So.... was Stalin good for Russia, or not?

Being so unpopular that you're considered less trustworthy than Hitler isn't really speaking to his skills to that point.

Something Stalin didn't bring upon himself (well, not at first), but was there from the outset. Comes with the territory of taking over a revolutionary pariah state.

Of course Stalin was willing to intervene, but was unable to convince anyone that it was the desirable thing to do.

And that inability to convince wasn't because of anything Stalin did.

From 1939-40 Stalin enabled Hitler to launch his wars and then it came back and bit him in the ass, as he continued to supply Hitler even after France fell.

A military misjudgement, not a diplomatic one.

In terms of diplomacy he led a pretty crappy bargain by giving Hitler everything he needed to invade, while pissing him off in the Nazi-Soviet Axis entry negotiations, and then buying into Hitler's letters that convinced him he was on the level about not invading. He tried to buy off Hitler and failed, if anything creating the situation where Hitler could and wanted to invade the USSR. Rather than reading the situation accurately and adjusting policy accordingly he actively created the worst disaster in Russia's history since the Mongol invasion.

Again, largely military-economic mistakes rather then diplomatic.


Again, not seeing any solid indication that the Soviets were serious about entering the Axis, just more cycles of proposal and counter-proposal.

Flexible morally, as he abandoned any efforts to actually stop Hitler and decided to instead take Hitler's deal to divide up Europe. All because Poland wouldn't allow the Soviets to effectively occupy their country without any prospects of leaving.

Stalin's demands in regard to military passage through Poland in 1938-39 was largely limited to just that: military passage. While that would still allow him the room to possibly turn on the Poles once the much superior Soviet forces were intermingled and occupy the country anyways, which was probably what Stalin intended to ultimately do once it was obvious the Germans were losing, but in a ways it was irrelevant. The Poles weren't going to trust the Russians in any such deal, regardless of who led them or how honest they were being. So I'm not seeing how any other decision by Stalin or Soviet leader would have made a difference here.

And yet his performance international was far less stellar than his domestic infighting.

His performance internationally saw him largely achieving everything he wanted, which was identical to the results of his domestic infighting.

Some agency, where that agency drops off chance takes over. Of course there is a pretty solid argument that free will is an illusion, but that philosophical argument is better conducted elsewhere.

Chance itself is subject to agency, particularly in terms of reaction.

On the ground perhaps, but then there is the rebuilding effort which would be compromised, plus their ability to conquer Manchuria/Korea, loot them, and set up communist regimes that would then spread over Asia and start many serious wars all across the region that would cost tens of millions of lives.

Unlikely. As it was, the invasion of Manchuria and particularly Soviet rebuilding was done almost entirely on resources within it's own control. China was liable to still go communist anyways, as that was dictated far more by internal factors established by the end of 1944 then anything the Soviets did*, and the attendant wars would still occur as well. Plus, the Americans wanted the Soviets in the Pacific War as, lacking hindsight, they weren't sure the atomic bomb would work out at all, much less in time for the invasion of Japan, until the summer of '45. So again, as far as their aware, taking a harder line on the Soviets would just mean shooting themselves in the foot. Even as late as June, Truman contemplated it only to be informed by Marshall that the Soviets had the capability to seize those territories anyways.

*Fun fact: due to endemic nationalist corruption and consistent defection of entire armies, by 1946 Chinese Communist forces had far more American weapons then they did Soviet ones, even if one counts the ex-Japanese weapons as "Soviet". In fact, by 1948 American military observers in the country estimated that the Communists had more of the American aid sent to nationalist China then the nationalists did. Mao even praised Chiang Kai-Shek as "our supply officer".(The Coldest Winter, David Halberstam.) In the face of that level of political overmatch, it is impossible to say that Soviet aide made a difference.

As I said the Wallies were buffoonish in diplomacy with the Soviets, which makes Stalin look like a genius in comparison.

The American's weren't. They too got everything they wanted out of the war, with Bretton Woods and everything. Really, it was only the British who got the short-shrift in the end and that was inspite of their diplomacy rather then because of it.

All that was asked was if anyone thought differently;

No, what was asked was if there was a different prospective Soviet leader who thought differently.

Stalin was at fault for buying so deeply into Communist theory. Hence, being the leader of the system and only state run on that ideology, it was his show and with that his fault for putting ideology above all else.

So your argument basically boils down too "Stalin was at fault for being Stalin", which is a tautology of a rather high order...
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what kind of a propaganda line they could've went with there. "The despot's daughter chose us over Khrushchev! Doesn't that show how great we are?"
Now after seeing the relatively mild rule of Khrushchev she realize what a real monster her father was and that the USSR was not going to change.
 
