How Would E.Europe Have Turned Out Without Stallinism?

[Cymraeg]

"Communism" has a lot to pay for? As a Communist(most likely the only one here), I think you should read up on your Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

There never was Communism in the USSR or elsewhere. What you saw was Stalinist Socialism.

After Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin would rise to power in 1928 and come to dominate the Communist Party of the Soviet Union(CPSU) and nation. He would quote mine from Lenin to justify his brutal actions, deviating from Lenin's original vision. Stalin was also acting more like an emperor than the revolutionary he claimed to be. Building giant 'gifts from comrade Stalin' structures in Eastern Europe? come on. Hence why you have ugly eyesores that were called "modernist"

He completely destroyed the gains of the soviet revolution and resorted to semi-Capitalist pseudo-Socialism and bullied the workers and peasants whom he claimed were free.

Communism, if it was what the USSR had, would mean that the nation would have to have ZERO classes and no state. the USSR was thus semi-socialist under Stalin's rule and other future leaders in their attempts to forget Stalin's unfortunate legacy, would further deform the USSR.

I'm not sure what Russia had, other than a lot of suffering. Bad as the Tsars were at least they didn't found the Cheka or use artillery on their own sailors, like they did at Kronstadt. Both of those happened on Lenin's watch.

 

[Urban fox]

A problem is that a lot of the people likely to replace I. Jugashvili were not all that much better than he was. Nikolai Bukharin, Sergei Kirov, neither offer anything that much better. An interesting dark-horse candidate might be Anastasis Mikoyan, dictator of the USSR.

True but Stalin's parania and cold blooded willingness to kill everyone who he thought could be a threat his power in any way (or to improve his own standing) wasnt shared even by Lenin who was very cold-blooded & ruthless. It required Stalin's unique personality and amassing of power to kick-start the mass-terror of the 1930's (and later). Without Stalin the Soviet regime is still bloodily repressive (of course given the events during WW1 and the Civil War the ''background level'' of violence any post-war regime would've been violent & repressive), but far far milder compared to OTL.

It should also be stated that Stalin purged the party and organs of state far more often & relentlessly than he did the general Soviet population which was whipped into a witch-hunting frenzy. This too isnt likely to happen under anyone save Stalin who could've taken power after Lenin died.

 

[Snake Featherston]

True but Stalin's parania and cold blooded willingness to kill everyone who he thought could be a threat his power in any way (or to improve his own standing) wasnt shared even by Lenin who was very cold-blooded & ruthless. It required Stalin's unique personality and amassing of power to kick-start the mass-terror of the 1930's (and later). Without Stalin the Soviet regime is still bloodily repressive (of course given the events during WW1 and the Civil War the ''background level'' of violence any post-war regime would've been violent & repressive), but far far milder compared to OTL.

It should also be stated that Stalin purged the party and organs of state far more often & relentlessly than he did the general Soviet population which was whipped into a witch-hunting frenzy. This too isnt likely to happen under anyone save Stalin who could've taken power after Lenin died.

Which leads to a USSR which has a much stronger political and military leadership with in all probability rather more, not less, advanced military doctrine than the OTL in the event that Nazis take charge and create WWII. That would be terrible.....for the Nazis.

 

[SlickWilly]

How could we have had an E.Europe substantially unaffected by the evils of Stallinism - if the USA and UK did not allow themselves to be bullied at Yalta and Postdam and during the building of the Berlin wall or if Hungarian and Polish Americans adopted the attitudes towards their lands of origin that Jewish Americans or to a lesser extent Irish Americans do! In reply to my previous post on a similar theme, perhaps at Postdam, they could quite easly have got away by 'giving' Poland as the much wanted buffer to the paranoid loon! However, as I originally stated in my OP Poland given population (internal market), location and natural resources would have been poised to be a supreme star performer in free market Europe minus Stallinism! How could it not be eventually? I think within the next 10-15 yrs it will be at the level of Spain economically, given its similar size. Yeah, I know Spain is in a bit of a quandry at the mo and does not seem to exploit enough its relationship with Latin America, but it must be well in the top 20 biggest economies worldwide! Indeed the Eastward expansion of the EU was meant to help capitalism advance forward by opening up and developing markets such as the Polish one!

