No Stalin, what happens to the Soviet Union

Derek Jackson

Had Stalin never been born or been born a girl or died before he was 20 how different would the Soviet Union have been.

How brutal would collectivisation still be?

Would other leaders have handled the West and Hitler better in the 30s?
 
IchBinDieKaiser

IchBinDieKaiser

Derek Jackson said:
Had Stalin never been born or been born a girl or died before he was 20 how different would the Soviet Union have been.

How brutal would collectivisation still be?

Would other leaders have handled the West and Hitler better in the 30s?
Click to expand...

Is it just that Stalin never exists, or does he die earlier?

It also depends on who takes power in the soviet union after Lenin's death. I know that Trotsky was Lenin's preferred successor, but in a timeline without Stalin someone else might step in to fill the role.
 

Alternate History

Banned
Trotsky would have applied greater ideological integrity, and he would have laboured for world revolution until the end. With him in charge, the mass killings would have been less prevalent, but I doubt the SU would have democratised just yet - it would have taken many more decades for that to be a viable option. In fact, we might even see Trotsky being toppled in a (silent) coup led by either Stalin or one of his clique.

As for collectivisation, that would have happened either way, even if with less casualties. That was the only way to solve the agriculture question at that time, I think.

And as for foreign policies: maybe Trotsky would have helped the German communists more efficiently, butterflying Hitler. Or maybe not much would have happened differently. It's anyone's guess.
 

d32123

Banned
Alternate History said:
Trotsky would have applied greater ideological integrity, and he would have laboured for world revolution until the end. With him in charge, the mass killings would have been less prevalent, but I doubt the SU would have democratised just yet - it would have taken many more decades for that to be a viable option. In fact, we might even see Trotsky being toppled in a (silent) coup led by either Stalin or one of his clique.

As for collectivisation, that would have happened either way, even if with less casualties. That was the only way to solve the agriculture question at that time, I think.

And as for foreign policies: maybe Trotsky would have helped the German communists more efficiently, butterflying Hitler. Or maybe not much would have happened differently. It's anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

Trotsky, as much as I admire him, would not have made an effective leader or likely have gotten into that position in the first place tbh.
 

Hnau

Banned
Trotsky had zero chance? Proof, please? Without Stalin I think Trotsky had a decent shot, assuming Lenin still dies at the same time as IOTL. He wouldn't have ruled as directly as Stalin did, though, a lot of good leaders that were killed or disenfranchised by Stalin would have had their say in a Soviet government under Trotsky.
 

Killer300

The problem is Trotsky wasn't liked by the Party, and since the Soviet Union, in some ways, was a bit less autocratic before Stalin, then this matters quite a bit.

What's more likely is an oligarchy of some sorts forming.
 

Hnau

Banned
That's interesting... I've a few books on this part of Russian history, and I don't remember anyone saying that Trotsky was extremely socially awkward.
 

Julian

Hnau said:
Trotsky had zero chance? Proof, please? Without Stalin I think Trotsky had a decent shot, assuming Lenin still dies at the same time as IOTL. He wouldn't have ruled as directly as Stalin did, though, a lot of good leaders that were killed or disenfranchised by Stalin would have had their say in a Soviet government under Trotsky.
Click to expand...

Trotsky was essentially a pariah in Soviet politics; he was reviled by the majority of the party, and Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, and Stalin all used him as a point to rally against. He just made too many enemies and,as was said above, rubbed people the wrong way, to ever feasibly get into a position to become leader. His relationship with the military only further hurt his reputation by making him appear to be a "Bonapartist" ready to hijack the revolution for his own ends. Finally his insane foreign policy appealed to few who had a realisitc idea of the Soviet Unions economic and political situation in the 1920s.
 

Saladan

Based on everything I've read and heard Trotsky could be just as ruthless and scheming as Stalin was only he lacked the good sense to keep his mouth shut and his true intentions hidden nor did he posses even a shred of Stalin's talent at political manurvering.

Odds are I can't see him coming to power or staying in power for long. He'd either get removed or killed by someone better or just make all of Europe rally against the USSR even more then otl with his loud and obvious rhetoric.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Hnau said:
Trotsky had zero chance? Proof, please? Without Stalin I think Trotsky had a decent shot, assuming Lenin still dies at the same time as IOTL. He wouldn't have ruled as directly as Stalin did, though, a lot of good leaders that were killed or disenfranchised by Stalin would have had their say in a Soviet government under Trotsky.
Click to expand...

Nobody liked him, like Julian said, the fact that he had been the leader of the Red Army inclined people to distrust him, the Bolshevik leadership as a whole was pretty convinced that the military needed to be strictly subordinate to the civilian government, Trotsky by virtue of his previous work with the Red Army looked like he might be the sort of guy who would topple the party apparatus and use his military connections to run his own show. Entirely regardless of Trotsky's own personal views and intentions, it's hard to get people not to believe that.

Stalin was, effectively, ten times the politician Trotsky was, the match between the two of them was over before it began. And even in a world without Stalin, to find people who were Trotsky's enemies, one would only have needed to open up a Moscow phonebook.
 

M79

Stalin was the main force behind the crash-industrialization of the USSR from the late 20s into the late 30s. Without that I think the Germans would have had their noses badly bloodied but likely would have had at least the European parts of the USSR under their control, freeing German units to run loose into the Middle East and perhaps use the Baltic as a station for building a better Navy. If nothing else it gives Germany a longer lifespan, and the opportunities presented by the Type XXI U-boat alone create scary possibilities. Heaven forbid they refine the StG 44, Z4, and other interesting technologies then make their use widespread. I see a Cold War emerging with Berlin ruling continental Europe and the Middle East, an Italy ruling much of the Eastern Mediterranean, and a Japan possibly surviving and trying to take on the rump USSR, though the Americans are likely to try to overrun it. China might end up a German satellite along with India depending on the scenario. The Space Race might get a lot more interesting though...
 

deathscompanion1

Banned
A weaker Soviet Union would take a few years longer than OTL to win.

If WWII even happens.

Germany may never rearm as if the USSR is a stable prosperous country or a alternatively a basket case Britian wont be scared enough to allow German to rearm to act as a buffer.
 

Lt.Gen 767

If the right wing of the Communist party gets into power the NEP could be continued, maybe even right up to the Nazis invasion. This would make the life of the average soviet citizen much better, giving communism a better image in the west. On the other hand it would mean much less heavy industry to to produce guns and T-34s for the war effort. So either the west steps up support to the Soviets or we end up with the Warsaw Wall.
 

MerryPrankster

Stalin got the idea of "rapid industrialization at the expense of the peasantry" from someone else (Trotsky or perhaps someone else on the Left), so no Stalin doesn't necessarily mean the USSR does not industrialize.

Even if there's less industry due to a less ruthless, brutal crash program, a military less crippled from the purges and a western Soviet population less resentful of Moscow due to lack of terror-famines could compensate.

Heck, without Stalin you might not even have Hitler, or even if Hitler or someone like him takes power, whoever is in control in the USSR when *Hitler starts doing his thing might be less willing to cooperate with him.

No Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact or analogue thereof means either a two-front war or the *Nazis need to keep more of their military in the East in case of a two-front war, which would in turn limit their effectiveness in the West.
 

Talkie Toaster

The Revolution might not even have happened in the same way (if at all) without Stalin, his role in the pre-October party was not insignificant. Plus there are butterflies to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top