Democratic Soviet Union ?!

Trotsky was reckless just like Stalin
He belief in Soviet System, but was ready to sacrifice million peoples , if it give a benefit for USSR
He push His Idea to industrialize the Soviet Union, Stalin filched that plan after Trotsky was exiled from USSR.

A Soviet Union under Trotsky would have heavy Industrialization and armament of Red Army, Trotsky would give dam if million soviets died in process...
Biggest divergence , Trotsky is not the short temper Paranoid Isolationist called himself Stalin
Trotskyists in contrast to Stalinism, Export the People Revolution to other Nations

Means in 1930s the USSR will be active player in World Politic much to hate of Capitalist Nation
like active role in Spanish and Chinese civil war, support the Communist in Weimar Republic, France, Britain, USA etc. also in there Colonies.
It will make allot Bad Blood under Europan Leaders

It would be logic if European nations would form a coalition against the USSR, even begin war against Communism
Wildcard in this scenario is Weimar Republic it will fall but what rise out it's ashes ?
Fascistic Third Reich or communist German People Republic ?

Mate I put "democratic" in quotation marks - why are you taking it literally? Of course the Soviet Union won't become a democracy without Stalin, Bolshevism would not allow that. What I meant was that Soviet leadership would be far more collegiate and collectivist - rule by committees and troikas - rather than a single totalitarian absolute dictator like under Stalinism.

And no, Trotsky would not be absolute dictator, so I would discount a lot of your predictions there.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
As far as I understood the history of Stalin, he was more conderned about himself and his position of power, as with some ideology, esp. after the revolution. To push himself he was able to switch sides, ideological positions and opinions, at least officially.
I don't say, that he didn't had an ideological understanding, but he seems to have been able to ... 'adadpt' to changing flows of it in the party.

Trotsky seems to have been some kind of a pain in the arse with his arrogance. But as he stood up against Lenin against NEP i.e., let me think that his 'ideological drive' was stronger than Stalins. Therefore I would assume, he wouldn't create that kind of personal dictator/leadership Stalin did.

(Pls correct me if I'm wrong.)
 
As far as I understood the history of Stalin, he was more conderned about himself and his position of power, as with some ideology, esp. after the revolution. To push himself he was able to switch sides, ideological positions and opinions, at least officially.
I don't say, that he didn't had an ideological understanding, but he seems to have been able to ... 'adadpt' to changing flows of it in the party.

Trotsky seems to have been some kind of a pain in the arse with his arrogance. But as he stood up against Lenin against NEP i.e., let me think that his 'ideological drive' was stronger than Stalins. Therefore I would assume, he wouldn't create that kind of personal dictator/leadership Stalin did.

(Pls correct me if I'm wrong.)

It seems like he was too inflexible to get into the kind of position of strength he'd need to do away with Zinoviev and Bukharin and the rest. The question is whether he'd be amenable to a compromise with the others, or whether things would just escalate out of control. If the latter, I do suspect he'd provoke a unified front too strong to overcome.
 
Trotsky would maintain his position as head of the Red Army, but not Foreign Minister. Basically all of the Old Bolsheviks hated Trotsky. It was less his positions than his personality. He was like Communist Ted Cruz, popular among his base in the Soviets, but if someone shot him dead in the Politburo, there'd be no witnesses.

Most likely we see a system not unlike modern China, where heads of state are largely determined by the climate of the Party and not dominant personalities like Brezhnev. This would, in my opinion, moderate Soviet policies considerably. No Great Purge, less famine, perhaps an extension of the NEP by a few more years and less agricultural collectivization. I imagine more collaboration with the capitalist powers, too, if Nazi Germany shows up. No way around a two-front war for this Hitler.

This is of course assuming the Russian Civil War goes OTL for some reason instead of changing drastically. Which it would since Stalin was a fairly successful general in the war.



EDIT: Remember that right before the height of his power, Stalin organized an entire new constitution for the USSR in 1936. That's a pretty big deal.
 
Last edited:
The question would be who would be of when he dies during the civil war (and perhaps how - was he assassinated by the SRs like Uritsky or died of illness like Sverdlov?). He was head of the department that dealt with the national question and his passing might effect the Bolsheviks' strategy regarding national determination (unlikely due to Lenin's basic position regarding nationalities but there were certainly bolsheviks with differing opinions) but he was also appointed General Secretary which we consider now to be an important role but was just considered an administrative role. This basically gave Stalin the ability to promote, demote, transfer and discipline members of the party along with his ally Kaganovich.

