WWII Without Stalin

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.

Why would the Soviets collapse into infighting when its clear the Germans want their heads on a platter? Its a case of "hang together or hang separately", since the Germans have clearly demonstrated they have little interest in peace and can't be trusted to keep to the terms of treaties they signed.

However, I do see the very real risk of a discordinated response, as various Red Army leaders decided they can't afford the delay a reorganization of the civil government requires and do what they can to try to save the troops under their command by any means nessicery. This could cause traffic jams, confusion as to the exact placement of troop arrangements, logistical nightmares, ect. that reduce the ability of the new government to plan a responce due to an incomplete picture of the frontline and a breakdown in communication.
 
Why would the Soviets collapse into infighting when its clear the Germans want their heads on a platter? Its a case of "hang together or hang separately", since the Germans have clearly demonstrated they have little interest in peace and can't be trusted to keep to the terms of treaties they signed.

Because, as we all know, the Bolsheviks were cartoon villains who all loathed each-other more than they hated their common enemies and needed the strong fatherly hand of Stalin to care for them.

More seriously, a couple posts back, we were discussing how loathed Beria was and how he'd be removed posthaste - if that happens in 1941 and goes badly, then we basically have a civil war at the top as the Nazis closed in. In a case where there is infighting however, I would expect that whoever was seen as the biggest obstruction with have a Chiang Kai Chek moment where their own subordinates tell them that either they start working with others and help smash the invaders, or they are pitched down a flight of stairs in the night.

fasuardon
 
Why would the Soviets collapse into infighting when its clear the Germans want their heads on a platter? Its a case of "hang together or hang separately", since the Germans have clearly demonstrated they have little interest in peace and can't be trusted to keep to the terms of treaties they signed.

However, I do see the very real risk of a discordinated response, as various Red Army leaders decided they can't afford the delay a reorganization of the civil government requires and do what they can to try to save the troops under their command by any means nessicery. This could cause traffic jams, confusion as to the exact placement of troop arrangements, logistical nightmares, ect. that reduce the ability of the new government to plan a responce due to an incomplete picture of the frontline and a breakdown in communication.

In this scenario, things could end up even worse than you imagine, since Stalin had purged most of his competent military commanders by that point.
 
Why would the Soviets collapse into infighting when its clear the Germans want their heads on a platter? Its a case of "hang together or hang separately", since the Germans have clearly demonstrated they have little interest in peace and can't be trusted to keep to the terms of treaties they signed.

I never said it was inevitable they collapse into infighting, merely that it is a possibility. I do agree that it's very much more likely that the imminent threat would sharpen their focus.

However, I do see the very real risk of a discordinated response, as various Red Army leaders decided they can't afford the delay a reorganization of the civil government requires and do what they can to try to save the troops under their command by any means nessicery. This could cause traffic jams, confusion as to the exact placement of troop arrangements, logistical nightmares, ect. that reduce the ability of the new government to plan a response due to an incomplete picture of the frontline and a breakdown in communication.

I have a hard time envisioning the Red Army's performance being any worse then OTL as all of what you described was already the case. Soviet logistics in June-July were already a nightmare (to the point that entire tank divisions were lost to mechanical breakdowns and running out of fuel without ever seeing the enemy), communications with headquarters as far up as front-level had already broken down, troops were already scattered hither-and-tither, and so-on and so-forth. It wouldn't be until near the end of July that the Soviets even began to sort themselves out.
 
Last edited:
Top