Stalin commits suicide June 23,1941

[Johnrankins]

Stalin was said to have been in shock and very depressed after hearing about the invasion, what if he went so far as to kill himself the next day?

[Dan Reilly The Great]

I think stalin was too egotistical and narcissistic to kill himself, but then again stalin's psychological makeup isn't one of my specialties.

[Wolfpaw]

The Soviet hierarchy would have covered it up and continued the war. Molotov would probably have replaced him, having served as premier until only a few years before the war.

Eventually the would have thought of some cock-and-bull story about how he had a heart attack at his desk while working or something like that. Stalin would be remembered as a minor tyrant, whereas Molotov (who lived until 88) would probably have been regarded instead as the Soviet dictator.

So long as Stalin isn't killed/captured by the Germans, the Soviets would have had enough morale to continue the war.

[Wolfpaw]

I think stalin was too egotistical and narcissistic to kill himself, but then again stalin's psychological makeup isn't one of my specialties.


And yes, he was too cowardly to kill himself.

[Germaniac]

Now what would happen if Stalin is captured by German forces

[Johnrankins]

And yes, he was too cowardly to kill himself.

You don't have to be brave to kill yourself, it is an easy way out. I think it is unlikely but possible.

[Readman]

Quite possibly a show trial, something many of his victims were subject to
http://scrutinyhooligans.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/irony-meter.jpg

[Derek Jackson]

If the plan were for Stalin to be forced into suicide the trick would be for the people offering him the choice to give him the alternatives of going to the front and letting himself die or the show trial and maybe a rather imaginative form of execution.

The news is that Stalin died defending the motherland.

[Aleks]

Stalin was far more likely to be arrested and purged by his "comrades" in the Politburo than commit suicide. In fact, when the Politburo came to see him at his dacha, he was initially convinced they had come to arrest him...Unfortunately, they only came to urge him to return to the Kremlin and resume command, which he did. What if he wasn't up to it?

POD: 1941
1941, late June: Following the German invasion of the USSR, Stalin suffers a nervous breakdown and is arrested at his dacha outside Moscow by the Politburo when he proves incapable of command. He is quickly tried and executed in secret. His death is then blamed on a fictitious attack by German paratroopers on a suicide mission, in order to stir up popular anger against the invaders.
1941-1945: General Georgi Zhukov, Nikita Khrushchev, Lavrentii Beria, and Georgi Malenkov emerge as the de facto rulers of the USSR, representing, respectively, the military, the party, the secret police, and the government.
Without one supreme leader, disagreements and frictions reduce the effectiveness of the new Soviet collegial leadership in the early stages of Barbarossa. The Germans make better progress due to weaker Soviet command and control.

