-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Lets say the incompetent Stalin dies after chocking on his own saliva and Poland falls to the Soviets, Germany follows suit and then France tries to resist and then surrenders after facing internal unrest.
Imagine a red Europe. A dead Stalin and a worldwide revolution led by Trotsky. The only enemies left for the Working class are the Anglos. The CCCP never becomes the tyrannical Empire it does in our timeline and the Polish have their own independent Socialist Republic without the Germans chimping out in the 30s and the Russians committing the atrocities they did in OTL.
The world would be so alien to us that i dont know how to end this post. Just imagine, Stalin dies at the start of the XX century....what a beautiful timeline.
Imagine a red Europe. A dead Stalin and a worldwide revolution led by Trotsky. The only enemies left for the Working class are the Anglos. The CCCP never becomes the tyrannical Empire it does in our timeline and the Polish have their own independent Socialist Republic without the Germans chimping out in the 30s and the Russians committing the atrocities they did in OTL.
The world would be so alien to us that i dont know how to end this post. Just imagine, Stalin dies at the start of the XX century....what a beautiful timeline.
- 2
- 1
I'm not entirely sure Stalin dying implies Trotsky inevitably succeeding Lenin.
Furthermore, our anarchists friends would immediately point Trotsky's responsibility in the repression of Kronstadt. Not that I necessarily agree with the anarchists on this, but it is certainly something you would have to justify if you are going to glorify Trotsky. On the other hand I obviously also have some sympathy for a scenario where the European countries fall like dominos to a revolution, even though the resistance to this by the upper classes and economic elite shouldn't be underestimated. Would be a rather bloody affair with civil wars and foreign support to the "whites". The UK certainly wouldn't sit back and watch while workers revolution Europe. If we do concede on that point and an European revolution happens, I think the dynamic within the Communist bloc would be radically different from in our history. France, Germany and Italy becoming Bolshevik means the weight isn't going to be on the Russian side. It means potential conflicts and tensions between the different national attempts at communism. In France the details of Soviet communism and the doctrine of Lenin were largely unknown in 1920 at the congress of Tours, other than the famous 21 conditions to join the Internationale. The texts of Lenin had not necessarily been translated from French into Russian. A lot of activists joined the French Section of the Communist Internationale after Tours and were later expelled under Soviet guidance. If a revolution had succeeded before, those activists and revolutionnary figures might have gotten considerable influence. And if the revolution happens before December 1920 what happens with those who didn't join the SFIC and stayed within the SFIO? What would be the role of say Léon Blum, Jean Longuet and Jules Guesde, to cite some prominent figures? The same would apply to Italy and Germany.
- 1
The main problems with Anarchists is that they are even more sectarian than the Troyskysts and i always see them struggling with creating the stable vertical institutions necessary to fight against a Communist government (always more authoritarian disciplined and more organized) in a war. But lets say its another Bolshevik who leds the Soviets and the Socialist Republics of this timeline remain independent from each other (because the French and the Germans under Russian leadership is something too bizarre to theorize about.)I'm not entirely sure Stalin dying implies Trotsky inevitably succeeding Lenin.
Having France, Germany and Russia as the international center of a socialist revolution would mean that Italy and Spain would have fallen too unless WW2 is triggered...but i fail to see how the UK and the US (ok, add Japan just for the sake of it) would have defeated that many powerful nations fighting on the same side.
Still a better timeline than the one we are saw, more than 40 millions of humans died in ww2 after all.
Use of a Red X is looked down upon many in this forum, btw.
Jopa and I have a very friendly relationship. I added a point I found relevant that the item under discussion helped fuel the anti-Communist fire out of which Hitler would shape the NSDAP. That is not recentering the conversation, it is making a point and moving along. It only became a major subpoint by your completely inaccurate reading of the exchange and statements regarding the situation.