Funny, that isn’t what Hitler said to the Industrialists on 20 Feb 1933. The Industrialists were more concerned about the Communists-and they heavily funded the Nazi rise.

Which was true to the very end. This is the announcement over Radio Hamburg about Hitler's death. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/doenitz-announces-hitler-s-death-may-1945
Radio Hamburg said:
ANNOUNCER: The German wireless broadcasts serious, important news for the German people.

(Three rolls of the drums are heard.)

ANNOUNCER: It is reported from Der Fuehrer's headquarters that our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler, fighting to the last breath against Bolshevism, fell for Germany this afternoon in his operational headquarters in the Reich Chancellery.

On April 30 Der Fuehrer appointed Grand Admiral Doenitz his successor. The grand admiral and successor of Der Fuehrer now speaks to the German people.

DOENITZ: German men and women, soldiers of the armed forces: Our Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, has fallen. In the deepest sorrow and respect the German people bow.

At an early date he had recognized the frightful danger of Bolshevism and dedicated his existence to this struggle. At the end of his struggle, of his unswerving straight road of life, stands his hero's death in the capital of the German Reich. His life has been one single service for Germany. His activity in the fight against the Bolshevik storm flood concerned not only Europe but the entire civilized world.

Der Fuehrer has appointed me to be his successor.

Fully conscious of the responsibility, I take over the leadership of the German people at this fateful hour.

It is my first task to save Germany from destruction by the advancing Bolshevist enemy. For this aim alone the military struggle continues. As far and for so long as achievement of this aim is impeded by the British and the Americans, we shall be forced to carry on our defensive fight against them as well. Under such conditions, however, the Anglo-Americans will continue the war not for their own peoples but solely for the spreading of Bolshevism in Europe.

What the German people have achieved in battle and borne in the homeland during the struggle of this war is unique in history. In the coming time of need and crisis of our people I shall endeavor to establish tolerable conditions of living for our women, men and children so far as this lies in my power.

For all this I need your help. Give me your confidence because your road is mine as well. Maintain order and discipline in town and country. Let everybody do his duty at his own post. Only thus shall we mitigate the sufferings that the coming time will bring to each of us; only thus shall we be able to prevent a collapse. If we do all that is in our power, God will not forsake us after so much suffering and sacrifice.

(National anthems.)

That looks like Donitz thought it very important as a good part of his little speech mentioned it. As I said my guess is no October Revolution = probably no Hitler.
 
Last edited:
The question. Did Russia improve because of Stalin, or despite him?

It seems pretty bad. Mass destruction of administrators and veteran officers. Famines. Squalor. Inefficiencies.

But one must admit, Russia did improve, did industrialised. I'm fairly sure those of 1900 would not have guessed that Russia would actually become a superpower in its own right.

So. Thoughts?

It depends upon - "compared to what?" The most likely scenario is that there is collective leadership by the Central Committee. This means no purge. Probably no Ukraine starvation situation. No purge of the military. So the military is in better shape. More Western oriented people like Zinoviev and Litvinov are involved. A collective leadership would have had trouble getting itself together and agreeing to the 1939 non-aggression pact. So Hitler may not go to war in 1939 or - if he does, he is not in a position to use all of his military on a Western invasion in 1940.
 
If the question is was Stalin good, then the answer is a very big No. He was a paranoid, ruthless, psychopath up there with the worst of all time. However that's not the question being posed by the OP. The question is more would it have been better for Russia if Stalin was not in charge ie would the alternatives be any better.
If we are talking a POD around the death of Lenin, then we have a group of candidates ( solo or in groups ) that unfortunately all seem to share the same bad traits. They were the survivors of a brutal combination of revolutionary war and pile climbing and hence both paranoid and ruthless.
A lot of Stalin's policies would occur anyway, the more pro western candidates being more vulnerable to claims of being counter revolutionary if things did not go to plan. A big question is would the alternatives start blaming counter revolutionaries for missed targets and start purging people just like Stalin. Once that mindset gets in place then it can easily escalate to Stalin like numbers.
Its a bit hard to answer as Stalin got rid of rivals rather quickly before their potential polices become totally clear. So the best I can do is say it probably would have been better without Stalin but there are many scenarios where Barbarossa goes better for the Germans due to weaker leadership and division ( the MR pact was, in the final analysis, a safety net. Hitler would have invaded Poland eventually, like the attack on Russia it was ideologically driven. Indeed Germany was in a state that it needed to either invade someone or face an economy starting to implode). In those cases overall it would be worse not only for Russia but the rest of Europe ( WW2 probably ending with American nukes instead of the Red Army Steamroller )
 
It depends upon - "compared to what?" The most likely scenario is that there is collective leadership by the Central Committee. This means no purge. Probably no Ukraine starvation situation.

