What if Lenin had died in 1964?

Let us assume Lenin had Castro tier genetics and lived until 1964 (age: 93) instead of 1924 (age: 53). Let us also assume that he held onto power all this time, similar to Fidel. How would the USSR have looked? What woul have changed, what would have stayed the same?

Attached: 910953d.jpg (640x360, 65.35K)

The same but with less executions

The same but with less dead innocents and MORE DEAD KULAKS.

Attached: stfupedophile.jpg (686x454, 103.03K)

Definitely things would have been better. No factional fighting would lead to earlier massive industrialization. There would be far lighter purge, leading to better military organization would lead to better performance in WW2, meaning that post WW2 Soviet Union would be far stronger and far more diplomatically and economically influential

i suppose like most historical figures that didn't die before the world wars he would have become boring.

Like Stalin

Famine probably would've happened
Purges might have been delayed or not even have been a "big event". Less factionalism is to blame.
Same emphasis on industrialization.
A bigger emphasis on preserving proletarian democracy even during the inevitable world war.

I wouldn't know though. Pure optimistic speculation.

Also we'd be living in the World Socialist Republic by now.

Attached: 9f6efcaaab0e75a404e32c20fd6c6991bdce6fdec94c2c9142b7193606829382.jpg (1200x813, 137.05K)


he probably would have led the USSR to its destruction by listening to that retard trotsky and attempting global revolution with no regard to the safety of the USSR itself, and by the time Hitler came knocking (or some other dictator supported by the west) the USSR would have had no allies and the entire world would have been in a military alliance against it led by the UK. Seriously theres no way the Bolsheviks survive into 1964 with Lenin, he was a man that served his purpose at the time and nothing more.

Less sectarianism and less corn. He’d defiantly have a cult of personality that would make finding a successor hard.


The had no allies IOTL. It was just coincidence that Hitler was at war with Britan when he was at war with the soviets. This would probably still be the case because Hitler though German Armies were invincible.

Lenin conducted multiple purges what are you talking about. They didnt involve killing but there were purges nonetheless

Guess what, Stalin didn't prevent the USSR from falling either

Why do some Trots don't seem to understand that Stalin was simply doing his best after the German Revolution was lost
The fact that there's no cornunist parties, is a glimmer of hope for everybody tbh

Part of the reason Hitler signed the non-aggression pact with Stalin was because of his round earlobes, do you think he does the same thing with someone who has a known jewish grandmother? Also as pragmatic as Lenin was, I doubt he ever does the machiavellian move of signing the pact (assuming the nazis still would) because it would be a full reversal of every speech and writing he has made since 1905. Also, I don't think Lenin (and Trotsky) make the mistake Stalin makes, believing fascism is nothing more than capitalism without its contradictions. I think they would have realized the threat fascism actually was.

Zizek actually talked about this once. His question was "What if Lenin had lived ten years longer?" And his answer is interesting.

Attached: LeninEnSuizaMarzo1916--barbaroussovietr00mcbr.png (387x527, 76.93K)

Lenin or Trotsky would’ve sen more aid to communist parties globally, causing liberal government having to placate the large Communist mass in their own country, and sent more military aid to the CCP potentially leading to a pre-WW2 victory of the Chinese Civil War.

Without the molitov ribbentov pact German would still be at war with the west (the pact was done a month before the polish invasion) so it wouldn’t’ve made a difference to Soviet survival.

thank you for sharing this

Soviet Union was hardly ready to effectively face the German Army, or any other massive foreign invasion by 1941, for a multitude of reasons, a massive restructuring and modernization of the army being the most direct cause, let alone two years earlier. Compare the rough equivalent effectiveness of the Soviet Army during the Winter War and during Bagration to see what a massive difference five years of on-hand experience can make. When you get a chance to postpone the inevitable crisis in, especially when you're barely pulling your self out of the one before, you take it. You don't want to be caught with your pants down if you can give yourself a chance to at least pull them up, do you?

Probably better agriculture but worse industry in economic terms. I think the USSR would've been more stable and would've been more open to alliances with capitalist states in the 1930s. But I doubt whether its performance in WW2 would've been any better.

The purges were one of the main reasons why the Red Army was able to win in WW2. It was riddled with ex-Tsarist officers and fascist sympathisers.

A bit different, but the trends would have been the same and the internal contradictions would have been the same. Single people don't determine the outcome of an entire state.

ITT: we argue woulda coulda shoulda and nothing happens. Nothing is of significance in this metaphysical realm of 'if Lenin lived for 1 to 1000 years' is of importance.

Attached: 06ccf4e3da2c5a0289a1a6b1bd24707f3c20824ff9685b0deeb1cbc7116f56bf.png (255x191, 10.5K)