 

[Snake Featherston]

How could we have had an E.Europe substantially unaffected by the evils of Stallinism - if the USA and UK did not allow themselves to be bullied at Yalta and Postdam and during the building of the Berlin wall or if Hungarian and Polish Americans adopted the attitudes towards their lands of origin that Jewish Americans or to a lesser extent Irish Americans do! In reply to my previous post on a similar theme, perhaps at Postdam, they could quite easly have got away by 'giving' Poland as the much wanted buffer to the paranoid loon! However, as I originally stated in my OP Poland given population (internal market), location and natural resources would have been poised to be a supreme star performer in free market Europe minus Stallinism! How could it not be eventually? I think within the next 10-15 yrs it will be at the level of Spain economically, given its similar size. Yeah, I know Spain is in a bit of a quandry at the mo and does not seem to exploit enough its relationship with Latin America, but it must be well in the top 20 biggest economies worldwide! Indeed the Eastward expansion of the EU was meant to help capitalism advance forward by opening up and developing markets such as the Polish one!

You mean when the USSR had overrun the Balkans and defeated the Germans fair and square in military campaigns? Not allowing themselves to be bullied means a US-Soviet war.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Well, everything except Czechoslovakia was authoritarian prior to WW2. I think it would have continued like that for quite a while, until we'd have a East European spring, perhaps in the early 80s when the people are rising up against the regimes.

 

[Blackfox5]

Probably still a bit below Western Europe, but likely not as far. You gotta remember these were almost all semi-feudal societies with the vast majority of the population being peasants, it's gonna take a ton to get them to the level of the West. Stalinism, for all its political faults, was good at one thing - industrialization.

While Central/Eastern Europe was behind Western Europe, it would be wrong to call it semi-feudal and imply there was no industrialization and that everyone was mainly peasants.

Czechoslovakia was highly industrialized. While Slovakia was still mainly agrarian, Bohemia and Moravia were in the same peer category as Germany and the West. Stalinism completely ruined Czech manufacturing because the "plans" for the Czech economy did not take into conisderation their high skill level and lack of certain resources.

Hungary had a strong light manufacturing sector and had a strong indutry around railways, tramcars, electrical generation, and automotives. Because of lack of natural resources, it lacked many heavy industries.

Romania didn't have as strong an industry, but it had a strong oil indutry, and its industrial production had more than doubled in the 1920s and 1930s despite the Depression. It seemed to be doing fine.

Poland had established a vast industrialization plans on its own. It included development of its own seaport at Gdynia (so it would not be reliant on Danzig), increase in railways, creation of a Central Industrial Region that greatly expanded its heavy industries, and a general attempt to reduce the disparity between western and eastern Poland.

Yugoslavia had a strong industrial economy in the north, and that pretty much remained the same all throughout the Communist period.

I think Bulgaria was the only country that still remained mainly agrarian. Still, even here Bulgaria had instituted various reforms since gaining independence from the Turks to increase education, urbanize, and reform agriculture.

Stalinism does create industrialization, but only of the most brute kind, of low quality and low skilled, and at the cost of consuming the capital of existing economy. Central/Eastern Europe would have been far better off building on real economic growth based on actual demand, and the increasing of skills.

None of these countries were as backward as Russia. They were all western oriented, and most had some kind of industrial legacy from the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

If allowed to develop on their own with Marshal Plan aid, and able to trade and cooperate with the West, they would probably have economies somewhere between Austria and Greece. Some might even be considered peers of countries like Belgium or Netherlands. Poland would probably be considered the most important European economy after Britain, France, Germany, and Italy.

 

[Blackfox5]

Well, everything except Czechoslovakia was authoritarian prior to WW2. I think it would have continued like that for quite a while, until we'd have a East European spring, perhaps in the early 80s when the people are rising up against the regimes.

I disagree with your assesment. All of them had functional parliaments, elections, and changes of government. Typically there was a strong ruler of some kind - a Pilsudski, Horthy, or a King - who would interfere with parliament, but there was political debate, certain freedoms, and active democrats of the liberal or socialist stripe who did become Prime Ministers on occassion. Semi-fascists or totalitarians would occassionally get into power, but they were not able to take complete control until after the Nazis dominated Europe. There was the occassional coup. Most of the elites looked to France for inspiration.

