Who would be Stalin's successor if he dies in mid-1940?

[CanKiwi]

Some few of you may have been reading my What If - Finland had been prepared for the Winter War? thread. As an offshoot of that, I'd like to ask for opinions on a possible scenario that I may include later on. To wit:

If Stalin and a large chunk of the senior Soviet leadership in Moscow had died in mid-1940, who would have been Stalin's successor?

Key Assumption: Much of the Kremlin is destroyed (assume that this is the results of Finnish activity in a prolonged Winter War - going into how this happens would be a spoiler for my main scenario so I won't go into this in any greater detail) along with Stalin, Molotov and many of the senior Politburo members living in the Kremlin. Just assume this has happened.

Secondary Assumption: The Soviet military is getting hammered very very badly in the Winter War, which has extended into summer. Zhadanov, Voroshilov and Meretskov have been executed on Stalin's orders due to the catastrophic defeats inflicted on the Red Army, Timoshenko was killed in the Finnish Spring Offensive on the Karelian Isthmus in 1940 (take this as given, don't ask how or why - that would be a spoiler again).

So, based on the above, limited as it is, who would emerge as Stalin's successor as leader of the Soviet Union in mid-1940?

I'd like to incorporate the results of this in my Finland What if going forward. (It'll be a long time before I get that far but as I have no in-depth knowledge of Soviet politics, I thought I'd put this one forward and see what apples get shaken out).

Cheers...........Nigel

[Shimbo]

IIRC the consensus opinion in previous threads asking this question is - Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov.

[Wolfpaw]

Yup, Molotov. I mean, he'd have nowhere near the power of Stalin and he'd have to listen to the Politburo far more than Joe-Joe did, but he'd eventually come out on top, especially after the war.

I mean, if all of the people you mentioned die, then the USSR is basically headless and will fall apart. For more specific answers, you're going to have to tell us who exactly did die in the Kremlin.

In an emergency situation like the one described, I could see Shaposhnikov cobbling together some sort of emergency caretaker government.

[CanKiwi]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

Yup, Molotov. I mean, he'd have nowhere near the power of Stalin and he'd have to listen to the Politburo far more than Joe-Joe did, but he'd eventually come out on top, especially after the war.

I mean, if all of the people you mentioned die, then the USSR is basically headless and will fall apart. For more specific answers, you're going to have to tell us who exactly did die in the Kremlin.

In an emergency situation like the one described, I could see Shaposhnikov cobbling together some sort of emergency caretaker government.

Thx, I will go and do a bit more research on who exactly is gonna die. I will also go look for previous threads on this one, if anyone can provide a link or links, that would also be appreciated.

I was leaning towards Shaposhnikov as the successor as my working assumption is in fact that the USSR does become more or less headless for a while. My assumption was that, Molotov being Stalins shadow, so to speak, he would be there and turned into a crispy critter along with Stalin and a good chunk of the senior Communist Party leadership residing there. Which would leave the military and the 2nd tier of communist leadership to come up with something.

[Shimbo]

Originally Posted by CanKiwi

Thx, I will go and do a bit more research on who exactly is gonna die. I will also go look for previous threads on this one, if anyone can provide a link or links, that would also be appreciated.

I was leaning towards Shaposhnikov as the successor as my working assumption is in fact that the USSR does become more or less headless for a while. My assumption was that, Molotov being Stalins shadow, so to speak, he would be there and turned into a crispy critter along with Stalin and a good chunk of the senior Communist Party leadership residing there. Which would leave the military and the 2nd tier of communist leadership to come up with something.

The threads I mentioned are to do with Stalin dying/being deposed in 1941. If you're wiping out swathes of the Soviet leadership, you can probably go with almost anybody.

[CanKiwi]

Originally Posted by Shimbo

The threads I mentioned are to do with Stalin dying/being deposed in 1941. If you're wiping out swathes of the Soviet leadership, you can probably go with almost anybody.

Found the thread. Thx for that. Stalin dies, and Beria takes over . Guess I will have to read the book by Montefiore (Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar) to find out who would usually be in the Kremlin.

I would however hazard a guess that after the purges of the Red Army, the military might have been too thoroughly intimidated to take power except under truly exceptional circumstances. So perhaps even Shapashnikov would be questionable.

[Xgentis]

I think it would end up in a civil war.

[Urban fox]

Originally Posted by CanKiwi

Some few of you may have been reading my What If - Finland had been prepared for the Winter War? thread. As an offshoot of that, I'd like to ask for opinions on a possible scenario that I may include later on. To wit:

If Stalin and a large chunk of the senior Soviet leadership in Moscow had died in mid-1940, who would have been Stalin's successor?

Key Assumption: Much of the Kremlin is destroyed (assume that this is the results of Finnish activity in a prolonged Winter War - going into how this happens would be a spoiler for my main scenario so I won't go into this in any greater detail) along with Stalin, Molotov and many of the senior Politburo members living in the Kremlin. Just assume this has happened.

