Hypothetical: would the USSR have done better against Germany without Stalin?

[VetLegion]

To people impressed with Stalin's achievements in industrialization:

Nonsense.

Central planning can produce some impressive works, and finish big projects like big dams or huge factories relatively fast. They're always big. North Korea is full of examples. You couple this with propaganda about tireless workers toiling for love and not for profit and you impress people.

"... a njegov san, hiljadu tona za jedan dan..."

While in fact, anything done by central planning on Soviet scale is terribly inneficient. Every big project is actually missalocating resources and harming the economy. Each of them could have been done twice as cheap and twice as good in free markets.

The less government meddling with economy the better, but if some has to exist (most industrial countries became such with active government involvement) then subsidies, tax cuts and similar are the way to go.

Stalin industrialized the SSSR

The nutcake prevented the country from properly industrializing is more like it.

[Saras]

--"Btw, how is your trip to Ryazan? Devok tamoshnih mnogo poportili?"

To pomniu to nepomniu

[Chemical Ollie]

A head-to-head debate with Fez vs Serb would break some new records in guano throwing...

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
--"Btw, how is your trip to Ryazan? Devok tamoshnih mnogo poportili?"

To pomniu to nepomniu

Tak derzhat'

[Mr. Harley]

I honestly believe that without the brutality of Stalin, or someone like him, the Soviet Union could not have rapidly industrialized between the two world wars. If grant the premise of gradual free markets and industrialization, it requires Alexander II living long enough to begin the reforms that would lead to gradual change.

If this resulted in the gradual industrialization of Russia, it would follow the trend noted by the previous posters. Agriculture/light industry/resourse exports followed by a gradual increase in heavy industry. The problem with this timeline is that he actually signed a treaty with the Prussians. If you let him survive long enough to start a gentle industrialization, you probably rewrite WW1, and make the thread moot.

Assuming Kirov or a some other internal Cabal displacing Stalin, who was an alchoholic paranoid - a very competent one, but still a monster, anybody who can sit up at night getting drunk while writing additional execution quotas to maintain the "terror" qualifies - if they stress industrialization as much as Stalin, you would think that they cannot do any worse at the start of WW2. However, Serb makes an excellent point.

If you get rid of Stalin but leave Tukhachevsky in, you may do worse. If you have the officers, but are using crap hardware, the Nazis do better. There was a case of a KV-1A stopping the lead units of a Panzer division for several days - they had nothing that could hurt it until they got 88mm AA (note - ANTI-AIRCRAFT big, heavy guns that were not nearly as mobile as the armored columns) up to the front.

Probably you're better off having Stalin die in 1939 just before the purges. He dies of a stroke after the invasion of Finland. The Red Army needs the fubar of Finland to find out how lousy their hadware is as well as their doctrine. Without that the Red Army may do WORSE against the Nazis. The problem is you need someone who will both push rapid industrialization brutally, who will start the Russo-Finish war (which means signing treaties with the Nazis - that was part of the price), and yet won't purge the army. It's pretty hard to replace Stalin. Now Alexander II surviving - that's an interesting what-if. Throw in Kaiser Frederick III ignoring his wife (the daughter of Queen Victoria) and listening to the German doctors (instead of the British quack who his wife convinced him to listen to) and surviving throat cancer, and suddenly the world is a VERY different place.

[Serb]

Originally posted by VetLegion
To people impressed with Stalin's achievements in industrialization:

Nonsense.

Central planning can produce some impressive works, and finish big projects like big dams or huge factories relatively fast. They're always big. North Korea is full of examples. You couple this with propaganda about tireless workers toiling for love and not for profit and you impress people.

"... a njegov san, hiljadu tona za jedan dan..."

While in fact, anything done by central planning on Soviet scale is terribly inneficient. Every big project is actually missalocating resources and harming the economy. Each of them could have been done twice as cheap and twice as good in free markets.

The less government meddling with economy the better, but if some has to exist (most industrial countries became such with active government involvement) then subsidies, tax cuts and similar are the way to go.

Stalin industrialized the SSSR

The nutcake prevented the country from properly industrializing is more like it.

Blah...blah...blah... read some numbers first before making such idiotic claims.

