USSR Isot from 1922 to 1855

Post by Rob
Map is here-
https://i.imgur.com/ZQNamL9.gif
On 30 December 1922, the date of the creation of the USSR, it is ISOT to 30 December 1855, while the Crimean War is ongoing?
What happens next? Does the USSR proceed to curbstomp all of Eastern Europe? What happens to the stranded Japanese armies, would they be willing to return home?
*this includes all the land that was claimed by the USSR, so the allied intervention and white forces are coming along for the ride.

The USSR might possibly attempt to spread the revolution as far and as wide as possible and thus help create a large anti-USSR coalition among the European powers plus Japan.

Alex Milman

2018-03-07 18:23:51 UTC

Post by WolfBear

The USSR might possibly attempt to spread the revolution as far and as wide as possible and thus help create a large anti-USSR coalition among the European powers plus Japan.

In 1855 Japan was hardly an international factor: The Meiji Restoration happened only in 1868. :-)

Alex Milman

2018-03-07 18:41:39 UTC

The Allied troops in the Crimea are up to a BIG and VERY UNPLEASANT surprise. Their only consolation is an absence of any Russian navy on the Black Sea so some of their troops will manage to escape.

The Red Army is still 1.6M strong (decision to reduce it to 800K had been made in the end of 1922) and has plenty of things unknown in 1855 like armored cars, planes, machine guns, plus overwhelming quality advantage in the guns and rifles.

Post by Rob
Does the USSR proceed to curbstomp all of Eastern Europe?

Poland, for sure. OTOH, what would be "Poland" in 1855?

Post by Rob
What happens to the stranded Japanese armies, would they be willing to return home?

Sorry, which "Japanese armies"?

Post by Rob
*this includes all the land that was claimed by the USSR, so the allied intervention and white forces are coming along for the ride.

There were no white forces in the Soviet territory by the end of 1922. The same goes for the allied intervention (On June 24, 1922, Japan announced that it would unilaterally withdraw from all of Russian territory by october).

Rob

2018-03-09 00:45:23 UTC

Post by Alex Milman

The Allied troops in the Crimea are up to a BIG and VERY UNPLEASANT surprise. Their only consolation is an absence of any Russian navy on the Black Sea so some of their troops will manage to escape.
The Red Army is still 1.6M strong (decision to reduce it to 800K had been made in the end of 1922) and has plenty of things unknown in 1855 like armored cars, planes, machine guns, plus overwhelming quality advantage in the guns and rifles.

Post by Rob
Does the USSR proceed to curbstomp all of Eastern Europe?

Poland, for sure. OTOH, what would be "Poland" in 1855?

Post by Rob
What happens to the stranded Japanese armies, would they be willing to return home?

Sorry, which "Japanese armies"?

Post by Rob
*this includes all the land that was claimed by the USSR, so the allied intervention and white forces are coming along for the ride.

I stand corrected on the white forces - there were Japanese soldiers and sailors in northern Sakhalin in 1922, but likely no "armies".

---Will the Soviets occupy the "downtime" portion of the 1855 Russian Empire? These include Finland, the Baltic, Poland and Bessarabia?

Will the Soviets advance into states or empires beyond - Sweden, Prussia, Austria, Ottoman, Persian, Afghan, Chinese or Japanese lands?

Rich Rostrom

2018-03-10 20:25:51 UTC

Post by Rob
---Will the Soviets occupy the "downtime" portion of
the 1855 Russian Empire? These include Finland, the
Baltic, Poland and Bessarabia?
Will the Soviets advance into states or empires
beyond - Sweden, Prussia, Austria, Ottoman, Persian,
Afghan, Chinese or Japanese lands?

In the immediate wake of the Revolution in Russia,
Lenin & Co. expected the Revolution to spread to
other countries and around the world. They had a
messianic view of their position in the world.

That attitude was thoroughly squashed by 1922, what
with the failure of Red uprisings in Germany, Hungary,
etc., the defeat of Soviet forces by Poland, and the
general lack of interest in the world generally.

