Plausibility Check: Troika running the Soviet Union

Ok so here's something I'm wondering. Say Stalin didn't become as powerful as he is or he gets offed during the civil war. Is it possible that no one manages to gain supremacy and the different leaders in the SU agree to rule in a troika?

If its ASB just let me know :)
 

Hnau

Banned
You have to pick the right individuals for them to rule as a troika. Stalin couldn't have been part of one, he'd be fighting for supremacy until he got it or was executed. I doubt Trotsky could have checked his own ambitions as well. Beria, no. Malenkov, no. Kruschev, no. Brezhnev, no.

Now, Molotov seems like the kind of guy who would have worked well in a three-man ruling committee. Bukharin could have as well. Kaganovich, maybe... if I'm reading him right he was pretty inflexible and might have attempted to centralize his own power if things weren't going his own way. Kosygin, definitely, that guy had plenty of room to pull power plays and really didn't seize any opportunity. I'm sure there's a lot of lesser known figures that would have been fine ruling the Soviet Union with two others, but I think its unlikely that they'd all come together just by chance. The same individuals that would have been fine sharing power were also shown to be easily manipulated by stronger figures like Stalin, Kruschev, and Brezhnev, so you've got to get them out of the picture as fast and early as you can.
 
As I'd laid out in the Trotsky AHC thread, Stalin consolidated his power around the "Lenin levy" of new members in the Communist Party, many of whom were all of a sudden running the country. So you'd have to answer who "gets" those people.

Of the other Bolsheviks running around after Lenin, you've got Trotsky who was running the Red Army, Zinoviev who was head of the Comintern, Kamenev who was acting Premier, and Bukharin who edited Pravda. Zinoviev and Kamenev were politically close IOTL and if you bumped off Stalin I think they'd have some kind of joint rule, possibly Zinoviev running the Party while Kamenev was the head of the state. You could run into a lot of problems with anti-semitism in this, as Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky were all Jewish atheists.

IF Zinoviev and Kamenev were trying to continue the New Economic Plan and not rush into collectivization and 5 year plans and trying to export revolution, they could have made a temporary bloc with Bukharin against Trotsky, but would have pushed him off when they needed to make a turn. You might avoid some of the excesses of Stalinism, but the general contours aren't going to be terribly different.
 
You have to pick the right individuals for them to rule as a troika. Stalin couldn't have been part of one, he'd be fighting for supremacy until he got it or was executed. I doubt Trotsky could have checked his own ambitions as well. Beria, no. Malenkov, no. Kruschev, no. Brezhnev, no.
Stalin WAS part of a troika with Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1923-25, which defeated Trotsky. Beria wasn't a force in the party in 1924. Malenkov was far too young. Khrushchev was still on the way up - he was still a figure in the Ukrainian party and not a name you'd have heard in Moscow. Brezhnev was 18 when Lenin died.

Now, Molotov seems like the kind of guy who would have worked well in a three-man ruling committee. Bukharin could have as well. Kaganovich, maybe... if I'm reading him right he was pretty inflexible and might have attempted to centralize his own power if things weren't going his own way. Kosygin, definitely, that guy had plenty of room to pull power plays and really didn't seize any opportunity. I'm sure there's a lot of lesser known figures that would have been fine ruling the Soviet Union with two others, but I think its unlikely that they'd all come together just by chance. The same individuals that would have been fine sharing power were also shown to be easily manipulated by stronger figures like Stalin, Kruschev, and Brezhnev, so you've got to get them out of the picture as fast and early as you can.
Molotov was an Old Bolshevik who wasn't in the Politburo until 1926, and then under Stalin's influence. Kaganovich wasn't in the Politburo until 1930 and was there as one of Stalin's key men. Bukharin was a major player. Kosygin was 20 when Lenin died, too young to be of much note.

FWIW, here's a list of Politburo members in the '20s. Anyone added from 23 July 1926 onward was there as a result of Stalin's influence and wouldn't have been as high ranking in the Party without him.
 
Here's a list of important politicians at the time.


Pro-Stalin


Vyacheslav Molotov Experienced diplomat and old-guard Stalinist.; supported a hardline against the West IOTL, but acquiesced to the ruling Party group in policies he disagreed with. Leader of the Anti-Party Group.

Kliment Voroshilov
Experienced soldier with a mixed record. Best regarded as an opportunist, he supported a hardline in foreign policy, but would likely leave domestic policy on its own or to his allies (whoever may remain)

Lazar Kaganovich Experienced administrator and hardline Stalinist in domestic and foreign policy. Perhaps the best Soviet parallel to Eugene McCarthy, known for his ruthlessness in finding "saboteurs" as "Iron Lazar".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov
Anti-Stalin

Nikita Khrushchev OTL Result, "de-Stalinization"

Nikolai Bulganin Of the anti-Stalin group, the least "liberal" in terms of domestic policy. In general agreement with the others on matters of foreign policy and with a record bolstered by military experience.

Georgy Malenkov Much the same as Kruschev, but with a marked distaste for nuclear armament. Hugely disliked Kruschev, which is why IOTL, he helped to lead the opposition.

Lavrenti Beria Held interesting views on foreign policy..... such as a phased withdrawal from Eastern Europe for Marshall Plan funds. Arrested IOTL for supposedly poisoning Stalin. His private life holds.... disturbing details.
 
Top