What if Lenin dies in an accident in 1914?

[TheseusDeuteros]

Lenin was back in Galicia when the First World War broke out. The war pitted the Russian Empire against the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and due to his Russian citizenship, Lenin was arrested and briefly imprisoned until his anti-tsarist credentials were explained. Lenin and his wife moved to Bern, Switzerland,...

What if Lenin dies in a train accident travelling to Switzerland? What will the consequences be for World War I and the Russian Revolution?

Can the October Revolution be butterflied away? Is it possible that a different revolution starts? Perhaps even as early as 1915, after which the Whites take power and Russia becomes a constitutional monarchy (the Duma gains legislative powers) in which the Menscheviks and republicans would have most popular support, or a republic ruled by either of the two (Trotsky as a president?)...

Is the following chain of events possible, reasonable, plausible?
Russia is weakened by the aforementioned revolution in 1915, so German forces march to St. Petersburg without much resistance. On the Western front, however, France and Britain take advantage of German optimism (many troops mobilised in the east, Western Front gets 'forgotten') and manage to break the stalemates and advance into the Alsace. Allied efforts to liberate Belgium fail. The Mesopotamian campaign of the British is more succesful.

In late September 1915, amidst the recent defeat of Serbia and entry of Bulgaria into the war and concerns about German attempts to incite jihad in Persia and Afghanistan, Grey (Foreign Secretary) and other politicians encouraged a further 100-mile push to Baghdad. The CIGS Murray thought this logistically unwise, but Kitchener advised the Dardanelles Committee (21 October) that Baghdad be seized for the sake of prestige then abandoned.

The British don't aim for Baghdad immediately, as Bulgaria doesn't enter the war on side of the Central Powers. Baghdad is captured later (early 1916). Britain and France get concerned about the Eastern Front, Russia is about to collapse under German pressure.
An Allied breakthrough in early 1916 on the Western Front, the Fall of Lille, causes both alliances to go for peace negotiations. An armistice is signed. Germany gains Beglium plus French Flanders and French Hainaut (i.e. Nord department), Luxembourg, Dutch Limburg (the Netherlands joined the Allies because there were signs Germany would invade in 1915) Sudetenland and Courland, and keeps Alsace-Lorraine (except for Metz and surroundings). Poland-Lithuania is created (Germany only loses most of Posen, and Upper Silesia), and Austria-Hungary (which didn't have such a succesful war except for the campaign in Serbia) is reduced to a smaller Austria and a smaller Hungary (ethnic borders). Italy gains Trentino, Istria, Austrian Littoral and Dalmatia. Greece gains Smyrna and all islands with a Greek majority. Constantinople becomes Tsargrad, East Thrace is divided between Bulgaria and Russia. Finland-Estonia and Latvia become independent, as well as Armenia and Kurdistan. Macedonian (Slav) and Albanian areas go to Serbia and Albania, respectively. Bosnia-Herzegovina is divided between Serbia and Croatia. Germany keeps all colonies, gains Congo from former Belgium and Gabon, Congo, Morocco (protectorate) and Madagascar from France. The Ottoman Empire stays and is promised to get its capital back after three years, but it has become much smaller. The rest of this "Treaty of Versailles" I haven't really decided about.

What do you guys think about these ideas? What other butterflies might Lenin's Death have?

 

[oberdada]

No Lenin = no october revolution
that`s all folks

 

[LordTerra]

Without Lenin to lead I believe there would still be a revolution in Russia but it may of been just a Socialist revolution, not communist, that would most likely not succeed and with Russia becoming a constitutional monarchy the moderates would not support the revolution. If a revolution does happen it will happen after several years with problems in Russia caused by the war effect.

The Western Front wouldn't be forgotten and left lightly manned as Britain and France would of been able to break through and they would of most likely regained Belgium as well as the fact that France was not going to allow Germany to keep Alsace-Lorraine and wouldn't want a new larger German border in the north-east.

And Germany get so much? Britain supported the balance of power in Europe but in this Germany gets a good chunk of territory in Europe as well as a much larger colonial empire to draw resources from which will end up with Germany as being too strong (think Nazi Germany strength) and it will lead to a more aggressive policy being adopted by Germany post-war.

The only way you would have this would be if Germany crushing Russia before the end of 1915 and then occupying Paris, possibly even more of France for what your giving Germany. Might as well put 'Lenin Dies = GERMAN WANK!'.

 

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Can the October Revolution be butterflied away?

Potentially, although it wasn't as if Lenin came along and then, boom, everything fell into place. The conditions were ripe for revolution, mainly due to the failure of the February Revolution to address the basic demands of the populace.

Is it possible that a different revolution starts? Perhaps even as early as 1915,

It's doubtful that an earlier revolution is possible. The working class, the soldiers and the rural poor weren't in a revolutionary conciousness in the early periods of the war.

after which the Whites take power and Russia becomes a constitutional monarchy (the Duma gains legislative powers) in which the Menscheviks and republicans would have most popular support,

The Mensheviks and the Social-Revolutionaries (who I assume you mean when you say 'republicans') aren't going to accept a monarchy which is why Kerensky's government came about after the abdication of the Tsar.

or a republic ruled by either of the two (Trotsky as a president?)...

