Yes, I am aware that the policy was almost inevitable as a means for the USSR to survive. But let’s suppose whoever succeeds Lenin is extremely dogmatic and remains committed to a worldwide revolution. They refuse to establish diplomatic relations with bourgeoise regimes and continue to support prospective revolutions abroad. How long until they fall to an invasion/internal crisis? What replaces the Soviet Union after that?
How long would the Soviet Union last without Socialism in One Country?
- Thread starter Hayatgheibi
- Start date
If they present a threat to their neighbours, expect a wide coalition to intervene. In practice this probably means the Western intervention in the civil war happening on a bigger scale and with some kind of White Russian government installed in their place.
About as long as it takes for them to attack a country or countries strong enough to fight back. From there it’s a matter of how long it will be before Coalition troops plant their flags in Moscow
I will spare you the long quotes, but basically the concept of socialism in one country in no way contradicts the end goal of international socialist revolution. Socialism in one country merely assumes that socialism can be constructed (i.e. that the means of production can be transfered from private hands to the hands of the state and agricultural cooperatives) in a single country alone, for the time beeing. It was a reaction to the failure of the various European and Asian revolutions in the aftermath of WW1.
The counterargument against socialism in one country was never that the proletarian revolution ought to be international – all the factions in the party agreed on that (allthough Trotzky later made this rather hillarious argument in "The Revolution Betrayed", he didn't do so at the time). The counterargument was rather that the construction ot socialism in one country alone was impossible. The Rights claimed that, while accepting socialism in one country in principle, Russia was just too backward to implement the concept. They advocated for a program they called "socialism at a snails pace" – basically, the NEP was to be continued indefinetly, untill better times were to come. The Trotzkysts on the other hand claimed that socialism in one country was flawed in principle – that any individual socialist state would innevitably descent into bureaucratic degeneracy in the face of capitalist encirclement. Trotzky's theory of "permanent revolution" initially har nothing to do with the international socialist revolution. During the 1920s, he concerned himself with the relationship between the proletariat and the peasantry, and wheater any alliance with bourgeois forces was acceptable if the communist party did not have the leading role (a question which he answered negatively – he came to advocate the opposite position during the 1930s). Only later did "permanent revolution" get a meaning in regards to international affair – and a rather vague one at that. The truth is, Trotzky never publicly proposed an actual plan of action – the Rights at least had a plan with which they confronted socialism in one country (the NEP), Trotzky had no such thing. He opposed the NEP while at the same time claiming that any diversion from the NEP would innevitably result in bureaucratic degeneracy. The only thing he really had to say on the matter was that "revolution export" (i.e. the installation of communist governments in other countries by military force, against the will of the local proletariat) was absolutely legitimate and good (a thesis Lenin vigorously opposed). Later on, Trotzky covertly came to support the NEP aswell.
On the question of how long the USSR could last in such a scenario – not long. Without the crash industrialization, the Union gets steamrolled by the Wehrmacht.
Last edited:
Well, they did so in OTL and advanced all the way to the gates of Moscow...
And yet WW2 still happened, didn't it. And with way fewer guns, planes, tanks, artillery pieces, etc. the USSR would've lost the war. And I can't see how a victory of the Rights or Trotzkysts prevents Hitler from rising to power or the Western Allies from considering him to be more trustworthy than the USSR.
If this means no Rapallo, then German Diplomatic isolation continues and the Nazis are likely butterflied away.
Also without Soviet-Military cooperation in testing airplanes and tanks, the German Reichswehr and later Wehrmacht would lack years of experience that could not be easily made up. Germany might find another partner, but whom?
Also without Soviet-Military cooperation in testing airplanes and tanks, the German Reichswehr and later Wehrmacht would lack years of experience that could not be easily made up. Germany might find another partner, but whom?
I’m going to have to agree with oberdada that the Nazis might not have come to power in such a timeline. But supposing they did, that leaves a 15-year gap between the rise of the Soviets and the Nazis. The world powers wouldn’t let the Soviets incite rebellions for that long, so they would’ve been taken out before Hitler comes to power. If the Soviets somehow managed to survive for 15 years, the Wallies would prefer the Nazis over them, because they are considered an illegitimate terrorist entity (like ISIS/Taliban). What happens to Nazi-western relations after the Soviets fall is a completely different matter.
Rapallo was in 1922, way before the theory of socialism in one country was developed from an abstract concept into a social program. Lenin wasn't even dead by that point.
I see. Lenin was still alive and kicking.
Well, than this kind of makes the original premise moot.
No, just move the POD back a few years. Or suppose Lenin's successor reverses course.
Most likely outcome: The Anti-Comintern Pact includes Britain and France, Poland is thrown under the bus in exchange for good relations with Germany (and the latter renouncing all territorial claims in the west – which it would certainly not live up to in the long run), and this unholy alliance invades a USSR that is a lot weaker than it's OTL counterpart. The only question is, how would the FSU be partitioned? Do the Nazis get Belarus and the Ukraine? What about the Baltic States? And what kind of regime would be installed in Russia?
Last edited:
Again, the invasion would probably occur long before the Nazis come to power. Poland and the Baltics would likely get their independence, since the allies were backing them, although idk what would happen to Ukraine and Belarus. A white government would be installed in Russia, idk enough about the movement to know who would lead it.
The OTL Reichswehr had connections IIRC in Sweden and the Netherlands, so they could be further strengthened in such a scenario.
How so? During the polish-soviet war the bolsheviks desired a full expansion into Germany, and the Comintern had been organising the workers' strikes in France and Britain against sending any equipment for Poland.