In 1919, the Nazi party doesn't even exist. In September Hitler spies on his first meeting of DAP for the Wehrmacht and gets into a verbal smackdown of an opponent; turning the heads of all there, especially Eckhart. The DAP has exactly 50 members of which Hitler is the 55th. Hitler's NSDAP party number is 555 because they start counting at 500 because they want to seem larger than they are. It is NOTHING at this point but a workers coalition sprung out of Thule's members looking to apply their beliefs. It is the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler responding to the Communist - Jewish threat that transforms them into the terror of the world.
But he joins DAP at this time as Germany watches, concerned over the Red Menace, and Adi's superiors give their permission despite the fact German soldiers aren't allowed to be political. The NSDAP isn't even constituted, Hitler hasn't had his fit and quit the DAP. We are merely talking about the motivations of the moment as we watch the NSDAP Party born in February of '20 and rise.
The fact the Russians are in Poland at this exact moment in time is of no interest to German Volk who wish to save their country from the Red Menace, and who view this threat for the next decade with growing apprehension like the rest of the world?
THAT is the point I laid on the table. And if I find the Third Reich the enormous Black Sun eminiting gravitational waves throughout the past century, the point was to Jopa and part of a far larger conversation we are having regarding this era to view it as a chain of events rather than isolated occurrences studied outside the whole.
Yes. Hitler resigned the DAP and its leadership gave him whatever he wanted to return. Hitler only assumed control of DAP and transformed it into NSDAP after he had been given the title and power of 'Fuhrer' with all that came to entail over the ensuing decades.
But what 'failed book' did Hitler write? Mein Kampf? That was written in 1925 while in prison. Dictated to Rudolph Hess, including the notes provided by their weekly visitor, Karl Hauhoffer; it was edited/rewritten by Bernard Stampfle, a Jesuit priest, before being published and it made Hitler unbelievably wealthy selling out printing after printing. For all intents and purposes it pays for the Berghof. 'Fail' has nothing to do with it, you can still find it on bookshelves; but it does not even exist in theory at this point in time.
Last edited:
- 1
Without the Crash of 29' and the slow buildup of the Nazi Party you think the Germans would side behind a random Austrian 2-3 years before the Beer Hall Putsh?.
Hitler got into power because many factors, he was an unlikely candidate to rise in a time where there were many "great" Germans still alive both in politics AND in the military.
- 1
For the record, I have a passionate dislike of Alt History. My only concern is understanding what DID happen, now and always. This requires understanding proper timelines from the beginning of eternity to today - a fact that applies to multiple conversations you and I are currently having across multiple threads, mi amigo.
The Beerhall Putsch happens in '23 at the same moment Russia is undergoing its transition from Lenin-Troika-Stalin. Hitler goes to prison and is out in a matter of months. He reorganizes because he can only control Germany by using the current government as a ladder and must work from within the system, not from without.
On 'Black Thursday' in October of '29, Hitler is well positioned to make hay when he is essentially proven correct as American businessmen begin flinging themselves out of open windows up and down Wall Street and the Great Depression spreads globally. And, yes, this is one of his great springboards.
Last edited:
Having said that, I apologize to our host @Jopa79 for the sidetrack; but I am quite sure you understand my rationale based upon my long term interest in this matter.
Carry on, good sir.
Carry on, good sir.
- 1
To move the conversation forward, on Hitler's desk was a signed photo of Henry Ford.
In 1921, Henry Ford employed Harry Bennett to run the 'Ford Service Department', a paramilitary police force that could and was swelled up to 8,000 men strong, designed specifically to counter Communist labor agents and Un-American thinking within the confines of his factories. Ford sent spies into his employee's homes to see what they did in their private lives. If someone got out of line, or wanted to go on strike; Harry Bennett broke them, literally. And this was smiled upon by the government.
At this point in time the fear of Communism was a very real thing. The Poles holding the line should be @pithorr next essay about Poland getting screwed, again, simultaneously by both East and West.
As a side note, in 1932 the Communists gave a speech in Michigan and then lead a group of hungry men to the Ford Plant on the Ford Hunger March and it transformed into the Ford Massacre by Michigan cops fronting Bennett's troops who were right behind them on orders from you know who. Communism was not smiled upon.
