DBWI: Stalin the dictator

As you all know, Joseph Stalin was the man who, IOTL, spearheaded the approval and application of the Soviet Union's 1936 constitution, forever enshrining the principles of soviet democracy and workers' government as the basis of the country's political system.

But what if he was a dictator? Like Lenin, or worse? Althought he ultimately came to be known worldwide as the champion Socialism and liberty, I've heard that he sometimes displayed quite violent and authoritarian tendencies. I'm not asking to make him some sort of communist Hitler, but I guess we could turn him into some one capable of commiting some atrocities...

How would the cold war have played out with an authoritarian Soviet Union. I imagine communism would be less popular, so, could the Americans maybe win?

OOC: For those who are too incredulous, this resource may be of interest: http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neretin/misc/getty.pdf
 
I doubt that he would have had the drive to become a dictator. The man was rightly regarded as a consummate centrist, always dithering between the left and right of the party prior to its dissolution. He was too much of a compromiser to seize power for himself. It might be possible that he could have backed a more dictatorial leader, such as Trotsky, and then inherited the dictatorship by outliving whoever was in charge. But then he and his successors would probably press on with the devanguardisation program, albeit a little later than OTL.
 
I doubt that he would have had the drive to become a dictator. The man was rightly regarded as a consummate centrist, always dithering between the left and right of the party prior to its dissolution. He was too much of a compromiser to seize power for himself. It might be possible that he could have backed a more dictatorial leader, such as Trotsky, and then inherited the dictatorship by outliving whoever was in charge. But then he and his successors would probably press on with the devanguardisation program, albeit a little later than OTL.

Well, that's all very true, but he was certainly ruthless to the kulaks who opposed his colectivization schemes. Even though colectivization under Stalin was gradual and he made an effort to be as gentle as possible, always providing relief and compensation to those affected, Trotsky and the rest of the left faction were always pressuring for a more aggressive approach, claiming that the Union needed to industrialize faster in order for it to survive foreign aggression. They were somewhat right in that, WWII did come, but Stalin's gentle industrialization turned out to be sufficient to defeat the Nazis. Now, I wonder what would have happened if Stalin had adopted a colectivization program more whithin the lines of Trotsky's. Resentment in the kulak class would have been even larger, and there would probably be revolts and social unrest. This may motivate Stalin to take a more dictatorial approach to power.

I dispute the assumption that Stalin would always have pursued devanguardisation regardless of the circunstances. The original 1936 constitution actually reinforced the position of the party whithin the state apparatus, and that didn't change until the 1946 amendment. Democracy in the 1930s and early 40s was exercised mostly through party factionalism, and I believe Stalin was fairly comfortable with that until he realised that Trotsky and his followers held a lot more influence inside that party than outside of it, while he had a support of a much larger faction of general society, especially after WWII when his popularity was in its peak. While some people see devanguardisation as Stalin giving power back to the people, his position was actually reinforced by that program (Just how many deputies his Democratic Communist Party won in the 1946 elections compared to Trotsky's Permanent Revolution Front). I could easily see him not being that eager to implement it under very different circunstances.
 
Last edited:
Well, Stalin certainly did has share of dirty deeds during the civil war, but I suppose everyone did. If anything, Uncle Joe's reign as Soviet head honcho dialed down many of the outright psychopathic tendencies of the Lenin years. The civil war left many in the communist party feeling quite hard. The revolution in Germany was lost. Finland and the Baltics were lost (though they'd voluntarily join the USSR later). The Polish gave them a black eye. The western powers tried to strangle their revolution. Many in the party called for harder suppression of the Kulaks, but the Stalin faction held them back. Later, many in the party would call for widespread purges of "counter-revolutionaries", "class enemies", and "fascist spies". The Stalin faction, however, urged caution and more of a "scalpel" approach to finding spies than the "sledgehammer" approach many wanted. Some were crazy enough to even want to purge the military. Just imagine.
 
Well, Stalin certainly did has share of dirty deeds during the civil war, but I suppose everyone did. If anything, Uncle Joe's reign as Soviet head honcho dialed down many of the outright psychopathic tendencies of the Lenin years. The civil war left many in the communist party feeling quite hard. The revolution in Germany was lost. Finland and the Baltics were lost (though they'd voluntarily join the USSR later). The Polish gave them a black eye. The western powers tried to strangle their revolution. Many in the party called for harder suppression of the Kulaks, but the Stalin faction held them back. Later, many in the party would call for widespread purges of "counter-revolutionaries", "class enemies", and "fascist spies". The Stalin faction, however, urged caution and more of a "scalpel" approach to finding spies than the "sledgehammer" approach many wanted. Some were crazy enough to even want to purge the military. Just imagine.

Yes, purging the militairy at that point in history could have had terrible consequences. I wonder how many generals could be purged without it resulting in the Nazis winning the Great Patriotic war.

A harder supression of the kulaks could also cause serious economic problems. IOTL some of them opted for killing their animals and destrying their crops as an alternative to letting them be collectized. Just imagine that on a larger scale. It could very well result in a famine.
 
Yes, purging the militairy at that point in history could have had terrible consequences. I wonder how many generals could be purged without it resulting in the Nazis winning the Great Patriotic war.