Just for you, some words from the eyewitness of those events. From diary of USA ambassador in USSR (1937-1938), Joseph Davis (my translation from Russian, full version on Russian for Saras):

"Russian industry: With group of American journalists I visited 5 cities, where I saw the biggest industrial facilities: truck plant (12 000 workers), the plant of electric engines which considered the biggest plant of that kind in the world (38 000 workers), "Dneprogas" (Serb: it's hydropower plant), aluminium plant, which again considered as the largest plant of that kind in the world (3 000 workers), "Zaporozhstal" (Serb: it's steel plant) (35 000 workers), a hospital (18 doctors and 120 medics), kindergardens, "Rosselmash" (16 000 workers) (Serb: it's a factory of agricaltural machines) and the "palace of pioneeres" (the building with 280 rooms for 320 teachers and 27 000 children). The last is one of the most ineresting phenomenons in Soviet Union. Such "palaces" are being constructed in every big cities to bring into reality Stalin's slogan about children as the most valuable treasure of the country. There children's talents are being discovered and imroved.

What's amaze the most in Soviet practice of planning is
the courage while tacking decisions and will during realization of those decisions. Five years ago in Zaporozh'e region was only a plain steppe, today we can see huge factories and the city with 125 000 inhabitants, modern buildings, wide streets and squares. The buildings and equipment in most of the cases are the most modern available. The best companies mostly from USA, but also from Germany, France and England were invited on competive base to design them. Most of the workers are not older than 30. Very many women among them, about 25%. The average age of director is about 35. The average worker's salary is 200-250 rubles (10-12 $ on black market). In factory's restaurant you can have a good dinner for 2 roubles (10 cents). The house rent does not exceed 15% of salary. The salary of Stakhanovtzy (Serb: the workers who work really hard, very good workers) is up to 2000 rubles. (Serb: who said this "you pretend to pay us, we pretend to work?" eat this. During Stalin's time people were motivated to work good. The difference between salary of regular worker and very good worker was about TEN TIMES. The f*cker who brought this equality principles in salaries and buried all motivation for good working, was Khrushev and it was much later, after Stalin's death). The salary of director of a factory is about 2000 roubles as well. Every factory works in accordance with self-support principle. All incomes comes to varios needs, including construction of schools. During last year in Dnepropetrovsk were build 16 such schools, a big buildings with 25-30 rooms made off white bricks.
Some have suspicions regards capabilities of industry to support needs of front in case of big European war, however in my opinion, such capabilities could be much greater than some might to think (Serb: and this guy was damn right about this).
In general, new industrial regions makes a shoking impression: within 7 years Russians were able to did the same as America did within 40 years, since 80's of the last century." (Serb: actually it's more than 50 years, he wrote this in 1937. 1937-1880= 57 Hmm... the American education system? )
The end of qoute.
Once again, it was from diary of Mr. Joseph Davis. The American ambassador in Soviet Union. March 12 1937.

Now a full story on Russian for Saras and other Russian speakers (I'm too lazy to translate it completely), btw, Saras it contains a part about Lithuanian ambassador:

"(19 ÿíâàðÿ 1937 ã.) …Ìîñêâà îêàçàëàñü äëÿ ìåíÿ ïîëíîé íåîæèäàííîñòüþ. Ðàçóìååòñÿ – ýòî êðàñèâûé ñòàðûé ãîðîä, äåÿòåëüíîñòü êîòîðîãî âèäèøü íà óëèöàõ, êîëè÷åñòâî çäàíèé, êîòîðûå ïîâñþäó ñòðîÿòñÿ, à òàêæå óäîáíàÿ îäåæäà, âïîëíå îáû÷íàÿ äëÿ ìåñòíûõ æèòåëåé, ìåíÿ î÷åíü óäèâèëè.

