WI: Tukhachevsky launched a coup against Stalin in 1937?

From what we know from the Soviet archives so far, it seems that in 1937 the Bolsheviks (not only Stalin, but most everyone else who was writing memos about this as well) were pretty convinced that they really had only barely nipped a military coup in the bud when they started the purges of the Red Army officer corps.

Of course, with the system's paranoia, not to mention Stalin's own paranoia, it's hard to say one way or the other whether they were correct in this fear. However, for the sake of this WI, let's assume that Tukhachevsky and his friends in the officer corps really were planning a coup. And let's additionally say that they get the drop on the NKVD and are undetected until the coup is launched.

Just how bad would this be? Might we see a new Russian civil war? A bloody suppression of the coup? A bloody victory of the coup? Or might one side or the other succeed almost bloodlessly?

And was the Red Army in any position to take over the country in 1937? As I remember, at this point the army numbered about 500,000 men. Even if all of those men supported Tukhachevsky's coup, that may not be enough to prise the country from the grasp of the Party.

fasquardon
 
I think Stalin would prevail. One thing is fairy certain: the real winner of any such event would be Nazi Germany.
 

RousseauX

Donor
From what we know from the Soviet archives so far, it seems that in 1937 the Bolsheviks (not only Stalin, but most everyone else who was writing memos about this as well) were pretty convinced that they really had only barely nipped a military coup in the bud when they started the purges of the Red Army officer corps.

Of course, with the system's paranoia, not to mention Stalin's own paranoia, it's hard to say one way or the other whether they were correct in this fear. However, for the sake of this WI, let's assume that Tukhachevsky and his friends in the officer corps really were planning a coup. And let's additionally say that they get the drop on the NKVD and are undetected until the coup is launched.

Just how bad would this be? Might we see a new Russian civil war? A bloody suppression of the coup? A bloody victory of the coup? Or might one side or the other succeed almost bloodlessly?

And was the Red Army in any position to take over the country in 1937? As I remember, at this point the army numbered about 500,000 men. Even if all of those men supported Tukhachevsky's coup, that may not be enough to prise the country from the grasp of the Party.

fasquardon
it fails, the Communist party's civilian apparatus always had good control over the Red Army

a few generals might be able to move some units into Moscow but if anyone in the party starts to counter-mend those orders the coup falls apart
 
FWIW, Stephen Kotkin in Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941 dismisses any real possibility of a coup:

"To try to halt the savagery and save themselves, the top brass would have needed to be in a real conspiracy, but to them the idea of a military coup, such as in Spain, was anathema: they were Communists, and conscious of party discipline. Anyway, organizing a coup was an utterly remote proposition in the webs of surveillance and mutual denunciation. Stalin wielded monopoly control over communications, the party cells and political administration in army units, the NKVD special departments for the army, and the public story in all newspapers and on the radio, which received ostensible confirmation of his narrative in real-life events in Spain.. He also had a plethora of `vigilant" types in pursuit of reward or survival: the Kuliks and Budyonnys, the Little Blackberry Yezhov, the Gloomy Demon Mekhlis, and, in the end, Voroshilov, too..." https://books.google.com/books?id=xTA7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA426
 
Maybe if many others in the leadership apparatus realize that they could be next in line to suffer lead intoxication, might give them the balls to try some sort of assassination attempt. I don't think a real coup d'etat will work, but a sudden "stroke" might be something the party could swallow.
 
There's a suggestion that the possibility would have been more 'real' in the early 30's when there was still significant swathes of the party relatively in opposition, or perhaps 'not quite aligned' with the Stalinist centre, but in truth even the most ardent oppositionist (the majority of which were expelled by 1930 or soon capitulated) held great contempt towards any Bonapartist coup.
 
Its possible if the NKVD leaders blunder in their task. Beria was efficient enough, had he not been then a successful coup is possible, assuming of course anyone was actually plotting a coup.

The rare moment Stalin was in danger of being ousted, was in June 1941. The infamous ten days. For whatever reason the generals & Politburo members were unable to take action.

Rather than a coup there is a possibility of a simple assassination. Some still claim his death in 1953 was a murder. If some clever entity can get past Stalins bodyguards in 1937 they can exchange that problem for a new set.
 
Last edited:
The rare moment Stalin was in danger of being ousted, was in June 1941. The infamous ten days. For whatever reason the generals & Politburo members were unable to take action.

According to Chris Bellamy in "Absolute War", there was no 10 days. Stalin was busy working feverishly right through the supposed 10 days, something which is attested by multiple sources and in multiple documents.

Maybe if many others in the leadership apparatus realize that they could be next in line to suffer lead intoxication, might give them the balls to try some sort of assassination attempt. I don't think a real coup d'etat will work, but a sudden "stroke" might be something the party could swallow.

I'm not sure. The leaders of the Red Army were Communists or at least patriots and we could have seen something like what happened when Stalin purged the Old Bolsheviks and they let oblivion roll over them, rather than fight the system they believed in.

FWIW, Stephen Kotkin in Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941 dismisses any real possibility of a coup:

My own impression has been that there very well might have been a conspiracy, but that it would have had to be an absolute joke and certainly wasn't the threat Stalin and his cohorts feared.

So either Tukhachevsky is innocent or he was stupid.

fasquardon
 
According to Chris Bellamy in "Absolute War", there was no 10 days. Stalin was busy working feverishly right through the supposed 10 days, something which is attested by multiple sources and in multiple documents...

Not sure what you are getting at here. Being active does not mean Stalin was not vulnerable.
 
My point is that Stalin wasn't vulnerable because everyone who could have launched a coup against him was too busy working with him to respond to the German invasion.

fasquardon

Well, in theory he was vulnerable (In the sense that if a coup had been attempted, there was a real possibility of it succeeding in the chaos), but doing so was something nobody in the Soviet government would have had any motivation to do as nobody the risk of creating discontinuity in government, infighting between factions, ect. during the crisis as it ran the risk of the Red Army and Soviet state infastructure dissolving to the point they woulden't be able to get a solid grip on it again. A 37 coup, at the very least, has the advantage of potentially occuring before the re-imposition of the Commissar system meant their was unity in command authority: one in 41 would be a nightmare of conflicting orders.
 
Tukhachevsky is a great general and would lead the troops well but his chances of any sort of victory are nil. He might free some of the gulags and get some people out of Russia but ultimately it guts the Red Army in some ways but might force through changes in organization and equipment not seen in OTL until much later. Kill Stalin and it might work but chances are still maybe 15% even then.
 
Tukhachevsky would not have agreed to split Poland and supply Germany with raw materials from 1939 to 1941

Wouldn't he?

I suspect Tukhachevsky would have faced the same foreign policy challenges as Stalin. As Germany rose, he'd try to reach out to Britain and France and be rebuffed by both because no-one would want to be drawn into a possible war in Eastern Europe. After that, the choices were either seek rapproachment with Germany, turtle up, or take unilateral aggressive action - for example, invade Romania the instant Germany and Britain end up at war with each-other (which runs the risk of Germany making nice with the Brits and French and everyone turning on the bad Soviets, but if it worked would mean the Soviets would control 99% of the non-British controlled oil supply Germany can access).

The complete limpness of British action in the face of German provocations after 1933 put the pariah Soviet Union in a very bad place foreign policy wise.

That's not to say Stalin's choices were the best ones, just that I am not so sure that Tukhachevsky, if he were leading the country, would have better choices.

fasquardon
 
Top