WWII Without Stalin

Joseph Stalin was greatly shocked by the Nazi invasion. What I'm wondering is what if that shock was greater than it was in the OTL and Stalin died of a stroke? How would the Second World War have played out without Stalin's brutality?
 

Deleted member 92121

It all depends on who seizes power after his death. Malenkov, Molotov, Beria, Zhukov, there are many options. I personnaly, by 1941, would go with Beria. Then you have to analyze the successor state of mind. Beria was a mass murderer, head of the secret police, and arguably more brutal then Stalin. Would Beria have pursued resistance to the Nazi's even at the brink of defeat? Would he institute the same extremely harsh but necessary conditions on the people to resist German advance? Would he prioritize taking land in the east from Japan maybe more than forcing his control over Europe? It all depends a lot.
 
1941 was such a close run that even a two week hiccup can prove devastating.

Most likely the war does not even continue. WHomever assumes power immediately capitulates some time by the end of July, giving up all of Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states without more incident and agree to massive reparations. This may inflate Hitler's ego and he accepts, immediately setting his sights again on Britain saying, "See, I told you I was invincible."

I know the Germans had their depopulation plans and stuff in the east, but Germany often made pragmatic decisions if the loot was too good. For example, Hitler allowed for Vichy.
 
The nature of the Nazis FORCED the USSR people mostly to resist. My understanding is that Beria was NOT respected.
Don't let that crazy bastard Beria anywhere near Stalins position.
Beria was pure evil. Stalin was evil, sure, but Beria liked to personally torture people.
 
So the U.K. And its dominions are truly alone. Does pearl still happen? Will this lead to Portugal and Spain recogconsidering non billerance
 

Deleted member 92121

The nature of the Nazis FORCED the USSR people mostly to resist. My understanding is that Beria was NOT respected.
He wasn't, but he sure was very Powerful.

Don't let that crazy bastard Beria anywhere near Stalins position.
Beria was pure evil. Stalin was evil, sure, but Beria liked to personally torture people.

Beria was a Rapist, child rapist, torturer, blackmailer and mass murderer. Not a nicr guy.
 
I'd assumed from the POD no Stalin at all from 1924 onwards and a very different USSR ruled by Trotsky and his successors.

Would such a State have done a deal with Nazi Germany in 1939 ?
 
I'd assumed from the POD no Stalin at all from 1924 onwards and a very different USSR ruled by Trotsky and his successors.

Would such a State have done a deal with Nazi Germany in 1939 ?

Struck First is my first guess probably have gone through at least another war with Poland by this time though and has been funding communists across the globe
 
1941 was such a close run that even a two week hiccup can prove devastating.

Most likely the war does not even continue. WHomever assumes power immediately capitulates some time by the end of July, giving up all of Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states without more incident and agree to massive reparations. This may inflate Hitler's ego and he accepts, immediately setting his sights again on Britain saying, "See, I told you I was invincible."

.....

Is there anything in Hitler's memorandum, staff meetings, planning conferences, or anywhere else indicating he would reverse from his repeatedly stated goal of enslaving the Slavs, or abandon the clearly stated military stratigic objectives ? At the end of July the German armies were on or ahead of schedule & had clearly inflicted a 3-1 or better loss ratio on the Red Army. Why would the goals be abandon in response to a offer from a collapsing enemy?
 
Joseph Stalin was greatly shocked by the Nazi invasion. What I'm wondering is what if that shock was greater than it was in the OTL and Stalin died of a stroke? How would the Second World War have played out without Stalin's brutality?

Molotov is often mooted as a successor to Stalin in a situation where Stalin dies in the first weeks of Barbarossa. I have no idea what sort of head honcho Molotov would be, however.

I suspect that initially, the Politburo would form some sort of collective leadership however, and while as OTL, a way might be found to get Beria out of the picture posthaste, the distraction of the war may preclude the power struggle going further (which may lead to a preference for collective leadership in the post-war period). Also, Stalin dying may actually improve the Soviet reaction to Barbarossa, especially if Stalin dies of this stroke as soon as he hears about the invasion. The USSR is saved from the leadership waiting for weeks while Stalin overcomes his shock, and instead, Stalin is clearly dead and his lackeys are put into a situation where they have to fight for his legacy and their lives and where anyone who acts decisively (who isn't Beria) has a good shot of getting those who are in shock to back them.

