WI: STALIN PURGES STALIN

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
At the height of the great purges Stalin, working at a very cluttered desk, accidently writes his own name on the days arrest order thinking he is signing a different piece of paper above it. The list then goes to a NKVD officer to afraid of Stalin to disobey his order no mater how strange it is. So that before anybody else realizes what is happening Stalin is arrested and shot. What happens when the rest of the politburo realizes what happened?

Didn't they make a joke about an executioner doing just that in Blackadder.
 
The reason why genocide is wrong is the fact lots of people got killed. The government took their property, their liberty and ultimately their lives. How they were targetted does not make it better or worse.

So while genocide differs from just killing alot of people, it is morally speaking the same thing.
 

Markus

Banned
We have an ASB forum for this kind of stuff, TIMER.

Hey, after all the reoccurring "WI Stalin purged(add any name)" and "WI Hitler was not racist"-threads this is exactly what we need. Maybe it raises mod-awareness and they do something about topics that come up every few days. ... Ok, now that would be ASB, but allow a man his dreams. ;)
 
Hey, after all the reoccurring "WI Stalin purged(add any name)" and "WI Hitler was not racist"-threads this is exactly what we need. Maybe it raises mod-awareness and they do something about topics that come up every few days. ... Ok, now that would be ASB, but allow a man his dreams. ;)

Seconded.
But posters of any kind of thread ought to search for their favourite subject having been dealt with before and only post if they are able to come up with something new/unheard of/proven/theory/whatever.
 
The what if wasn't the officer was too scared to do it. It was that he was too scared not to.

Very possibly beria would be assinated, thats a possible outcome. But what else might happen? Maybe they fake a coup to try and cover up the truth. Maybe civilization collapses because most of the people on the planet laugh themselves to death when they learn the truth. The what if is the point. No omnipotent beings killed him, he just plain screwed the pooch one busy day.

As for asb : try

A semi-italian nobody takes over the french government and conquers most of europe.

or: a nobody austrian corporal takes over germany and conquers most of europe

or: some nobody serb starts a war that kills millions by accidentally suceeding in killing an austrian archduke after the actual plan failed

All history is asb if you claim that the merely incredibly unlikly is asb. Why isn't it asb that the decendents of a group of ragged ass religious fanatics are the worlds only super power? And why isn't it asb that in 2000 they picked the only leader around who could blow it!

I get up every morning read the paper and don't stick my head in the oven. Now that's asb!!


Using that argument is stupid and pointless. You could say that our evolution was ASB, because it was so unlikely to happen and yet did. Pretty much anything that didn't have a 100% probability of happening would be ASB.
Wait, I don't get it: the US is not a religiously fanatic state by most measures. If you want that, check out "Year Zero." There are differences from having some Protestants in power and a theocracy.
Who could have predicted that Bush would start two wars, years beforehand?


Way to derail a thread, by the way. From Stalin killing himself to ranting about a theocratic US with Bush in power. Nicely done.

This wouldn't happen, simply because no general would kill the subject of the personality cult. It would be like god descending from the heavens, and telling the pope to murder him. Would that happen? No. They would question the order, Stalin would realize the mistake, and things would proceed roughly AIOTL.
 
Using that argument is stupid and pointless. You could say that our evolution was ASB, because it was so unlikely to happen and yet did. Pretty much anything that didn't have a 100% probability of happening would be ASB.
Wait, I don't get it: the US is not a religiously fanatic state by most measures. If you want that, check out "Year Zero." There are differences from having some Protestants in power and a theocracy.
Who could have predicted that Bush would start two wars, years beforehand?


Way to derail a thread, by the way. From Stalin killing himself to ranting about a theocratic US with Bush in power. Nicely done.

This wouldn't happen, simply because no general would kill the subject of the personality cult. It would be like god descending from the heavens, and telling the pope to murder him. Would that happen? No. They would question the order, Stalin would realize the mistake, and things would proceed roughly AIOTL.

rcduggan I wasn't trying to derail the thread I was trying to get it back on track. If you reread my post I was giving examples of actual history that was so unlikely as to be nearly ASB. Real history is full of things that are unlikely and caused by silly mistakes.

My what-if is what are the political ramifications of someone like Stalin at the height of his power in the 30s dieing in what is ultimately the silliest and most embarrassing way possible, not even as dignified as tripping and falling off the podium at the mayday parade. Low level clerks in a bureaucracy routinely process documents without paying attention to them. Laws are passed that have effects that no one anticipates. I other words sometimes shit happens!

Of course a sensible general would question the order, I didn't say that the order went to a sensible general, I was thinking that it went to an incompetent junior officer, someones idiot nephew, who was duty officer that day because everyone else took off early for a long weekend.

Look at my and blue max's posts and seriously consider what would be the real world impact of such a silly death for Stalin. I wondered would it make other dictators so paranoid that they were afraid to sign their names to anything?

Go with the flow, consider the event, what happens? Its way too gossip worthy to be covered up completely rumors would get out, spies would find out. Think of it as a giant spanner tossed into the works of totalitarianism.

Have fun!
 
rcduggan I wasn't trying to derail the thread I was trying to get it back on track. If you reread my post I was giving examples of actual history that was so unlikely as to be nearly ASB. Real history is full of things that are unlikely and caused by silly mistakes.