But... with the ISoT, Soviet Russia has been placed in
a position of supreme military power (despite its
internal weaknesses). With machine guns, repeating
rifles, aircraft, armored cars, breech-loading artillery,
radios, and steam ships, Soviet troops are invincible.

The messianic impulse would be revived 10-fold. Soviet
armies would march to the Atlantic, ASAP. Also across
the Middle East, and later across Asia. Perhaps around
the world; what's to stop them?

One important point: in 1855, Karl Marx is 37 years old.
He's a veteran agitator, active in the Communist League
in Britain, but has yet to write _Capital_. What do the
Soviets do with him? One suspects he would disapprove
rather strongly of Leninism. He might also revise his
views which led to _Capital_, once he learns of the OTL
history of the 40 years after his death (1883-1922).

While the history he will learn from Soviet sources will
be skewed, the basic facts can't be suppressed.

That is, he will learn that his prediction of a "crisis
of capitalism", leading to spontaneous revolution in the
most industrialized countries, was completely wrong.
Capitalism, despite various troubles, was still flourishing,
_especially_ in the most industrialized countries.

If Marx has any intellectual honesty, he'll be asking some
very difficult questions, and the apparent answers will
_not_ be convenient for Lenin & Co. He was a cantankerous
fellow, and unlikely to "go along to get along". Marx
silenced by Lenin? It could happen.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Rob

2018-03-11 23:08:15 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom
One important point: in 1855, Karl Marx is 37 years old.
He's a veteran agitator, active in the Communist League
in Britain, but has yet to write _Capital_. What do the
Soviets do with him? One suspects he would disapprove
rather strongly of Leninism. He might also revise his
views which led to _Capital_, once he learns of the OTL
history of the 40 years after his death (1883-1922).
While the history he will learn from Soviet sources will
be skewed, the basic facts can't be suppressed.
That is, he will learn that his prediction of a "crisis
of capitalism", leading to spontaneous revolution in the
most industrialized countries, was completely wrong.
Capitalism, despite various troubles, was still flourishing,
_especially_ in the most industrialized countries.
If Marx has any intellectual honesty, he'll be asking some
very difficult questions, and the apparent answers will
_not_ be convenient for Lenin & Co. He was a cantankerous
fellow, and unlikely to "go along to get along". Marx
silenced by Lenin? It could happen.
--

You know what Rich, this type of question makes me wish Sam Russell still posted around here. As someone with a Marxist worldview, his perspective would have been interesting.

It's a tough call. He could cantankerously dissent.

But he is also human. Nobody powerful ever tried to court him in his own OTL lifetime. He could end up accepting the Leninist order out of self-interest of being a celebrity in it. Power/fame/material goods might corrupt. He might even be able to rationalize it to himself.

The USSR's police state nature could be frightening. But, much of what it was experimenting with economically and culturally, and its level of technology, could be quite impressive to a 19th century revolutionary.

WolfBear

2018-03-11 23:23:07 UTC

You know what Rich, this type of question makes me wish Sam Russell still posted around here. As someone with a Marxist worldview, his perspective would have been interesting.
It's a tough call. He could cantankerously dissent.
But he is also human. Nobody powerful ever tried to court him in his own OTL lifetime. He could end up accepting the Leninist order out of self-interest of being a celebrity in it. Power/fame/material goods might corrupt. He might even be able to rationalize it to himself.
The USSR's police state nature could be frightening. But, much of what it was experimenting with economically and culturally, and its level of technology, could be quite impressive to a 19th century revolutionary.

Here's another question--could Marx move to the U.S. in this scenario and write his critique of Lenin there?

Indeed, would Lenin actually be able to conquer the U.S. in this scenario?

Rob

2018-03-11 23:45:08 UTC

Post by WolfBear

You know what Rich, this type of question makes me wish Sam Russell still posted around here. As someone with a Marxist worldview, his perspective would have been interesting.
It's a tough call. He could cantankerously dissent.
But he is also human. Nobody powerful ever tried to court him in his own OTL lifetime. He could end up accepting the Leninist order out of self-interest of being a celebrity in it. Power/fame/material goods might corrupt. He might even be able to rationalize it to himself.
The USSR's police state nature could be frightening. But, much of what it was experimenting with economically and culturally, and its level of technology, could be quite impressive to a 19th century revolutionary.