And Stalin made enough bad choices in the early stages of Barbarossa that his lackeys have better than 50% odds of making better decisions than he did.

Considering this is the USSR, there may well be a witch-hunt for German spies and assassins as people worry that Stalin has been assassinated by the Germans.

Even if things go worse than OTL, the Germans just don't have the logistics to penetrate much deeper into the USSR than OTL. They may actually reach the centre of Moscow in TTL, but their policies will turn the Soviets against them, will push the Soviets and the Western Allies into each-others arms and ultimately will lead to their downfall.

However, the USSR could take more damage, or significantly less damage, depending on how things pan out. And there is a good chance that once the war is done, absent Stalin's paranoia, the USSR fully integrates into a US-led world order, leading to a significant marketization of the Soviet economy post war and a much more friendly rivalry between the US and their nearest competitor. (Even in a situation where the wartime alliance grows into a postwar friendship, I think there will be a rivalry.)

fasquardon
 

trajen777

Banned
I think the paralysis of the Death would have frozen the leadership. I think some type of BL settlement would have happened and then a rearmed USSR looks to reengage later
 
I think the paralysis of the Death would have frozen the leadership. I think some type of BL settlement would have happened and then a rearmed USSR looks to reengage later

The Germans didn't want a BL settlement. It's either fight or die (and in view of the logistics problems the Germans face, any successor leadership will have time to figure that out).

The aim here was to extend Germany to the Urals, kill 95% or so of the people living in the area and replace them with settlers from Germany. The aim is so ludicrous that it there really isn't a realistic way to achieve it, but the success of the early stages of Barbarossa was just ludicrous enough that the Germans weren't ever going to accept a more realistic peace until it was too late for them.

fasquardon
 

trajen777

Banned
The Germans didn't want a BL settlement. It's either fight or die (and in view of the logistics problems the Germans face, any successor leadership will have time to figure that out).

The aim here was to extend Germany to the Urals, kill 95% or so of the people living in the area and replace them with settlers from Germany. The aim is so ludicrous that it there really isn't a realistic way to achieve it, but the success of the early stages of Barbarossa was just ludicrous enough that the Germans weren't ever going to accept a more realistic peace until it was too late for them.

fasquardon
Not sure i agree. After the losses facing the German army at the end of 41 i think they would settle for BL agreement. I agree in june 41 you are right by Dec of 41 a very different situation
 
I'd assumed from the POD no Stalin at all from 1924 onwards and a very different USSR ruled by Trotsky and his successors.

Would such a State have done a deal with Nazi Germany in 1939 ?
I don't think Trotsky is most likely person to gain and keep power, but even without him most other Stalin's rivals in his struggle for power were Jews, Imagine Hitler making deal with communist Russian Jew.

My favorite opition is Stalin dying just after ww2 starts-early September 1939, after R-M Pact but before Soviet invasion of Poland.
 
Either the USSR's leadership resorts collapses into in-fighting, in which case the Nazis win the war and we get the AANW, or Stalin's subordinates agree to club together a collective leadership arrangement in the face of the threat until (at the earliest) victory is in sight. Both are conceivable but if the latter happens then it's probable that the Soviets actually perform better then OTL by dodging disasters like the Kiev encirclement which can be lain entirely at the feet of Stalin.

Not sure i agree. After the losses facing the German army at the end of 41 i think they would settle for BL agreement. I agree in june 41 you are right by Dec of 41 a very different situation

By December '41 it looks like the Soviets are the ones who are winning with Army Group Center looking on the verge of annihilation, so then their the ones who have no incentive to deal.
 

trajen777

Banned
Either the USSR's leadership resorts collapses into in-fighting, in which case the Nazis win the war and we get the AANW, or Stalin's subordinates agree to club together a collective leadership arrangement in the face of the threat until (at the earliest) victory is in sight. Both are conceivable but if the latter happens then it's probable that the Soviets actually perform better then OTL by dodging disasters like the Kiev encirclement which can be lain entirely at the feet of Stalin.



By December '41 it looks like the Soviets are the ones who are winning with Army Group Center looking on the verge of annihilation, so then their the ones who have no incentive to deal.
Not with Stalin dead.. Moscow captured .. Leningrad?
 
Top