In 1921, Henry Ford employed Harry Bennett to run the 'Ford Service Department', a paramilitary police force that could and was swelled up to 8,000 men strong, designed specifically to counter Communist labor agents and Un-American thinking within the confines of his factories. Ford sent spies into his employee's homes to see what they did in their private lives. If someone got out of line, or wanted to go on strike; Harry Bennett broke them, literally. And this was smiled upon by the government.
At this point in time the fear of Communism was a very real thing. The Poles holding the line should be @pithorr next essay about Poland getting screwed, again, simultaneously by both East and West.
As a side note, in 1932 the Communists gave a speech in Michigan and then lead a group of hungry men to the Ford Plant on the Ford Hunger March and it transformed into the Ford Massacre by Michigan cops fronting Bennett's troops who were right behind them on orders from you know who. Communism was not smiled upon.
- 1
With all respect to the Poles, I don't think this event registered with anyone, other than embarrass the Poles at being rolled by a rag-tag Red Army no one imagined was capable of punching its way out of a paper bag.
It's like the Australian army proclaiming national celebrations for not being entirely vanquished by Emus.
It's like the Australian army proclaiming national celebrations for not being entirely vanquished by Emus.
- 1
- 1
Indeed, I think the point of leadership is a pertinent one. The Bolsheviks in Russia were able to take the leadership of the Third International because they were the only country in which a revolution had lastingly succeeded. However, in a scenario where a revolution happens in any industrialised Western European country, it will depend upon the chronology, but I also have a hard time seeing Russia, which was remote and much less industrialised, maintaining leadership. This means that the different national conceptions of communism and the different national interpretation of the 21 conditions get put into place. It would be absolutely impossible for the Soviet Union of 1920 to treat countries like Germany and France as satellites. Poland however would probably have been much more infeodated, although I presume that if a revolution had succeeded in Germany there might have been German influence as well. On anarchism, we agree, but my views about anarchism being too idealistic and not being a viable model to generalise is way beyond the scope of this thread.
The polycentric nature of the European revolution would be a source of tension. How do you keep the coherence of the Comintern with several national experiences of communism? It is difficult to not draw parallells with China or Yugoslavia in our history.
Japan is too distant and not a player in the European scene during the 1920s. Maybe some peripheral border conflicts with Russia, but not any impact on France, Germany, Poland and Italy. I don't think the conflict in Siberia is that central, especially if France and Germany assist the Soviet Union. That being said, the UK would certainly fund and military support counter-revolution, as it did historically. I'm not enough familiar with the internal dynamics of the United States to know to what extent they would have been ready to intervene. American soldiers did take part in the Allied intervention in Russia.
Last edited:
What border?
The border was actually established in Riga a bit later.
The war was rather the Soviet attempt to conquer lands...
BTW, Poland also helped Latvia in their independece effort.
Hmm, with all respect to your history classes, you shouldn't underestimate Red Army. Those rag-tag armies were able to seize and establish power in the biggest empire in the world, fighting simultaneously with regular Russian army units, foreign intervention and several new-emerged countries like Polish 2nd Republic.
- 3
- 1
Although it has to be said that those countries that had just gained independence weren't the strongest military powers, while the foreign interventions in Russia came in a context of exhaustion and war-weariness after WW1. Neither the UK nor France committed themselves fully to those interventions and they didn't have the capacity or interest to project themselves much further than they did. In 1919 the French Navy faced serious Black Sea mutinies. Revolutionaries identified more with the Red Army than the respective national armies.
In general Eastern Europe was devastated by the conflict and the continued fighting on several fronts meant that in parts of Eastern Europe it only ended in the 1920s. I'm naturally thinking about Poland, Russia and the Baltic, but also Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The fact that the end of WW1 on the 11th of November of 1918 is a very Western European construct and vision was brought up, rightfully so, during the centenary in 2018. The Museum of the Army in Paris had a very interesting exhibition on this matter: In the East the the war without end 1918-1923.
As for the white Russian army units fighting the Red Army, in what state were those by 1920? Did they really have the same ideological motivation and prospects as their opponents?
