Stalin dies in 1933: Who succeeds him?

In a scenario where Joseph Stalin dies exactly 20 years earlier than OTL (let's assume from a random heart attack or stroke), who succeeds him as leader of the Soviet Union? How does the Soviet Union develop with Stalin dying in 1933 instead of 1953?
 
Vyacheslav Molotov (Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars), Kliment Voroshilov (People's Commissar for Defense), Mikhail Kalinin (Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet), Lazar Kaganovich (First Secretary of the Moscow Obkom and Gorkom). They were quite influential members of the Soviet Politburo at that time, choose who you like.
 
Vyacheslav Molotov (Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars), Kliment Voroshilov (People's Commissar for Defense), Mikhail Kalinin (Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet), Lazar Kaganovich (First Secretary of the Moscow Obkom and Gorkom). They were quite influential members of the Soviet Politburo at that time, choose who you like.
Well, this is prior to the Great Purge, so people like Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, and the like are still around. In fact, Sergei Kirov is still alive as Stalin dies in this scenario in 1933.
 
Well, this is prior to the Great Purge, so people like Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, and the like are still around. In fact, Sergei Kirov is still alive as Stalin dies in this scenario in 1933.
Yeah, but Kirov's interests were limited mainly in Leningrad. And to return to power, Kamenev/Zinoviev/Bukharin needed democratic elections or a new revolution, and none of this was likely. Although this is of course only my opinion.
 
Most probably Kirov. If Stalin lived long enough to nominate a successor (and his nomination had weight), possibly Zhdanov, Andreyev or Malenkov (though he might be thought a bit young). If Stalin's death caused something of a reaction against him, Bukharin. If support of the Army proved necessary, Gamarnik would have had a good chance. Rykov might have made a comeback and Litvinov could have been a compromise candidate in event of a deadlock between any of the preceding.
 
Molotov also a strong possible. Kaganovich devoted adherent of Stalin and personally able but very unpopular. Voroshilov and Kalinin were seen as Stalin's stooges and unlikely to command widespread support. Doubtful also if Kalinin had any real capacity for the job. If it had come to tanks and bayonets, it is likely that the army would have taken their cue from Gamarnik not Voroshilov -the former was seen as competent and supportive of Tukahevsky's military ambitions. Stalin saw Kirov as the main threat and (if Alexander Orlov is to be credited) had him assasinated first before the purges, which should tell us something. Stalin was paranoid (and evil) but far from stupid. Kaganovich, Voroshilov and Kalinin never purged despite their long time in high office which should also tell us something. Stalin never regarded any of the three as a threat which suggests that they really wouldn't have had the capacity/will to succeed him.
 
Most probably Kirov. If Stalin lived long enough to nominate a successor (and his nomination had weight), possibly Zhdanov, Andreyev or Malenkov (though he might be thought a bit young). If Stalin's death caused something of a reaction against him, Bukharin. If support of the Army proved necessary, Gamarnik would have had a good chance. Rykov might have made a comeback and Litvinov could have been a compromise candidate in event of a deadlock between any of the preceding.

IMO Kirov's importance was magnified by his assassination, and he had not really stood much chance of being Stalin's successor. The best work on Kirov is Matthew Lenoe's *The Kirov Murder and Soviet History* (the basic thesis of which is that Nikolaev probably acted alone in killing Kirov). Two points Lenoe makes:

(1) One should not exaggerate Kirov's stature in 1934. "Not only did the early publications of the memorial campaign turn Kirov into a plaster saint, they also exaggerated his stature in the party leadership. Perusal of *Pravda* and even Leningrad's hometown *Leningradkaya pravda* from 1934 suggests that Kirov's public profile before his death was substantially lower than that of Kaganovich, Molotov, or Ordzhonikidze. Coverage of the Leningrad leader was comparable to that of Pavel Postyshev and other second-level party officials. The overstatement of Kirov's power and prestige during the memorial campaign contributed to later assertions that he was a serious rival to Stalin." *The Kirov Murder and Soviet History,* pp. 494-495.