Ìîñêâà î÷åíü ïîõîæà íà äðóãèå åâðîïåéñêèå ãîðîäà ñî ñâîèìè ñâåòîôîðàìè, áîëüøèìè òðîëëåéáóñàìè íà óëèöàõ, òðàìâàÿìè, àâòîìîáèëÿìè, ãðóçîâèêàìè è ò.ï. Òîëïû ïîâñþäó. Ãîðîä íàïîëíÿåòñÿ ëþäüìè èç äåðåâíè, êîòîðûå ïðèåçæàþò ñþäà ðàáîòàòü íà àâòîìîáèëüíûõ çàâîäàõ. Çà êîðîòêîå âðåìÿ íàñåëåíèå âûðîñëî ñ 1,8 äî 4 ìëí. ÷åëîâåê, ïîýòîìó æèëèùà êðàéíå ïåðåïîëíåíû, îäíàêî íà óëèöå íåëüçÿ îáíàðóæèòü êàêèõ-ëèáî ïðèçíàêîâ íóæäû. Âñå âûãëÿäÿò ïðåêðàñíî…

ÏÐÎÖÅÑÑ ÏßÒÀÊÎÂÀ È ÐÀÄÅÊÀ 17 ôåâðàëÿ 1937 ã. Ïîäñóäèìûå âûãëÿäÿò ôèçè÷åñêè çäîðîâûìè è âïîëíå íîðìàëüíûìè. Ïîðÿäîê ïðîöåññà ðàçèòåëüíî îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò òîãî, ÷òî ïðèíÿò â Àìåðèêå, îäíàêî ó÷èòûâàÿ òî, ÷òî ïðèðîäà ëþäåé îäèíàêîâà ïîâñþäó, è îïèðàÿñü íà ñîáñòâåííûé àäâîêàòñêèé îïûò, ìîæíî ñäåëàòü âûâîä, ÷òî îáâèíÿåìûå ãîâîðÿò ïðàâäó, ïðèçíàâàÿ ñâîþ âèíó â ñîâåðøåíèè òÿæêèõ ïðåñòóïëåíèé. (18 ôåâðàëÿ 1937 ã.)

Îáùåå ìíåíèå äèïêîðïóñà ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî ïðàâèòåëüñòâî â õîäå ïðîöåññà äîñòèãëî ñâîåé öåëè è äîêàçàëî, ÷òî îáâèíÿåìûå, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, ó÷àñòâîâàëè â êàêîì-òî çàãîâîðå.

Áåñåäà ñ ëèòîâñêèì ïîñëîì: îí ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî âñå ðàçãîâîðû î ïûòêàõ è íàðêîòè÷åñêèõ ïðåïàðàòàõ, ÿêîáû ïðèìåíÿåìûõ â îòíîøåíèè ê ïîäñóäèìûì, ëèøåíû âñÿêèõ îñíîâàíèé. Îí âûñîêîãî ìíåíèÿ î ñîâåòñêîì ðóêîâîäñòâå âî ìíîãèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ.

Áåñåäà ñ ïîñëîì, ïðîâåäøèì â Ðîññèè 6 ëåò. Åãî ìíåíèå: çàãîâîð ñóùåñòâîâàë è ïîäñóäèìûå âèíîâíû. Îíè ñ þíûõ ëåò âåëè ïîäïîëüíóþ áîðüáó, ìíîãèå ãîäû ïðîâåëè çà ãðàíèöåé è ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêè ïðåäðàñïîëîæåíû ê çàãîâîðùè÷åñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. (19 ôåâðàëÿ 1937)"

Ñåãîäíÿ ìû çíàåì, áëàãîäàðÿ óñèëèÿì ÔÁÐ, ÷òî ãèòëåðîâñêèå àãåíòû äåéñòâîâàëè ïîâñþäó, äàæå â Ñîåäèíåííûõ Øòàòàõ è Þæíîé Àìåðèêå. Íåìåöêîå âñòóïëåíèå â Ïðàãó ñîïðîâîæäàëîñü àêòèâíîé ïîääåðæêîé âîåííûõ îðãàíèçàöèé Ãåëåíà. Òî æå ñàìîå ïðîèñõîäèëî â Íîðâåãèè (Êâèñëèíã), Ñëîâàêèè (Òèñî), Áåëüãèè (äå Ãðåëëü) ... Îäíàêî íè÷åãî ïîäîáíîãî â Ðîññèè ìû íå âèäèì. "Ãäå æå ðóññêèå ïîñîáíèêè Ãèòëåðà?" – ñïðàøèâàþò ìåíÿ ÷àñòî. "Èõ ðàññòðåëÿëè", – îòâå÷àþ ÿ.

