# Josef Stalin assassinated....



## Lucky13 (Dec 14, 2013)

What if, during the period that lasted from '36 to '39, when Stalin instituted his devastating campaign against alleged enemies of his regime, the Great Purge, in which hundreds of thousands were executed, among them several major figures in the Communist Party, like Bolsheviks, Leon Trotsky, and many Red Army leaders, who were killed after being falsely convicted of plotting to overthrow the government and Stalin....what if, a group high ranking officers had said enough is enough and and assassinated him, were there people among the ranks, willing to do this, when would the best time and place have been, how would they have done it and was there someone who could take over, who was willing to take afterwards and......what would Hitler have made of the situation?


----------



## Vic Balshaw (Dec 14, 2013)

Far too many what if questions Jan. Let's just say that there is always someone lurking in the wings awaiting the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattle (Dec 14, 2013)

I would imagine that Stalin's successor would have been less extreme but still anti-capitalist and still anti-Nazi, I say this because when Stalin actually did die this is what happened.


----------



## DonL (Dec 14, 2013)

There was a counter revolution from Marshall Tuchatschewski and General Gamarnik.
They had built the "Chabarowiaken" corps or "Kolchos" corps, a special corps of the UDSSR Far East Army stationed at the city Chabarowsk,
this corps was independent of the Moscow central and had at 1936, 60000 active member and 50000 reservists.
This was to my sources the "Army" with which Tuchatschewski wanted dispossess Stalin, but Stalin and the NKWD were faster.



> I would imagine that Stalin's successor would have been less extreme but still anti-capitalist and still anti-Nazi, I say this because when Stalin actually did die this is what happened.



Tuchatschewski was pro german, I don't think he was pro Nazi or Hitler, but he had many important and powerful friends at the german Army, through the very closed work of the Red Army and the Reichwehr at the 1920's and beginning 1930's.


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2013)

Most likely one of the senior Red Army commanders as they have the firepower to kill their opponents.

A scenario similar to 1917 Bolshevik coup is possible. Regions located a considerable distance from Moscow (Manchuria, Caucasus, Ukraine etc.) might declare independence from the new central government supported by the local army commander. Followed by a civil war where regional warlords fight each other.

One thing is almost certain. Russian industrial production will collapse just as it did after the 1917 Bolshevik coup and it will require many years to recover (if ever). Russia will be in no position to threaten Central Europe, Finland and Japanese Manchuria as happened historically during late 1930s / early 1940s. With Soviet Union out of the picture European and Japanese diplomacy will be very different from the historical events.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 14, 2013)

davebender said:


> Most likely one of the senior Red Army commanders as they have the firepower to kill their opponents.
> 
> A scenario similar to 1917 Bolshevik coup is possible. Regions located a considerable distance from Moscow (Manchuria, Caucasus, Ukraine etc.) might declare independence from the new central government supported by the local army commander. Followed by a civil war where regional warlords fight each other.
> 
> One thing is almost certain. Russian industrial production will collapse just as it did after the 1917 Bolshevik coup and it will require many years to recover (if ever). Russia will be in no position to threaten Central Europe, Finland and Japanese Manchuria as happened historically during late 1930s / early 1940s. With Soviet Union out of the picture European and Japanese diplomacy will be very different from the historical events.



Soviet industrial production didn't collapse when Stalin died, or whatever, in 1953, nor when Lenin died and Stalin took over, nor any of the other transitions in Soviet leadership ( except recent). 

What's so different about 1939 ? It would just be a transition from one communists to another, hardly like the 1917 revolution.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 14, 2013)

Stalin seemed to unite the Russians in a way that I'm not sure anybody else could have at that time. I think it could have been vastly different on the Eastern Front.


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2013)

vikingBerserker said:


> Stalin seemed to unite the Russians in a way that I'm not sure anybody else could have at that time.



Read Machiavelli, 'The Prince'. Save some time and just read chapter 17, 'Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared', which includes the example od Dido, quoted by Virgil.

"...against my will, my fate,
A throne unsettled, and an infant state,
Bid me defend my realms with all my powers,
And guard with these severities my shores."

There really is nothing new under the sun 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Dec 14, 2013)

Only if he is supported by the Red Army. Otherwise it's payback time for slaughter of Soviet military leaders and Ukrainians during 1930s.


----------



## pattle (Dec 14, 2013)

Who would have been the most likely successor to Stalin, my guess would be Molotov and if not another of the old gang. I would expect things to have continued along in pretty much the same way had Stalin died earlier than he did, just with a lot less intrigue.


----------



## silence (Dec 15, 2013)

This is a frightening consideration. I would think anyone capable of taking out Stalin would be even worse.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 16, 2013)

Lucky13 said:


> What if, during the period that lasted from '36 to '39, when Stalin instituted his devastating campaign against alleged enemies of his regime, the Great Purge, in which hundreds of thousands were executed, among them several major figures in the Communist Party, like Bolsheviks, Leon Trotsky, and many Red Army leaders, who were killed after being falsely convicted of plotting to overthrow the government and Stalin....what if, a group high ranking officers had said enough is enough and and assassinated him, were there people among the ranks, willing to do this, when would the best time and place have been, how would they have done it and was there someone who could take over, who was willing to take afterwards and......what would Hitler have made of the situation?



There is not a strong record of militay coups in modern Russia. The army is not a playmaker in the SU, it simply is one of the instruments of government. Its not in the Soviet nature to undertake political interventions by the army. So the fundamental weakness of this hypothetical is that its based on a false or innaccurate assumption. 

