speculating about the past

Question

"The nature of Communism is such that Stalin would have fallen back on the use of force as his trusted means of governance anyway, when resistance to his policies inevitably arose."

Should I say "when resistance to his policies would inevitably arise" or "when resistance to his policies inevitably arose"?

Thank you.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

arose
Consider this simpler example.

It started to rain lightly.
I put my umbrella up. I would have put it up anyway, when it started to rain heavily.

It's a sequence of events, all in the past.
1. It started to rain lightly.
2. I put my umbrella up.
3. It started to rain heavily.

Clive

Anonymous · Answer

But in my example the clause "when resistance to his policies inevitably arose" is part of a speculation about what might have been in an unreal/unfulfilled past (presumably your "when it started to rain heavily" is too - you guessed that the rain was going to get heavier but then there is nothing in the sentence itself to suggest whether this scenario did come to pass). Shouldn't there be some grammatical indication to distinguish this sort of meaning from a straightforward description of what actually happened as when you use the simple past tense?

Thank you.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

But in my example the clause "when resistance to his policies inevitably arose" is part of a speculation about what might have been in an unreal/unfulfilled past (presumably your "when it started to rain heavily" is too - you guessed that the rain was going to get heavier but then there is nothing in the sentence itself to suggest whether this scenario did come to pass). Shouldn't there be some grammatical indication to distinguish this sort of meaning from a straightforward description of what actually happened as when you use the simple past tense?

I read your original paragraph this way. The first sentence is unstated but implied.

Stalin fell back on the use of force as his trusted means of governance. The nature of Communism is such that he would have done this later anyway, when resistance to his policies inevitably arose.

Ie He did it, but if he hadn't he would have done it later, because of what actually happened later..

I don't see "when resistance to his policies inevitably arose" as a speculation. I see it as a statement of what actually happened later. That's what I tried to show in my 'umbrella' example, ie that it did start to rain heavily later. But let's focus on the Stalin example.

If I as the writer wanted to show the later event didn't actually happen, I'd say
eg he would have done this later anyway, when resistance to his policies would inevitably have arisen.

I suppose we could check the actual historical facts for what happened, but that's not what we are talking about, is it?

Clive

SuperESL · Answer

Hi Clive,

What I am trying to say is that 'Stalin falling back on the use of force' and 'the emergence of resistance' are in fact a speculation, for in the version of history that did transpire, Stalin did not 'fall back' on the use of force, he just resorted to force from his first day in power. And there was never a chance for resistance to arise; he preempted it by crushing anyone who might have become part of the opposition. I am advancing a counterfactual scenario here in which Stalin does not rely on force initially and only turned to it after resistance to his policies arises [should I use the present tense when describing a counterfactual/unreal scenario that is set in the past?]. If this is what I want to convey, how do I indicate it grammatically? Thank you so much.

SuperESL

SuperESL · Answer

Also, what I mean when I say "resistance to his policies inevitably arose" is not that resistance actually arose [because, as I said in my previous post, it never had a chance to actualize], but that from what we know about Stalin his policies would most likely have ended up becoming so perverse that resistance would have been inevitable even if he had not resorted to force in the first place. The thing is, however, no matter how certain we think we are of how things would have turned out, it doesn't change the fact that all this is still a speculation about what might have been.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Your clause 'when resistance to his policies inevitably arose' suggests to me that it did in fact arise.

You need to indicate the hypothetical nature of your statement more explicitly.
eg Stalin resorted to force from his first day in power. If he had not, and if resistance had arisen later, he would have turned to force at that time. The nature of Communism was such that force was inevitable.

Clive

SuperESL · Answer

Dear Clive,

What about this sentence:

"The nature of Communism is such that Stalin would have fallen back on the use of force as his trusted means of governance anyway when he encountered resistance to his policies, which would have been inevitable given their perverse nature."

Or is it the case that the simple past tense can never be used in a hypothetical sentence like this?

Thank you.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

I wouldn't say that that version is wrong.

Clive

speculating about the past

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions