WI: Stalin Dies In 1928

On the eve of his 50th birthday, Stalin is shot and killed in December of 1928. How does the ensuing power struggle play out? Could Bukharin and Rykov consolidate power? If so what are the implications for the future of the Soviet Union with Stalin dead before he could complete his purge of the Right-Bolsheviks and his policies throughout the 1930s?
 
On the eve of his 50th birthday, Stalin is shot and killed in December of 1928. How does the ensuing power struggle play out? Could Bukharin and Rykov consolidate power? If so what are the implications for the future of the Soviet Union with Stalin dead before he could complete his purge of the Right-Bolsheviks and his policies throughout the 1930s?

The "Rightists" had already pretty much lost out by December 1928--although they would not be removed from the Politburo for another year or more. (A public anti-Rightist drive had already begun, despite the pretense that all was harmony in the Politburo; Uglanov had been removed as head of the Moscow party organization; and the hopes of the "Rightists" that Kalinin and Voroshilov might take their side in the Politburo were disappointed.) Moreover, the very fact of the assassination of Stalin might be used as a weapon against the Rightists, especially if the assassin could be plausibly accused of pro-"kulak" sentiments, etc. Having Stalin die several months earlier (preferably *not* by assassination) might preserve more options.
 
Last edited:
The "Rightists" had already pretty much lost out by December 1928--although they would not be removed from the Politburo for another year or more. (A public anti-Rightist drive had already begun, despite the pretense that all was harmony in the Politburo; Uglanov,had been removed as head of the Moscow party organization; and the hopes of the "Rightists" that Kalinin and Voroshilov might take their side in the Politburo were disappointed.) Moreover, the very fact of the assassination of Stalin might be used as a weapon against the Rightists, especially if the assassin could be plausibly accused of pro-"kulak" sentiments, etc. Having Stalin die several months earlier (preferably *not* by assassination) might preserve more options.
So who is the favorite to consolidate power in this scenario, then?
 
In the short term it would probably be a collective leadership situation between Stalin's cadres. In the long term Sergei Kirov would probably become first among equals.

Kirov wasn't even a full member of the Politburo until 1930. https://web.archive.org/web/20121128072616/http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/ussr2.htm He was not brought into the All-Union Secretariat until 1934.

BTW, Matthew Lenoe has argued that Kirov's stature even in 1934 was subsequently exaggerated: "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. (BTW, 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.)

Without a doubt the highest-ranking Stalinist other than Stalin himself in 1928 was Molotov. He was regarded as a very conscientious and hard-working bureaucrat--certainly not brilliant, but did the Politburo members really want brilliance?
 
A Molotov-led Soviet Union, albeit via a collective leadership rather than Stalin's one-man-rule, would be fascinating. A Stalinist-lite USSR without Stalin.
 
Why couldn't Bukharin take the leading role? He was after all General Secretary of the Comintern's executive committee and one of the leading figures at the time, what with Stalin's enemies all being sidelined.
 

PlasmaTorch

Banned
What happens if joseph stalin dies in 1928? Eastern europe becomes a much nicer place to live, as everyone isn't being killed from artificial famines, droughts, forced labor, and other forms of deprivation. Unfortunately, this quiet time does not last long, as they will be invaded by the nazis in 1941. And without the brutal dictates of stalin to drive a backwards russia towards industrialisation, their economy will still be primitive and unable to supply the russian army with the tools needed for modern warfare. They will have a much harder time fighting off the germans and their allys, if they succeed at all.
 
What happens if joseph stalin dies in 1928? Eastern europe becomes a much nicer place to live, as everyone isn't being killed from artificial famines, droughts, forced labor, and other forms of deprivation. Unfortunately, this quiet time does not last long, as they will be invaded by the nazis in 1941. And without the brutal dictates of stalin to drive a backwards russia towards industrialisation, their economy will still be primitive and unable to supply the russian army with the tools needed for modern warfare. They will have a much harder time fighting off the germans and their allys, if they succeed at all.
Or the KPD are allowed to enter a coalition gov't with SPD, and the nazis never rise in the first place
 
Why couldn't Bukharin take the leading role? He was after all General Secretary of the Comintern's executive committee and one of the leading figures at the time, what with Stalin's enemies all being sidelined.

