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

The bloke who couldn't even make it to Warsaw in 1920? Fat chance.
Soviet Russia at this time had fought a devastating civil war while the Soviet Union in 1941 would be industrialized much more and with the possibility of a build-up of the Red Army.
 

Deleted member 1487

Soviet Russia at this time had fought a devastating civil war while the Soviet Union in 1941 would be industrialized much more and with the possibility of a build-up of the Red Army.
They had a very combat experienced force in 1920 and would not have that in 1939, at least not as much as in 1920. Don't forget the OP said war in 1939 without Stalin. And without Stalin industrialization would likely not be nearly as fast, while just because someone else is in power doesn't mean that the Red Army would be in a better state than in OTL 1939, especially with less industry. And the Wallies might well not want the Soviets conquering Germany, so well might side with Germany or do things to hamper the USSR like bombing Baku.
 
Results will greatly depend on how it happens so you have to be more clear in your scenario.
Okay then, either let it either be Bukharin who both has more desire for power and the political savyness to obtain it or someone with similar policies to Bukharin and the political skills necessary to attain power.
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.

That seems awfully deterministic, I can see many wanting collectivization and that turning out messy, but I always thought the purges were a part of Stalin's paranoia and not something common to the Soviet leadership.
 

Deleted member 1487

That seems awfully deterministic, I can see many wanting collectivization and that turning out messy, but I always thought the purges were a part of Stalin's paranoia and not something common to the Soviet leadership.
Purging started well before Stalin. Lenin was not a nice guy, nor was Trotsky. The Red Army during the Civil War did some pretty heinous shit against their ideological enemies and Stalin's purges was in many ways a continuation of that, though to help cement his absolute power and deflect attention away from his failings. Given the nature of the Soviet system as set up by Lenin whomever is in power will have enemies and reasons to purge their foes or even just detractors to force their vision through. If the history of communist (and really any authoritarian) regimes globally is any sort of heuristic it is a dog-eat-dog political system that especially at the time rewarded the most ruthless, while the moderates got purged.
 
Purging started well before Stalin. Lenin was not a nice guy, nor was Trotsky. The Red Army during the Civil War did some pretty heinous shit against their ideological enemies and Stalin's purges was in many ways a continuation of that, though to help cement his absolute power and deflect attention away from his failings. Given the nature of the Soviet system as set up by Lenin whomever is in power will have enemies and reasons to purge their foes or even just detractors to force their vision through. If the history of communist (and really any authoritarian) regimes globally is any sort of heuristic it is a dog-eat-dog political system that especially at the time rewarded the most ruthless, while the moderates got purged.
Aside from Beria and Abakumov and others associated with the State Security organs Khrushchev never violently purged anyone, even the anti-party group that tried to depose him all got to live peacefully until they died in their 80s and 90s. Khrushchev himself was peacefully deposed and allowed to right his memoirs. I know Lenin was very harsh with the enemies of the Bolsheviks but I remain unconvinced that anyone but Stalin would act nearly so violently towards his fellow Bolsheviks. An alternative leader might evict his opponents from the party like Khrushchev did, but I doubt we would get anything like the Show Trials and mass executions.
 

Deleted member 1487

Aside from Beria and Abakumov and others associated with the State Security organs Khrushchev never violently purged anyone, even the anti-party group that tried to depose him all got to live peacefully until they died in their 80s and 90s. Khrushchev himself was peacefully deposed and allowed to right his memoirs. I know Lenin was very harsh with the enemies of the Bolsheviks but I remain unconvinced that anyone but Stalin would act nearly so violently towards his fellow Bolsheviks. An alternative leader might evict his opponents from the party like Khrushchev did, but I doubt we would get anything like the Show Trials and mass executions.
Khrushchev got deposed by hardliners because he didn't maintain a strong had vis-a-vis rivals and specifically wasn't actively cutthroat after the initial moves because he was trying to create a better society than the one Stalin led. That was not the USSR/society/world that Stalin came up in. Khrushchev wasn't a threat so was allowed to live, while in general the USSR was somewhat mellowing, because the world and culture itself was becoming less cutthroat. Plus he probably had enough public support that actually purging him Stalin-style would have resulted in a negative public reaction, but also wasn't necessary.
Stalin himself was a special kind of brutal, which is why he won out in the end and stayed in power until his body literally fell apart. Just because someone else rising to power (probably only because Stalin died early for some reason) doesn't mean they'd be anything more than just less brutal than Stalin. There was so many changes that needed to be enforced on Soviet to push through the Bolshevik policy platform that some serious levels of brutality and 'messiness' would result as would either that person being deposed or lashing out to maintain power when things got messy as Stalin did. Khrushchev's less brutal USSR was in part only possible because Soviet economic policy had already been imposed and solidified over the nation, especially after the bloodbath that was WW2 confirmed it's preeminence as a global system; none of that had happened in the 1930s when Communism in Russia was still fragile and not fully implemented.
 
