|
|
Post by Rhand on May 9, 2016 16:19:48 GMT
^I understand why Britain in OTL would want to help the Tsar's sympathizes against the Bolsheviks since they were allies at the time, but why would Germany want to prevent said communist faction from taking control in Russia if Tsardom was a common foe they both shared? The thing is that the Soviets would have inevitably backstabbed the Kaiser in order to A) destroy the imperialist, conservative monarchy (I think just about everything Communists hate can be summed up as Imperial Germany), and B) to create the International, United Communist world that Lenin wanted so much. A victorious Imperial Germany would have mopped the floor with post Brest-Likhovtsk Soviets. I think Lenin would see that, and change his ideology to "Socialism in One Country." |
|
|
|
Post by huojin on May 9, 2016 18:54:31 GMT
A number of people have suggested a revanchist fascist movement in France, analogous to Italian Fascism or German Nazism. If we look at the post-First World War political environment in France, barring disorganisation amongst the political left in the wake of accusations of Bolshevism and the relative advantages the centre right and right reaped at those moments, the period seems to be categorised largely by growth of the political left.
In the event of a defeat in the First World War, particularly when you look at the hints of political awakening in the French Army mutinies in 1917, would seem to suggest a left wing triumph over a right wing one - particularly if the Bolsheviks remain (which I’ll get to later). Of course it’s entirely possible that a right wing or fascist-esque ideology could prevail; we could see an Italian analogue, where the political left soars to great heights but fails to decisively seize control, while the political right rallies around a stronger figure. But given the entrenched republican tendencies of the French people, I think we’d be more likely to see a comparison to the French Revolution, rather than Napoleon, if you know what I mean.
If we also examine past military defeats suffered by the French, such as the Franco-Prussian War, we have the competing ends of the spectrum of the Paris Commune and the rise of revanchism. The difficulty with the continued growth of revanchism is that it has to come back from yet another defeat for France, one which will have inflicted one of the deepest and most costly defeats on France in its history. A repeat of the sentiments of the Paris Commune seems far more likely - though I doubt that it would follow the soviet council model, but rather a re-worked Communal model of a uniquely French nature.
I would incline in favour of this being the case, or an unstable, frequently indecisive government in France maintaining some semblance of democracy and balancing between the two.
—
As for Britain, a less drastic outcome might be in order if we’re being realistic. Isolated from the horrors of the continental war and likely to lose far less in terms of colonies or land to Germany, a humiliating defeat seems the worst blow to the once-mighty British Empire. A collapse in support for the Liberal Party, leaders of the coalition government, would likely push them out of government. Some accommodation might be found with the Conservatives if they held onto enough seats in Parliament, but (again, drawing on a similar nation which suffered a grave national defeat, France in 1871) we may see a growth in support for the Labour Party. However I think left wing politics in Britain is still relatively underdeveloped in Britain at the time, and we lacked at the comparable “revanchist” movement. Instilled with a desire to recover the glory days of Empire, a more right wing and nationalist (though I doubt fascist) government would likely characterise the period.
Short of any extraordinary events, that is, such as a huge strike amongst soldiers, workers, etc. - entirely possible, but knowing the British political elite it would not at all surprise me if they were able to co-opt those feelings and actions to serve their own ends in the way I envisage above.
—
I am personally also doubtful of the ability of the German Empire to triumph over the Bolsheviks in Russia if we assume the revolution occurs largely as historically. It’s important to remember that the revolution was not confined to Russia, but spread through what, in this timeline, would undoubtedly be the band of German satellite states in the region.
An intervention on their behalf to stabilise them and restore order seems far more likely. An invasion of Russia might then follow, but a great many nations and leaders have thought themselves capable of conquering or suppressing the vast wastes of Russia, and learned the lessons of their hubris there. I therefore remain sceptical of German abilities to do any better than the Allies did in our timeline. Neighbours they may have been, but I’m sure Field Marshal von Paulus can tell you how much good it did him. In the face of a deeply time consuming war and a nation battered by the ravages of the Great War and the famine that followed it, I think the Germans would likely see their buffer states as the more important battle, and strengthen them as best they could to do the job of isolating the German heartland from Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on May 10, 2016 23:19:10 GMT
^ If I were to take note from what you guys speculate will happen with Russia in such a timeline as this, then maybe instead of WWII, a giant war involving the Soviet Union vs everyone will take its place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gog3451 on May 12, 2016 16:43:45 GMT
^ If I were to take note from what you guys speculate will happen with Russia in such a timeline as this, then maybe instead of WWII, a giant war involving the Soviet Union vs everyone will take its place. I don't think Lenin was that stupid. With Trotsky, I could see that happening. |
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on May 12, 2016 16:57:25 GMT
Even if the Central Powers win the war in Europe they will lose the war of their colonies.