How would Trotsky, estranged from both the Mensheviks and the essers become President?

Is the fololwing chain of events possible, reasonable, plausible?
Russia is weakened by the aforementioned revolution in 1915,

Well... the 1915 revolution isn't plausible...

so German forces march to St. Petersburg without much resistance. On the Western front, however, France and Britain take advantage of German optimism (many troops mobilised in the east, Western Front gets 'forgotten') and manage to break the stalemates and advance into the Alsace. Allied efforts to liberate Belgium fail. The Mesopotamian campaign of the British is more succesful.

All this is possible, the reasons you posit to account for the changes are less so.

What do you guys think about these ideas? What other butterflies might Lenin's Death have?

Lenin did basically galvanise the bolsheviks to stop waiting and seize the opportunity that was staring them in the face which led to the October Revolution but that was only because the conditions that existed in Russia after the February revolution created these opportunities and the working classes had been politicised and were willing to fight to end the war and create a world that would be organised for themselves and not the old elite. Even without Lenin many revolutionaries would be on hand to support working class mobilisation.

 

[Tom_B]

There is one chance for a 1915 "revolution" and that is a plot to depose Tsar Nicholas II and replace him with his uncle Grand Duke Nicholas who then grants the Duma greater power. Stone mentions some whispers in the shadows about this so while not probable it is not ASB either. However this would be a rather orderly coup and would not give the Germans any significant tactical advantage. And it is in no way a consequence of Lenin dying.

 

[Bolt451]

Lord Roem went into this in his TL "The Limpid Stream" which I highly recommend

 

[TheseusDeuteros]

No Lenin = no october revolution
that`s all folks

Maybe, I guess so, but Lenin wasn't the only figure playing a role in the October Revolution. Long-term causes for the revolution aren't butterflied away, I'd say.

Without Lenin to lead I believe there would still be a revolution in Russia but it may of been just a Socialist revolution, not communist, that would most likely not succeed and with Russia becoming a constitutional monarchy the moderates would not support the revolution. If a revolution does happen it will happen after several years with problems in Russia caused by the war effect.

I thought about the same. A communist revolution fails, but the effect the war has on Russia causes it to become a constitutional monarchy (the tsar doesn't want another uprising).

The Western Front wouldn't be forgotten and left lightly manned as Britain and France would of been able to break through and they would of most likely regained Belgium as well as the fact that France was not going to allow Germany to keep Alsace-Lorraine and wouldn't want a new larger German border in the north-east.

Hmm, might be true. What other reason would you suggest to make this (i.e. German Belgium and German Alsace) possible?

And Germany get so much? Britain supported the balance of power in Europe but in this Germany gets a good chunk of territory in Europe as well as a much larger colonial empire to draw resources from which will end up with Germany as being too strong (think Nazi Germany strength) and it will lead to a more aggressive policy being adopted by Germany post-war.

Okay, well, leave out the colonies, then. But would Britain foresee the more aggressive German foreign policy? And would they refuse Germany's demands and continue the war...?

The only way you would have this would be if Germany crushing Russia before the end of 1915 and then occupying Paris, possibly even more of France for what your giving Germany. Might as well put 'Lenin Dies = GERMAN WANK!'.

Okay, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[TheseusDeuteros]

Potentially, although it wasn't as if Lenin came along and then, boom, everything fell into place. The conditions were ripe for revolution, mainly due to the failure of the February Revolution to address the basic demands of the populace.

I understand

It's doubtful that an earlier revolution is possible. The working class, the soldiers and the rural poor weren't in a revolutionary conciousness in the early periods of the war.

But what if the war is worse for the Russians? What if the Germans break through sooner?

The Mensheviks and the Social-Revolutionaries (who I assume you mean when you say 'republicans') aren't going to accept a monarchy which is why Kerensky's government came about after the abdication of the Tsar.

Hmm, yeah, fair enough.

How would Trotsky, estranged from both the Mensheviks and the essers become President?

Never mind about Trotsky. I suggested him because he was more moderate, but admittedly I didn't know enough about him.

Well... the 1915 revolution isn't plausible...
All this is possible, the reasons you posit to account for the changes are less so.

Okay. Any better reasons in mind?

Lenin did basically galvanise the bolsheviks to stop waiting and seize the opportunity that was staring them in the face which led to the October Revolution but that was only because the conditions that existed in Russia after the February revolution created these opportunities and the working classes had been politicised and were willing to fight to end the war and create a world that would be organised for themselves and not the old elite. Even without Lenin many revolutionaries would be on hand to support working class mobilisation.

I understand, but wouldn't the Russian working population be satisfied if after the war Russia becomes a constitutional monarchy? And they'd be put off from revolting if a small communist revolution during the war fails, no?