The German capture of Moscow in late 1941 fatally weakens the prestige and power of the CPSU, the government, and the NKVD, leaving the military as the last national institution supported by the people.
Zhukov emerges as the most authoritative military commander and slowly becomes first among equals, especially following the liberation of Moscow and the drive west from 1943 onwards.
The inevitable postwar political struggle ends with the triumph of the Zhukov-Khrushchev alliance over the “anti-state” group of Beria, Malenkov, Kaganovich, Molotov, and others, followed by Zhukov’s exposure of the true story of Stalin’s death, denunciation of Khrushchev, Beria, the CPSU and the KGB, and de facto military takeover of the USSR. By 1950, Zhukov is Minister of Defense, Chair of the Council of Ministers, and General Secretary of the Motherland Movement, which replaces the CPSU en masse and promotes military-patriotic Soviet nationalism. The USSR is renamed the Commonwealth of Allied Sovereign Republics (SSSR in the Russian), but with the Russian military still in control of the 15 republics and the Motherland party.
Zhukov promotes a technocratic meritocracy that allows the rise of Kosygin, Voznesensky, Kuznetsov and other economic reformers purged or sidelined IOTL. As a result, the USSR slowly reforms its economy along social democratic/European welfarist lines between 1950-1970, and opens its economy gradually to international trade. Rising incomes and standards of living and decreasing repression increase popular support for Zhukov’s regime. In the 1970s, the first competitive elections are allowed and a multiparty system emerges, dominated at first by the Motherland Party, now recast as a social-patriotic movement.
Zhukov dies in 1974 but his successors maintain his pro-military/technocratic/pragmatic policies.
Foreign Policy: Zhukov agrees to unification of a permanently neutral and demilitarized Germany and Austria in 1955, after which Soviet and Allied troops leave both. The remaining Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe, imposed after the initial Soviet conquest of the area, fall in 1956 after Zhukov renounces the use of force; Polish, Hungarian, and Czech uprisings sweep Stalinists from power that year. Romania and Bulgaria follow soon afterwards. Reduced Cold War tensions with the West lead to earlier and fuller East/West détente from 1960 onwards, allowing for a smaller arms race.
As a result, the CSSR enters the 21st century as a truly federal state enjoying good relations with Western Europe and the United States and a healthy public/private economy with mixed forms of ownership. Robust Russian/CSSR space exploration efforts – which include a Moon landing in 1970, a permanent space station by the 1980s, and a mission to Mars in the late 1990s - lead to the CASR becoming a founding member of the UN Extraterrestrial Development Authority (UNEDA).

[Typo]

And yes, he was too cowardly to kill himself.You can accuse Stalin of genocide, incompetence, and treason, but you cannot accuse him of cowardice. This was the man who stayed in Moscow when the Wehrmacht was within sight of the Kremlin.

[Aleks]

I agree that Stalin is not likely to commit suicide due to any personal cowardice. Remember, the man was an enthusiastic armed bank robber for the Bolsheviks before the revolution. He was notorious in Bolshevik circles for his "expropriations," armed bank robberies, often with casualties. Plus he spent years on the run as an underground agitator and Party activist before 1917, and escaped from Siberian exile...not the cowardly type, for all his billion other faults. Please don't take any of the above as an attempt to whitewash the man...I think he was the greatest monster of the 20th century, he certainly killed more people than Hitler and ruined Russia for good (just look at it now, more than 55 years after his death).

[Urban fox]

The Soviet hierarchy would have covered it up and continued the war. Molotov would probably have replaced him, having served as premier until only a few years before the war.

Eventually the would have thought of some cock-and-bull story about how he had a heart attack at his desk while working or something like that. Stalin would be remembered as a minor tyrant, whereas Molotov (who lived until 88) would probably have been regarded instead as the Soviet dictator.

So long as Stalin isn't killed/captured by the Germans, the Soviets would have had enough morale to continue the war.Molotov was less bloody than Stalin or at least less paranoid but he lived until 1985 that’s 40+ years at the top if he stays in power, and it must be said from all accounts he kept his mental faculties and was spry in his old age.

A TL with Molotov as leader for 40-odd years would be interesting one was a rigid hardliner but no a dullard as some have claimed, and Molotov wouldnt screw up the war-effort by thinking himself a grand-strategist like Stalin during thing like the Khar'kov farce.

Then there the post-war butterflies...

[grdja83]

Stalin was far more likely to be arrested and purged by his "comrades" in the Politburo than commit suicide. In fact, when the Politburo came to see him at his dacha, he was initially convinced they had come to arrest him...Unfortunately, they only came to urge him to return to the Kremlin and resume command, which he did. What if he wasn't up to it?

POD: 1941
1941, late June: Following the German invasion of the USSR, Stalin suffers a nervous breakdown and is arrested at his dacha outside Moscow by the Politburo when he proves incapable of command. He is quickly tried and executed in secret. His death is then blamed on a fictitious attack by German paratroopers on a suicide mission, in order to stir up popular anger against the invaders.
1941-1945: General Georgi Zhukov, Nikita Khrushchev, Lavrentii Beria, and Georgi Malenkov emerge as the de facto rulers of the USSR, representing, respectively, the military, the party, the secret police, and the government.
Without one supreme leader, disagreements and frictions reduce the effectiveness of the new Soviet collegial leadership in the early stages of Barbarossa. The Germans make better progress due to weaker Soviet command and control.

