Russia and Communism

[Tycho]

Russia has had a turbulent history, none more so than the Bolshevik uprising under Lenin. The initial democratic rule set up by an emergency government sought to bring democracy to Russia almost eighty years early, but was quickly overthrown by the revolution orchestrated by the Bolsheviks.

My question to all of you is, what if the Bolshevik revolution had never happened? What would have been the long term effects of this? WWII, the period that would have been the Cold War, and other things as well? What's your take on the matter?

 

[bombshoo]

Just a warning, many here don't take too kindly to alternate histories, especially ones that attempt to predict far off events (WWII, the Cold War).

But for the Kerensky government to have any success you probably have to change the outcome of the Galician Offensive to either not happen at all (which I don't know how much this would change and the changes to make it not happen are fairly big), be extremely successful to cement Kerensky as a leader (I doubt there was potential for it to be that successful), and/or create a much less fragmented government (again, big changes going many years back are needed).

That's a start, I guess. I realize I didn't answer your question, but at least it might get the thread moving in the proper direction. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Tycho]

Just a warning, many here don't take too kindly to alternate histories, especially ones that attempt to predict far off events (WWII, the Cold War).

But for the Kerensky government to have any success you probably have to change the outcome of the Galician Offensive to either not happen at all (which I don't know how much this would change and the changes to make it not happen are fairly big), be extremely successful to cement Kerensky as a leader (I doubt there was potential for it to be that successful), and/or create a much less fragmented government (again, big changes going many years back are needed).

That's a start, I guess. I realize I didn't answer your question, but at least it might get the thread moving in the proper direction. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

I am sorry, if this thread is not well received hopefully it will be deleted. I was just mulling this over myself and wanted to ask people what their opinions are of it. Thank you for your time to reply.

 

[bombshoo]

I am sorry, if this thread is not well received hopefully it will be deleted. I was just mulling this over myself and wanted to ask people what their opinions are of it. Thank you for your time to reply.

It shouldn't be deleted. While the overall question could have been better phrased ("What could the Russian Provisional Government have done to survive?", "How could the Bolshevik Revolution have been prevented?"), it nonetheless leads to a good chain of questions and discussion.

 

[Ajidica]

My question to all of you is, what if the Bolshevik revolution had never happened?

We would have missed out on the awsomeness that is Eisenstein and Prokofiev.

What would have been the long term effects of this?

Given that Kerenskys offensive would have succeeded and Kornilov would have not revolted Kerensky could probably have gained enough legitimacy to hold together Great Russia and hope that the Tsarists out in Siberia would accept him. Petrograd would still be a lost cause, but they would have been in a tough spot with Kornilov.

WWII,

Too far off to predict. If the provisional government had held together they could have avoided the treaty that gave the Germans most of eastern europe (blanking out on the name right now), which causes things to get too messy.

What's your take on the matter?

The Provisional Government wasn't going to last. A loose collection of Ukranian nationalists, tsarists, republicans, and moderate socialists wasn't going to hold up very well against the ensuing turmoil, even if the Petrograd Soviet was neutered by Kornilov.

 

[aelf]

I dunno, speaking of bringing democracy to Russia "almost 80 years early", I'm not sure just how democratic the "initial democratic rule" of the Provisional Government was.

Too far off to predict. If the provisional government had held together they could have avoided the treaty that gave the Germans most of eastern europe (blanking out on the name right now)

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The October Revolution was not "orchestrated" by the Bolsheviks. Revolutionary feelings were harnessed by them, but many of the beginning parts of the revolution were done completely without input by Lenin and Co. They had been agitating for revolution, and had a plan for what to do when that happened, but had no control over just when events would come to a head. Once they did, their plan sprang into action, but to pretend that they caused the whole thing to happen is ridiculous. Take the failed July Uprising as proof of that: revolutionaries called for an end of the Provisional Government, and even called on the Bolsheviks to lead them to victory, and the Bolsheviks declined. They knew the timing was not right, which is why they urged the revolutionary mobs to back down and be patient.

The Provisional Government wasn't "unfortunately cut short by the Bolshevik coup," it was doomed to failure from the start because it had no interest in addressing any of the problems the people expected them to: the war, the food problem, and the land question. The Bolsheviks were who the people turned to, because everyone else had failed to answer these questions. The Bolsheviks answered all three. If the Bolsheviks hadn't harnessed those revolutionary tendencies in late October, something else would have brought them down, either internally or externally.

