Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Stalin's impact on WWII - What If?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by UnknownPleasure (U5610523) on Friday, 20th March 2009
I would be grateful if anyone on these boards could give me their opinion on the following.
If Stalin, as written in Lenin's testament, had been removed from his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party, how might this have affected/changed the future events of world history, most notably WWII? -
Message 2
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Friday, 20th March 2009
Hmmm, I'm finding it a bit more difficult than I thought I would to answer that question! I guess an obvious(?) point is that USSR may have been more prepared in 1941 for the onslaught of Barbarossa? I'm wondering who might've stepped up to the plate, as it were, after Lenin's death - there must've been more with Stalin's political tenacity and ambition! Any suggestions?
-
Message 3
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 20th March 2009
If Stalin, as written in Lenin's testament, had been removed from his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party, how might this have affected/changed the future events of world history, most notably WWII?Ìý The so-called Lenin's testament was a result of Lenin himself being removed as the Party leader by Stalin. General Secretary had not been the official head of the Party to begin with. Stalin - as without a question the shroudest politician of the entire Bolshevik gang - understood and clearly articulated the most potent power principle, "Cadres decide everything." He followed this principle to make his position - Party Secretary - the most powerful post in the Eastern Hemisphere. My guess is that Bolshevik regime would collapse much faster and the Second World War may have been avoided without Stalin steering the ship.
-
Message 4
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) ** on Friday, 20th March 2009
It all depends who would have taken over from Lenin.
If it had been someone like Leon Trotsky then it's possible that the situation could have been chaotic. Trotsky is probably less likely to have given up on the ideological dream of 'world revolution' and thus may well have been bumped off in a coup.
Someone like Sergie Kirov, on the other hand, may have been just like Stalin. In other words there could today be a statue in Leningrad to 'promising party operative Josef Stalin mysteriously assassinated in 1934 at the beginning of the Kirov's Great Purge'. -
Message 5
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
I've never quite understoon the 'What if' syndrome. All it does is exercise the mind but does not acheive anything. What if Nelson had missed the combined enemy fleet? Well he didn't and that is what makes history. Stalin and his leadership of the the Russian forces and all that that implies is surely enough to exercise our minds well into the 23 century? Speculation isn't history in my opinion, but then again is it?
-
Message 6
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Good point, I guess it isn't really , but I do think it's interesting to speculate on the many different routes that history might have taken (if only for funsies!)
For example, Stalin may have been kicked out of his post as General Secretary to the Central Committee if Lenin had been a bit more forceful in his testament?!
Would we then have had a Soviet Union headed up by Zinoviev or Kamenev maybe? -
Message 7
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Apologies, just realised that Suvorovetz has already mentioned Lenin's testament!
Oops!
-
Message 8
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
curiousdigger
For example, Stalin may have been kicked out of his post as General Secretary to the Central Committee if Lenin had been a bit more forceful in his testament?!Ìý The alleged testament never made it out after Lenin had allegedly written it, simply because Stalin was in complete control of Lenin's life at the time - in strict accordance with the Communist Party Central Committee resolution. Basically, Lenin was toast, and so were Trotsky, Zinovyev, Bukharin, Kamenev, Tukhachevsky, etc. -
Message 9
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Alright, if you insist. What if Britain, although concerned to protect its trade routes and its empire(ignore the capitalist interest) had just excercised a little more patience with the Kaiser and stayed neutral and persuaded the German forces to invade France in 1914 avoiding Belgium? A much richer Britain? No World War Two ... no Russian revolution?
-
Message 10
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 6th April 2009
The biggest trouble with ''what lf's'' is, IMO, the fact that one significant change in a chain of historical events means that post-alteration circumstances will change also, and probably drastically. The farther away one gets from the first ''what if'' the more tenuous any subsequent happenings become. You cannot alter a critical historical incident without altering just about everything that thereafter happens. Noting what DID happen after the point in question may have absolutely no bearing on what MIGHT happen as a result of the initial modification, and any ensuing occurrences, since they will probably alter as well, will render further prognostications meaningless.
