WI: Stalin dies at any time between '38 and '41?

So most everyone agrees that Stalin massively mishandled the international situation in the lead up to the Great Patriotic War. We've discussed several times how other potential leaders who came to power instead of Stalin might have dealt with the tensions of the late '30s. I'm curious who might succeed Stalin if he died early - but not so early that the ugly edifice of Stalinism wasn't essentially complete and not so early that the Nazis aren't in place and committed to the path to war. How might any theoretical successors deal with the internal and external problems of the Soviet Union in those critical years?

What happens if Stalin dies right after the Sudeten crisis? Or how about if he dies right after the Nazi-Soviet pact is signed? Or how about if he dies after the Soviets have occupied their slice of Poland? Or what if he dies a month (or less) from Barberossa being launched?

How much chaos would a succession crisis cause in the Soviet Union in this period?

And does any successor continue Stalin's purges, or do they peter out?

fasquardon

Bump!

fasquardon

fasquardon said:

*snip*

Click to expand...

Clearly, Stalin's death immediately after Barbarossa starts would potentially be most damaging for the Soviets. If no solution is found momentarily and infighting ensued, it *might* mean a total collapse of the Soviet war effort. On the other, hand, everyone would have had a stake in leaving the matter at rest for the time being and take care of the most immediate problem - their very lives.

Forming of some sort of Presidium with a nominal chief (Kalinin, Molotov or someone along these lines) would probably emerge as the temporary solution. After a small scale dislocation, the Soviets would be able to proceed to fight the war, maybe even avoiding some of the mistakes Stalin forced upon them in the winter '41/42 and summer '42.

As the Soviet policy was mostly based upon cold weighing of the facts and realpolitik, with their basic interests unchanged, in the event of Stalin's earlier death and prior to Barbarossa, things would most likely proceed as IOTL.

The basic incentive for M-R pact is still there, Allied reluctance to put their trust in the Soviet regime is still there, whether there is Stalin or not.

Shaby said:

Clearly, Stalin's death immediately after Barbarossa starts would potentially be most damaging for the Soviets.

Forming of some sort of Presidium with a nominal chief (Kalinin, Molotov or someone along these lines) would probably emerge as the temporary solution. After a small scale dislocation, the Soviets would be able to proceed to fight the war, maybe even avoiding some of the mistakes Stalin forced upon them

As the Soviet policy was mostly based upon cold weighing of the facts and realpolitik, with their basic interests unchanged, in the event of Stalin's earlier death and prior to Barbarossa, things would most likely proceed as IOTL.

The basic incentive for M-R pact is still there, Allied reluctance to put their trust in the Soviet regime is still there, whether there is Stalin or not.

Click to expand...

without Stalin during Barbarossa might some of the republics seek their own terms? certainly their clients in Mongolia and Sinkiang might?

his death occurs earlier the Presidium probably offers even better terms to Germans to continue partnership? (i.e. no claims on Bulgaria, more oil, etc.)

Mishandled? He seemed to do pretty well all things considered. Heck, he actively sabotaged the Spanish so that he could take their stuff, kill off opposing Leftists, and make it so people underestimated the Soviets. People for some reason hesitated to ally with him or let Soviets travel through their territory to fight the Germans though. Would any successor be seem as more trustworthy?

thaddeus said:

without Stalin during Barbarossa might some of the republics seek their own terms? certainly their clients in Mongolia and Sinkiang might?

Click to expand...

With whom? The Germans?!? The Germans (well, Hitler) were not very disposed to listen to the terms offered... Not unlike this.

thaddeus said:

his death occurs earlier the Presidium probably offers even better terms to Germans to continue partnership? (i.e. no claims on Bulgaria, more oil, etc.)

Click to expand...

Details may vary, but Barbarossa goes pretty much on schedule. It was a cornerstone of the Nazi ideology.

Shaby said:

As the Soviet policy was mostly based upon cold weighing of the facts and realpolitik, with their basic interests unchanged, in the event of Stalin's earlier death and prior to Barbarossa, things would most likely proceed as IOTL.

Click to expand...

I'm not at all sure it would - Stalin seems to have been heavily invested in keeping good relations with Germany and in seeing the Germans in the best light. A different leader would almost certainly be less trusting (though whether that results in different policy before Barberossa hits is another question).