Òîëüêî ñåé÷àñ íà÷èíàåøü ñîçíàâàòü, íàñêîëüêî äàëüíîâèäíî ïîñòóïèëî ñîâåòñêîå ïðàâèòåëüñòâî â ãîäû ÷èñòîê. Òîãäà ìåíÿ øîêèðîâàëà òà áåñöåðåìîííîñòü è äàæå ãðóáîñòü, ñ êàêîé ñîâåòñêèå âëàñòè çàêðûâàëè ïî âñåé ñòðàíå êîíñóëüñòâà Èòàëèè è Ãåðìàíèè, íåâçèðàÿ íè íà êàêèå äèïëîìàòè÷åñêèå îñëîæíåíèÿ. Òðóäíî áûëî ïîâåðèòü â îôèöèàëüíûå îáúÿñíåíèÿ, ÷òî ñîòðóäíèêè ìèññèé ó÷àñòâîâàëè â ïîäðûâíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Ìû â òî âðåìÿ ìíîãî ñïîðèëè â ñâîåì êðóãó î áîðüáå çà âëàñòü â êðåìëåâñêîì ðóêîâîäñòâå, íî êàê ïîêàçàëà æèçíü, ìû ñèäåëè "íå â òîé ëîäêå". (7 èþëÿ 1941 ã.)".



ÐÓÑÑÊÀß ÏÐÎÌÛØËÅÍÍÎÑÒÜ. Ñ ãðóïïîé àìåðèêàíñêèõ æóðíàëèñòîâ ÿ ïîñåòèë 5 ãîðîäîâ, ãäå îñìîòðåë êðóïíåéøèå ïðåäïðèÿòèÿ: òðàêòîðíûé çàâîä (12 òûñ. ðàáîòàþùèõ), çàâîä ýëåêòðîäâèãàòåëåé (38 òûñ. ðàáî÷èõ), Äíåïðîãýñ, àëþìèíèåâûé çàâîä (3 òûñ. ðàáî÷èõ), êîòîðûé ñ÷èòàåòñÿ êðóïíåéøèì â ìèðå, Çàïîðîæñòàëü (35 òûñ. ðàáî÷èõ), áîëüíèöó (18 âðà÷åé è 120 ìåäñåñòåð), ÿñëè è äåòñêèå ñàäû, çàâîä Ðîñòñåëüìàø (16 òûñ. ðàáîòàþùèõ), Äâîðåö ïèîíåðîâ (çäàíèå ñ 280 ïîìåùåíèÿìè äëÿ 320 ïðåïîäàâàòåëåé è 27 òûñ. äåòåé). Ïîñëåäíåå èç ýòèõ ó÷ðåæäåíèé ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé îäíî èç íàèáîëåå èíòåðåñíûõ ÿâëåíèé â Ñîâåòñêîì Ñîþçå. Ïîäîáíûå äâîðöû âîçâîäÿòñÿ âî âñåõ êðóïíûõ ãîðîäàõ è ïðåäíàçíà÷àþòñÿ äëÿ âîïëîùåíèÿ â æèçíü ñòàëèíñêîãî ëîçóíãà î äåòÿõ êàê íàèáîëåå öåííîì äîñòîÿíèè ñòðàíû. Çäåñü ó äåòåé ðàñêðûâàþòñÿ è ðàçâèâàþòñÿ èõ äàðîâàíèÿ.