The German capture of Moscow in late 1941 fatally weakens the prestige and power of the CPSU, the government, and the NKVD, leaving the military as the last national institution supported by the people.
Zhukov emerges as the most authoritative military commander and slowly becomes first among equals, especially following the liberation of Moscow and the drive west from 1943 onwards.
The inevitable postwar political struggle ends with the triumph of the Zhukov-Khrushchev alliance over the “anti-state” group of Beria, Malenkov, Kaganovich, Molotov, and others, followed by Zhukov’s exposure of the true story of Stalin’s death, denunciation of Khrushchev, Beria, the CPSU and the KGB, and de facto military takeover of the USSR. By 1950, Zhukov is Minister of Defense, Chair of the Council of Ministers, and General Secretary of the Motherland Movement, which replaces the CPSU en masse and promotes military-patriotic Soviet nationalism. The USSR is renamed the Commonwealth of Allied Sovereign Republics (SSSR in the Russian), but with the Russian military still in control of the 15 republics and the Motherland party.
Zhukov promotes a technocratic meritocracy that allows the rise of Kosygin, Voznesensky, Kuznetsov and other economic reformers purged or sidelined IOTL. As a result, the USSR slowly reforms its economy along social democratic/European welfarist lines between 1950-1970, and opens its economy gradually to international trade. Rising incomes and standards of living and decreasing repression increase popular support for Zhukov’s regime. In the 1970s, the first competitive elections are allowed and a multiparty system emerges, dominated at first by the Motherland Party, now recast as a social-patriotic movement.
Zhukov dies in 1974 but his successors maintain his pro-military/technocratic/pragmatic policies.
Foreign Policy: Zhukov agrees to unification of a permanently neutral and demilitarized Germany and Austria in 1955, after which Soviet and Allied troops leave both. The remaining Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe, imposed after the initial Soviet conquest of the area, fall in 1956 after Zhukov renounces the use of force; Polish, Hungarian, and Czech uprisings sweep Stalinists from power that year. Romania and Bulgaria follow soon afterwards. Reduced Cold War tensions with the West lead to earlier and fuller East/West détente from 1960 onwards, allowing for a smaller arms race.
As a result, the CSSR enters the 21st century as a truly federal state enjoying good relations with Western Europe and the United States and a healthy public/private economy with mixed forms of ownership. Robust Russian/CSSR space exploration efforts – which include a Moon landing in 1970, a permanent space station by the 1980s, and a mission to Mars in the late 1990s - lead to the CASR becoming a founding member of the UN Extraterrestrial Development Authority (UNEDA).

Way to good to be anything but pure ASB, but it would be one hell of a sweet timeline.

[Peter]

I think stalin was too egotistical and narcissistic to kill himself, but then again stalin's psychological makeup isn't one of my specialties.

The politburo was afraid he might kill himself after his wife did so.

[Johnrankins]

And they certainly knew Stalin better than anyone here does. I think that it was unlikely but possible for him to do so. The USSR is in much better shape in 1942-1943 than OTL. Molotov wasn't as crazy as Stalin was and wouldn't have been in a strong enough of a position to challange his generals.

[Hyperion]

Way to good to be anything but pure ASB, but it would be one hell of a sweet timeline.

Hardly, at least the stuff happening during and soon after the war.

If Stalin is outed, it is quite likely that there will be a power struggle until a definite replacement comes to the top. Zhukov is someone who could pull that off. He had the intelligence, the know how, and the guts to do things.

I would say that without Stalin sitting at the top keeping an eye on everyone else, Zhukov would probably have Beria removed, either politically forcing him into retirement, or having him executed.

[Derek Jackson]

Hitler was not a physical coward, see his role in ww1. However when he thougth all was finished he killed himself. If Stalin thought that he was finished, and he maybe came near to that, wel...