As I said, much depends on exactly when Stalin dies. The Sixth World Congress of the Comintern was held in the summer of 1928, in a transitional period, when signs of differences between Stalin and Bukharin were evident to the sophisticated, but officially harmony still prevailed and Bukharin was still nominal leader of the Comintern. After that, events developed rapidly: Bukharin's September 30 *Pravda* article, "Notes of an Economist" which was a cautious but unmistakable warning against Stalin's Left turn in economic policy (though disguised as an attack on Trotskyist "super-industrialists") and Stalin's attacks on the "Right Deviation" (by November he was naming associates of Bukharin's as the chief offenders, while still pretending the Politburo was united).

By late 1928 it was apparent that Bukharin's leadership of the Comintern was pretty nominal. In October 1928 the Comintern took the side of Thaelmann in the struggle for power in the KPD against Arthur Ewert (who was accused of "conciliationism" toward the German Rightists). In November 1928 the Comintern issued a letter to the American Communists, sharply critical of Jay Lovestone's leadership (Lovestone was a close friend of Bukharin). By December 1928 Molotov attended the meeting of the Comintern's Presidium and Bukharin did not. "After the Sixth World Congress, Molotov had moved into the Comintern as Stalin's deputy and Bukharin's de facto successor without fanfare or even announcement." Theodore Draper, *American Communism and Soviet Russia,* p. 388. Bukharin was supposedly ill. Bertram Wolfe, who had been sent to Moscow by Lovestone to strengthen Lovestone's position there, bumped into Bukharin in front of the Hotel Lux, where Comintern officials lived. Wolfe was surprised at Bukharin's healthy appearance, and asked him, "Well, are you well or ill?" Bukharin answered wryly, "By a vote of five to four, I am too ill to function as Chairman of the Communist International." Draper, p. 393.

Now it is of course possible that the Rightists will make a comeback after Stalin's death. The downgrading of the leading Rightists had so far been unofficial (except for the removal of Uglanov from the leadership of the Moscow party organization) so the remaining oligarchs could pretend if they chose that it had never taken place, that the attacks on "Rightism" had not been aimed at Bukharin. (Bukharin's meeting with Kamenev, which did so much to damage Bukharin, could still be kept a secret, though pretty well known by rumor.) Some wavering Politburo members might switch to Bukharin's side after the difficulties of collectivization became apparent in 1929. But Bukharin would still face problems. He once described himself as "the worst organizer in Russia" and he was not wrong about that...Incidentally, he would probably *not* become General Secretary but something more like chief ideologist and "unofficial" leader of the party, like Deng Xiaoping in China decades later. Tomsky was believed to be the Rightists' choice for General Secretary (which would probably be a less powerful office than under Stalin) with Rykov of course continuing to serve as Premier.
 
Last edited:
Or the KPD are allowed to enter a coalition gov't with SPD, and the nazis never rise in the first place

The KPD and SPD combined never came close to having the numbers in the Reichstag to form a coalition government. Even after the May 1928 election--a good one for the Left--they got only 205 of the 491 seats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1928

Of course there might theoretically be a broader coalition, but the Zentrum was moving to the right and found it hard enough to cooperate with the SPD, let alone the KPD.
 
As I said, much depends on exactly when Stalin dies. The Sixth World Congress of the Comintern was held in the summer of 1928, in a transitional period, when signs of differences between Stalin and Bukharin were evident to the sophisticated, but officially harmony still prevailed and Bukharin was still nominal leader of the Comintern. After that, events developed rapidly: Bukharin's September 30 *Pravda* article, "Notes of an Economist" which was a cautious but unmistakable warning against Stalin's Left turn in economic policy (though disguised as an attack on Trotskyist "super-industrialists") and Stalin's attacks on the "Right Deviation" (by November he was naming associates of Bukharin's as the chief offenders, while still pretending the Politburo was united).