 ñîâåòñêîé ïðàêòèêå ïëàíèðîâàíèÿ áîëüøå âñåõ ïîðàæàåò ñìåëîñòü â ïðèíÿòèè ðåøåíèé è óïîðñòâî â èõ îñóùåñòâëåíèè. Ïÿòü ëåò íàçàä â ðàéîíå Çàïîðîæüÿ áûëà ãîëàÿ ñòåïü, à ñåãîäíÿ ìîæíî âèäåòü îãðîìíûå çàâîäû è ãîðîä ñ íàñåëåíèåì 125 òûñ. ÷åëîâåê, ñ ñîâðåìåííûìè êèðïè÷íûìè æèëûìè äîìàìè, øèðîêèìè óëèöàìè è ïëîùàäÿìè. Âñå ñîîðóæåíèÿ âîçâîäèëèñü ðóêàìè íåêâàëèôèöèðîâàííûõ ðàáî÷èõ, êîòîðûå ïî âå÷åðàì çàíèìàëèñü â òåõíè÷åñêèõ øêîëàõ, ÷òîáû ïî îêîí÷àíèè ñòðîèòåëüñòâà çàíÿòü ìåñòà ó ñòàíêîâ. Çäàíèÿ è îáîðóäîâàíèå â áîëüøèíñòâå ñâîåì ñàìûå ñîâðåìåííûå. Ê èõ ïðîåêòèðîâàíèþ ïðèâëåêàëèñü íà êîíêóðñíîé îñíîâå ëó÷øèå ôèðìû, ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî èç ÑØÀ, íî òàêæå èç Ãåðìàíèè, Ôðàíöèè è Àíãëèè. Áîëüøèíñòâî ðàáî÷èõ íå ñòàðøå 30 ëåò. Îáðàùàåò íà ñåáÿ âíèìàíèå ìíîãî÷èñëåííîñòü æåíùèí – îêîëî 25%. Ñðåäíèé âîçðàñò ðóêîâîäèòåëåé – ïîðÿäêà 35 ëåò. Ñðåäíÿÿ çàðïëàòà ñîñòàâëÿåò îò 200 äî 250 ðóá. (10-12 äîëë. ïî êóðñó ÷åðíîãî ðûíêà).  çàâîäñêîé ñòîëîâîé ìîæíî õîðîøî ïîîáåäàòü çà 2 ðóáëÿ (10 öåíòîâ). Êâàðòïëàòà íå ïðåâûøàåò 15% îò çàðàáîòêà. Ñòàõàíîâöû ïîëó÷àþò äî 2000 ðóá., ñòîëüêî æå çàðàáàòûâàåò è äèðåêòîð.

Êàæäîå ïðåäïðèÿòèå ðàáîòàåò íà ïðèíöèïå ñàìîîêóïàåìîñòè, çàðàáîòàííûå ïðèáûëè èäóò íà ðàçëè÷íûå íóæäû, â òîì ÷èñëå íà ñòðîèòåëüñòâî øêîë, êîòîðûõ òîëüêî çà ïðîøëûé ãîä áûëî ïîñòðîåíî â Äíåïðîïåòðîâñêå 16 – áîëüøèõ çäàíèé èç áåëîãî êèðïè÷à íà 25-30 êîìíàò.

Èìåþòñÿ ñîìíåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî ñïîñîáíîñòè ïðîìûøëåííîñòè äëèòåëüíîå âðåìÿ ïîääåðæèâàòü íóæäû ôðîíòà â ñëó÷àå áîëüøîé åâðîïåéñêîé âîéíû, îäíàêî, ïî ìîåìó ìíåíèþ, ýòè ñïîñîáíîñòè ìîãóò îêàçàòüñÿ çíà÷èòåëüíî âûøå, ÷åì îæèäàåòñÿ.

 öåëîì íîâûå ïðîìûøëåííûå ðàéîíû ïðîèçâîäÿò ïîòðÿñàþùåå âïå÷àòëåíèå: ðóññêèì óäàëîñü ñäåëàòü çà 7 ëåò ñòîëüêî æå, ñêîëüêî Àìåðèêå çà 40 – íà÷èíàÿ ñ 80-õ ãîäîâ ïðîøëîãî âåêà. (12 ìàðòà 1937 ã.)"

Still think free market can did better? Perhaps you need some numbers about Stalin's industrial leap?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
He was a clinical psychopath, a classic case.

What?
Oh... it comes from a Kiwi.

[Saras]

--"Still think free market can did better?"

Depends what you mean by "better".

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC Trotsky wasn't Stalin's most serious challenger for control of the Soviet Union after Lenin's death. Wasn't the other contender for leadership a moderate? I think his name was Malinkov, but I could be wrong. It's difficult to say how the history of the Soviet Union and Europe would have evolved with the SU under a less paranoid leader. Stalin commanded an enormous expansion of the Russian economy and military, but at a tremendopus human cost. Many of his accomplishments were built by slave labor. Would the Soviet Union's industrial capacity have grown as much under a more humane leader? It's hard to say. Under less harsh rule the SU might have fallen apart or stagnated. OTOH a kinder hand might have inspired people to even greater heights. A more moderate leader though might have not emphasized military power as much a Stalin, but under better rule the soldiers might have fought better.

[Serb]

Depends what you mean by "better".

I mean the preparation to war for survival of course.