[Johnrankins]

Hardly, at least the stuff happening during and soon after the war.

If Stalin is outed, it is quite likely that there will be a power struggle until a definite replacement comes to the top. Zhukov is someone who could pull that off. He had the intelligence, the know how, and the guts to do things.

I would say that without Stalin sitting at the top keeping an eye on everyone else, Zhukov would probably have Beria removed, either politically forcing him into retirement, or having him executed.

I would bet on Molotov not Zukov. The Communist Party did try to limit Red Army influence on politics. They didn't want to risk being ousted by one of their generals.

[Lord Brisbane]

They could just say he died inspecting a Tractor Factory or something.http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/364/jaby2.gif

[Earling]

There always seems to be the idea that the government of the Soviet Union, a composite of people many of which actively hated each other, would pull together in the face of the German attack. I tend to take the opposite track.

The Red Army is still gutted by the combination of the purges and the fact it is in the process of being cut to peices in the field. It is 1941 not 1945 and Zhukov and the other officiers who are not in jail are political nobodies. Even if they launch a coup who exactly will be rushing to side with them? Beria is also in all likelyhood going to be far more ruthless. If the generals even look like they are planning something then Molotov, Mikoyan, Malenkov etc will very quickly concur with Beria that they have to be put down and put down hard. The simplest, and a hardly implausable, way to deal with Zhukov would be to send him to the front. If that occurs it is hardly improbable that he is destroyed with the Red Army, or atleast his reputation would be shattered, which I think barring extreme handwaving is largely unavoidable atleast with a POD this late and of this nature.

At the same time I doubt relations between the successors shall be warm, or put aside for the sake of the Soviet Union. I cannot believe a war is going to be well fought while political leaders are actively plotting against each other. Once probable consequence shall be that any general who shows the least bit of initiative will be treated with even more suspicion as these politicians are even less secure in their power than Stalin was.

Finally if Moscow falls in 1941 then I think any detailed timeline which has the USSR survive, let alone win the war, is extremely suspect. Its always "oh the Soviets strike back sometime in late 1942 and 1943 because.. er.. well they just do okay? They did in OTL after all. Screw geography, material limitations, considerations of strategy and so on and so forth..."

[Johnrankins]

I think they would pull together fairly quickly. They might have hated each other but they knew they would be up against the wall if they didn't win. Khruzchev consolidated his power fairly quickly after Stalins death and the USSR wasn't in nearly as desperate straights.

[The Red]

I think they would pull together fairly quickly. They might have hated each other but they knew they would be up against the wall if they didn't win. Khruzchev consolidated his power fairly quickly after Stalins death and the USSR wasn't in nearly as desperate straights.

Granted but by then the Soviet Union was one of the worlds Superpowers not in the midst of what seemed to be its deathrows.

[Earling]

I think they would pull together fairly quickly. They might have hated each other but they knew they would be up against the wall if they didn't win. Khruzchev consolidated his power fairly quickly after Stalins death and the USSR wasn't in nearly as desperate straights.

I would argue that its actually easier to have politics when you don't have much to concern yourself with. You can get on with the plotting, have Beria liquidated, ease out the older members, a good number of whom had died off between Stalin's death and the end of the War in anycase, and generally exert your authority.

In this case you have a major war going on. In a system as centralised as the Soviet Union someone has to be saying where troops are to be sent, where guns and butter are to be deployed, what factories are to make and so on and so forth. This isn't a simple process and certainly not one which can comfortably run in the background while the leadership gets out the knives to fight over who is in command. The truely optimistic belief which is sometimes offered in scenarios like this is that somehow the Soviets will just cease meddling and leave the war to the Red Army, but that is no more realistic than a belief that politicians for any of the powers would let their generals get on with the war as they saw fit.