By late 1928 it was apparent that Bukharin's leadership of the Comintern was pretty nominal. In October 1928 the Comintern took the side of Thaelmann in the struggle for power in the KPD against Arthur Ewert (who was accused of "conciliationism" toward the German Rightists). In November 1928 the Comintern issued a letter to the American Communists, sharply critical of Jay Lovestone's leadership (Lovestone was a close friend of Bukharin). By December 1928 Molotov attended the meeting of the Comintern's Presidium and Bukharin did not. "After the Sixth World Congress, Molotov had moved into the Comintern as Stalin's deputy and Bukharin's de facto successor without fanfare or even announcement." Theodore Draper, *American Communism and Soviet Russia,* p. 388. Bukharin was supposedly ill. Bertram Wolfe, who had been sent to Moscow by Lovestone to strengthen Lovestone's position there, bumped into Bukharin in front of the Hotel Lux, where Comintern officials lived. Wolfe was surprised at Bukharin's healthy appearance, and asked him, "Well, are you well or ill?" Bukharin answered wryly, "By a vote of five to four, I am too ill to function as Chairman of the Communist International." Deaper, p. 393.

Now it is of course possible that the Rightists will make a comeback after Stalin's death. The downgrading of the leading Rightists had so far been unofficial (except for the removal of Uglanov from the leadership of the Moscow party organization) so the remaining oligarchs could pretend if they chose that it had never taken place, that the attacks on "Rightism" had not been aimed at Bukharin. (Bukharin's meeting with Kamenev, which did so much to damage Bukharin, could still be kept a secret, though pretty well known by rumor.) Some wavering Politburo members might switch to Bukharin's side after the difficulties of collectivization became apparent in 1929. But Bukharin would still face problems. He once described himself as "the worst organizer in Russia" and he was not wrong about that...Incidentally, he would probably *not* become General Secretary but something more like chief ideologist and "unofficial" leader of the party, like Deng Xiaoping in China decades later. Tomsky was believed to be the Rightists' choice for General Secretary (which would probably be a less powerful office than under Stalin) with Rykov of course continuing to serve as Premier.
So Bukharin and the rightists are in a much more favorable position if we move up the death of Stalin to June of 1928?
 
Now it is of course possible that the Rightists will make a comeback after Stalin's death. The downgrading of the leading Rightists had so far been unofficial (except for the removal of Uglanov from the leadership of the Moscow party organization) so the remaining oligarchs could pretend if they chose that it had never taken place, that the attacks on "Rightism" had not been aimed at Bukharin. (Bukharin's meeting with Kamenev, which did so much to damage Bukharin, could still be kept a secret, though pretty well known by rumor.) Some wavering Politburo members might switch to Bukharin's side after the difficulties of collectivization became apparent in 1929. But Bukharin would still face problems. He once described himself as "the worst organizer in Russia" and he was not wrong about that...Incidentally, he would probably *not* become General Secretary but something more like chief ideologist and "unofficial" leader of the party, like Deng Xiaoping in China decades later. Tomsky was believed to be the Rightists' choice for General Secretary (which would probably be a less powerful office than under Stalin) with Rykov of course continuing to serve as Premier.

Hmm. What if Stalin died early in 1928, before he'd attacked the rightists so much?

I have to say, this is the first WI I've seen that could plausibly put Bukharin in a position of high influence - though I really can't see him exerting much control or doing more than moderating what the rest of the Bolshevik leadership wanted to do. (For example, maybe he could delay collectivization until after the famine of 32-33 - I have difficulty seeing how collectivization could be delayed much longer though.)

I have to say, I am very curious what Tomsky would be like as general secretary - his wikipedia biography is pretty sparse, but it does seem that Tomsky had an unusual background for a Bolshevik.

Molotov getting the top job before 1930 would be very interesting as well. Does anyone know what he was like before he became a toady to Stalin?

fasquardon
 
I have to say, I am very curious what Tomsky would be like as general secretary - his wikipedia biography is pretty sparse, but it does seem that Tomsky had an unusual background for a Bolshevik.

Molotov getting the top job before 1930 would be very interesting as well. Does anyone know what he was like before he became a toady to Stalin?

Does anyone have any good sources to recommend for reading up on Tomsky or Molotov?

fasquardon
 
Top