The Soviet Union without Joseph Stalin

WolfBear

Well-known member
What would the Soviet Union have looked like without Joseph Stalin? Would forced collectivization still occur? Would there be more freedoms, such as freedom of speech/expression or at least the freedom to emigrate and/or to move around the country more freely? Would there be any extremely massive purges? Would the Nazis still come to power in Germany or would their path to power be blocked due to the Soviet Union telling the German Communists to support a non-Nazi governing coalition, either from within the coalition or from outside of the coalition? Who would the Soviet Union's leader after Lenin be in this TL? What about beyond that point in time? And what other meaningful changes would there be in this TL relative to our TL?

Any thoughts on this?
 

Buba

A total creep
What would the Soviet Union have looked like without Joseph Stalin?
Same shithole.
Would forced collectivization still occur?
Yes
Would there be more freedoms, such as freedom of speech/expression or at least the freedom to emigrate and/or to move around the country more freely?
You are taking the piss, right?
Would there be any extremely massive purges?
Yes.
Would the Nazis still come to power in Germany
yes
or would their path to power be blocked due to the Soviet Union telling the German Communists to support a non-Nazi governing coalition, either from within the coalition or from outside of the coalition?
No, the KPD would be working towards the revolution, not entering coalitions.
Who would the Soviet Union's leader after Lenin be in this TL?
Trotsky. He murders Stalin before Stalin murders/exiles him.
What about beyond that point in time?
Some other psychopath. I've seen a Zinoviev&Frunze joint running ticket for the Supreme Leader post bandied about once.
And what other meaningful changes would there be in this TL relative to our TL?
Even more export of the revolution. No MR Pact, though. A different WWII, as Hitler here would start it on his lonesome.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Not as knowledgeable on the nitty-gritty as other posters, but my understanding is that Trotsky, being an internationalist ideologue who wanted the USSR to set fires and embark on world revolution almost immediately (as @Buba noted), was in some ways worse than Stalin?

Sure, I can see him being marginally less repressive on the home front, though at the same time, you don't become leader of the Red Army—much less a leading contender for Lenin's successor—by being a nice or democratically inclined philosopher-king who prefers to read Shakespeare and sip tea in their study. And frankly, Trotsky was neither, which is sure to carry over to his governing philosophy here, just as it did with Stalin IOTL.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Not as knowledgeable on the nitty-gritty as other posters, but my understanding is that Trotsky, being an internationalist ideologue who wanted the USSR to set fires and embark on world revolution almost immediately (as @Buba noted), was in some ways worse than Stalin?

Sure, I can see him being marginally less repressive on the home front, though at the same time, you don't become leader of the Red Army—much less a leading contender for Lenin's successor—by being a nice or democratically inclined philosopher-king who prefers to read Shakespeare and sip tea in their study. And frankly, Trotsky was neither, which is sure to carry over to his governing philosophy here, just as it did with Stalin IOTL.

I have heard Wolfpaw and other people on alternatehistory.com say that Trotsky wasn't a serious contender for the Soviet top job after Lenin's death since he was too hated--unless, of course, he was a figurehead for someone else. Trotsky as Soviet leader would, of course, also give further strength to the myth (or semi-myth) of Judeo-Bolshevism.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Nikolai Bukharin would have been the most suitable candidate who isn't Stalin or Trotsky. His policies were rather sane for a Bolshevik.

Would he actually allow free speech/expression, free emigration, free internal migration, and a multiparty system?
 

lordhen

Well-known member
What would the Soviet Union have looked like without Joseph Stalin? Would forced collectivization still occur? Would there be more freedoms, such as freedom of speech/expression or at least the freedom to emigrate and/or to move around the country more freely? Would there be any extremely massive purges? Would the Nazis still come to power in Germany or would their path to power be blocked due to the Soviet Union telling the German Communists to support a non-Nazi governing coalition, either from within the coalition or from outside of the coalition? Who would the Soviet Union's leader after Lenin be in this TL? What about beyond that point in time? And what other meaningful changes would there be in this TL relative to our TL?

