Different Soviet attitudes in WW2

Had either Stalin had a personality change or died in the imediate aftermath of June 22 and been replacedand the USSR took the view that working unconditionally with the Western allies how different could things have been?
 
You need to work on the grammar of that sentence.

Stalin's death might see a faster and more effective defence of the USSR at the beginning, avoiding some catastrophes like the Germans being at the gates of Moscow in December already. Leningrad might fall though and Case blue will be less effective when forces are diverted from Moscow to stop the Germans advance, instead of Stalin having forces stay put near Moscow in case of an attack.

I wouldn't even know who would succeed Stalin if he died in 1941, perhaps Beria or even Molotov. Best scenario would be Zhukov of course.
 
Someone dying and being removed from the picture is not a change of attitude it is a fundermental change of leadership!

Without Stalins 'iron will' I'm not sure that the defense of the 'Soviet Motherland' will be better carried out. However the counter-attack and march back towards Berlin will certaintly be better conducted without Stalin interfering telling the generals to keep pressing the attack.

Far less Russian blood would therefore be lost, even if the Germans drive deeper into Russia initially.
 
If Stalin dies or is replaced in 1941 there is no way that Zhukov would replace him. Zhukov didn't have the political powerbase until 1945 at the very earliest, in 1941 he was just another Soviet commander in terms of political power. IOTL, Zhukov was easily purged from power postwar when he was seen as getting too big for his boots. Even when Zhukov had real clout he was removed by his rivals. The Soviet Communsit Party was always paranoid about the Army taking over as they knew many of them would end up getting shot, and no Soviet commander was ever allowed to lead the USSR. All Soviet leaders with military experience, e.g. Kruschev, were political commissars, not field commanders. The circumstances of 1941 will not change that central rule of Soviet politics.

Beria's fate IOTL indicates that he had little (or no) support amongst the Party or the Army as well, as soon as they could they got rid of him. It's possible that Beria might grab power in an alternate timeline but he would have to have taken it by force, neither the Party nor the Army would grant it to him. This may have led to considerable confusion in the USSR as some nasty purges would have been required to thin the ranks of his many powerful enemies.

I'm not sure who it would be, but any replacement for Stalin would most probably have come from within the Party, not from the Army or the NKVD.
 
Stalin dying immediately before or after 22 June would cause a massive power vacuum. At the time, every member of the party's 'Inner Circle' was a sycophantic spineless lickspittle. This was by necessity, since any hint of critical thinking and/or personal initiative would quickly find its bearer a guest of honour at Lubianka Spa (ex. the Great Terror). The generation that Hrushchyov belonged to was yet to appear (being a product of the war).
 
Top