WI Mikhail Frunze hadn't died in 1925

my first serious post here, so please don't rip me to bits if I've misunderstood how to format or phrase a thread? Cheers.

Mikhail Frunze was a Bolshevik, and a major military and political leader with roles in both the 1905 and 1917 Russian Revolutions, and in the Russian Civil War.

He was the overall commander for the Eastern Front, defeated Admiral Kolchak and many other enemies of the Soviet state. He was a friend of Kemal Ataturk, and supported Zinoviev against Stalin after the death of Lenin.

He died in October 1925 of chloroform poisoning during surgery.

Had he lived, he may have had sufficient clout to oppose Stalin, and/or provided a strong leader for the Red Army, and a voice for the non-Russian states within the USSR. As an affiliate of Trotsky and Zinoviev, with him alive the USSR might have had a more active role in aiding left-wing movements abroad, particularly in Germany and Turkey.

On the 10th anniversary of the revolution, in 1927, the United Opposition organised demonstrations which were dispersed by force. This might have gone very differently with the support of the "Starets" of the Red Army.

so, um ... thoughts anyone?
 

Deleted member 1487

I wish I knew more about Russian history to be able to contribute, but at very least I will offer you a bump and support, because I've at least heard of Frunze and would like to see someone with actual knowledge on this relatively obscure figure comment on this interesting idea.
 

Cook

Banned
...supported Zinoviev against Stalin after the death of Lenin.

He died in October 1925 of chloroform poisoning during surgery.
I thought these two items were not considered coincidental?
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
So Frunze doesn’t die on the operating table; either because he is smart enough to realize that he doesn’t need surgery and that surgery, even routine surgery, entails risk, especially in Bolshevik Russia or because the assassin proves inept and doesn’t administer a lethal dose of chloroform. In that case either Stalin resorts to less subtle means of removing this potential rival, al la the Kirov assassination, or he falls victim to the great purge following Kirov’s assassination; just as Zinoviev did.

The problem with those opposing Stalin was that they generally played the game according to the rules, even the very limited and extremely Machiavellian rules of the Bolshevik Party, meanwhile Stalin was out the back pouring petrol on the rule book.
 
So, basically it would require a small ASB to keep Frunze alive, him not being capable of Stalin levels of intrigue.

OTOH, he may well have gone into exile with Trotsky in the worst case - or become aware of the seriousness of the threat from Stalin and emplaced himself within the Red Army for greater security - perhaps leading to an alt Soviet Union where the Party, Army and KGB were less unified?
 
I thought these two items were not considered coincidental?

Nah, he had an illness all his life and his surgery was only the result of his ignoring his condition until it got too serious.

But really, it's like debating Kirov's death, in the end, it doesn't matter if Stalin had a hand in shooting a man who had plenty of other enemies who could have done it just as readily, what matters is the effect of said death.
 
The problem with those opposing Stalin was that they generally played the game according to the rules, even the very limited and extremely Machiavellian rules of the Bolshevik Party, meanwhile Stalin was out the back pouring petrol on the rule book.
You talk as if Stalin was working alone in these purges. It was the bureaucracy of the Party set up during the civil war that proved necessary for victory that provided the means for these purges to occur. That set-up made it possible for dissident elements to be permenantly removed by force, whether it be Trotsky massacring mutinous sailors at Kronstadt, Lenin dissolving the soviets or allowing Stalin to line up all his political opponents against the wall. You had disciplined forces prepared to carry it out and propagandists prepared to justify it immediately. All it would have taken for us to be debating what would have happened if Stalin hadn't been purged would have been for Zinoviev or Trotsky, or whoever, to realise the potential of (and utilise) the bureacracy sooner. Frunze could have been that person... probably not but it's possible.
 
If Stalin did have him eliminated, it's interesting that Frunze Academy is still named after him. ....

If he survived, and tried to lead a coup, I suspect he'd fail - and then there WOULDN'T be any military academy named after him. A Gulag maybe:)
 
The trouble with Stalin is he killed so many, even if he had nothing to do with Frunze's demise, we all assume he did. Every time I think about one of these deaths I see the great Herblock cartoon "You were always a great friend of mine Josef"
 

Cook

Banned
The trouble with Stalin is he killed so many, even if he had nothing to do with Frunze's demise, we all assume he did.
There were many who suspected it at the time, well before Stalin commenced the Great Purge. But you are right; it is possible that some of the 'accidents' that befell Stalin’s rivals in the 1920s and early ‘30s really were accidents.
 
Top