Aside from Beria and Abakumov and others associated with the State Security organs Khrushchev never violently purged anyone, even the anti-party group that tried to depose him all got to live peacefully until they died in their 80s and 90s. Khrushchev himself was peacefully deposed and allowed to right his memoirs. I know Lenin was very harsh with the enemies of the Bolsheviks but I remain unconvinced that anyone but Stalin would act nearly so violently towards his fellow Bolsheviks. An alternative leader might evict his opponents from the party like Khrushchev did, but I doubt we would get anything like the Show Trials and mass executions.

Khrushchev was ruthless in his own way (his actions, as a "prisoner interrogator" during the battle of Stalingrad suggests this behavior pattern.) but at least he was not a complete psychopath which Stalin most assuredly was. It would be interesting to see how much the death of Kruschchev's son, Leonid, under some rather mysterious circumstances played a role in Nikita's own machinations against Stalin. The true story of what happened to that young fighter pilot has never been fleshed out. Anyway, if we strictly go by Kruschchev's memoirs, it seems that our "peacenik" had excellent reason to see Beria get the works after Stalin "stroked" out.
 
They had a very combat experienced force in 1920 and would not have that in 1939, at least not as much as in 1920. Don't forget the OP said war in 1939 without Stalin. And without Stalin industrialization would likely not be nearly as fast, while just because someone else is in power doesn't mean that the Red Army would be in a better state than in OTL 1939, especially with less industry.

Why? Russia was industrializing faster just before WW1 than under Stalin and Stalin's record in industrialization has been matched or exceeded a number of times.
 
Khrushchev got deposed by hardliners because he didn't maintain a strong had vis-a-vis rivals and specifically wasn't actively cutthroat after the initial moves because he was trying to create a better society than the one Stalin led. That was not the USSR/society/world that Stalin came up in. Khrushchev wasn't a threat so was allowed to live, while in general the USSR was somewhat mellowing, because the world and culture itself was becoming less cutthroat. Plus he probably had enough public support that actually purging him Stalin-style would have resulted in a negative public reaction, but also wasn't necessary.
Stalin himself was a special kind of brutal, which is why he won out in the end and stayed in power until his body literally fell apart. Just because someone else rising to power (probably only because Stalin died early for some reason) doesn't mean they'd be anything more than just less brutal than Stalin. There was so many changes that needed to be enforced on Soviet to push through the Bolshevik policy platform that some serious levels of brutality and 'messiness' would result as would either that person being deposed or lashing out to maintain power when things got messy as Stalin did. Khrushchev's less brutal USSR was in part only possible because Soviet economic policy had already been imposed and solidified over the nation, especially after the bloodbath that was WW2 confirmed it's preeminence as a global system; none of that had happened in the 1930s when Communism in Russia was still fragile and not fully implemented.
But even in OTL political rivals were merely expelled from the party until Stalin started the mass murders in the mid 1930s, I have a hard time imagining anyone else replicating that.
Anyway, if we strictly go by Kruschchev's memoirs, it seems that our "peacenik" had excellent reason to see Beria get the works after Stalin "stroked" out
I haven't read his memoirs, what were his reasons for executing Beria?
 

Deleted member 1487

Why? Russia was industrializing faster just before WW1 than under Stalin and Stalin's record in industrialization has been matched or exceeded a number of times.
Because it wasn't simply Stalin holding things back, but Soviet lack of capital due to flight, being ostracized internationally, being destroyed from WW1 and the RCW, and so on. Regardless of who was in charge the USSR was going to have a hard time industrializing as fast as the Czar due to structural issues without serious reckless abandon in finding any way to raise capital to buy help/equipment internationally.
 
This could lead to a two front war for the Soviets. If the Germans hit Poland and keep going, the Japanese may not feel inclined to quit after Nomonhan.
 
Because it wasn't simply Stalin holding things back, but Soviet lack of capital due to flight, being ostracized internationally, being destroyed from WW1 and the RCW, and so on. Regardless of who was in charge the USSR was going to have a hard time industrializing as fast as the Czar due to structural issues without serious reckless abandon in finding any way to raise capital to buy help/equipment internationally.

Actually, most rebuilding happens relatively quickly . It is once you get to where you started from when things slow down usually.
 
But even in OTL political rivals were merely expelled from the party until Stalin started the mass murders in the mid 1930s, I have a hard time imagining anyone else replicating that.

I haven't read his memoirs, what were his reasons for executing Beria?

Khrushchev's memoirs are very self serving, with Nikita over-emphasizing his role in many critical events of the 1942 period when he was a commissar in the Ukraine. We know from recent Russian archive research that he was complicit in many Stalin ordered executions from 1932 to 1935, especially in the Moscow party purges. These were murders. In a proper jurisprudence state, Khrushchev would have been arrested and executed. Beria, as a fellow conspirator and NKVD head would have known these things. Beria had to die.