My what-if is what are the political ramifications of someone like Stalin at the height of his power in the 30s dieing in what is ultimately the silliest and most embarrassing way possible, not even as dignified as tripping and falling off the podium at the mayday parade. Low level clerks in a bureaucracy routinely process documents without paying attention to them. Laws are passed that have effects that no one anticipates. I other words sometimes shit happens!

Of course a sensible general would question the order, I didn't say that the order went to a sensible general, I was thinking that it went to an incompetent junior officer, someones idiot nephew, who was duty officer that day because everyone else took off early for a long weekend.

Look at my and blue max's posts and seriously consider what would be the real world impact of such a silly death for Stalin. I wondered would it make other dictators so paranoid that they were afraid to sign their names to anything?

Go with the flow, consider the event, what happens? Its way too gossip worthy to be covered up completely rumors would get out, spies would find out. Think of it as a giant spanner tossed into the works of totalitarianism.

Have fun!


But wouldn't anyone question that the leader was being pushed against the wall under his own orders, presumably protesting and ordering them to stop the whole time? Obviously Stalin didn't want to die, and of course the paranoid Soviets are going to assume spies fabricated the order to get the leader killed. I just don't see a way without ASB's for the entire Soviet command to mutiny and kill their leader, which is the only way for them to disregard his demands to cease the execution.
 
But wouldn't anyone question that the leader was being pushed against the wall under his own orders, presumably protesting and ordering them to stop the whole time? Obviously Stalin didn't want to die, and of course the paranoid Soviets are going to assume spies fabricated the order to get the leader killed. I just don't see a way without ASB's for the entire Soviet command to mutiny and kill their leader, which is the only way for them to disregard his demands to cease the execution.

I like my setup for this one--Stalin does this as a Mindgame to purge the NKVD, but the NKVD recognizes that killing Stalin is an out, and Stalin will expect some kind of action...

IN any case, I think clerical error could be ruled out.
 
I like my setup for this one--Stalin does this as a Mindgame to purge the NKVD, but the NKVD recognizes that killing Stalin is an out, and Stalin will expect some kind of action...

IN any case, I think clerical error could be ruled out.

I did not see your idea before, it does make some sense. I would not put it past Stalin to pull something like that. I was only saying it was ASB if the NKVD does it without hesitation and ignores any future orders.
 
I was trying for something that would totally discredit Stalin and to some extent the entire idea of absolute dictatorship in the mid 1930s. A simple coup or assination in my opinion would not be sufficient. I was looking for somthing so embarrassing and silly that it couldn't be successfully covered up. And might even make other dictators wonder if they had taken the idea of absolute obedience too far.

Since I wasn't involving ASB's or time travellers, etc. I put it in this forum instead of ASB. My mistake next time I'll be more carefull, I hope.

By the way Blue Max your take on how it might happen was more plausible than mine, But I was shooting for a death that would cause whispers and giggles around the water cooler for decades.
 
Stalin... was just as bad, if not worse that Hitler for his genocide (it just wasn't aimed at a couple of select groups.)
To clarify:
I mention Mel Gibson because of his amazing performance in totally beshatting the comparison between the Holocaust and the Ukrainian famine even while he was trying to redeem himself with the Jewish community by producing a film about the Holocaust.
To further clarify:
I don't want to give the impression that I believe the poster I was responding to is Anti-Semitic, or that he shares any discredited views held by graduates of NIDA.
I apologise if anyone thinks that.

Also, it appears the controversial remarks of Hutton Gibson's drip RE the Second World War (his dismissal of the Holocaust as "Some... Jews [died] in concentration camps...", that it's a "kind of numbers game" as to how many were killed but-anyway-did-y'know-twenty-million-Russians-were-murdered -by-the-Commies-during-the-twentieth-century?) were not made after his obscene behaviour in a Malibu sheriff's station.

They were made when he was promoting that crazy snuff-film based upon the Gospels. Readers Digest released the full transcript in August 2006.

I do believe Stalin was at least as great a mass murderer as Hitler.
Genocide is another matter.
And I'm not afraid to suggest that Genocidal Stalin Equals Holocaust or Soviet Crimes are Ignored Because of the Over-Hyped-You-Know-What arguments are either ignorant or malicious.
 
Last edited:
He wasn't that crazy. One of his favourite assistants could easily have gotten away with pointing out so minor a mistake as this.
 
This is not ASB merely the result of carelessness, sloppy work habits, and unbridled fear. I once was on a job where a fellow employee accidently threw away three weaks worth of design drawings for a nuclear power plant (the orignals) by leaving them sitting across the top of his wastebasket at the end of the day. Stuff happens.

I remember hearing a story that Stalin once authorised the design of a building. The plans showed the two proposed designs for the the front of the building with one down either side, Stalin signed the plans down the middle and everyone was too scared to ask which one he actually decided on.

So they built the building with one side of the front with the first design and the other side with the second design.

Going back to the original question, first it's going to make the remaining members of the Soviet government look very carefully at what they're signing. Second I think it may make the Anti-Stalin elements in Russia a bit more open, not only is Stalin dead he's dead by his own apparatus of terror, that's a major propaganda coup to his enemies.
 

Thande

Donor
I remember hearing a story that Stalin once authorised the design of a building. The plans showed the two proposed designs for the the front of the building with one down either side, Stalin signed the plans down the middle and everyone was too scared to ask which one he actually decided on.

So they built the building with one side of the front with the first design and the other side with the second design.
Indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Moskva_(Moscow)
 
Top