|
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on May 12, 2016 17:00:05 GMT
I don't think Lenin was that stupid. With Trotsky, I could see that happening. That was pretty much Trotsky's whole sthick. Stalin would build up first, so the only difference I could see would be a war in the 30's against Trotsky and a war in the 40's-50's against Stalin. |
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on May 12, 2016 20:48:33 GMT
^Let's assume Trotsky receives the same fate as in OTL.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on May 13, 2016 15:18:04 GMT
^Let's assume Trotsky receives the same fate as in OTL. Any other candidates who could run the Soviet Union besides Lenin and Stalin. |
|
|
|
Post by Gog3451 on May 13, 2016 15:47:55 GMT
^Let's assume Trotsky receives the same fate as in OTL. Any other candidates who could run the Soviet Union besides Lenin and Stalin. Bukharin is a popular one. |
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on May 13, 2016 23:13:55 GMT
^Let's assume Trotsky receives the same fate as in OTL. Any other candidates who could run the Soviet Union besides Lenin and Stalin. I've always liked the idea of Lenin living a bit longer and ensuring that Stalin doesn't take full control of power. Then after Lenin dies Stalin is forced into some sort of Troika with Trotsky, and possibly Bukharin, or maybe Molotov. |
|
fjihr
New Member
Posts: 21 
|
Post by fjihr on May 14, 2016 0:00:35 GMT
Any other candidates who could run the Soviet Union besides Lenin and Stalin. I've always liked the idea of Lenin living a bit longer and ensuring that Stalin doesn't take full control of power. Then after Lenin dies Stalin is forced into some sort of Troika with Trotsky, and possibly Bukharin, or maybe Molotov. That kind of troika, especially if it has Bukharin, is going to blow up spectacularly. In the first case, the three are going to each try to go their own ways. It should also be noted that Bukharin was not particularly ambitious, nor did he have the skill to run a country, so perhaps it will lead to a fight between Trotsky and Stalin. In the second case, Molotov and Stalin will likely depose Trotsky, leading to something not unlike IOTL. |
|
|
|
Post by Gog3451 on May 14, 2016 1:14:43 GMT
I've always liked the idea of Lenin living a bit longer and ensuring that Stalin doesn't take full control of power. Then after Lenin dies Stalin is forced into some sort of Troika with Trotsky, and possibly Bukharin, or maybe Molotov. That kind of troika, especially if it has Bukharin, is going to blow up spectacularly. In the first case, the three are going to each try to go their own ways. It should also be noted that Bukharin was not particularly ambitious, nor did he have the skill to run a country, so perhaps it will lead to a fight between Trotsky and Stalin. In the second case, Molotov and Stalin will likely depose Trotsky, leading to something not unlike IOTL. Yeah, I don't think Trotsky can gain the upper hand in an OTL similar situation without Stalin croaking. |
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on May 27, 2016 22:34:13 GMT
Something just came to mind. I doubt the Soviets would be so lenient towards a victorious Germany carving satellite states out of their territory... At least not without a fight. Even if such a war does happen, the Ukranians, Finnish, Belarusians, ect could potentially see Imperial Germany as liberators, giving the Germans an advantage by siding with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by huojin on May 28, 2016 21:56:26 GMT
Something just came to mind. I doubt the Soviets would be so lenient towards a victorious Germany carving satellite states out of their territory... At least not without a fight. Even if such a war does happen, the Ukranians, Finnish, Belarusians, ect could potentially see Imperial Germany as liberators, giving the Germans an advantage by siding with them. Not sure if you quite understand where the Bolsheviks came from. Brest-Litovsk was their doing. Their slogan was "Peace, Bread, and Land". The war had been ruining Russia. It depends on how strong Germany is and if they attempted to stick their nose into a civil war in Russia (assuming one occurs). If they intervene, I could see the Soviets pushing back and making use of the chaos to liberate parts of Eastern Europe. I think more likely is that they'll attempt to consolidate their gains (though places such as Ukraine were embroiled in the early stages of such fighting as it was). If the fighting spirals, a wider war might follow, but I doubt the Soviets would launch it themselves at such an early stage. They too needed time to consolidate. |
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jun 5, 2016 7:18:53 GMT
I am now conflicted as to how long the Central Powers and the Bolsheviks can maintain ties if Lenin was backed by Germany. If They do manage to secure a positive relationship, then the Baltic states would be handed over to Germany, while everything else will be able to be kept by Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jun 5, 2016 23:39:57 GMT
I imagine relations between the two would begin to break down almost immediately after a wider European peace. Not necessarily threatening another war, but certainly an escalation of animosity, and a Soviet involvement in the various border conflicts in former-Russian territories now within German sway. A lengthy series of proxy wars between the two, undoubtedly. So don't count on the Baltic states remaining a German buffer state for too long.
|
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jun 7, 2016 6:00:37 GMT
I am liking where this thread is going. 8)
|
|
Jul 28, 2020 11:03:03 GMT
Jul 28, 2020 11:03:03 GMT