Here's another question--could Marx move to the U.S. in this scenario and write his critique of Lenin there?

Quite possibly so -

Post by WolfBear
Indeed, would Lenin actually be able to conquer the U.S. in this scenario?

We honestly cannot rule it out because of the tech difference.

However, the USA (not counting Alaska, which the Soviets could easily enforce their inheritance of) would be the hardest target in the world for the ISOT'ed Soviet Union.

In continental Europe, I see the USSR not only having just raw hard power, but it also having some substantial soft-power as well. Less so in Britain and the Low Countries, but there would still be some soft power worldwide, including even in the US.

In Asia, the Soviets would probably rely more on hard power and client relationships rather than any genuine support or acceptance of their class analysis.

Alex Milman

2018-03-12 02:19:19 UTC

Post by WolfBear

You know what Rich, this type of question makes me wish Sam Russell still posted around here. As someone with a Marxist worldview, his perspective would have been interesting.
It's a tough call. He could cantankerously dissent.
But he is also human. Nobody powerful ever tried to court him in his own OTL lifetime. He could end up accepting the Leninist order out of self-interest of being a celebrity in it. Power/fame/material goods might corrupt. He might even be able to rationalize it to himself.
The USSR's police state nature could be frightening. But, much of what it was experimenting with economically and culturally, and its level of technology, could be quite impressive to a 19th century revolutionary.

Here's another question--could Marx move to the U.S. in this scenario and write his critique of Lenin there?

Quite possibly so -

Or he could get engaged in committing unnatural sexual acts to himself: nobody would care. Do you seriously think that all these power-hungry scumbags who came to power in Russia after the October coup seriously believed in Marx' "theory"? If they did, there would be no Bolshevik coup to start with because communist revolution in RUSSIA was contrary to the theory of Marxism (leaving aside the fact that the whole theory was quite idiotic and clearly was not working well before WWI).

Not to mention that both Charley and his buddy Fritz HATED Russia and all thing Russian (besides couple personal friends) and Fritz explained quite clearly that the Russians are barbarians and the only worthy people in the Russian Empire are Baltic Germans (quite a few of his published remarks would make Dr. Goebbels proud but this is besides the point).

If he starts making unhappy noises, he would be either ignored or declared a traitor: with the real power and funds the Bolsheviks would be in a much better position to define who is and who is not the true communist.

OTOH, if he flees and Fritz is not available to support him financially, I'd assume that it would not cost too much to make him writing whatever is required.

Post by WolfBear
Indeed, would Lenin actually be able to conquer the U.S. in this scenario?

Taking into an account that Lenin was seriously ill by the late 1922 and then practically isolated and pretty much out of power until his death the question as formulated is pretty much preposterous. :-)

Post by Rob
We honestly cannot rule it out because of the tech difference.

BTW, how exactly would he be going with this conquest: by 1922 the newly-created Soviet Union had very little in the terms of a navy or even merchant fleet and, AFAIK, the US are on the wrong side of the Atlantic Ocean. :-)

Technical advantages are nice but you need a considerable time and know-how to build a massive merchant fleet and, especially, a navy. Of course, there are still some leftovers of the imperial Baltic fleet but that's it. To build something new (just because what you have is not enough for the task) you need to start with rebuilding your industrial capacities, which in OTL took years and a considerable Western help which is not available in your ATL. Most of the "imperial" technological resources are gone (killed or left the country).

Post by Rob
In continental Europe, I see the USSR not only having just raw hard power, but it also having some substantial soft-power as well.

What is "soft-power"?