So you have a dillema here, because while politicians will demand hands on control over all elements of the war and be extremely opposed to individual initiative, they will at the same time be deeply concerned about sticking their own necks out. Afterall, if you get pinned with the responsibility of some military debacle, and it was becoming clear quite quickly that things were going badly wrong across the front, then it will likely spell the end of your career if not your life. Stalin could play the leader and take responsibility for commands and if things went wrong he could simply blame and remove some subbordinates. In this instance I don't think anyone of the big names has the power to take on the role, and if anyone tries they are likely to gather the opposition of opposing factions.

All in all we have OTL. Stalin had his breakdown and irrespective of whether you think it was partly for effect his control over the government had never previously been so damaged. Rather than someone leaping to take control of the reigns of government all the potential actors were somewhere between confused inactivity and terrified displays of loyalty. Okay I suppose there is a slight difference between Stalin rambling in his dacha and actually dead, but it is surely evidence of the influence Stalin had over these people.

Perhaps I have too pessimistic. Its possible that Beria might briefly overawe Molotov and some of the rest into accepting a State Defence Commitee which grants him considerable powers but is still something of a comprimise. With Stalin dead however Beria's position is less secure and the Politburu may well push back.

You also have to account for the fact that all the while this politicing is going on the Red Army is presumerably being cut apart as per OTL and disaster after disaster is taking place.

[Johnrankins]

I would argue that its actually easier to have politics when you don't have much to concern yourself with. You can get on with the plotting, have Beria liquidated, ease out the older members, a good number of whom had died off between Stalin's death and the end of the War in anycase, and generally exert your authority.

In this case you have a major war going on. In a system as centralised as the Soviet Union someone has to be saying where troops are to be sent, where guns and butter are to be deployed, what factories are to make and so on and so forth. This isn't a simple process and certainly not one which can comfortably run in the background while the leadership gets out the knives to fight over who is in command. The truely optimistic belief which is sometimes offered in scenarios like this is that somehow the Soviets will just cease meddling and leave the war to the Red Army, but that is no more realistic than a belief that politicians for any of the powers would let their generals get on with the war as they saw fit.

So you have a dillema here, because while politicians will demand hands on control over all elements of the war and be extremely opposed to individual initiative, they will at the same time be deeply concerned about sticking their own necks out. Afterall, if you get pinned with the responsibility of some military debacle, and it was becoming clear quite quickly that things were going badly wrong across the front, then it will likely spell the end of your career if not your life. Stalin could play the leader and take responsibility for commands and if things went wrong he could simply blame and remove some subbordinates. In this instance I don't think anyone of the big names has the power to take on the role, and if anyone tries they are likely to gather the opposition of opposing factions.

All in all we have OTL. Stalin had his breakdown and irrespective of whether you think it was partly for effect his control over the government had never previously been so damaged. Rather than someone leaping to take control of the reigns of government all the potential actors were somewhere between confused inactivity and terrified displays of loyalty. Okay I suppose there is a slight difference between Stalin rambling in his dacha and actually dead, but it is surely evidence of the influence Stalin had over these people.

Perhaps I have too pessimistic. Its possible that Beria might briefly overawe Molotov and some of the rest into accepting a State Defence Commitee which grants him considerable powers but is still something of a comprimise. With Stalin dead however Beria's position is less secure and the Politburu may well push back.

You also have to account for the fact that all the while this politicing is going on the Red Army is presumerably being cut apart as per OTL and disaster after disaster is taking place.

I think Molotov would have a decent chance at getting people behind him fairly quickly as he was the heir apparent at this time. The various players would all know that they HAVE to get behind someone fairly quickly or they are all dead. That motivates cooperation greatly.;)

[SeanPdineen]

What about Vorishilov, the man may not have been a smart stragetist but he understood how to survive?
Also, has anyone figured an NKVD, Army struggle simmlar to the SS and the Milatary in the Reich

[Aleks]

Voroshilov was a dunce, count him out. He knew how to survive because he was a lackey of Stalin's...no one respected him, plus they'd blame him for a lot of the initial mistakes in 1941. He'd be gone.

