You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
alternatehistory.com
Stalin was a brutal leader who killed 20m of his own people whose actions nearly cost the USSR WWII. Given the circumstances would a less brutal leader have been able to survive in control and better rule the USSR?
Brutal times require brutal men. For example Henry VIII would arbitrarily put to death those who opposed him. Saddam Hussein was a strong ruler and when removed Iraq collapsed into warring factions that required a huge input from the US to stabilize.
It seems that democracy is only possible where you have no hungry bellies. It could be argued that there is a 'correct' level of government according to the level of economic development. (The US found this out with Iraq. Democracy is not necessarily best for Iraq unless you put in a huge amount of energy and effort. The US made the correct decisions with Germany and Japan after WWII by offering aid instead of insisting on reparations)
STATE 1: Extreme Poverty - Brutal Dictatorship with wealth in the hands of the few. Rise in position only achievable through violence. eg Romans, Medieval UK
STATE 2: Poverty - Brutal dictatorship with some degree of judical protection.
Rise in position only achievable through violence or intrigue eg post Renaissance Europe
STATE 3: Industrial Revolution - Elite pyramid with tough laws. Rise in position additionally achievable by wealth.
STATE 4: Post industrial revolution - Democracy with less state control. Rise in position achievable by popularity.eg UK/USA in 20th Century.
STATE 5: Information age - Democracy with less state control. Rise in position achievable by merit.
If we take USSR 1920 to 1950 we can argue that Stalin presided over a STATE 2 country that turned into a STATE 3 country. Certainly apologists for Stalin will argue that his brutality and force of will was necessary to achieve this change of state via the infamous 5 year plans.
Of course it could be counter argued that Stalin merely industrialised in a response to the threat that other nations posed to his power. Stalin like all dictators looked after himself first and some might benefit and plenty would lose.
The problem with this dictatorship was that it was cloaked in the language of equality and brotherly love and this is why we condemn it more than the straight power politics of someone like Mugabe. Again we could say Henry VIII did the same: a most un Christian man in a supposed Christian nation.
So really the question is: if Stalin had been less brutal and had:
1. Not killed the intellectuals
2. Not killed the land owning classes.
3. Not assumed arbitrary power without press and judicial freedom.
4. Allowed some kind of free market to operate with the state controlling the
rump.
Would it have simply meant that he would have been replaced by one of the intellectuals or the land owning classes would have caused civil war? Would the USSR be in an even worse state to face Nazi Germany?
I see his dilemma: you need a hierarchy to run a country. The trouble is that unless that is your own hierarchy it will use every opportunity to undermine you. But if you kill off the existing hierarchy it will leave a power vacuum.
The other problem is that your own people will see you as weak and this will leave you vulnerable.
So was Stalin simply a man of his times or would it be possible to replace him with a leader who
1. Killed less than 100,000. Be realistic - you're not going to do this without ruffling a few feathers.
2. Presented Nazi Germany with an impossible target in 1940 since the Military/Industrial complex was sufficiently developed.
3. Took the SU to STAGE 4 by the end of his tenure.