Another 26/02/20 What would become the Soviet Union if Lenin had lived to 1944
As you know, history does not know subjunctive mood, but historical analysis without it is unthinkable. Divination of this kind, associated with Lenin, has become particularly popular at the beginning of “perestroika”. Then they were connected with the revelations of the atrocities of Stalin. They are usually “good” Lenin was opposed to the “evil” Stalin.
the Authors of such comparisons wanted to show that, if not for his serious illness, caused by a wound in 1918, Lenin, longer remaining the leadership of the Communist party and the Soviet government, would be able to counter the ambitions of Stalin. Then, they say, there were massive violations of “socialist legality”. As evidence quoted Lenin’s “Letter to Congress” (December 1922), in which it is recommended to consider the question of removing Stalin from the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b).
Now, when out and about Lenin and Stalin published a lot more information than in the late 1980s, it would be interesting to re-look at this historical alternative.
Centenarians in the family of Lenin
let’s Start with the justification, and why Lenin, in fact, could live longer. After all, his father, Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, had died almost at the same age (difference) and for the same reason (if in both cases the correct diagnosis) – from a stroke. However, in the genus Lenin was long-lived. It is hardly possible to doubt that his death was accelerated by the disease, the reasons to say here will not. If not her, then who knows how much else might be enough health Ilyich. Moreover, who knew his people had always marked very strong before the revolution health.
Lenin’s Grandfather on the paternal side died at 68 years old, my grandmother – at age 71, his mother Maria died in 81 years, the older sister Anna is 69 years old, the younger brother Dmitry, 68, niece Olga – 89. Lenin could be WParallels to live up to 70-75 years, at least – to Stalin’s age (74 years). And if that were the case, Lenin would have died only in 1944, that is caught at the head of the Soviet state the beginning and most of the Second world war. Or not caught? Perhaps, when this war did not happen?
Try to imagine what could be the policy of the Soviet state, and how could it happen in the world if Lenin led the Soviet Union, at least until the middle of 1930-ies.
the Obvious differences from the Stalinist course
inner-party struggle would have happened under Lenin, but was unable to achieve this bitterness, if Lenin had maintained a position above the fray. Consequently, the mass repressions in the party and the government under him would not have arisen. Would not have occurred numerous processes over “enemies of the people” and “counterrevolutionaries” from the intelligentsia. And not only Lenin, but also Trotsky, valued this layer, because before the revolution they themselves belonged to her.
the Specific model of the USSR with the equality of the Union republics was adopted at the end of 1922, at the insistence of Lenin, contrary to Stalin’s plan the “autonomy” of the Union republics, i.e. their inclusion in the Russian Federation. We can assume that if Lenin continued to rule, the real structure of the Union would be closer to the true Federation. Independence of Soviet republics from Moscow would be much stronger than it was under Stalin. The formal division of the USSR in the Union and Autonomous republics would be insignificant, but in content it would be a different model of the relationship between the Federal center and the republics.
Lenin disliked forms of the old regime. He wouldn’t spend the restoration of the titles of officer ranks and epaulets in the red army, would not appeal to the “great historical past.” Although Lenin was no stranger to its own understanding of patriotism (remember the decree “the Socialist Fatherland is in danger!” another dated February 21, 1918), but he was unlikely to appeal to the images of Peterbut First, Ivan the terrible, Alexander Nevsky, the Tsar’s generals. This policy, Stalin began to implement even before the war. Under Lenin it is hard to imagine.
it is Also difficult to imagine that Lenin gave some value to the conservative Orthodox Church and helped to rebuild its institutions. Rather, it would allow itself to continue the experiment with the revisionist version of Orthodoxy.
But very much depended on the General course in the construction of socialism inside the country and outside.
NEP as anticipation of modern Chinese socialism
Lenin’s Statements could be adapted, how then did Stalin and his opponents in the struggle for power, to justify literally any turn “the party line”. Lenin, it was possible to find arguments for the continuation of the new economic policy (NEP) with its market relations and limited private enterprise, and coagulation, as for the cooperation with the bourgeois state and the construction of socialism in one country and world revolution. Lenin was a flexible tactician. In addition, he, like anyone else in the party could come up with and justify a new course from literally nothing.
the Continuation of his rule would have such an important advantage before the fights of his imitators: he did not need a sharp political twists and turns in the struggle for power, for his authority inside the party was indisputable. Lenin would respond only to the signals that dictate change in the political course for the sake of power of the Communists.
In this regard, the continuation of the NEP after 1928 represented favorable conditions for the Bolshevik party. It is unlikely Lenin would have gone on its coagulation at this time. And at the end of 1929 broke the great economic crisis of the capitalist system. The real history of the Soviet Union was not able to use it, since even before Stalin started a ruinous mess of the entire socio-economic system of the country. But if such a decisive leap was not then the USSR would be in winning, especially in terms of propaganda, the situation in comparison with Western countries.
True, this could be a potential temptation to bring revolution in Western Europe on the bayonets of the red army, as it was in 1919-1920 And further historical scenarios branching so broad and diverse that they are impossible to survey in one article.
However, if Lenin was able to guess the rate of “soft power” against the West, while maintaining the strategy of “peaceful coexistence”, it is very likely that the Soviet Union could have used to take the same position dominant in large parts of Europe than it had done under Stalin, and the price of millions of victims of Soviet peoples. The very same economic model of the Soviet Union could find similarities with the model of modern China, and again, without excessive shocks.
© Russian Seven
Featured articles Share: Comments Comments on the article “What was the Soviet Union if Lenin had lived to 1944” Please log in to leave a comment! br>
Share on Tumblr