Beria is the man to watch. Very smart and even more ambitious, runs the interior ministry and the secret policy, has lots of his own ideas how to run things (i.e., take the party and the military down a few notches). He was planning to arrest the politburo and take over in June 1953 when they beat him to the punch.

[SeanPdineen]

Thanks. When you say had his own ideas? Do you mean Beria, wanted to limit the party's role, or take it in another direction?

[Wolfpaw]

You can accuse Stalin of genocide, incompetence, and treason, but you cannot accuse him of cowardice. This was the man who stayed in Moscow when the Wehrmacht was within sight of the Kremlin.

That's because he was paralyzed by indecision.

[Readman]

I don't think Beria so much, the man was a notorious sadist and pervert and though powerful in his state offices most of the other services were appalled by his behaviors, and look how long he survived after the Vozhd died OTL, I think perhaps it would revert to a party-army-industry Troika once the dust settled, though I could be mistaken entirely. Cheers :)

[Tobit]

Thanks. When you say had his own ideas? Do you mean Beria, wanted to limit the party's role, or take it in another direction?

I thinks it pretty impossible to know what exactly Berias ideas for rulership was. But the one thing is that he was a ruthless and efficient power grabber. In OTL upon Stalin's real death Beria grabbed the reins of power for 100 days before his execution by Kruschev and the Generals.

What Aleks was saying was that Beria would also be a contender for power. Potentially against Molotov. My problem with that is that Beria really thrived and gained the most power was under Stalin. I don't think that Beria seized the power he did without the support of Stalin. So perhaps with a less depraved Stalin running around Molotov might have the sense to destroy Beria when he can.

[Wolfpaw]

Finally if Moscow falls in 1941 then I think any detailed timeline which has the USSR survive, let alone win the war, is extremely suspect. Its always "oh the Soviets strike back sometime in late 1942 and 1943 because.. er.. well they just do okay? They did in OTL after all. Screw geography, material limitations, considerations of strategy and so on and so forth..."

You have to recall that the greater part of the Soviet hierarchy and administration had been evacuated to Kuybyshev, and the German Army was stretched to the limit. Moscow would have only yielded a propaganda victory, though the Soviet leadership would easily have recovered from it by comparing it to Napoleon's taking of Moscow.

The point is that the USSR would in all likelihood have survived since they not only expected to lose Moscow by that point, but they still controlled the Caucasian oil that the Germans would have needed to complete the conquest of Russia.

If Stalin were captured, however, or it was revealed he was dead, you could easily see the USSR disintegrate since the people would have almost completely given up hope. I mean, how would you feel if you heard your god had just died?

[Wolfpaw]

My problem with that is that Beria really thrived and gained the most power was under Stalin. I don't think that Beria seized the power he did without the support of Stalin. So perhaps with a less depraved Stalin running around Molotov might have the sense to destroy Beria when he can.

Beria got to where he was by sucking up to Stalin and playing the "we're both Caucasian" card while alienating basically everyone else. Stalin's court hated Beria, and Stalin knew this and played it to his advantage while alive. In fact, the only time Khrushchev and the Stalinists joined forces was to get rid of Beria.

If Stalin dies during the war, the chances of Molotov and the hardliners taking power is very much possible. In fact one of the primary reasons they lost the power struggle with Khrushchev was because Stalin spent his final years undermining them because in his paranoia he thought they were going to betray him.

As for Zhukov...the man was a general and not a member of the court. Members from every faction would have joined to stop a military man from taking power, and they would have won, especially if they still had the NKVD on their side.

[xt828]

I think that an important difference between 1941 and 1953 with regard to Beria's power is the role of the internal security organs, the NKVD and NKGB. In 1953, both had been out from under the control of Beria's Georgian Mafia since 1946, and Abakumov was being groomed by Stalin as a rival to Beria and had taken steps to remove quite a significant portion of the pro-Beria group from important positions. In 1941, Beria himself leads the NKVD with an iron grip, and the NKGB is under his control via Merkulov, a Beria loyalist. Additionally, in Stalin's final days he took steps to initiate another purge, the so-called "Doctors Purge", which undermined Beria by targeting groups he had traditionally worked with and promoted, like Jews.IIRC the Red Army in 1941 still has dual control, which gives the internal security forces even more power.