The main problem with this world domination scenario (not sure that by 1922 majority of the Bolsheviks leaders were excessively fond of the world revolution) is that by the end of 1922 the newly-declared SU was in a really bad shape economically and I'm not quite sure that it could continue big-scale war endlessly even if the (at least initial) military success was guaranteed. The country was starving, industry (which, as a minimum, you need to produce weapons) was in ruins, the railroads and the rolling stock were worn out, etc. In 1855 development of the railroads in the continental Europe was in the early stages so the advancing Red Army would be mostly marching and you can imagine the logistical problems related to bringing supplies to the front.

Then, of course, comes issue of the numbers: for conquest of the whole Europe they'd need big numbers (even just to control the area) but by the late 1922 even maintaining of the existing numbers (1.2M) was economically impossible and it was decided to cut them in half. Now, how these 600 - 700K marching across Europe would be supplied? Only by the looting of the conquered territories. Not the best way to bring the "natives" on your side.

Post by Rob
Less so in Britain
and the Low Countries, but there would still be some soft power worldwide, including even in the US.

Rich Rostrom

2018-03-12 06:56:23 UTC

Post by Alex Milman
Do you seriously think that all these power-hungry
scumbags who came to power in Russia after the
October coup seriously believed in Marx' "theory"?

If they did not believe in Marxist doctrine, they did
an extremely good job of pretending to believe it.
Marxist cant permeated all official discourse, and the
USSR enacted policies (some of them quite costly and
difficult) which had no other rationale than Marxism.
(e.g. collectivization of agriculture).

Post by Alex Milman
If they did, there would be no Bolshevik coup to
start with because communist revolution in RUSSIA
was contrary to the theory of Marxism... (leaving
aside the fact that the whole theory was ... clearly
was not working well before WWI).

Leninism was a modification of Marxism, but not
therefore a repudiation of it. One element of Marx's
theory was that socialist revolution would naturally
occur first in a developed industrial society. By
1910, that part had been refuted by events. Lenin
therefore came out with his theory of the
revolutionary vanguard.

And Marx did not state that socialism was impossible
or wrong in a non-industrialized society. Socialists
in such societies could hardly be expected to sit on
their hands for generations, waiting for capitalism
to flower and reach crisis.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Alex Milman

2018-03-12 17:30:11 UTC

Post by Alex Milman
Do you seriously think that all these power-hungry
scumbags who came to power in Russia after the
October coup seriously believed in Marx' "theory"?

If they did not believe in Marxist doctrine, they did
an extremely good job of pretending to believe it.

Yes, they did by formally accepting it, using suitable quotations and explaining how it did not exactly applicable to the Russian situation. I repeat: the Bolshevik coup was a complete violation of M's theory and Lenin developed his own theory of a "weakest link" as a theoretical substitution.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Marxist cant permeated all official discourse, and the
USSR enacted policies (some of them quite costly and
difficult) which had no other rationale than Marxism.
(e.g. collectivization of agriculture).

As usually, interesting view but, unfortunately, with no traction to a reality. Soviet practice of Marxism was using quotations for justification of the existing policies, not other way around.

Collectivization of agriculture had little to do with Marx who was concentrating on "proletariat" and everything to do with the ongoing policies.

The commies did not have any coherent idea or policy in the area of agriculture but in 1927 there was a serious crisis due to the unsatisfactory harvests and peasants' unwillingness to sell grain at a low price.

Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky argued that solution is in the lower rate of industrialization, higher payments for the grain and grain purchases abroad. Stalin saw a solution in creation of the big "grain factories" and enforced "building of socialism" in the rural areas. AFAIK, all listed above had been "Marxists".

Notice that during WWII the Nazis had been mostly leaving the collective farms structures on the occupied territories (at least in Russia proper). Why? Because it was very convenient for the purpose of food confiscation. Marxism. AFAIK, was not a part of their ideology.

Leninism was a modification of Marxism,

Rather it claimed to be. In practice, it was violation of this theory (because according to it Russia should NOT have a communist revolution ahead of the more developed countries) and, anyway, the theory was too foolish to be of any practical value beyond few catchy slogans. Not that Marxism contained any useful hints on how to conduct the revolution hence Lenin's famous: "Let's enter the brawl and then we'll see".