The people in those countries were probably more free than the people of Italy, Franco's Spain, or Salazar's Portugal.

If we assume these countries had the same benefits that Western Europe had, most would probably develop into functional democracies after the war. Some would be stronger than others, and some might take time to truly establish all the necessary steps to be considered a modern democracy, but it would probably happen without anything like Portugal's Carnation Revolution, or a managed transition to democracy like in post-Franco Spain. It is certainly conceivable that one or some might slip into retrogade politics that would require a protest movement to establish a democracy, but I consider that an outside possibility, not the dominant one.

"Authoritarian" is a vague term. Singapore is described as authoritarian because of the dominance of one party and that it allows less freedom than expected by the West. But it is by no means a dictatorship, and the government clearly has the consent of the people. If the regimes in Central/Eastern Europe before World War II could be classified as authoritarian, they usually had greater freedoms and political changes than Singapore, although more political violence. I don't necessarily disagree with the use of the term as long as people understand the actual situation and don't read too much into the term.

 

[Blackfox5]

You mean when the USSR had overrun the Balkans and defeated the Germans fair and square in military campaigns? Not allowing themselves to be bullied means a US-Soviet war.

Complete agreement. If the Red Army was there, there was little the West could do absent another war.

There are minor things that could have been done that would not have materially affected the war and enabled at least some of Eastern Europe to escape its fate.

I believe the Red Army had left Czechoslovakia soon after the war ended. The Czech government - an official member of the Allies, was rather friendly to Stalin and included Communists, but it was still "free." If events leading up to the 1948 Czech Coup had been handled differently, Czechoslovakia could probably have prevented Communists controlling it. Membership in NATO might even have been a real possibility.

Also, Bulgaria had never declared war on the Soviet Union. The failure to arrange a true peace treaty between Bulgaria and US/UK before the Red Army arrived and Stalin declared war decided its fate. But one can easily imagine a situation where Bulgaria agrees to all Allied demands, declares war on Germany, and the Red Army does not occupy the country.

Yugoslavia will still likely become Communist. Even if the Allies continued to support the Chetniks, the Red Army is still getting there first before any Allied troops from Italy.

Hungary and Romania, all occupied by the Red Army and at war with the Soviets, are more or less doomed.

Poland is an official member of the Allies, but Stalin needs control there to keep his troops in eastern Germany supplied, and he hates the Polish government. It is hard to see how Poland could have been saved.

Still, a history where Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia are not in the Soviet camp makes some interesting changes, especially if both become members of NATO. The West is now in a position to possibly intervene in 1956 when countries like Hungary and Poland are causing the Communists a lot of trouble. Stalin is dead, and Moscow is divided. Some kind of security deal might be made in return for Moscow giving up direct control in return for specific Western concessions. There might be something like a quid pro quo where Hungary is allowed to be free provided it is neutral like Austria (assuming something like the 1955 Treaty still happens) in exchange for Czechoslovakia also being neutral and leaving NATO. That would leave only Poland and Romania in the Soviet sphere along with Tito's Yugoslavia. It might even be possible to later expand such a deal and neutralize the other countries in exchange for a broad security arrangement and a neutral bloc between NATO and the USSR. The situation in East Germany would create problems though. But with the Khruschev Thaw, the Cold War might have a negotiated end before 1960. The Soviet Union would still exist and there may be disputes, but it would lead to a very different world.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Oh I agree that Trotsky's post as War Commissar and all that was overrated and that the Red Army's ability to coup the Soviet government is surprisingly less than one would think.

The Svoiet leadership, especially in its early days, tended to be very paranoid about the possibility of a military coup. Given the Soviet fondness for drawing parallels between the French and Russian Revolutions, everyone was quite aware of the risk that a successful and popular military leader could pose.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

The Svoiet leadership, especially in its early days, tended to be very paranoid about the possibility of a military coup. Given the Soviet fondness for drawing parallels between the French and Russian Revolutions, everyone was quite aware of the risk that a successful and popular military leader could pose.

Pretty much, that was probably, in my view, one of the reasons Stalin chose to do away with Tukhachevsky.