Secondary Assumption: The Soviet military is getting hammered very very badly in the Winter War, which has extended into summer. Zhadanov, Voroshilov and Meretskov have been executed on Stalin's orders due to the catastrophic defeats inflicted on the Red Army, Timoshenko was killed in the Finnish Spring Offensive on the Karelian Isthmus in 1940 (take this as given, don't ask how or why - that would be a spoiler again).

So, based on the above, limited as it is, who would emerge as Stalin's successor as leader of the Soviet Union in mid-1940?

I'd like to incorporate the results of this in my Finland What if going forward. (It'll be a long time before I get that far but as I have no in-depth knowledge of Soviet politics, I thought I'd put this one forward and see what apples get shaken out).

Cheers...........Nigel

The Finns are doing that with what manpower? If the war drags into summer and the Soviets get really pissed off. Then goodbye Finland, hello Finnish SSR.

Now assumeing the members of the Politburo in Moscow are dead (they tened to move around a bit) Then whoever's left alive is gain power. That could be anyone from Vorosilov to Malenkov or Beria. The CPSU is unlikely to fall into the headless chaos many assume. As many of the party bossess outside Moscow such as Khrushchev will still be place.

The new leadership will take time to settle into their new jobs however. And the shock of a terroristic Finnish attack could backfire on them and rally support for the Soviet regime.

[CanKiwi]

Originally Posted by Urban fox

If the war drags into summer and the Soviets get really pissed off. Then goodbye Finland, hello Finnish SSR.

Thx, that post was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Leaving aside the manpower question and how in hell the Finns do that for my main thread, I have not made up my mind on this one 100% yet, but basically how it comes about is that the Finnish Army has toasted the Red Army (leaving aside how that happens for my main Finland thread) and reached the boundaries of how far they can advance without over-reaching themslves. Peace feelers are rejected out of hand - Stalin, wanting to emulate Hitler and Poland, has been shown up as a buffoon leading an army of incompetents in the eyes of the world, which was not what he intended. Finland is desperately trying to negotiate a peace agreement, knowing there is no way in hell they can win a prolonged war against the USSR - and Stalin is now pissed! Seriously pissed! Reinforcements are building up on the front, the USSR is marshalling its resources. The Finns certainly have no intention of becoming the Finnish SSR - if Stalin leaves anyone alive after what they have done to him.

The only way out that the Finns see is .... remove the Soviet leadership and try with the next lot ... after all, how much worse could it get? Leaving aside how they do it (I think theres a spoiler there near the start of my Finland Thread), they do it. Hence the who might succeed to the throne question.

I can see the need to be a bit more detailed about who lives and who gets crisped, so I will do my research and come back with some hypothetical detail.

Cheers.........Nigel

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

Molotov but Beria will be more interesting.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by Joseph Solis in Australia

Molotov but Beria will be more interesting.

Good old Beria, psychopathic monster, but at least he played nice with us Westerners.

[Gray Antarctica]

What about Khrushchev? An earlier Khrushchev could lead to earlier reforms, which would be good for the USSR in the long run. If Beria dies too, we're in luck. If he came to power, someone would probably assassinate him. He's too batshit insane to have that kind of power.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by Gray Antarctica

What about Khrushchev? An earlier Khrushchev could lead to earlier reforms, which would be good for the USSR in the long run. If Beria dies too, we're in luck. If he came to power, someone would probably assassinate him. He's too batshit insane to have that kind of power.

Beria, like Stalin, was ruthless and often rather bloodthirsty, not insane, his issue was more of his own overestimation of his own capabilities and the fact that he was basically seen as far too close to the old regime for a lot of folks in the Politburo, especially the ones who had relatives in his gulags.

[CanKiwi]

How about the senior Red Army commanders. Their loyalty (or lack thereof) to the Soviet Nation / Communist Party will determine the leadership power struggle.

General Zhukov is in an especially good position to go for power or even independance if he chooses to do so. His 1st Soviet Mongolian Army Group has just been heavily reinforced for operations against Japan. Mongolia connects with the Soviet heartland by a single track rail line thousands of miles long that could be easily blocked. Japan was rabidly anti-communist. They would be thrilled to have an independent anti-communist nation for a neighbor rather then the expansionistic Soviet Union.

Keeping in mind that millions of Soviet citizens were murdered during the 1930s, the population lived in perpetual fear of being next on the list. This comes across clearly in first hand accounts by people who lived under this nightmare. At a guess most Soviet citizens would support a change without even knowing anything about the new government. But it's the Red Army who have the guns so in all probability it would be Red Army leaders will decide how this goes down.