Post by Rich Rostrom
but not
therefore a repudiation of it.

Sorry, "Leninism" was not a comprehensive theory, just a set of the changing practices of governing a dictatorial state. During his life time Lenin made more than one turn around based on the current situation and his works were mostly (a) about the current short-term decisions or (b) denouncing those with whom he was unhappy. He and his successors had been from time to time using convenient quotations from Marx in the public speeches and articles but that was it. There was no need in a formal repudiation, which could scary the useful fools abroad.

Post by Rich Rostrom
One element of Marx's
theory was that socialist revolution would naturally
occur first in a developed industrial society.

This was a _crucial_ element of his theory (most of the rest are primitive economic model and even more primitive "history" of a social development) as far as the whole proletariat thingy was concerned.

Post by Rich Rostrom
By
1910, that part had been refuted by events.

In other words, it became quite clear that "theory" created by Marx is wrong. :-)

Post by Rich Rostrom
Lenin
therefore came out with his theory of the
revolutionary vanguard.

Which was in a direct contradiction with the Marxist theory. Not that what Lenin came with was too much of a theory: as usually, he was concentrating on practical side of the things. :-)

Post by Rich Rostrom
And Marx did not state that socialism was impossible
or wrong in a non-industrialized society.

He did not have to: it was quite clear from his theory.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Socialists
in such societies could hardly be expected to sit on
their hands for generations, waiting for capitalism
to flower and reach crisis.

There were not too many (if any) socialists in these societies during Marx' lifetime and they did not play any significant role anyway. His theory was quite clear: proletariat of the developed countries is growing more numerous and more and more poor and when its numbers rich a critical point (and so is its control over the means of production) it takes power.

Alex Milman

2018-03-13 16:48:50 UTC

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
Do you seriously think that all these power-hungry
scumbags who came to power in Russia after the
October coup seriously believed in Marx' "theory"?

If they did not believe in Marxist doctrine, they did
an extremely good job of pretending to believe it.

As usually, interesting view but, unfortunately, with no traction to a reality. Soviet practice of Marxism was using quotations for justification of the existing policies, not other way around.
Collectivization of agriculture had little to do with Marx who was concentrating on "proletariat" and everything to do with the ongoing policies.
The commies did not have any coherent idea or policy in the area of agriculture but in 1927 there was a serious crisis due to the unsatisfactory harvests and peasants' unwillingness to sell grain at a low price.
Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky argued that solution is in the lower rate of industrialization, higher payments for the grain and grain purchases abroad. Stalin saw a solution in creation of the big "grain factories" and enforced "building of socialism" in the rural areas. AFAIK, all listed above had been "Marxists".
Notice that during WWII the Nazis had been mostly leaving the collective farms structures on the occupied territories (at least in Russia proper). Why? Because it was very convenient for the purpose of food confiscation. Marxism. AFAIK, was not a part of their ideology.

Leninism was a modification of Marxism,

Post by Rich Rostrom
but not
therefore a repudiation of it.

Post by Rich Rostrom
One element of Marx's
theory was that socialist revolution would naturally
occur first in a developed industrial society.

Post by Rich Rostrom
By
1910, that part had been refuted by events.

In other words, it became quite clear that "theory" created by Marx is wrong. :-)

Post by Rich Rostrom
Lenin
therefore came out with his theory of the
revolutionary vanguard.

Which was in a direct contradiction with the Marxist theory. Not that what Lenin came with was too much of a theory: as usually, he was concentrating on practical side of the things. :-)

Post by Rich Rostrom
And Marx did not state that socialism was impossible
or wrong in a non-industrialized society.

He did not have to: it was quite clear from his theory.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Socialists
in such societies could hardly be expected to sit on
their hands for generations, waiting for capitalism
to flower and reach crisis.

To be more clear on the subject of the Bolsheviks and Marxist theory:

1. They adopted "philosophical" part of it: dialectical materialism (material word is first, the mind is secondary) and historical materialism, extremely primitive model of a social development based on faulty, even by the standards of his time, knowledge of the European history. Nothing in this part was of any practical value except for the _future_ ideological problems related to building socialism in Africa. Economic part of the theory boiled down to an amazing discovery that the capitalists are expecting some profit. Again, on that level of generality there were no objections. So Marx would be happy with that part.

2. Notion of a dictatorship of proletariat. What the Bolsheviks were doing fit well into an idea of a forced destruction of the existing political structures and, if necessary, physical extermination of the resisting groups of population. So, strictly speaking, Lenin & Co had been on a solid Marxist platform there as well.

In general "Marxism" was/is so vague and flexible that there were at least 4 Marxist Internationals (at least 2 of them denouncing each other) and numerous quarreling communist (Marxist) parties: the theory is so vague that almost anything fits as long as there is a lip service to the non-critical "foundations".

So why, to quote you, "One suspects he would disapprove rather strongly of Leninism"? After all, he eventually gave his full support to the Paris Commune and did not care too much about its practices as long as they serve the goal: 'Marx wrote of the Commune that it was "to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundations upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule"' https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1971/no-799-march-1971/karl-marx-and-paris-commune

Now, what I was talking about was PRACTICAL usage of Marxism by Lenin & Co.

1st, as I already said, the Bolshevik coup went against Marxist theory, which was explicitly talking about the revolution happening in the most industrially developed countries. In 1917 industrial proletariat in Russia represented a small minority of a population and was not even uniformly pro-communists.

2nd, the Bolshevik coup was not "revolution of proletariat": the main driving force had been the demoralized soldiers (mostly peasants).

3rd, Marx did not leave any practical instructions on HOW taking power should happen and how the resulting state of the victorious proletariat should function. Neither did Lenin have a clear idea what to do after taking the power: all his time in power was a period of short-term improvisations and this applies to the time after the RCW as well. Marxism was not providing any meaningful solutions for the military, economic, financial or international problems and that's why I'm saying that its usage was limited to some quotations.

As for Leninism as a theory, it would not worth mentioning if not a practical aspect of it. Compare Lenin's plan for the coup with one of the German nincompoops (July Plot). The bulk of their efforts went into creating explicit lists of the POST-COUP government but their plans for the coup itself were limited to planting a bomb. They did not bother to provide a solid military support in a capital, to arrest as many prominent Nazi figures as they could, to capture centers of communications, etc. OTOH, Lenin's plan was short and explicit on HOW to take a power: support from Petrograd's garrison (provided by an earlier dedicated work), capture of the government, capture of the post, telegraph, telephone, railroad stations. The next step, almost immediately after the coup, take control of the banks and start confiscation of the valuables including those in the private safety deposit boxes. Then confiscations extended to the private citizens from the wrong classes. All this before the Bolsheviks went into something more serious than a catchy slogan "factories to the workers and land to the peasants!"

When after the RCW the Bolsheviks finally came to a need of the financial reform, qualification for the cadres (according to Bazanov) was NOT to be a Marxist.

Alex Milman

2018-03-12 02:34:38 UTC

This is a very wise observation with which I fully agree. :-)

Post by Rob
The USSR's police state nature could be frightening.

If he is _in_ he is provided with the nice accommodations and meets only the right people. With a certain mental flexibility (which you assumed above) he would easily adjust himself to a notion that the enemies of the proletariat MUST be dealt with harshly. This would be much easier than to adjust to an idea that Bolshevik coup actually invalidated all the crap which he only is going to write (publication of Das Kapital started only in 1867).

Post by Rob
But, much of what it was experimenting with economically and culturally, and its level of technology, could be quite impressive to a 19th century revolutionary.

As far as I can tell his grasp of the modern technology was quite superficial, just adequate for writing very primitive examples. Ditto for his ability to analyze and predict impact of the future technological developments (or he would not write idiocy he wrote).

Nobody would be really interested in his opinions in the area of economy (according to Bazanov, "true Marxist" in the lingo of the Central Committee was a synonym to "useless idiot" and I'm not sure if he ever pronounced something in the area of a culture.

e***@gmail.com

2018-03-17 12:51:18 UTC