Last edited:
I cannot imagine why you would think that - it flies in the face of all historical evidence. I would point out that every government of Russia from the Tsars to the present has been authoritarian. Every one has had a powerful secret police. Every one has stamped on dissent. Every one has consolidated its power at the expense of its own people, and of the non-Russian people it has 'acquired'. Stalin did not make the USSR tyrannical, he continued and made more efficient the systems of control instituted by the Tsars and continued and expanded by Lenin. Lenin was a dictator; anyone who followed Lenin would have been a dictator - it was the easiest way to retain control.
The problem isn't Stalin, it is Russia's lack of any non-authoritarian experience. The Soviets did not repress and control less than the Tsars, they were just more efficient at it.
So the death of Stalin does not usher in some sort of Paradise, it exports authoritarianism and repression to all of Europe.
- 2
- 1
- 1
I don't think we should essentialise Russian authoritarianism as an inherent and immutable trait. The 1917 October Revolution is a rather impressive experiment of worker self-organisation and direct democracy. There were also left communists, anarchists and independent revolutionaries involved. At the beginning the Bolsheviks allowed several key reforms and progress in comparison to the Tsarist regime. Yes, there are some continuities, but there are also important changes. Furthermore, historically the death of Stalin in 1953 clearly meant an end to Stalinisation and ended that totalitarian phase to reconfigure the authoritarian system of government, the XXth Congress of 1956 was a genuine turning point.
- 1
- 1
@loup99 - Or you could cite the Gorbachev/Yeltsin experiment. But every time, Russia returns to repression and authoritarianism. That is why I think an early death for Stalin and the spread of communism over Europe would result in an authoritarian, repressive regime.
I have nothing against communism, socialism or capitalism - they are tools in the box, used appropriately in some situations or not, in others. But Russia, regardless of its political or economic system, has always reverted to an authoritarian state. Sometimes more so, or less so - but Kruschev's Russia, or Putin's Russia, differs from the Tsar's Russia, Lenin's Russia or Stalin's Russia only in degree of authoritarian control and repression.
It is the exceptions that test the rule - and the rule has been that up until now, whatever course it might temporarily try, Russia has returned to dictatorship.
I have nothing against communism, socialism or capitalism - they are tools in the box, used appropriately in some situations or not, in others. But Russia, regardless of its political or economic system, has always reverted to an authoritarian state. Sometimes more so, or less so - but Kruschev's Russia, or Putin's Russia, differs from the Tsar's Russia, Lenin's Russia or Stalin's Russia only in degree of authoritarian control and repression.
It is the exceptions that test the rule - and the rule has been that up until now, whatever course it might temporarily try, Russia has returned to dictatorship.
- 1
- 1
Exactly. Which doesn't exactly bring credit to those they were up against.
Russia was in utter chaos, its territories lost, military industries kaput, invaded from all sides, and the Red Army had its ass kicked through much of 1919. This was supposed to be a cakewalk.
A bunch of retired German vets put down the German Soviet. A bunch of ramshackle Hungarian vets put down the Hungarian Soviet. The Russian Soviet was not any scarier or tougher. Who would have imagined a silly republic run by councils of workers and sailors would last a fortnight?
It is to the credit of the Red Army to have been able to rally and turn a dire situation around. Their opponents, by contrast, mishandled their initial advantages and did not put on a particularly good show.
I understand trying to rescue some pride after a failed campaign. But to paint the Red Army of 1920 as some kind of mighty world-conquering machine is exaggerating quite a lot.
Who knows, maybe if communist revolution spreaded westward, and German communists take over (or rather regain) the leading role in the movement, they would have eventually also dominated the Russians and the system created wouldn't have been such totalitarian like that having origins in traditional Russian autarchy.
- 1
Indeed. But no one says they would have been able to roll over Germany. The point is if their proximity would have triggered the revolution of the size of the Russian one. For me personally it is dubious, and even in such case its success would be still very uncertain. Moreover, talking about further spread, in the first case to France, which rather had meager communist traditions, is kinda naive.
But it is mainly a "what if" thread
- 1