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

[GePap]

Effective as in:

frm 1928 to 1954 he:

Got rid of all his opponents and held absolute power:

Won a world war, no matter how bloody and destructive-took the USSR form a poor state to the second superpower and second nuclear state.

Being a moral black hole and a mass murderer is one thing, yes, but all his wrongs do not actually wipe away his accomplishments.

People have to learn that being Great and being good are not the same thing at all.

[Whoha]

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

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Some blamed the staggering early losses of the USSR in WWII on Stalin, particularly on his purges. Others attributed eventual victory on Stalin's superhuman will, arguing that the USSR would have lost without the man.

What do you think?

Well, if they hadn't instituted the purges they might not have had to lose 20 million people fighting the Germans, so the "stalin's willpower" bs probably doesn't stand. Of course there was also no initial resistance to the Nazis, the Russians thought that they were liberators at first(Stalin was a bad guy.) so, just not have Stalin there probably would have seen a more formidable Soviet Union that would have been fighting from day one.

[chequita guevara]

Without Stalin, thee would have been no Nazi Germany, so the answer is an unqualified yes. It was Stalin who ordered the insane ultraleft policy of the Communists in Germany to ignore the Nazis and concentrate on defeating the "Social Fascists," i.e., the Socialists. This infighting among what should have been a united front against fascism allowed it to grow unchecked, while at the same time disgusting people with the left. The Communists considered Hitler a flash in the pan saying, First Hitler, then us, assuming he would so badly botch things up there'd be a revolution.

Arian brings up a good point, if not Stalin, who? To that I would ad, when? If Trotsky had won the struggle for power in the 1920s, it is highly unlikly that the Nazis would have come to power in Germany. Depending on when he won that struggle, it might have effected Europe even more greatly. Imagine if the USSR had backed the British General Strike. Revoluition was not out of the question in Britain in 1926. There was also a general strike in France in 1936, which had the French Communists not pulled th rug out from under it, may have been able to assume power.

Had, in spite of the Communists best efforts under Tortsky, not been able to stop Hitler, Hitler may have been confronted with Communists on both sides, who would more likely have resisted the Rhineland's remilitarization, the Anschuss, the Munich Pact, etc.

Assuming that Hitler rose to power and that Communists did not take power in Britain and France, a Trotskyist USSR would have lent much more effort to defeating the Fascists in Spain and supporting a revolution there. Spain was th first major military victory for the Germans and Italians. Had they been defeated there, they may have been more cautious about starting a war.

Trotsky would never have signed the Hitler-"Trotsky" Pact, partitioning Poland and having a non-aggression alliance. Hitler would have had to worry about a Soviet intervention on behalf of the Poles, raising the specter of Red Poland on Germany's borders.

Trtosky would not have purged the military and was also militarily intelligent. He would not have made the iditotic mistakes that Stalin made in defense of the USSR.

On the other hand, Trotsky believed in a more gradual industrialization policy nor in smashing the Kulaks. An anticommunist fifth column could easily have aided the Nazis in the Ukraine.

Assuming that Trotsky was still exiled, but that Stalin was not able to committ vote fraud to defeat Kirov, we would be in unknown territory. Kirov was an excellent politician and bureaucrat. Let us assume he was like Kruschev, but two decades earlier. He still would have pushed for strong industrialization of the USSR. He did not, however, exhibit the paranoia of Stalin. The Kulaks may not have ben destroyed, various Soviet leaders may not have been executed in show trials (Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, etc.) Tortsky may not have been killed in exile.

Kirov may well have signed a Hitler-Kirov pact, but would he have helped rearm Germany? I doubt he'd destroy the military, and he was not so meglomaniacal that he'd ignore military advice.

In either case, Trotsky or Kirov, it is likly that the USSR would have faired much better.

Gangrolf, Lenin surrendered because he had no choice. The army had ceased to exist. The USSR tried to simply declare peace on the Germans in February (the was Trotsky's idea), but after a few weeks, Germany invaded. The Russians had no choice but to accept either total German occupation or Germany's terms at Bret-Litovsk.

Trotsky was not Lenin's boy. Trotsky was Trotsky's boy. He and Lenin were allies. Neither was subservient to the other.

[Whoha]

And everyone, about industry, the US built thousands of long range strategic bombers during this period, the USSR didn't have any until the 50s. Then there was the ship building, and tanks. We clobbered them in terms of industry, but that was because we had 1865-1941 to build up.still, that period was longer then the soviet Union lasted so we have no means of comparision between the two.

[GePap]

The soviets build no long range strategic bombers cause they had no need for them-not becuase they couldn;t. Yes, the US had far more industry, becuase as you pointed out, it begun far far ahead.

As for there being no Nazi Germnay without Stalin-why? facist anti-communism would still be around no matter who was the leader of the communists.

[chequita guevara]

See my editted post.

[lord of the mark]

as with all alt history, you need a Point of departure, and a timeline.

Lets leave out timelines in which an alt Soviet Leader causes revolution in the west - i dont think thats close to what the first poster was getting at. and it opens up too many butterfly effects - if Trotskyt in this ATL supports revolution in say France, does that give us a fascist France? Fighting a Social Democrat Germany? Does a Socialist France, or Germany, remain friendly with the USSR, or do we get something like the Sino soviet split, and when. Its way to complex.


