Stalin dies at the Tehran Conference

Although Stalin was the least likely to die, what would be the effect of him dieing at the Tehran Conference?
 
Other polish borders after the war.

It would at least create for awhile a less stable Sovjet government so anything could happen, but I doubt if that will have some influence on the outcome of the second world war.
 
Good question, WW2 will end historically, but the extent of Soviet power will be decided by Stalin's sucessor instead....

I dobut anybody would give up Soviet influence in E europe. How they would go about it is another question but IMO it would still be soviet-backed communist parties taking control with any means possible.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Agreed. The Russians will immediately assume that Churchill and Roosevelt had Stalin murdered.

That could be dangerous. What if the Soviets decided to go for a separate peace with Germany. It's not like the West wouldn't be able to eventually beat Hitler on their own at this point, but how many more lives would a separate USSR/ German agreement cost the allies??
 
That could be dangerous. What if the Soviets decided to go for a separate peace with Germany. It's not like the West wouldn't be able to eventually beat Hitler on their own at this point, but how many more lives would a separate USSR/ German agreement cost the allies??
It doesn't matter. Hitler won't accept it.
 
well hitler would want every thing west of lenningrad, and that soviets dont interfere.

as a minimum....
 
As much as Stalin was a vile jackass to put it lightly, he was responsible for Soviet victory in the Second World War and kept stability with iron handed rule. I don't know the exact details of this conference, but I'd assume the Soviets would destabilize without their leader in the deadly situation that the WW2 was, and that there would be fewer strategic Soviet victories so much as just bogging the Germans down and leading a more defensive campaign. Which could lead to a separate peace between Germany and Russia, and yadda, yadda, yadda.
 
actually moltov would take over i think, he seems like the type of guy that would make a peace.
 
As much as Stalin was a vile jackass to put it lightly, he was responsible for Soviet victory in the Second World War and kept stability with iron handed rule. I don't know the exact details of this conference, but I'd assume the Soviets would destabilize without their leader in the deadly situation that the WW2 was, and that there would be fewer strategic Soviet victories so much as just bogging the Germans down and leading a more defensive campaign. Which could lead to a separate peace between Germany and Russia, and yadda, yadda, yadda.
You are right.
Soviet rulers will struggle each other and sabotage each other decisions. So less offensives.
BUT - no separate peace. USSR crushed Hitler twice in two main battles - Stalingrad and Kursk (last hope of nazi) and feel healthy and strong.
Hilter don't fear Britain and USA - 80% or more of his armies (and best) was at Eastern front.

And because main question of conference was second front - there will be no second front or it will appear year later - when Soviet Army will take all Eastern Europe and most of Germany.
So - we will know "Allies meets on Rhine" or "Allies meets at Paris" ;-) ;-) ;-)

So in western favour don't kill Stalin ;-)
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
You are right.
Soviet rulers will struggle each other and sabotage each other decisions. So less offensives.
BUT - no separate peace. USSR crushed Hitler twice in two main battles - Stalingrad and Kursk (last hope of nazi) and feel healthy and strong.
Hilter don't fear Britain and USA - 80% or more of his armies (and best) was at Eastern front.

And because main question of conference was second front - there will be no second front or it will appear year later - when Soviet Army will take all Eastern Europe and most of Germany.
So - we will know "Allies meets on Rhine" or "Allies meets at Paris" ;-) ;-) ;-)

So in western favour don't kill Stalin ;-)


Why wouldn't there be a second front? I can't see the WAllies giving up their piece of the pie.
 
Why wouldn't there be a second front? I can't see the WAllies giving up their piece of the pie.
They had to settle questions of second front. Without clear USSR position (no Stalin and struggle of his successor for next 6 monthes-1 year) Allies wouldn't start second front or it would be weak Italian crawling.

Without firm opinion - consensus between USA, Brits, USSR - Soviets can just wait during allied invasion and it will sink in blood (especially in Normandy). Germans will temporarily send troops to fight Allies back in ocean and then return on Eastern front where Soviet will wait.

Or you cannot imagine such meanness of Soviets ? ;-)

So as I said second front could be later and less successful.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
On the other hand without a second front East Germany could be a hellhole for the Soviets. Sure the USSR had all the manpower they needed for taking Eastern Europe. But what will happen when they enter the Fatherland and the Germans can focus on only one front?
 
On the other hand without a second front East Germany could be a hellhole for the Soviets. Sure the USSR had all the manpower they needed for taking Eastern Europe. But what will happen when they enter the Fatherland and the Germans can focus on only one front?

So your think WAllies better suited for capturing of German Fatherland ? ;-)
USSR had all the manpower they needed for taking Eastern Europe AND Germany to Rhine.

We can say that between Nazi and WAllies was no "separate peace" but was understanding to stand against Soviets and surrender to WAllies.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
So your think WAllies better suited for capturing of German Fatherland ? ;-)
USSR had all the manpower they needed for taking Eastern Europe AND Germany to Rhine.

We can say that between Nazi and WAllies was no "separate peace" but was understanding to stand against Soviets and surrender to WAllies.

No, I think anyone invasion with only one front would be hellish. Sure, The USSR would win in the end, but to which price?? Any scenario with a one front invasion; Western or Soviet would spike the numbers of casualties out of proportions.
 
They had to settle questions of second front. Without clear USSR position (no Stalin and struggle of his successor for next 6 monthes-1 year) Allies wouldn't start second front or it would be weak Italian crawling.

Stalin pushed for second front ASAP but Wallies wanted it as well. They just disagreed on timing and when was right time to do it. roosevelt wanted landings in france and drive into Gemrany, Churchill prefered to screw around periphery
 
Top