A harder supression of the kulaks could also cause serious economic problems. IOTL some of them opted for killing their animals and destrying their crops as an alternative to letting them be collectized. Just imagine that on a larger scale. It could very well result in a famine.

I imagine the Great Patriotic War may have dragged on for longer. The Red Army may not have been to aid the pro-Soviet uprising in Paris and the establishment of the Second Paris Commune.
 
I imagine the Great Patriotic War may have dragged on for longer. The Red Army may not have been to aid the pro-Soviet uprising in Paris and the establishment of the Second Paris Commune.

True, this alternate GPW might have required direct American intervention in europe. I assume that in this case De Gaulle would have taken charge of France instead of Maurice Thorez. Would mainland France develop anything like "Free France" did IOTL?

OOC: OK, this is a bit more wank-y than I'd thought, but sure, let's go with it :p.
 
I think that Stalin as a bloody dictator would significantly change perception of the socialist and communist ideology. In the interwar period the fear of pro-bolshevik revolution was significant factor in western powers policy, both internal and foreign; Hitler got to power in large part thanks to that fear, although it has to be said that German communists were much closer to Trotsky's ideals than to Stalin's. Imagine how the world would react to bloodthirsty tyrant in the Kremlin. It might seriously diminish influence of the left in many countries.
 
I think that Stalin as a bloody dictator would significantly change perception of the socialist and communist ideology. In the interwar period the fear of pro-bolshevik revolution was significant factor in western powers policy, both internal and foreign; Hitler got to power in large part thanks to that fear, although it has to be said that German communists were much closer to Trotsky's ideals than to Stalin's. Imagine how the world would react to bloodthirsty tyrant in the Kremlin. It might seriously diminish influence of the left in many countries.

Indeed. The European left may have to change considerably to survive. I'd imagine the British Labour party would need to become more moderate, and it could never go as pro-soviet as it did IOTL. The same thing goes for the Nordic social democrats.

Fascist dictatorships in Spain and Portugal may last longer as well.
 
You know, if you turn that lovely man into some kind of rabid dog despot, Andy Griffith will have to model his Mayberry Sheriff on someone else, and who knows how that will turn out...
 
Stalin tied a lot of his better qualities to his wife, the one he called Kato. He regarded her as his better half, and she's a big part of the reason Stalin restrained his more authoritarian tendencies. Put her out of the picture somehow and maybe he isn't so restrained.
 
Stalin's father was an violent abusive, jerk if he hadn't managed to get drunk and step in front of a train* when Stalin was an infant. He might have caused some serious psychologal damage to little Joe. Enough to turn him into a brutal dictator?
* There are many inconsistencies in that story. He might have been murdered but no one in the local population or the authorities didn't seem to care at the time.
 
Well, as much as Uncle Joe was a socialist, he had some of the markings of an authoritarian. He was once known for criticizing the worker's councils of the USSR, advocating more beuracracy and state owned enterprises. He wasnt nearly as bad as that one guy Beria (A politician of the right wing of the CPSU and apparently a real fucking psycho) but he wasn't afraid of taking people down a notch, like his former friend Grigory Kulik. Kulik was friends with Joe, but once Joe realized how much of a fucking idiot, bully, and Beria sychophant Kulik was, he really cooked up a smear campaign that got Kulik thrown out of the Army in 1927. To be fair, Kulik was an idiot who rejected a lot of the doctrines that the Soviets used to blunt the German Armored Spearhead into the USSR. Good thing that guy got thrown out, or else the Winter War and the Second World War would have gone a lot differently.

Joe loosened up and was less authoritarian as he got older though. He spoke in favor of the Councils, and championed libertarian cultural mores. In his memoir, Rusted Steel, Stalin attributed his younger authoritarian tendencies as a product of a deep depression that was a result of psychological problems, including PTSD* which explains his bouts of paranoia and other irrational behavior. He eventually overcame a lot of these problems with the help of his family, though he expressed a great regret and sadness about how awful he treated some of his fellow politicians.



*OOC:Read that a lot of Stalin's personal traits fell in line with PTSD so i decided to put this in there.
 
People who think Stalin could have become a dictator are forgetting Lenin's Testament. All his potential opponents had to do was to threaten to make it public, and Stalin would be finished. No, there is no way Stalin could have ruled but through consensus...
 
Don't forget, the Russian people had just overthrown the Tsar in 1917. They had already demonstrated a pretty strong impatience with any abuse from their leaders - there is no way Stalin was going to unnecessarily antogonize the citizenry. He knew any approach other than the 'kind and gentle' one would quickly end the Revolution, and him.
 
If Stalin became a dictator, I could see it going a lot like India after Indira Gandhi, where an ostensibly democratic socialist state becomes very authoritarian and run by the bureaucracy. A tradition of dictatorship means a tradition of suppression and even though Gandhi's successors have denounced her practices, they're still very much her successors and so are the state institutions she set up. The Intelligence Bureau and Indian National Congress basically run every aspect of the state. And even though the economic planning organs were based upon the Soviet ones, all of the enterprises in the country are not worker-owned or collective-owned, but owned by the planning organs themselves, causing predictable problems. If the USSR ended up like this, maybe they win against Germany, but I predict it wouldn't have the economic power to lead the rest of Comintern in Europe, let alone the moral authority. It would probably end up as a pariah state, with Paris and Rome leading a new Comintern.
 
Top