Any thoughts on this?
One way the Soviet Union might be better of without Stalin but in the other hand the ruthlessness of Stalin helped the Soviet Union win the war against the Germans.
 

Buba

A total creep
Would he actually allow free speech/expression, free emigration, free internal migration, and a multiparty system?
You really are trying hard to polish a turd - regardless of who leads it, the early Soviet Union will be a brutal, oppressive, genocidal dictatorship.
One way the Soviet Union might be better of without Stalin but in the other hand the ruthlessness of Stalin helped the Soviet Union win the war against the Germans.
1 - without Stalin there very well might be no German invasion whatsoever;
2 - the German invasion being as successful as it was is in large part Stalin's fault to begin with.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Nikolai Bukharin would have been the most suitable candidate who isn't Stalin or Trotsky. His policies were rather sane for a Bolshevik.

Presuming events still play out the same into the 1930s, if the Anglo-French still reject a Soviet alliance in favor it's more likely the USSR enters the Axis without Stalin's paranoia.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Presuming events still play out the same into the 1930s, if the Anglo-French still reject a Soviet alliance in favor it's more likely the USSR enters the Axis without Stalin's paranoia.

What do you think about the idea of the Soviet Union (one without Stalin) ordering the German Communists to support an anti-Nazi German governing coalition in 1932-1933 in order to block Hitler's and the Nazis' rise to power in Germany?
 

History Learner

Well-known member
What do you think about the idea of the Soviet Union (one without Stalin) ordering the German Communists to support an anti-Nazi German governing coalition in 1932-1933 in order to block Hitler's and the Nazis' rise to power in Germany?

I think it would undermine them; the German middle class was voting NSDAP precisely out of fear for the Communists, at least in part. Them openly endorsing the SDP would make the NSDAP even more palatable.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I think it would undermine them; the German middle class was voting NSDAP precisely out of fear for the Communists, at least in part. Them openly endorsing the SDP would make the NSDAP even more palatable.

But the Nazis didn't have enough for a governing coalition on their own. Or would Hindenburg still prefer a coalition with Nazis than a coalition supported by Communists even from outside of the coalition?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member

Screw Hindenburg! :( You know, I think that it's a huge shame that he lived until 1934 and not died a couple years or more earlier. Hugo Eckener would have been much better at dealing with Hitler. He, unlike Hindenburg, was much more passionate about his opposition to Nazism, after all.

Hindenburg and Ludendorff really are responsible for two of the world's worst-ever evils: Specifically both Communism (by sending Lenin to Russia in the first place) and Nazism.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Presuming events still play out the same into the 1930s, if the Anglo-French still reject a Soviet alliance in favor it's more likely the USSR enters the Axis without Stalin's paranoia.
Soviets do not wanted alliance,but taking over Poland.That is why we refused - and rightly so.
But,smarted soviet would not demand anything from Hitler after fall of France in 1940,and instead help him take Iraq.
Then wait for invasion of England,and backstab him when germans would storm London in 1942.

Entire Europe and Africa soviets,gulags,gulags ewrywhere.Till they fall becouse of economy,we would have at least 500 millions of victims.
At least surviving germans would not dream about alliance with Moscov.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Soviets do not wanted alliance,but taking over Poland.That is why we refused - and rightly so.
But,smarted soviet would not demand anything from Hitler after fall of France in 1940,and instead help him take Iraq.
Then wait for invasion of England,and backstab him when germans would storm London in 1942.

Entire Europe and Africa soviets,gulags,gulags ewrywhere.Till they fall becouse of economy,we would have at least 500 millions of victims.
At least surviving germans would not dream about alliance with Moscov.

Was Operation Sea Lion ever actually feasible, though?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Was Operation Sea Lion ever actually feasible, though?