In 1941, then, Beria is in a much stronger position to Do Something. He can act decisively and effectively undermine and eliminate the competition. Whether he's up to winning the war is another question.

[Wolfpaw]

Beria would never be able to purge the whole Politburo, even in 1941, even with Stalin dead. Nobody would stand for it. If it happened, that's when Zhukov or somebody would step in and take over.

Everybody hated Beria and they would never have allowed him to grab power. The GRU was still strong and would be more than happy to get rid of Beria and his NKVD stooges. Hell, most NKVD chiefs probably would have jumped at the chance. Remember, Yezhov was barely two years out of the picture; Beria wasn't that entrenched yet.

[ryackov]

Voroshilov was a dunce, count him out. He knew how to survive because he was a lackey of Stalin's...no one respected him, plus they'd blame him for a lot of the initial mistakes in 1941. He'd be gone.

Beria is the man to watch. Very smart and even more ambitious, runs the interior ministry and the secret policy, has lots of his own ideas how to run things (i.e., take the party and the military down a few notches). He was planning to arrest the politburo and take over in June 1953 when they beat him to the punch.
Didn't everyone thought Stalin was a nobody? Before he maneuvered himself into being the de facto leader of the Soviet Union?

The Soviet hierarchy would have covered it up and continued the war. Molotov would probably have replaced him, having served as premier until only a few years before the war.

Eventually the would have thought of some cock-and-bull story about how he had a heart attack at his desk while working or something like that. Stalin would be remembered as a minor tyrant, whereas Molotov (who lived until 88) would probably have been regarded instead as the Soviet dictator.

So long as Stalin isn't killed/captured by the Germans, the Soviets would have had enough morale to continue the war.
Minor tyrant? He killed millions though the exact number's debatable, and many were arguable through incompetence and overly high quotas for grain and arrests for traitors. Molotov would be the one remembered as a minor tyrant, like Brezhnev.

Besides, you have to subtract quite a few years when people become leaders from the strain of ruling. Especially totalitarian dictators who are worried about someone else taking over.

[xt828]

But at this point, Beria is still the moderate, by comparison with Yezhov and Yagoda. Remember that Beria brought an end to the great purge, and returned the NKVD to its more usual level of oppression. The GRU got hit quite hard during said purges, losing its chief in 1937. And he doesn't have to purge the whole Politburo - he was part of the same faction as Stalin and Molotov at this point.

Speaking of, Stalin had only been Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars for a couple of months at this point, so I could see Molotov taking back that position without too much dislocation.

[Typo]

That's because he was paralyzed by indecision.In June or July, maybe, but not in November/December

[Wolfpaw]

In June or July, maybe, but not in November/December

I meant indecision as to whether or not he ought to flee Moscow for Kuybyshev. Of course he was over his initial shock of the invasion by then.

And he doesn't have to purge the whole Politburo - he was part of the same faction as Stalin and Molotov at this point.

Speaking of, Stalin had only been Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars for a couple of months at this point, so I could see Molotov taking back that position without too much dislocation.

Exactly. I don't think anybody would have been purged if Stalin were to die during the war. The Politburo knew how desperate the situation was and that infighting at the time would probably destroy them. Beria would have thrown in behind Molotov, as would just about everybody else. A power struggle between Beria and Molotov would only have taken place post-war, when both were stronger.

Minor tyrant? He killed millions though the exact number's debatable, and many were arguable through incompetence and overly high quotas for grain and arrests for traitors. Molotov would be the one remembered as a minor tyrant, like Brezhnev.