Well, there probably is still a purge and a famine, but they'll be vastly smaller and less destructive then OTL. The famines probably only kill hundreds of thousands instead of millions and the purges are limited to the party and mostly see people put into forced retirement instead of shot or sent to Gulag.
 
There is far too much great man theory in this thread.

The ural Siberian method of forced grain extraction was an initiative of the working class, taken up by the lower and then higher nomenklatura in order to hold on to the bolting horse of working class discontent. The ural Siberian method led to the destruction of the rural NEP economic network and forced collectivisation. The MTS / forced collective economy was incapable of local famine amelioration; the new logistics incapable of transport and regional amelioration.

Within the parameters of not himself being purged, or the party not being overthrown by urban workers, Stalin had no choice regarding extraction or collectivisation. The decision to cultivate an ineffective logistics system was within nomenklatura control, not merely Stalin's.

The fantasy that a Deng solution was available due to Great Man Bukharin is laughable. The second scissors crisis and the spontaneous threat of the workers' Ural Siberian method demonstrated the political and economic failure of the NEP to create an agricultural economy sufficient for urban workers demands.

And where, precisely, is Great Man Stalin's unique guiding hand here?

Where, given Sheila Fitzpatricks work on the lower nomenklatura's sick hunger for purging as promotion, is his hand in creating the elites purging of the elite? Where is his hand in the production of a mass labour camp system targeting peasants, rural workers and urban workers?

The party, nomenklatura and in certain circumstances urban working class all have a hand in this deal. Had Stalin not existed, he would have had to be created—Stalin himself was created by the party's needs.

Even if you believe Stalin's personality was essential to the deaths of XY Zvinov of the ABC fruit canning collective most decisions made by party, state or enterprise were well below the attention of the political buro; which itself as we know from archival materials functioned on a collective cabinet basis even and especially when stacked with a single line.

There is a sick orientalist bent in projecting the Vozhd onto Stalin, and a sick avoidance of dealing with broader social responsibility.

Bukharin may not have known why he had to die, but due to their self and class interest every party member, nomenklatura, Stakhanovite foreman, norm busting shock worker and even Trotskyite knew why Bukharin must die. The party's control over party, state and working class was non negotiable. Standing in the path of that, even innocently, accidentally, apparently, by association, necessitated—for the nomenklaturas class interest—the destruction of that person or power.

I'm not going to mourn for Generals Kotov, and all their daughters soft feet. I'm not going to mourn for the Machine Tractor Station supervisors, or Stakhanovite bastard sweating foremen. I'm not going to mourn for the Bukharinite or Trotskyite party members sent through the camps. Some of those who ride the tiger the tiger eats. The rest of the tigers diet were workers and peasants. They I have sympathy to mourn for.

Yours,
Sam R.
 

Anchises

Banned
Radio Yerevan was asked: Was Comrade Stalin a good leader?

Radio Yerevan answered: Yes, who else could have enabled the Nazis and then recieved enough American help to win against them ?

Stalin was good for Stalin. 8 pages of discussion despite Stalin's massive fuck ups and his at best mediocre "achievements" show that he sadly succeded in building his legend.
 
And in regards to the second and third, he fits the bill without a shed of doubt til 1924. And in regards to the first, in the case of til 1917 you could argue a case for the first.

It's very interesting to see, the more you read of his early years, that in the contest for the leadership of the CPSU(b) that the man didn't need to win by scheming or theft. He was genuinely more popular than Trotsky in the party at the time. Stalin really is a fascinating case and there is far more to him than the glib cliché image of being nothing more than a mass murdering bureaucrat.
Stalin, imo, epitomizes the historic trend that Russian rulers are 1) skilled in operating political/bureaucratic machinery, 2) willing to be authoritarian, 3) profoundly nationalistic. Stalin had all three in spades, and his time in power was a time of profound change in the USSR. Almost any comprehensive history of the USSR would be remiss without sections with heavy focus on him. He isn't called the "Red Tsar" for nothing.
 

DougM

Donor
Just because we can explain why he was the way he was proofs nothing my sister (A veterinarian) can explain why a rabid dog got rabies and how that works but the dog still has to be put down.

So no mater how “justified “ or not his actions were he was still a sick monster who only knew how to rule by the use of terror and the USSR and its people would be a lot better off if he was killed young.
 
Given that almost any other Soviet leadership would have pushed through the collectivization and industrialization programs anyways, a fair number could have done it less brutally as I outlined, and also would have avoided much of the purges, I fail to see how the Soviets would then proceed to do worse in WW2. It’s rather more likely they do considerably better.

Agreed, but doing better than Stalin is NOT difficult!!!!
 
Top