(2) Lenoe also argues that it is not true that Kirov got more votes than Stalin for re-election to the Central Committee at the Seventeenth Party Congress: "I. F. Kodatsky, from Leningrad, and Mikhail Kalinin were the only two TsK members elected unanimously. Stalin received three votes against, and Kirov four." p. 757. There were allegations in 1960-61 that there had really been two or three hundred votes against Stalin, but Lenoe dismisses them as implausible and designed to fit Khrushchev's narrative of the time--that many "honest Leninists" had tried to stand up to Stalin, but were thwarted by Stalin, Molotov, and Kaganovich--the last named was very conveniently accused of altering the voting results. pp. 613-614.) Of course that there were any votes at all against any of the leaders--especially Stalin--was suppressed, and in later memory that may have been inflated (or deliberately exaggerated) into suppression of a huge number of anti-Stalin votes.

IMO Molotov has the best chance. He was respected as a hard worker. Not imaginative, but it is doubtful that the Politburo wanted someone imaginative at the time. Andreyev, though a full Politburo member since 1932, was not of the same stature. Zhdanov was not even a candidate member of the Politburo until 1934. It's way too early for Malenkov. Kaganovich's Jewish origins would probably be enough to disqualify him. Former "Right Oppositionists" like Bukharin and Rykov would have a better chance of surviving than if Stalin had lived, but I can't see them returning to the really powerful offices. Former "Left Oppositionists" had even less chance of a return to power.

BTW, a Stalin death in 1933 is quite plausible. "...in August-September 1933, he [Stalin] was involved in two accidents, both of them potentially fatal. In the first, his automobile nearly collided head-on with a truck on a dark road outside Sochi. In the second a border detachment fired on his motorboat by accident near Gagra on the Black Sea. Stalin ordered measures taken to investigate each incident and prevent anything similar in the future, but he did not treat either as a potential assassination plot..." https://books.google.com/books?id=VTyQA8z-XQ4C&pg=PT684 We tend to forget that even in Stalin's USSR, sometimes people (including people whose deaths would be convenient to others) really did die by accident...
 
Last edited:

King Thomas

Banned
Less purges but still very strict, with the NKVD cracking down on any opposition but no slaughter of the Old Bolsheviks or the military officers. The Red Army puts up a better fight in WW2 without all the purges pre-war.
 
What would the foreign policy of a USSR where Stalin died in 1933 look like, then? How would it differ from Stalin's foreign policy?
 
What would the foreign policy of a USSR where Stalin died in 1933 look like, then? How would it differ from Stalin's foreign policy?

too late for a United Front in Germany, but more support for the Spanish Republicans and French Popular Front.

no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Probably bunkering down the Soviet Union and trading with everyone, yes even the Nazis but no outright cooperation and carving up territory with them.

Soviet govt and Red Army much better prepared for any Axis invasion (no Great Purge and Stalin delusions about Hitler). Nazis don't get much past Belarus/Baltics/Ukraine and rolled back sooner.
 
It's likely the Nazis would've never invaded, since the entire idea was that the post-Purge Red Army was a rotted scaffolding. "One good kick" and all that.

Conversely, it's less likely that a non-Stalin-led Union would've engaged in the Byzantine network of disinformation and uncertainty-dissemination which characterized Stalin's foreign policy. They would've probably attempted to take back the Baltics, (part of) Finland and (Eastern) Moldavia, but without Stalin's penchant for subterfuge and selling the same horse to two buyers.
 
What chance of Trotsky making a return from exile. He had been out of the country for 4 years but still had a lot of support from people opposed to Stalin and the 3rd International.
 
A lengthy see-saw between thuggish "little Stalins" without Stalin's political skills, on the one hand, and the politically clueless (in terms of patronage politics and deal-making) intellectuals, on the other hand. After several years, Tukhachevsky leads a coup and the result is Red Army communism and vastly better preparation for the inevitable German attack. Maybe even a let-up in the totalitarian attempts to control every aspect of society.
 
Last edited:
Top