 

[Winner]

The Bolsheviks answered all three. If the Bolsheviks hadn't harnessed those revolutionary tendencies in late October, something else would have brought them down, either internally or externally.

The Bolsheviks of course broke all their promises once they had seized power in Russia. Just don't forget to mention this little fact.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Bolsheviks of course broke all their promises once they had seized power in Russia. Just don't forget to mention this little fact.

Ended the war? For a few months. What a coincidence that you should forget that a legion from your own country is what started the civil war that followed. Half check for effort. Though it is worth pointing out that people were far more willing to fight in the civil war, for something they cared about, than in a foreign war that they didn't, and that it was the World War they were upset about.

Solved the food problem? They tried, but it's hard when half your country revolts and destroys the food producing centers. Half check for effort.

Solved the land problem? Absolutely a check.

The only of their promises they went back on was one that wasn't part of their core platform: democracy on the factory floor and in military units (though that was really already de facto in practice since about 1916 in certain units), but I shouldn't think that one would bother you too much.

 

[fing0lfin]

Ended the war? For a few months. What a coincidence that you should forget that a legion from your own country is what started the civil war that followed. Half check for effort. Though it is worth pointing out that people were far more willing to fight in the civil war, for something they cared about, than in a foreign war that they didn't, and that it was the World War they were upset about.

Solved the food problem? They tried, but it's hard when half your country revolts and destroys the food producing centers. Half check for effort.

Solved the land problem? Absolutely a check.

The only of their promises they went back on was one that wasn't part of their core platform: democracy on the factory floor and in military units (though that was really already de facto in practice since about 1916 in certain units), but I shouldn't think that one would bother you too much.

It would be interesting if you can provide some data about the eceonomic situation, standart of living, level of education, industrial power and etc. in pre-war Russia and then compare them with the results from the early days if the soviet union(1920s). Though that may be a little tricky because the communist had the bad habbit to manipulate statistics and represend to the public events that never happend and facts that are not true...

 

[aelf]

It would be interesting if you can provide some data about the eceonomic situation, standart of living, level of education, industrial power and etc. in pre-war Russia and then compare them with the results from the early days if the soviet union(1920s). Though that may be a little tricky because the communist had the bad habbit to manipulate statistics and represend to the public events that never happend and facts that are not true...

I don't see how that has to do with anything. Is someone riding a hobby horse?

 

[fing0lfin]

As one of the question was what would it be afer X years if there was no revolution, i think that this can show you in some way how could have the Russian ecenomy looked like without revolution.
Didn't understood the thing with the horse btw.

 

[aelf]

But that has nothing to do with the post you quoted. In any case, there aren't going to be very many interesting conclusions to be drawn about the merits of the revolutionary government using the methodology your propose, since much of the conditions in its early days are simply inherited and some are created through no real fault of their own (such as the presence of hostile foreign troops in and around their territories). If you want to see whether the revolutionary government made a difference or not, you'd probably have to look beyond the 1920s and some time beyond the aftermath of the Civil War when the policies of the regime actually have had the time and opportunity to produce results. But then you'd run into problems about the definition of the revolutionary government - for example, is the Stalinist state a successor state or an extension of the same regime? There are definitely good arguments for considering the Stalinist state distinct from the "the early days of the Soviet Union".

But since you've already expressed reservations about any information from the Soviet period on principle, then I wonder why you even bother asking. Hence the hobby horse comment - look it up, that's how you learn.

 

[fing0lfin]

But that has nothing to do with the post you quoted. In any case, there aren't going to be very many interesting conclusions to be drawn about the merits of the revolutionary government using the methodology your propose, since much of the conditions in its early days are simply inherited and some are created through no real fault of their own (such as the presence of hostile foreign troops in and around their territories). If you want to see whether the revolutionary government made a difference or not, you'd probably have to look beyond the 1920s and some time beyond the aftermath of the Civil War when the policies of the regime actually have had the time and opportunity to produce results. But then you'd run into problems about the definition of the revolutionary government - for example, is the Stalinist state a successor state or an extension of the same regime? There are definitely good arguments for considering the Stalinist state distinct from the "the early days of the Soviet Union".