Stalin would have been regarded historically as a minor tyrant because back then (as now) we know he wasn't the person solely responsible for the horrors of collectivization. In fact, Stalin's personal responsibility pales when compared to the roles Kaganovich and Molotov played. Even the Purges we know really only got so out of hand because of Yezhov, but of course that is not to say that Stalin did not have a large role in them as well, especially when it came to the military aspect.

[raniE]

You have to recall that the greater part of the Soviet hierarchy and administration had been evacuated to Kuybyshev, and the German Army was stretched to the limit. Moscow would have only yielded a propaganda victory, though the Soviet leadership would easily have recovered from it by comparing it to Napoleon's taking of Moscow.

The point is that the USSR would in all likelihood have survived since they not only expected to lose Moscow by that point, but they still controlled the Caucasian oil that the Germans would have needed to complete the conquest of Russia.

If Stalin were captured, however, or it was revealed he was dead, you could easily see the USSR disintegrate since the people would have almost completely given up hope. I mean, how would you feel if you heard your god had just died?

I seem to recall that most raillines in the Soviet Union ran through Moscow in 1941. That would mean it would be difficult to maneuver reinforcements anywhere if the city was taken in the winter of 41. That would be a fairly substantial effect (although the USSR did recover from 45% of it's population being in occupied territory and most of the Red army being wiped out in 41).

[Wolfpaw]

I seem to recall that most raillines in the Soviet Union ran through Moscow in 1941. That would mean it would be difficult to maneuver reinforcements anywhere if the city was taken in the winter of 41. That would be a fairly substantial effect (although the USSR did recover from 45% of it's population being in occupied territory and most of the Red army being wiped out in 41).

That's a good point. But the fighting would probably have shifted south anyways, so I'm not sure how major that would be given the rail network of those other cities.

But then there's always the question of whether the Germans can hold Moscow (like how big is the garrison; how bad were they mauled in the battle, etc.) and of course, what state is the city in before/after the battle.

Anyways, I'm sure Zhukov or Shaposhnikov or Konev would have thought of something ;)

[Johnrankins]

I think if the transfer of power happens quickly it will help the Red Army. After all the leadership is less likely to interfere with the military than Stalin.

[raniE]

I think if the transfer of power happens quickly it will help the Red Army. After all the leadership is less likely to interfere with the military than Stalin.

They all interfered with the military. The red army troops did poorly in Finland partly because they had been given lots of political indoctrination but less actual combat instruction.

[Johnrankins]

They all interfered with the military. The red army troops did poorly in Finland partly because they had been given lots of political indoctrination but less actual combat instruction.

I realize that but it would be a matter of degree. Whoever took over would have had less of a hold on the army than Stalin did.

[eltf177]

Very interesting thread, I too wondered what would happen if Stalin had been arrested after disappearing for six days. Molotov does sound like a good replacement, Zhukov would have been needed at the front trying to stop the Germans.

Just what was Beria doing while Stalin disappeared? And just how easy would it have been to get rid of him at this time? Did the NKVD have any plans to get rid of him or was he just too politically powerful? If you get rid of Stalin Beria has to go as well, and what butterflies does that produce?

[Blue Max]

It should be noted that Zhukov, while showing promise, was just a capable officer. Volshirov would be the Defense Minister.

I agree that Molotov would get the nod, and he'd probably run the Soviet Union better than Stalin did to win the war. That said, in the postwar period I think there is no choice but to either purge the NKVD or face Beria having so much power that he can become General Secretary.

As for the war itself, I think Molotov has little choice but to follow Stalin's leads--gulag labor, penal brigades and NKVD political control of the armed forces are in the cards. I'm not sure where M stands on those issues (He might want to toss Kaganovich for his involvement in the gulags) but WW2 is still going to be a very brutal affair for the Soviet Union, even if the Soviets don't get unnecessarily nasty.

[burmafrd]

At that time you could not get from one side of the European USSR to the other without going through Moscow both RR and highway. Its value as a rail and road hub would be hard to exagerate.