In 1940 only if England surrender.You need kill Churchill for that.
But - imagine,that soviets do not demand anything in 1940,and Hitler decided to take Egypt,Iraq and Iran with soviets help in 1941.Then invade England in 1942.
He would have real invasion fleet by that time,and could win.And then,when his troops would fight in ruins of London and german best 30 dyvisions would be engaged in England,soviets would backstab him.

It would be soviet Europe til end of 1944,unless USA send help.And even then only England,Spain and Sweden would have chance to survive.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@Ricardolindo Here's what David T previously wrote about this topic on alternatehistory.com:


Stephen Kotkin in his recent first volume of a projected three-volume biography of Stalin, discusses what if Stalin had died before he achieved power (or at least full power):

"But what if Stalin had died?31 He had come down with a serious case of appendicitis in 1921, requiring surgery. “It was difficult to guarantee the outcome,” Dr. V. N. Rozanov recalled. “Lenin in the morning and in the evening called me in the hospital. He not only inquired about Stalin’s health, but demanded the most thorough report.”32 Stalin had complained of pain, despite a local anesthetic, and Rozanov administered a heavy dose of chloroform, the kind of heavy dose he would administer to Frunze in 1925, who died not long after his own operation.33 Stalin, who may have also suffered ulcers (possibly attributive to typhus), following his own operation had taken a rest cure—ordered by the politburo—at Nalchik in the North Caucasus from May through August 1921.34 In December 1921, he was again incapacitated by illness.35

"Later, Kremlin doctors recorded that Stalin had suffered malaria at some point in his youth. In 1909, in exile, he had a bout of typhus in the Vyatka hospital, a relapse because he had suffered it in childhood. Stalin’s elder second brother Giorgy, whom he never knew, had died of typhus. In 1915, in Siberian exile, Stalin contracted rheumatism, which periodically flared, accompanied by quinsy and flu.36 Stalin also suffered tuberculosis prior to the revolution. His first wife, Kato, died of tuberculosis or typhus. Yakov Sverdlov, with whom Stalin bunked in a single room in Siberian exile, had tuberculosis, and Stalin moved out. Sverdlov appears to have died of TB in 1919. Tuberculosis might have killed off Stalin as well..

"If Stalin had died, the likelihood of forced wholesale collectivization—the only kind—would have been near zero, and the likelihood that the Soviet regime would have been transformed into something else or fallen apart would have been high. “More than almost any other great man in history,” wrote the historian E. H. Carr, “Stalin illustrates the thesis that circumstances make the man, not the man the circumstances.”43 Utterly, eternally wrong. Stalin made history, rearranging the entire socioeconomic landscape of one sixth of the earth. Right through mass rebellion, mass starvation, cannibalism, the destruction of the country’s livestock, and unprecedented political destabilization, Stalin did not flinch. Feints in the form of tactical retreats notwithstanding, he would keep going even when told to his face by officials in the inner regime that a catastrophe was unfolding—full speed ahead to socialism. This required extraordinary maneuvering, browbeating, and violence on his part. It also required deep conviction that it had to be done. Stalin was uncommonly skillful in building an awesome personal dictatorship, but also a bungler, getting fascism wrong, stumbling in foreign policy. But he had will. He went to Siberia in January 1928 and did not look back. History, for better and for worse, is made by those who never give up." Stalin, Volume 1 - Kotkin Stephen - страница 126 - чтение книги бесплатно

Kind of hard to view the pre-Stalin Soviet Union as a paradise when it had the Red Terror, Lenin using chemical weapons against the Tambov rebels in 1921, and of course a one-party dictatorial and totalitarian state. Still, no doubt that Stalin made things much worse relative to what they were before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

TheRomanSlayer

Proud Anti-Catholic Bigot
I did play a scenario where Stalin was orphaned at his birth, though that would result in a completely different development of young Soso (the nickname of Stalin when he was a kid).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top