But since you've already expressed reservations about any information from the Soviet period on principle, then I wonder why you even bother asking. Hence the hobby horse comment - look it up, that's how you learn.

So i guess i "missquoted" which really doesn't matter. I quoted the post, because i was adressing the poster, because obvoisly he has knowlage and interest about the soviet Union and might have such data.

Who speaks about the merrit of the revolutionary goverment ? And what does it metter whether the Stalinist state is a successor state ? From the real history we can see how did Russia preform with revolution. Defining Stalinist state as a successer or anything you like won't change anything. The thing we don't know is how would have the Russian state preform without revolution. So i think knowing how it preformed before the revolution is a good basis for this gueses.
I think that the late 20s is not too early.
I expressed reservations because there are plenty of good reasons for this. Don't you agree ? But on the other hand is it not possible some little pieces of information about the soviet union be found in non-soviet sources ?

I think i will leave the hobby animal aside- i am not interested in horses.

 

[aelf]

So i guess i "missquoted" which really doesn't matter. I quoted the post, because i was adressing the poster, because obvoisly he has knowlage and interest about the soviet Union and might have such data.

Quoting that post without explaining your motivation changes the context and therefore the meaning of your post.

Who speaks about the merrit of the revolutionary goverment ? And what does it metter whether the Stalinist state is a successor state ? From the real history we can see how did Russia preform with revolution. Defining Stalinist state as a successer or anything you like won't change anything. The thing we don't know is how would have the Russian state preform without revolution. So i think knowing how it preformed before the revolution is a good basis for this gueses.
I think that the late 20s is not too early.

You want to see how the Russian state would have "performed" without the Bolshevik revolution by comparing data from the Soviet period with data from before, ignoring the instability of the Russian state in the period before the revolution, which could easily have led to some other dramatic change whose effects on the economic situation, standard of living, level of education, "industrial power" and etc we cannot predict???

I expressed reservations because there are plenty of good reasons for this. Don't you agree ? But on the other hand is it not possible some little pieces of information about the soviet union be found in non-soviet sources ?

And why would secondary sources be more reliable?

 

[Traitorfish]

The Provisional Government wasn't "unfortunately cut short by the Bolshevik coup," it was doomed to failure from the start because it had no interest in addressing any of the problems the people expected them to: the war, the food problem, and the land question.

In fact, it's for these very reasons that it's questionable to discuss the February and October Revolutions as discrete episodes, rather than as events within a single revolutionary episode. It was really not so much a case of one revolution installing a government, and then another ousting it, but of a government failing to contain the revolutionary forces which allowed it to become established in the first place, the forces in question having their roots in the "three questions" Cheezy mentions here. The question, then, isn't really "What if the October Revolution had never happened?" but "How might the Provisional Government have avoided making the October Revolution necessary?", because how they would do so is what would dictate the change in consequent events.
After all, it's hardly as if a quick succession of revolutionary governments is a unique historical event- France saw, what, four of them between 1789 and 1799?- it's simply that the ideological necessity of separating the "good", liberal democratic, anti-Tsarist revolution from the "bad", socialist, anti-capitalist revolution has lasted rather longer than in the case of the more generally "bourgeois" revolutions.

 

[Ajidica]

On the subject, how unified were the Whites after Kerensky lost all power? I know they included everyone from reactionary Tsarists, to republicans, and even some socialists (like Kerensky), but were they ever able to manage a unified government again?

 

[aelf]

Kerensky was White? The Whites had once managed a unified government ?

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, Kerensky was, um, not White at all. Kornilov was.

On the subject, how unified were the Whites after Kerensky lost all power? I know they included everyone from reactionary Tsarists, to republicans, and even some socialists (like Kerensky), but were they ever able to manage a unified government again?

They were not. Officially, Kolchak had most of their support starting in late 1918 or so with the destruction of KOMUCH, and most western reference to a Russian government were to Kolchak. In reality, there was almost zero coordination on the same front (i.e. between the various cossacks and the armies of Kornilov and Denikin), much less between widely-separated groups like Yudenich's Baltic army and Kolchak's eastern forces.

 

[Ajidica]

After you pointed it out I realized I was mixing up the timeline with regards to Kerensky and the Whites. My mistake.