However, that is not to say that the presumptions contained in it are not worth investigating. Assuming that Stailn gets removed....not necessarily by assassination....is worth commenting , if only to respond to the usual anit-communist, anti Russian, dross that is being pedalled around as usual.

When Stalin did eventually depart the scene, in '53, The Russians were embroiled in yet another war. There is no evidence of the breakdown of the state, no evidence of a massive loss of efficiency or potency of the Soviet style of doing things. There was a decrease in the bloodthirstiness of the regime, particulalry towards its own. Why would the Soviet Union act any differently in say 1938????

One possible difference is that the new leadership, whoever that might be (and I seriously doubt it would be Beria, more likely Malenkov or possibly even the Foreign Minister...forget his name ) might be in the area of foreign policy, and in this regard Soviet reactions to rising German aggression might well be different. 

The Soviet system was not dependfant on strong individual leadership in the same way as the Fascist regimes were. It was still a command system, non-democratic, but it was different to the Nazis. The Nazis were a series of inneffiicient little and competing fiefdoms, almost, medievil in chanracter...Soviet system was run by central commitees, that once these committes got their act together, were actually very efficient under wartime stresses. Resources were allocated very intelligently needs met pretty well. It was efficient from the intersts of the party and the state pov, but innefficient from an indiduals POV. This was its failing in peacetime...one si ze does not suit all. In wartime it worked fine. 

I dont see the departure of Stalin before the war as all that significant, because the Soviet system was better organized and resilenet to changes at the centre.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 16, 2013)

If the whole thing collapsed. The Germans could have strolled into Moscow.

I would wager on a new civil war and anarchy.


----------



## pattle (Dec 16, 2013)

Stalin's idea was to sit back and watch the Germans and French/British destroy each other while Russia grew stronger. Perhaps if Stalin had not been around then Russia would not have agreed to divide up Poland with Germany in 1939. Russia may have preferred to use Poland and the other central European countries as buffer states, and also may have been more reluctant to supply Germany with war materials and other goods which they continued to do under Stalin up until 1941.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 16, 2013)

Stalin had spent years cultivating his image and with all his purges a lot of competition was eliminated and he was idolized. The one thing I will say about him is he was pretty sharp. In the meetings with FDR and Churchill, it seemed like he was always better prepared and got his way more then naught.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 16, 2013)

Stalin's purge of the officer corps in the late thirties left Russia mostly with inexperienced or officers afraid to make any decisions without clearance from above.
This was showcased to the entire world with Russia's poor performance in the Winter War with Finland.

If there had been no Winter War debacle, there may not have been a 1941 invasion by Germany. 
Russia appeared weak and ripe for defeat, the temptation was too much for Hitler, and he was almost correct.

The responsibility for the USSR's invasion and near defeat lies wholly on Stalin's shoulders.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 16, 2013)

"....This was showcased to the entire world with Russia's poor performance in the Winter War with Finland."

Yet, a mere 6 months before the WW debacle, the Soviets had _convincingly destroyed_ the Japanese forces at Nomonhan, (Gulgin Gol).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 16, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "....This was showcased to the entire world with Russia's poor performance in the Winter War with Finland."
> 
> Yet, a mere 6 months before the WW debacle, the Soviets had _convincingly destroyed_ the Japanese forces at Nomonhan, (Gulgin Gol).



A much smaller action, with a fraction of the troops involved in the Winter War, and in a much more remote area, not much noticed by the rest of the world.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 16, 2013)

Most important ..... the rest are just details .... Zhukov was given a "free hand" by Stalin.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 16, 2013)

It took Stalin a few years to learn anything lasting from that lesson, he was still over riding and interfering with his generals , including Zhukov, for quite a while into WW2.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 16, 2013)

i think a lot would have depended on how the SU saw its position and what was to its benefit....i doubt who was at the helm would have made much difference. had he been taken out of office before the purge...the military would have had more experienced officers but that doesnt guarentee any more success or lack thereof at the beginning stages of an invasion.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 16, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Most important ..... the rest are just details .... Zhukov was given a "free hand" by Stalin.



Free hand...ie wasnt shot.

Shtern and Smushkevitch were.

Stalin learnt how to execute his generals.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 16, 2013)

or did generals learn how not to get executed?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 17, 2013)

"...Free hand...ie wasnt shot."

No. Much more than that ... the Political officer for the region was ordered to vacate the territory until the fighting was over and Zhukov was free to call the shots without worrying about his back. My source is Alvin D Coox' definitive book "Nomonhan"

"...or did generals learn how not to get executed?"

Steep learning curve.

MM


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 17, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...Free hand...ie wasnt shot."
> 
> No. Much more than that ... the Political officer for the region was ordered to vacate the territory until the fighting was over and Zhukov was free to call the shots without worrying about his back. My source is Alvin D Coox' definitive book "Nomonhan"
> 
> ...


 But apparently Stalin learned nothing from that.

Two years later during the Battle of Kiev, when Stalin refused his advice on how to proceed, Zhukov asked to be relieved of his position as chief of the general staff.
And he was, moved to commander of the reserve front, a demotion.
From this and other experiences, Stalin did gradually begin to leave more decision making in the hands of his generals, but that came about several years, and millions of deaths after Nomonhan.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 17, 2013)

"...But apparently Stalin learned nothing from that."

Correct. He was a compulsive paranoid among other 'disorders'.

I mean really .... he turned on his personal _doctors_ .... because they were jews ..... Hitler and Fat Herman were ***** cats beside this psycho.


----------