An aside about Khrushchev's son. What is sometimes speculated is that Leonid was MIA due to German action and was later found as a PW and killed as per Stalin's orders on suspected turncoats. That has no documentation to support it, though. What we also do not know, and it is documented, is why Leonid's wife, Kruschchev's daughter in law, Liuba Khrushcheva, was arrested and sent to a gulag in 1945. There are questions of blackmail and hostage taking involved and implied which was a favorite Stalin tactic to insure the loyalties of his closest and "loyalist" toadies. There is no paper trail to explain it, aside from the arrest and deportation orders but presumably Beria was somehow involved in it. Khrushchev glosses over all of these incidents, but he does mention them.

I just see a lot of questions, that may be answered finally long after I'm gone, but I would like some answers now, you know?
 
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.

The main problem for whoever is alt-Stalin is that Russian Empire did not have too many technical specialists of all levels (from constructors and engineers down to the experienced industrial workers) and the RCW made things even worse. The same goes for the scientific/teaching cadres in the universities. As a result, in the Soviet state technical expertise was in a short supply and qualification of the graduates from the Soviet universities was on average not too high. So it should not come as a big surprise that the whole industrialization process, while the numbers were impressive, was quite bumpy with a lot of trial and error interactions some of which could be avoided by more experienced cadres. Probably it is not too optimistic to assume that such cadres started appearing only by the late 1930's. Of course, no repressions against the old time specialists could improve situation but up to which degree? There was not enough of them to start with.

The same goes for the military cadres. While formally the numbers of the imperial officers who went to the Red Army was quite big, most of them had been war-time officers with a minimal military education. The graduates of the General Staff Academy were in a short supply and so were the high-ranking officers and generals. The result was an obvious problem with teaching the new cadres (shortage of the qualified lecturers in the military academy) aggravated by the political factor. No matter who is alt-Stalin, the ideology is still there and so is class-based approach. What probably made things worse (somewhat paradoxically) is a promotion of the numerous talented people during the RCW. Many (perhaps most) of them did not have educational background necessary for an advanced military education and neither did they have any interest in bringing themselves up to date on the military issues. Add to this excessive drinking "traditionally" associated with the combination of a low culture and high position and you end up with a big problem.

Take for example, one of the most brilliant commanders of the RCW, Blucher. He was quite loyal to Stalin and Stalin kept defending him against the accusations in excessive drinking ("well, today he is drunk but tomorrow he will be sober", "old horse remembers how to plough", etc.). He was member of the tribunal that convicted Tukhachevsky. But after the Lake Khasan incident he fell out of power. Or take another "hero" of the RCW, Dybenko: the guy was a complete disaster even during the RCW (but was quite popular among the Baltic sailors) and remained a complete nincompoop during all his career.
 

Deleted member 1487

Actually, most rebuilding happens relatively quickly . It is once you get to where you started from when things slow down usually.
If you have the necessary experts in country. Russia of the 1920s suffered from serious brain drain besides capital flight. Does TTL USSR still cut a deal with Germany in the 1920s? Do they hire foreign experts from abroad like Fred Koch?
 
If you have the necessary experts in country. Russia of the 1920s suffered from serious brain drain besides capital flight. Does TTL USSR still cut a deal with Germany in the 1920s? Do they hire foreign experts from abroad like Fred Koch?

I don't see why not, nothing much has changed except that Russia has a less bloodthristy leader.
 

Deleted member 1487

I don't see why not, nothing much has changed except that Russia has a less bloodthristy leader.
That bloodthristiness created the conditions to gather the necessary money to pay for all the foreign assistance they got IOTL. No one other than the guy Stalin used and dumped was interested in continuing the NEP, which mean collectivization and dekulakization with all the death and problems that entailed no matter who (with a realistic chance) ends up in charge of the USSR. Also it should be noted that Stalin wasn't the only one paranoid about the looming threat of invasion from the West (incorrect as it was) and the need to industrialize as quickly as possible regardless of cost. That went back to Lenin, as the aftermath of the Revolution did see several nations invade Russia to aid the Whites. So while rapid industrialization would happen to some degree, the rapidity and resulting fallout depends on how much whomever was in charge wanted to force the issue regardless of cost the rural population. Then the Great Depression drove down the price of grain, which was how the USSR was paying for foreign assistance, so you have choice, lay off the expropriatation of grain in increasingly large amounts or take more to keep up the pace of industrialization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan#Rapid_growth_of_heavy_industry
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm well aware of the Red Terror, but that's not really strong evidence that the alternative to Stalin would go on a similar bloody rampage against his fellow Bolsheviks.
Ultimately we can only speculate, but when things start getting messy who knows. Ultimately though even under Stalin the majority of purging wasn't done within the party leadership, so if a few dozen top leaders are spared ITTL that doesn't mean the majority of the populace would be.
 
Top