Best leader for the Soviet Union, post Lenin?

[BlackWave]

Which potential Soviet individual who could have potentially gained leadership between Lenin's death and WW2 would be the most beneficial for the nation? As a random example, how would say, Sergei Kirov handle Hitler's encroachments?

[The Kiat]

I don't know if Kirov would have been ruthless enough to force the Soviet Union through a crash course industrialization. But if not Stalin, one would suspect Trotsky would have taken over.

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by The Kiat

I don't know if Kirov would have been ruthless enough to force the Soviet Union through a crash course industrialization. But if not Stalin, one would suspect Trotsky would have taken over.

Forced industrialization was a large scale failure and the need for ruthlesness a self-serving myth. Czars had created the basis for Soviet industrialization and Soviet leaders did not take full advantage of it but instead hampered progress. This was especially evident in longer term as technical competency of Soviet Union became dramatically worse as fully sovietized generation of engineers gained control in work life.

[DISSIDENT]

Trotsky. Hands down.

[tayboitd]

Originally Posted by DISSIDENT

Trotsky. Hands down.

Seems a bit cliche - Trotsky's World Revolution ideals could have easily lead to all the major capitalist great powers against the Soviet Union in an earlier WW2.

[Sachyriel]

Originally Posted by tayboitd

Seems a bit cliche - Trotsky's World Revolution ideals could have easily lead to all the major capitalist great powers against the Soviet Union in an earlier WW2.

Maybe, but most nations had more trouble with talking their own socialists into a false sense of security with 'democratic reforms' (which left owners of property with their wealth in tact) and 'civil liberties' (which are tossed aside when inconvenient). I don't think they would have time to send forces to the Soviet Union when licking the wounds of WW1 and in a Great Depression (which was reinforcing the communist position in many worker minds).

I think this actually easily leads to the Soviet Union against all the major capitalist powers in an earlier Korean War.

[admkenshin]

Howard Scott

[The Red]

Another Leninist, someone like Zinoviev.

[Awilla the Hun]

The thing is, the USSR at that time did not have any "best" candidates for leadership. Lenin was as bloody as Stalin with his "Red Terror", but had less time to put the Cheka to work. Stalin was... well, Stalin.

Trotsky wanted industrialisation too, but also wanted to rampage through Europe in a tide of World Revolution, which would surely have resulted in thousands of deaths anyway. He was also arrogant, lacked social skills, was politically inept-after all, he did lose the power struggle to Stalin, who was considerably more intelligent than Trotsky's depiction as the grey bureaucrat makes him out to be-and was utterly ruthless towards his soldiers, complete with Roman style "decimation" as a punishment-perhaps shades of him also unleashing state terror on civillians, too, if he was given the chance. That said, he was a great speechwriter and orator.

And I'm uncertain if he would have handled Barbarossa that much better than Stalin. He was a good, if ruthless, leader of a First World War style army against a large, but disunited foe, when he had more industrial power at his command. Does that make him skilled at handling mechanised forces against a united enemy, with colossal industrial might at their back? Stalin, after all, had plenty of old fashioned generals. (Budyonny, Voroshilov, and Shaposhnikov spring to mind, although Shaposhnikov was considerably more intelligent than the other two.)

I'm not saying that the USSR was any better off under Stalin than it would have been under anyone else. But Trotsky would not have significantly improved matters.

[MerryPrankster]

Someone who would continue the NEP and not work millions to death in megaprojects or preside over witch-hunting purges.

Why are we assuming there would even BE a Barbarossa in the first place?

A mellower USSR might not be as threatening and could slow/prevent the rise of fascism.

[BlackWave]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Someone who would continue the NEP and not work millions to death in megaprojects or preside over witch-hunting purges.

Why are we assuming there would even BE a Barbarossa in the first place?

A mellower USSR might not be as threatening and could slow/prevent the rise of fascism.

The mere existence of the USSR was enough to frighten some people.

[yourworstnightmare]

Trotsky = WW2 is the Whole World versus the USSR.

What about Bukharin??

[Custard Cream Monster]

Originally Posted by yourworstnightmare

What about Bukharin??

Funny, I was thinking of him. Probably wouldn't have been as scary to the west.

[LacheyS]

Bukharin would definitely have made a difference. I feel that his ideas directly influenced the more progressive forms of Communism in Eastern Europe at a later time.

He supported easing restrictions on land and labour, which would have considerably stimulated agricultural production and marketing. He opposed artificially forcing industrialisation, believing it would create an unbalanced economy in which workers would have insufficient housing, clothing and food. He also believed that the peasants should be allowed to accumulate assets and enrich themselves.

Bukharin also supported the emergence of "hundred of thousand of small and large rapidly expanding voluntary societies, circles and associations" across the economic, cultural and social fields to "foster mass initiative" and create the channels through which people could influence politics. He saw this as a guard against the bureaucratisation of society, a danger which he viewed in similar ways to Trotsky.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by BlackWave

The mere existence of the USSR was enough to frighten some people.

Yes, but the difference between "some people" and "many people" might make the difference in Germany come the Depression.

[catboy637]

Rykov, for God's sake, RYKOV!

[MerryPrankster]

Trotsky would not a good leader for several reasons:

1. "Mass industrialization at the expense of the peasantry" was his idea. Stalin just stole it.

2. He'd try much more actively to spread Communism than Stalin did.

3. If he became Paramount Leader or even just the "first among equals" like the post-Stalin leaders were, it would give the Nazis and their notions of "Jew Communism" credibility, which might well accelerate rather than retard the Nazi rise.

[BlackWave]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Yes, but the difference between "some people" and "many people" might make the difference in Germany come the Depression.

Note that exagerrating threats often works. If the USSR remains a closed state here, one could make up any shit about it.

[Tobit]

Leon Trotsky would not have started WWII or been some crazy world revolutionary.

It was Trotsky who called for a crash course of Industrialization before Stalin did. Stalin, when he got in power, stole Trotsky's plan.

Mainly Leon Trotsky was against collectivization of the peasantry because of the starvations and shortages it created.

The great officer purge would not occur.

[truth is life]

Originally Posted by BlackWave

Which potential Soviet individual who could have potentially gained leadership between Lenin's death and WW2 would be the most beneficial for the nation? As a random example, how would say, Sergei Kirov handle Hitler's encroachments?

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot written about Kirov. I suspect he just got killed too early, and before becoming too prominent (compared to Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, anyways) for him to ever be more than a bit character in an OTL writing. So, he's a bit of a blank slate when it comes to TLs. Well, at least that's what I feel from what I've looked at. Someone else might feel differently.