Lets assume a more moderate alt-Stalin - no forced draft industrialization. Should have better relations with the West though - both cause hes less frightening, and cause without such large scale heavy industry he HAS to. So the diplomacy of the thirties plays out very differently, and possibly there is no WW2.

Its very difficult to see anyone maintaining Stalins diplomatic posture 1933-1939 without the heavy industry to back it up.

Or lets try a different POD. Stalin is deposed at the time of the show trials, in 1936, by some "old Bolsheviks" The worst of the atrocities associated with forced draft industrialization are done, so they can wipe their hands. They will keep some Gulags, (these are nasty guys) but will gradually reduce it, though probably not as fast as Khruschev. Most importantly they wont purge the army. USSR should do better against Finland, assuming that still happens. Germany may still invade - i think it was more racist theory than performance that caused the underestimation of the USSR - after all one could at the time understand that they were recovering from the purges. Presumably this will cause a better defense in summer of '41, though its not clear if some of the mistakes will not happen anyway.

[Barinthus]

This reminds me of Command and Conquer: Red Alert - what if Hilter never achieved power after his release from the prison?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap
The soviets build no long range strategic bombers cause they had no need for them-not becuase they couldn;t. Yes, the US had far more industry, becuase as you pointed out, it begun far far ahead.

As for there being no Nazi Germnay without Stalin-why? facist anti-communism would still be around no matter who was the leader of the communists.

they couldn't deliver a weapon to us until the 1950s when they did build them though.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
This reminds me of Command and Conquer: Red Alert - what if Hilter never achieved power after his release from the prison?

tesla tanks

[Ben Kenobi]

Trotsky. I think he would have done a better job in keeping the Soviet Union out of war with Germany, and developing the economy without the brutal repressions of Stalin.

[Bosh]

Gangrolf, Lenin surrendered because he had no choice. The army had ceased to exist. The USSR tried to simply declare peace on the Germans in February (the was Trotsky's idea), but after a few weeks, Germany invaded.

And an amazingly stupid idea that was too, doesn't give me much confidence in Trotsky being able to wend his way through 1930's diplomacy effectively.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you have no army, I suppose that gives you lots of diplomatic leverage. A fairer comparision would see how Trotsky would do after the death of Lenin.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boshko

And an amazingly stupid idea that was too, doesn't give me much confidence in Trotsky being able to wend his way through 1930's diplomacy effectively.

First off, the German terms were horrendous (the surrender of Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic states) to the Germans. This meant, among other things, betraying the comrades in the Baltics and the Ukraine, where an independent Ukrainian Red state had been set up. It also meant being seen as German agents in the eyes of the workers around the world (as Gangerolf just argued) and damaging the cause of international socialism. Finally, they hoped the longer they stalled, the greater the chance of a German revolution.

At first, the Germans were flummoxed. The Bolsheviks simply declared the war over and walked away. The Germans were like, you can't do that, and after a month of trying to figure out what to do, they invaded. But this showed the world that the Bolsheviks weren't simply German puppets, that they had tried to do something besides surrender. Declaring peace was a political move, and not something they seriously believed would work.

[Serb]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
I'm sure that USSR would have fared better since Stalin purged the military of its brightest and best officers.

BULL****.
Brightest and best officers, my ass. Who were these brilliant officers you are talking about?
Tukhachevsky perhaps? The moron who agitated for universal guns (infanry/anti-tank/anti-aircraft gun in a single package), who agitated for warfare without reserves, who is famous for creation of armada of absolutely idiotic tanks like slow, unreliable, poorly armored, but heavy T-35 monsters with 5 turrets, their smaller version T-28 (three turrets), fast tanks of BT series that could travel up to 80 kmph, but almost had no armor- the ****load of crap that Germans destroyed within first months of war easily. The same with planes. And it would be the same with artillery had he stayed in charge a bit longer. Famous Soviet engineer - Grabin, the author of the most successful Soviet gun designs, including 76mm divisional gun, said about Tukhachevsky- "another ten years of his rule, and he would destroy our artillery completely".
Tukhachevsky is not famous for his victories (simply because he did not achieve any), but for his f*ck-up during 1920-1921 Russian-Polish war, which cost Soviets victory, his insane views on future warfare (like warfare without reserves), and his f*ck-ups with armaments he ordered for Red Army.
Anyone who thinks that he was one of the brightest and best Red Army's officers, really needs to read something about this person first. This "brillant", my ass, strategist din't have any military education and started as ensign in Tsarist's army and remained ensign all his life, regardless he had a rank of feildmarshal and called himself a genius and "Red marshal". He was just an incompetent ensign and a traitor of course.

Who else? Bluher? This alkoholic who completely buried the discipline in Far East military district?
Who were these brilliant officers you are talking about?
Names please?

Russians, based on my observations throughout their history, have been a very resilent country and they seems to be willing to do whatever it takes to ensure their Motherland's survival. Human waves, sorched-earth tactics, and so on.

Yeah, right. Human waves, scorched-earth, Russian hordes, etc. etc. etc...

... ****...

... to your knowledge:

1) In 1941 Germans forces outnumbered Soviet forces located on western front. (Hordes argument).
2) When Germans retreated they usually left only ruins. (Scorched-earth tactics argument).
3) It was Germans who first started to use special punishing compaies behind main troop faormations, to prevent non-sunctioned retreating.