Beria - if he survived, would be a candidate but he was loathed and feared. From wikipedia:
"Beria was widely seen as the most dangerous and ambitious of Stalin's inner circle during his final years. As he had promised, after Stalin's death in 1953 Beria elevated himself to First Deputy Premier, where he carried out a brief campaign of liberalization; the economic realities of the Soviet alliance with the West during World War II as well as Stalin's especially irrational hatred in his final years had ideologically disillusioned Beria, who spoke of "de-Bolshevization" and craved the renewed wealth and resources a lucrative strategic peace with the US would provide. He was briefly a part of the ruling "troika" with Georgy Malenkov and Vyacheslav Molotov. However, Beria's overconfidence in his position after Stalin's death led him to misjudge the real feelings of his associates, many of whom still had relatives in his prisons. In addition, his proposals to free East Germany and normalize relations with the United States alarmed other Politburo members, especially in the wake of the 1953 East German uprising, which was only put down after an invasion by Soviet troops. Led by Nikita Khrushchev and assisted by the military forces of the immensely influential Marshal Zhukov, they formed an alliance to remove and liquidate him. In that same year he was arrested on trumped-up charges of treason by Zhukov's soldiers during a meeting where the full Politburo condemned him; the non-opposition of the NKVD was ensured by Zhukov's troops, and after interrogation by his own NKVD torturers, Beria was taken to the basement of the Lubyanka and shot by General Pavel Batitsky" - assuming Beria survived, would it be likely that the Red Army would move against him?

[CanKiwi]

So how about this as a scenario:

Stalin and many members of the Politburo turned into crispy critters. Beria is the senior survivor and takes over the reins in a triumvirate with one of the other surviving Politburo members (TBD) and a senior Red Army commander (Shapashnikov?), brought in in a move to keep the Red Army loyal. A pragmatist, Beria quickly negogiates an end to the war with Finland, the Finns withdraw to their pre-war borders, ceding some land on the Karelian Isthmus and some islands in the Gulf of Finland in a face-saving gesture to the Soviets and accepting land in eastern Karelia in return - along with the return of Finnish/Karelian and Ingrian deportees from the Gulag to Finland.

Under Shaphasnikov and a promoted Zhukov, the Red Army concentrates on rebuilding after the major losses of the Winter War. Shortly afterwards, perhaps in early 1941, elements within the Communist Party and military move to remove and liquidate Beria and appoint a more "acceptable" and less feared successor.

On 22 June 1941, Barbarossa is launched - the Germans attack the Soviet Union.

[historybuff]

Interesting idea Cankiwi. Beria, Zhukov and I'm not sure who else.

[Lord Douglas]

Not sure about Shaposhnikov. Was he even a member of the CPSU? At best if he was he joined long after the Revolution - I recall a passage in The Court of the Red Tsar about this, he had been a colonel in the Tsarist Army prior to 1917.

[Wolfpaw]

I have no idea where people are getting this idea that Beria could take over. Everybody hated him and he was totally dependent on Stalin for power. The second Joe's gone, Uncle Lara will be lucky if he doesn't get a bullet in the head.

1940 is too early for Khrushchev to take over; he's too young and has no power base outside of the Ukraine and few close allies on the Politburo.

Shaoposhnikov was well-liked and a very talented administrator and military commander. He joined the Party in 1930 and helped rebuild the Red Army after the Purges. He also turned out to be right about how things would go if the USSR invaded Finland but was ignored by that dolt Voroshilov.

[CanKiwi]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

I have no idea where people are getting this idea that Beria could take over. Everybody hated him and he was totally dependent on Stalin for power. The second Joe's gone, Uncle Lara will be lucky if he doesn't get a bullet in the head.

1940 is too early for Khrushchev to take over; he's too young and has no power base outside of the Ukraine and few close allies on the Politburo.

Shaoposhnikov was well-liked and a very talented administrator and military commander. He joined the Party in 1930 and helped rebuild the Red Army after the Purges. He also turned out to be right about how things would go if the USSR invaded Finland but was ignored by that dolt Voroshilov.

Well, I was basing Beria being part of a ruling triumvirate on what actually happened after Stalin did die in 1953 - in reality, Beria did manage to have himself elevated to First Deputy Premier and he was briefly a part of the ruling "troika" with Georgy Malenkov and Vyacheslav Molotov. However, Beria's overconfidence in his position after Stalin's death led him to misjudge the real feelings of his associates, many of whom still had relatives in his prisons.

So I went with a similar scenario - Beria was in a powerful position, assuming he survived, he'd have been in a good position to step up - but that very reason you gave - " Everybody hated him" would serve as motivation for his removal as things "settled down." As it did in reality where he got a bullet to the head.

Khrushchev - I agree, he was just a young pup at the time without a sufficiently large powerbase. He would probably have moved up as a result of the "vacancies", but not into a ruling position.

So if we look at a ruling triumvirate, Beria brings the NKVD in, Shaposhnikov brings in the Red Army and some other surviving Politburo member brings "legitimacy". it wouldn't matter what the citizens thought, as long as there's no actual revolts by large military units. Like Zhukov over in Siberia, and Shaposhnikov could probably keep him onside.

[Grey Wolf]

Beria if he has survived

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Litvinov
if the headless state looks around for someone who has sufficient ability and standing to take over

Maybe you could look at an admiral if the generals are all discredited or dead

Best Regards
Grey Wolf