 

[David T]

An accident might be the last thing Lenin would have to worry about. I'll repost (with an updated URL) an old soc.history.what-if post of mine:

***

In August 1914, when the First World War broke out, Lenin was in Galicia, just a few miles from the Russian border. A very bad place to be, though in fairness Lenin was not the only person to be taken by surprise by the war. (In 1913, he had written Maxim Gorky that "War between Austria and Russia would be a very good thing for the revolution in the whole of eastern Europe, but it's scarcely likely that Franz Joseph and Nikolasha would grant us this pleasure.") Anyway, Lenin now faced two dangers:

(1) In an atmosphere of war hysteria, the Austrian authorities or local peasants might take him for a Russian spy. As Robert Service points out, "Lenin was living only a few miles from the Russian border and had visited the frontier posts. He had roamed the mountains near Zakopane and had quizzed the inhabitants of the area about rent-levels, climate, ethnic variety and the best routes from one village to another. He possessed a Browning pistol. Lenin lacked only a swarthy countenance and a black cape to complete the caricature of a Russian spy...It all could easily have ended in violence, perhaps a lynching." *Lenin: A Biography*, p. 223 Indeed, a local peasant informed the police that this mysterious Russian gentleman would often sit on a hill, undoubtedly making sketches of strategic objectives. A police search of the peasant hut rented by the Ulyanovs turned up a paper full of figures--no doubt a ciphered message for the invading Cossacks (actually, it was a statistical table from a manuscript on the agrarian question).

Anyway, eventually Lenin, though imprisoned for a while, was released after Austrian socialists confirmed to the authorities that he was an enemy of the Tsar. But this brought the second danger:

(2) Russian Imperial armies might advance far enough into Galicia to capture Lenin. In which case, they were likely to show considerably less restraint toward Lenin than the Austrians had done...

Anyway, Lenin did manage to get away to Switzerland. But let's say that instead Lenin is killed in 1914, either by Austrians or by advancing Russian troops. The situation then is probably pretty much the same as if he had drowned in December 1907, as in a previous post of mine at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/ZtTJQvc4s-I/-gj49dM6-IsJ One possible difference is that the Bolshevik-Menshevik split had deepened and might be harder to heal, even in the euphoria of February 1917.

But what if Lenin is captured by the Russian army but not shot, only imprisoned or exiled to Siberia? In that event, things go pretty much as in OTL but with one major diference--in 1917 Lenin is not compromised by having to travel through German territory to get back to Petrograd.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/_OJ-hXqcw0Y/SvDYmJ7Zp2IJ

 

[TheseusDeuteros]

How about the following 'timeline'?

---

1906: Helmuth von Moltke, Alfred von Schlieffen's successor, does alter the military plans of his predecessor, but he does not leave out Dutch Limburg in the plan. As a result, the Netherlands will invaded, too, when World War I starts and the German army heads for France.

28 June 1914: Franz Ferdinand is assassinated, triggering World War I (as per otl)

28 July 1914: World War I starts as Austria-Hungary invades Serbia (as per otl).

4 August 1914: German invasion of Belgium (as per otl).

5 August 1914: German 'invasion' of Dutch Limburg. The Dutch people are frustrated about the 'invasion', but the Dutch military is not prepared to fight German forces, so the Dutch government permits German forces to cross through a small corridor in Limburg.

September 1914: Vladimir Lenin dies in a train accident while travelling to Switzerland.

10 September 1914: Germany is not defeated, but wins the Battle of the Marne.

October 1915: Dutch Limburg is occupied by German forces after all. The Netherlands declares war on Germany, joins the Allied forces.

March 1915: The German army has surrounded Paris.

September 1915: The Mesopotamian campaign is carried out more cautiously.

October 1915: Bulgaria does not enter the war.

29 December 1915: Baghdad is captured by British forces.

January 1916: Communist revolts in Petrograd and other cities in the Russian Empire takes place, mainly due to the dramatic impact the war has on the working population (worse than in otl's World War I, because Germany is more succesful) and is crushed by Tsarist forces. Germany takes advantage of the unrest in Russia and advances eastwards.

February 1916: German forces reach the outskirts of Petrograd, the Siege of Petrograd starts.

March 1916: The Siege of Paris ends, Paris is occupied by German forces.

April 1916: The German march is stopped quickly after capturing Paris and trench warfare starts.

June 1916: A huge Allied counteroffensive is able to push German forces north.

20 June 1916: Paris is liberated.

9 July 1916: Although Russian forces are keeping the Petrograd out of German hands, the Russian Tsar faces another revolt, predominantly caused by war-weariness. This revolution is succesful; the Tsar has to abdicate. His successor, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich, grants the Duma more powers, Russia gradually becomes a constitutional monarchy (officially in 1917).

1 August 1916: An armistice is signed, as German troops are starting to fail on both the Western and Eastern Fronts. Italy is more succesful fighting Austria-Hungary, the British are more succesful defeating the Ottomans.

30 December 1916: The Amsterdam Peace Treaty brings peace to Europe after World War I.

 

[TheseusDeuteros]

Any thoughts, anyone?

---

Here's a work-in-progress map for the Treaty of Amsterdam (Europe-only map; of course there'll also be other territorial changes in the world, especially colonies of Western powers).

 

[TheseusDeuteros]

Does anyone have any thoughts to share?