The creation of industrial base to produce weapons to defend the country from agressors within extremely short time.
The creation of food base for needs of future war (before Stalin, Russia was an agarian country with 80% of citizens being peasants. Two peasants hardly could feed one urban citizen. After Stalin's collectivization one peasant feeded 7 urban citizens, so kolhozes were damn effective), within extremely short time.
The creation of high- tech base (T-34, KV-2, IL-2, Katusha, anyone?), within extremely short time.

That's what I mean.

[Hurricane]

Of course, US ambassador Davies' impressions are utterly worthless, since the Russians only showed him the best successes, and also in these cases polished everything to make it look good. You could just as well show some propaganda painting and say "see here how well-fed and happy everyone is". Besides, who cares if a factory is (drumbeat) "the biggest in the world"? Only in megalomaniac dictatorships is size a goal in itself.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
IIRC Trotsky wasn't Stalin's most serious challenger for control of the Soviet Union after Lenin's death. Wasn't the other contender for leadership a moderate? I think his name was Malinkov, but I could be wrong.

Malenkov was the head of Soviet state after the Lenin death. He had the same rank as Lenin had. He, like Lenin before his illines was the "predsedatel' soveta narodnyh komissarov"= prime minister. Stalin was one of the commisares (ministers), so formaly, Malenkov, was his boss, like previously Lenin was. So he couldn't be a challenger for power, since formally he already had this power, but since he was an incompetent moron who couldn't handle any problems, he lost his power. However he gain it again in 1953, after Stalin's death, just to lose it again to Khrushev. Oh, almost forget, he on pair with Khrushev actually killed Stalin in 1953, Stalin didn't die because of natural reasons, he was murdered. Shocking, isn't it?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Hurricane
Of course, US ambassador Davies' impressions are utterly worthless, since the Russians only showed him the best successes, and also in these cases polished everything to make it look good. You could just as well show some propaganda painting and say "see here how well-fed and happy everyone is". Besides, who cares if a factory is (drumbeat) "the biggest in the world"? Only in megalomaniac dictatorships is size a goal in itself.

Yeah, right. The Russian sources are communist's propaganda and American sources are Soviet propaganda as well.
Just what kind of f*cking sources do you need? Let me tell you, all you need are sources pulled of out of some kind of hippie ass, who is broadcasting from a galaxy far, far away, because he is being pretty high after all those drugs, such sources that claims that USSR was an evil empire, that Soviets were scum of humanity and Stalin was an alcoholic paranoid, who stored notes of his victims, wrote death warrants at nights and had eaten babies of course.

[Serb]

Eat this. I'm log-off.

[Mr. Harley]

Serb - you do your sometimes excellent posts a disservice by posting things like that. Look at how Ned and I disagree on history - we may be passionate, but we are polite. It's nice to have someone else who realizes how much of a difference hardware can make and is knowledgable but just disagree. Your previous post more easily let's people blow you off as a jerk. By the way, the BT-series of tanks were excellent tracked recon vehicles, i.e. amored cars for mud, given the time period. The problem is how they were used, main battle tank is NOT what they were good for.

Alexander's Horse has a very legitemate point. First, I hope you won't disagree that Stalin was an alcholic? That would be silly, the historical record is pretty clear on that. Now was he substantially worse than the average in the Soviet Union at the time? I don't have the data. Did he let it substantially affect his governance? Not substantially.

Was he a pyschopath - which is no longer a meaningful term in mental health in the US - was he a sociopath, as in a person with no sense of right or wrong. My comment about how he increased the number of death warrants issued with no individual in mind, JUST TO MAINTAIN THE TERROR, is pretty self-explanatory. Actually sociopath may also have been superceded, I'd have to ask my wife and she's asleep. But it all means the same. It boils down to the man was a monster.

Was he paranoid? There are VERY strong indications of that. He executed people who truly had no interest in overthrowing him, and saw conspiracies everywhere. That is typically indicative of classical paranoia. Did his executions/exiles/gulags at times hurt his industrial and war efforts. Absolutely. Could he have stayed in power without them? That becomes an interesting question. He comes to power by assassination, execution, and murder. He built a vicious feed-back loop where by the time he could have toned the "paranoia" down, so many people wanted him dead that he very well may have been unable to retreate from his "when in doubt, execute" world view. However, given the historical record, which indicates that he never even considered this quandry and it has all the hallmarks of classic paranoia.