No Stalin, what happens to the Soviet Union

No Stalin likely means no purges in the 1930's, so even if Hitler's Germany arises as per OTL and still seeks Lebensraum, the Red Army isn't going to perform quite as badly, and in any case no Stalin likely means no Molotov Ribbentrop pact, and so it's questionable if the Nazis would invade Poland in the first place.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Depend on who take over:

Bukharin, Rykov, Kamenev, Tomsky, Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, Kirov, Trotsky (probably worst case scenario), Frunze, Voroshilov, Molotov, Smirnov (although his chances are very slim because he never made it to the politiburo)?

Remember all of them are different personalities with different ideas how Communism work, so they will all be very different in power. If you want worse than Stalin, Trotsky is the best choice, with his "collectivisation now" and "USSR doesn't need a foreign policy" ideas. Thankfully Trotsky was quite despised by the Party, so his chances were always small.

Best case, maybe someone from the right wing of the party like Bukharin, Rykov or Tomsky. At least they were not that into getting rid of NEP, although NEP would probably have to go sooner or later no matter who is in charge.
 
Best case, maybe someone from the right wing of the party like Bukharin, Rykov or Tomsky. At least they were not that into getting rid of NEP, although NEP would probably have to go sooner or later no matter who is in charge.

Why do you say that the NEP would have to go? I know that by the time Stalin came to power its results were less impressive then in the early days but that doesn't mean that they would abandon it. Authoritarian regimes can just keep on going with a bad a idea until they collapse.
 
Had Stalin never been born or been born a girl or died before he was 20 how different would the Soviet Union have been.

Substantially different.

How brutal would collectivisation still be?

Somewhat milder than OTL.

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

Who knows? Stalin didn't do badly in the 1930s. His great error was in 1941.

----------------

Summing up my general opinion: the Soviet leadership would remain "collective" much longer. Stalin was a genius at backroom politics. The alt-General Secretary of the Party will have the same opportunity to build a power base, but won't do as well. (Throw the same set of pitches to any other batter than Ted Williams; he won't hit .400.)

One or another of the senior Bolsheviks may become primus inter pares for a while, but I doubt if any of them will systematically exterminate all rivals and all potential non-supporters.

The 'War against the peasant' didn't spring like Athena from Stalin's forehead; all the senior Bolsheviks agreed that the peasants must be forced to accept collectivization by any means necessary.

But probably they would be less ruthless than Stalin (a low bar to clear).

As to foreign policy; also, perhaps, less ruthless. More interested in supporting the Spanish Republic for its own sake. Less likely to cut a deal with Italy in 1935. (Dockworkers' unions boycotted of cargo to/from Italy in protest of the invasion of Abyssinia; the Comintern ordered Communist-controlled unions to break the boycott, in return for Italy delivering the destroyer leader Tashkent for the Red Navy. Italy had a rep for warship design at the time.)

Would they push the KPD to join an all-parties-but-the-NSDAP coalition government in Germany? In 1932-1933, the NSDAP and KPD held a majority of seats between them, and without one of them no government could be formed; both of course refused to join any government they did not control. If the KPD cooperates, the Nazis can be excluded from government.
 
I have very little to add to what previous posters on the 'why Trotsky won't be running the Soviet Union' but I'd like to add this little tidbit to make it clear why if that did, through some horrible miracle, happen, it would not be all sunshine or light--back when he was running the Red Army, he used to order decimations for discipline.
 
Trotsky. Had. Zero. Chance. Of. Becoming. Leader. Of. The. Soviet. Union.

Zero chance is a bit much, the guy was an effective general and well enough liked by Lenin that its hardly impossible. Just unlikely under the circumstances he lived in.
 
Top