Soviet Performance in a War with Germany in 1939 Without Stalin Ever Being in Power

How would the Soviet Union fair in a war with Nazi Germany in 1939 if Stalin never took power and none of his policies implemented? That means no forced collectivization and subsequent mass famine, no great purge, no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but also no rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union either. It doesn't necessarily matter who takes power, just that it isn't Stalin or someone like him who would implement his policies. And I'm aware that no Stalin quite possibly butterfly away Hitler, the Nazis and the war altogether, but I'm more interested in the military aspects of a German-Soviet war in 1939 over Poland so for conveniency let's just have international affairs go along as OTL until the summer of 1939 with the Soviet Union guaranteeing Polish independence in conjunction with the Western Allies. Finally the POD is after Lenin's death so any of Stalin's actions before then remain the same.
 
Hmmm...on the one hand, Stalin being removed means no purges, which means that you still have an excellent Red Army Officer Corps. On the other, if you're forbidding us from industrializing period, then the USSR is going to have a hard time, though eventually lend-lease will come into play in a butterfly genocide. However, I'd guess that almost any leader would industrialize to some degree, so overall much better than OTL for the Union in WWII, though I can't comment on the particulars unless you give a particular leader(s).

I will also add that, depending on who takes power, WWII might well not happen as OTL, it's possible for example that without Stalin's Comintern pitting the SPD and KPD against each other the Nazis would never have taken power.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hmmm...on the one hand, Stalin being removed means no purges, which means that you still have an excellent Red Army Officer Corps.
Depends. There was a lot of dead wood in the Soviet military IOTL and a different Soviet regime might have stacked it with their cronies too to ensure loyalty. They might have even purged it themselves for the same reason. Historically autocratic regimes didn't really promote based on merit.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not completely forbidding it, just without the Stalinist brutality.
Which perhaps well means that it doesn't happen nearly as rapidly or broadly in the same amount of time. It could have certainly been done more economically and without nearly as much atrocity, but that would not rushing the process and it taking longer. Plus if there is a Soviet regime you still have to deal with the problems of communist economic theory driving the process with all the problems that entails. Apparently everyone in charge wanted to end the NEP and force collectivization of farming, which means economic problems for the USSR.
 
Which perhaps well means that it doesn't happen nearly as rapidly or broadly in the same amount of time. It could have certainly been done more economically and without nearly as much atrocity, but that would not rushing the process and it taking longer. Plus if there is a Soviet regime you still have to deal with the problems of communist economic theory driving the process with all the problems that entails. Apparently everyone in charge wanted to end the NEP and force collectivization of farming, which means economic problems for the USSR.

Perhaps? Try probably: or at least if Stalinist Brutality dosen't mean just similar brutality under a different name. A lack of centeralization of power and greater defusion of power both among entities/departments/factions in society and between the rural and urban areas means you likely can't get the concentration of capital to rapidly develop industry (your modestly profitable "kulaks" are too defused and lacking in financial experience to make effective or willing industrial investors) and there will be too much politiking over using the more limited State resources and spreading them out over more areas. You're liable to get something more resembling the even less sustainable Nazi system of resource distribution than OTL's Soviet system that, while less totally productive than a market system at least makes up for it in certain areas by being able to more quickly and heavily direct resources to a specific area. And with the far smaller and more defused industrial base and inferior organizational system compared to Germany, any Barbarossa equivilent is going to HURT.

Of course, Stalin not being in power means shuffling the diplomatic policy deck as well. If you're dealing with a less brutally pragmatic regeime, would Germany get access to the Soviet natural resources needed to build up for their great Western lunge? Would a less "Socialism in one country" and more "Workers of the world unite!" policy result in a more sympathetic to Fascism international climate if it can focus more on it's anti-communist credentials against a vocal revolutionary force?
 
How would the Soviet Union fair in a war with Nazi Germany in 1939 if Stalin never took power and none of his policies implemented? That means no forced collectivization and subsequent mass famine, no great purge, no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but also no rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union either.

The M-R pact aside absence of Stalin does not automatically mean absence of the OTL policies. Destruction of independent peasants as a class was not an unique idea among the Soviet leadership and so were the ideas of super-industrialization and super-mechanization of the Red Army. IIRC, when Tukhachevsky came with the idea of the great increase of the military production he was initially mocked by Stalin and Ordjonikidze. Trotsky, IIRC, was advocating the "labor armies" as an instrument for fast industrialization.

Taking into an account that an idea of the Evil West going to war against the SU sooner or later, industrialization as a way to have modern army was pretty much a matter of "how exactly" rather then "to be or not to be". And keeping in mind that most of the early Soviet leaders where the bloodthirsty maniacs, is there a serious reason to assume that alt-Stalin would suddenly adopt the humane methods?