If Stalin died after M-R, then his successor might not suffer the days (weeks) of nervous breakdown that paralyzed Stalin after Hitler invaded.

If Stalin dies only just before the invasion, then different leadership allowing Soviet forces to retreat in the face of the German onslaught would preserve enormous numbers of men and equipment from German capture.

If Stalin dies a year or so before Barberossa is launched, not only could we see Soviets deliveries to the Germans end when the Germans stopped their deliveries to the Soviets, but almost certainly we see a wiser disposition of forces when the Germans cross the border.

I wonder if we might see de-Stalinization during the Great Patriotic war in such a situation? Certainly I think there would be pressure for the new leadership to discredit the old leadership and pin the blame for leading the Soviets into the bloody war on Stalin and/or his underlings, otherwise they'll face the danger of being blamed for losing Stalin's peace with Germany...

Either way, no Stalin at the helm of the country in 1941 and after will mean much less cult of personality to overcome later on. Most of the cult of personality took root during the war as people fought for "Stalin and the Motherland".

And does anyone have any ideas for how things might change if Stalin dies right after the Sudeten crisis?

And for any of the dates we are discussing (1938, 1939, 1940 or 1941) who would succeed Stalin?

fasquardon

thaddeus said:

without Stalin during Barbarossa might some of the republics seek their own terms? certainly their clients in Mongolia and Sinkiang might?

his death occurs earlier the Presidium probably offers even better terms to Germans to continue partnership? (i.e. no claims on Bulgaria, more oil, etc.)

Click to expand...

Shaby said:

With whom? The Germans?!? The Germans (well, Hitler) were not very disposed to listen to the terms offered...

Details may vary, but Barbarossa goes pretty much on schedule. It was a cornerstone of the Nazi ideology.

Click to expand...

not terms with Germans no

"In 1942, sensing the Soviet Union's demise, he turned anti-Soviet, expelling Soviet advisors and executing many Han Communists, including Mao Zemin, Mao Zedong's brother, in hopes of securing the backing of the Kuomintang (KMT, Chinese Nationalist Party) for his continued rule. However, when the war swung in favor of the Soviet Union after the Battle of Stalingrad, Sheng attempted to expel the KMT, and requested Soviet aid in a letter to Stalin. Stalin refused to assist Sheng, and sent Sheng's letter to the KMT party leader Chiang Kai-shek as Sheng miscalculated and underestimated the KMT's extent of power. The KMT removed Sheng in August 1944."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng_Shicai

my opinion is without Stalin every general and local strongman will be looking at their options part of the reason why I suggested the ruling Presidium would try to buy off the Germans (and might be successful.)

fasquardon said:

I'm not at all sure it would - Stalin seems to have been heavily invested in keeping good relations with Germany and in seeing the Germans in the best light. A different leader would almost certainly be less trusting (though whether that results in different policy before Barberossa hits is another question).

If Stalin died after M-R, then his successor might not suffer the days (weeks) of nervous breakdown that paralyzed Stalin after Hitler invaded.

If Stalin dies only just before the invasion, then different leadership allowing Soviet forces to retreat in the face of the German onslaught would preserve enormous numbers of men and equipment from German capture.

If Stalin dies a year or so before Barberossa is launched, not only could we see Soviets deliveries to the Germans end when the Germans stopped their deliveries to the Soviets, but almost certainly we see a wiser disposition of forces when the Germans cross the border.

I wonder if we might see de-Stalinization during the Great Patriotic war in such a situation? Certainly I think there would be pressure for the new leadership to discredit the old leadership and pin the blame for leading the Soviets into the bloody war on Stalin and/or his underlings, otherwise they'll face the danger of being blamed for losing Stalin's peace with Germany...

Either way, no Stalin at the helm of the country in 1941 and after will mean much less cult of personality to overcome later on. Most of the cult of personality took root during the war as people fought for "Stalin and the Motherland".

And does anyone have any ideas for how things might change if Stalin dies right after the Sudeten crisis?

And for any of the dates we are discussing (1938, 1939, 1940 or 1941) who would succeed Stalin?

Click to expand...

Just a bump to see if anyone has any thoughts on the above questions.

fasquardon