If a different figure, one less ambitious and cynical, was appointed General Secretary we could see an entirely different composition of the Party leading to different internal debates and different figures ascending to power. I mean, people talk Trotsky being hated but that was in part because Stalin filled the Party with people dependent on him and who were immediately put into conflict with Trotsky who railed against this growing bureaucracy. If a different person has the power to appoint these new members (Stalin and Kaganovich basically had the ability to ensure that the representatives that attended congress were their allies as opposed to people elected by local party groups) then the debates and votes in congress could have developed entirely differently.

In the midst of the civil war and the immediate aftermath, Lenin and the Party generally just wanted things running smoothly so they could survive in a decent shape, so perhaps things wouldn't be too different, but it could set up the ripples so that by Lenin's death and towards the late 20's, the internal life of the Party would look very different.
 
Mate I put "democratic" in quotation marks - why are you taking it literally? Of course the Soviet Union won't become a democracy without Stalin, Bolshevism would not allow that. What I meant was that Soviet leadership would be far more collegiate and collectivist - rule by committees and troikas - rather than a single totalitarian absolute dictator like under Stalinism.

And no, Trotsky would not be absolute dictator, so I would discount a lot of your predictions there.

Trotsky vision of Democratic Soviet Union, was that workers form numerous "worker councils" (Russian: Soviets, get it ?)", who elect one representative unter them, for the bigger "Councils of Soviets"
What elected the Presidium, formed the Council of Ministers and the Supreme Court, and appointed the Procurator General of the Soviet Union.

yes they had under Stalin something similar the "Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union"
But it was a two chambers system and it functioned only as a "rubber stamp" for decisions already made by the Politburo.
They try once a censure motion against Stalin politics in 1930s, what let to first purge in USSR, were allot of members died or went into Gulach.

Although how give us the guarantee that Trotsky stick to his system ?
He is not noble revolutionary, but a reckless Communist fanatic.
Trotsky was head of Red Army during the Russian Civil war
Organized roughshod the Supply and infrastructure of Red Army, sanction the "Red Terror" were Red Army commit atrocities under population.
Order to hunting down deserters and executed them, high rank Officers families were under Arrest (Sippenhaft), if they desert there Family died !
He also just like Stalin in WW2, waste entire divisions in order to win the Civil War

with that in mind, He can just like Stalin purge the "Councils of Soviets" if they try a censure motion against Leo Trotsky
 
Last edited:
To use an analogy, Trotsky is the show Community: a cult classic loved by some very prominent people, but not very popular with the general public. He didn't have a large network of supporters backing him, and the rank-and-file Party members (particularly those that came after the Lenin Enrollment) tended to support other candidates. Trotsky was also pretty bad at building a support network, and in fact his imperiousness and arrogance tended to alienate potential supporters. In short, Trotsky was a great orator and an organizational genius, but a poor politician.
 
It sounds like a far more "democratic" Soviet Union.

It wouldn't be democratic. It would be a party dictatorship but without a single domineering figure like in the Khruschev or Brezhnev years. More consensual leadership at the very top level with more intriguing, but the ordinary people would still be grinded to dust and have no say in what happens to that. And if the NEP is ever abandoned (and this is a distinct possibility), we may even see the mass famines and dekulakization. And there will still be the NKVD and Gulag, although they'll be more limited than they were under Stalin.
 
It wouldn't be democratic. It would be a party dictatorship but without a single domineering figure like in the Khruschev or Brezhnev years. More consensual leadership at the very top level with more intriguing, but the ordinary people would still be grinded to dust and have no say in what happens to that. And if the NEP is ever abandoned (and this is a distinct possibility), we may even see the mass famines and dekulakization. And there will still be the NKVD and Gulag, although they'll be more limited than they were under Stalin.

Would the bolded still happen even if Bukharin and the Right Opposition takes power?

And yeah there would not be democracy for the common people and the security state would remain in place.

Still far less disastrous than Stalinism.
 
If Bukharin and the Right Opposition takes power, I don't see the NEP being abandoned. However, it was a very unpopular program among the Bolsheviks because its existence basically was an admission that Communism could not work. Bukharin was in a minority position in the Bolshevik party. Stalin utilized it when he was posing as a moderate to unite the party against Trotsky, but quickly abandoned the NEP once Trotsky was gone. I really don't see the long term survival of the NEP. Its pragmatism is an argument against it in a part of ideologues. Once the immediate crisis passed, it was going to be attacked at some point. It might survive for a long time, but Bukharin is not going to win control of the party.
 
Top