It doesn't necessarily matter who takes power, just that it isn't Stalin or someone like him who would implement his policies. And I'm aware that no Stalin quite possibly butterfly away Hitler, the Nazis and the war altogether, but I'm more interested in the military aspects of a German-Soviet war in 1939 over Poland so for conveniency let's just have international affairs go along as OTL until the summer of 1939 with the Soviet Union guaranteeing Polish independence in conjunction with the Western Allies. Finally the POD is after Lenin's death so any of Stalin's actions before then remain the same.

Well, with the surviving Tukhachevsky & Co (aka, the people for whom Poland was a sworn Enemy #1) the difference could be in the details but not an outcome. As for the touchy picture of the British-Franco-Soviet guarantee of the Polish independence, there was an obvious obstacle: Polish government. Unless you are going to change them as well (and butterfly away the consequences of the Soviet-Polish War), the Poles are still refusing to any arrangement which includes the SU so how are you going to proceed?
 
Hmmm...on the one hand, Stalin being removed means no purges,

No purges in OTL form, which does not mean that the military are going to remain a sacred cow.


which means that you still have an excellent Red Army Officer Corps.

It did not have an excellent officer corps prior to the main purges. Most of its members were under-educated, not up to date and had no inclination to learn. The fact that Stalin killed them does not imply that he killed them because they were good.

Ditto for industrialization: would happen almost no matter what.
 
Apparently everyone in charge wanted to end the NEP and force collectivization of farming,
Even Bukharin?

would Germany get access to the Soviet natural resources needed to build up for their great Western lunge?
There would be no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact or any kind of Soviet-German rapprochement.

As for the touchy picture of the British-Franco-Soviet guarantee of the Polish independence, there was an obvious obstacle: Polish government. Unless you are going to change them as well (and butterfly away the consequences of the Soviet-Polish War), the Poles are still refusing to any arrangement which includes the SU so how are you going to proceed?
With Poland getting overrun by the Germans, what's to stop the Soviets from just moving their armies into what's left of Poland?
 

Deleted member 1487

Even Bukharin?
How do you propose he gains power and sustains power given that he going against the general views of the rest of the party leadership? He allied with Stalin and helped him get power to count the push against the NEP and then got himself sidelined for his troubles.
 
Even Bukharin?

What was Bukharin's chance for becoming a head of the Soviet state?

There would be no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact or any kind of Soviet-German rapprochement.

Soviet Union and Germany had close contacts until Hitler came to power and there is no guarantee that alt-Stalin would not chose rapprochement with Nazi Germany when facing an open unwillingness of Britain and France to even conduct meaningful conversation about a military alliance.

With Poland getting overrun by the Germans, what's to stop the Soviets from just moving their armies into what's left of Poland?

A fear of getting at war with Germany with France and Britain gleefully watching events on the East.
 
1) Russia will industrialize with or without Stalin , or rather further industrialize as it was already industrialized and was industrializing under the later Czars
2) Russian Industrailization under Stalin was fiarly impressive but far from unmatched. Besides the US beating its growth rate on a number of occasions, Japan did so at least twice, Chnia is doing so faster right now and Russia itself was growing at its fastest rate in history with the last Czar just before WWI,.
3) So there is no real reason not to expect that the industrialization of Russia would be significantly slower with whoever replaces him.
4) Outside Stalin's paranoia there is no reason to suspect that the army was going to take over. Military coups are rare in Russian history.
5) So most likley you wind up with an economy little different than OTL but with Russia having better officers. Seems like a big net plus to me.
 
What was Bukharin's chance for becoming a head of the Soviet state?



Soviet Union and Germany had close contacts until Hitler came to power and there is no guarantee that alt-Stalin would not chose rapprochement with Nazi Germany when facing an open unwillingness of Britain and France to even conduct meaningful conversation about a military alliance.



A fear of getting at war with Germany with France and Britain gleefully watching events on the East.
Like I said I'm more interested in the results of the war and not how it happened.
 
As others have noted, there will probably still be forced collectivization, forced industrialization, famines, and purges. They might not be done as brutally, and Stalin's brutality was probably excessive for the objectives he set, but they'll still likely to be done in a brutal fashion. Reduced scale of the purges and famines might help... depending on who is and isn't purged and what reforms are made alongside them.
 
Are you suggesting the ural Siberian method with voluntary collectivisation, [which effectively amounts to] or no ural Siberian method. Because either of these mean a third revolution by urban workers in the late 1920s which means no Soviet Union in 1939.
 
Top