I enjoy playing around with such queries, but I think it's vital to be aware that our predictions are completely inane. -
Message 11
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Alright, if you insist. What if Britain, although concerned to protect its trade routes and its empire(ignore the capitalist interest) had just excercised a little more patience with the Kaiser and stayed neutral and persuaded the German forces to invade France in 1914 avoiding BelgiumÌý
Would never happen.Im sure that read somewhere that Sir Edward Grey (foriegn secretary) had already ruled out the possibility of just that.Im sure that he had said in a speech to the cabinet that it would be unthinkable to allow the Germans to roam freely across France after the Entente Cordial.It may not have been a treaty as such,but I doubt the British would have stood by.
Vf -
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Re: Message 10.
Erik,
wise words indeed. And happy to meet you (from person to person) once on the boards again.
BTW: I had tought that you would contribute to Andrew's Korean War list?
Warm regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 13
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
there were too many other variables in soviet politics at the time, so imho it's practically impossible to speculate with any degree of certainty about what would have happened had Stalin been removed from power in the early 1920's and what sort of country the SU would have turned into by the late 1940's.
Today some people in Russia tend to blame Stalin for everything and often longingly say things like "if only he'd been prevented from consolidating power" and then they go on to speculate how a limited market economy would have been allowed to develop in the SU and how it would have become a much more prosperous country and been better prepared to face down Germany in 1941, but the truth is that in all probability whoever would have taken Stalin's place would have implemented similar policies or even done something worse. For one I'm convinced that Trotsky would have worse, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Kirov and all the rest of them were bolsheviks and had any of them gotten to the top in the communist party they'd have soon resorted to using the same methods of terror and total suppression of any opposition as Stalin used and there probably would have been purges and concentration camps and stupid decisions in the run up to the war. So most likely had Stalin been somehow removed from his post in the early twenties the effect on the course of WWII would have been rather limited. -
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
Don't knock the What ifs? As said, it keeps the brain active, and gives us fiction writers a vast scope. My first book is a What if, and based on (Like any good story) something going wrong. With me, it is the 1815 Congress of Vienna running into trouble. Indeed, Wellington stormed out of it. Harry Turtledove has written 7? (So far) books based on a little known fact during the American Civil War that could have altered the outcome. Again, if in 1940, Hitler hadn't agreed to his troops stopping outside Dunkirk, history as we know it would have been different.
-
Message 15
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
henrylee100 a limited market economy would have been allowed to develop in the SU and how it would have become a much more prosperous country and been better prepared to face down Germany in 1941Ìý The fact is that the entire country's resources were sacrificed in order to prepare Red Army for the world war.
probably would have been purges and concentration camps and stupid decisions in the run up to the warÌý The run up to the war was not accidental, or the result of 'stupid decisions' as you put it. It was quite deliberate and meticulous, in strict accordance with the Marxist doctrine. -
Message 16
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
I agree with Erik Lindsay - this counterfactual 'what if' history is basically a waste of time because any change you can imagine would have produced a whole bunch of further changes that you can't.
As for literature: I wonder how many great novels have been inspired by 'what ifs'? Real history was good enough for Tolstoy & Stendhal etc (with the addition of fictional characters & dialogues, obviously) while the great works of imaginary fantasy (Tolkein etc) are either set in future time or in a totally different universe or galaxy etc. -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
Permit me to have an opposing view. The "what if" is an integral part of history as a field and has been practiced even by those first ancient historians and writers. Even the less acclaimed, arguably a bit less usefull "fantasy battles" had been practiced.
The "what if" is the project in time and with considerably historical post-hindsight of what financial/political/military leaders do in real time on all historical and mundane events. "Do I attack Saddam? Or let him rule 10 years more?", "Do I send French troops in Afganistan? Or I remain neutral?", "What if I let loose Iran's blockade, will they become less reactionary and how this will affect the economy?", "what if I shift my policies to favour Greece rather than Turkey?", "what if Russians built first their gaz Southstream project in Black sea, ahead of US Nabucco project?" and so on...
Policy making is facing everyday the "what if". There is no firm position on any issue, minor or of life and death. And there is no way that anyone is going to convince us that "things were bound to happen that way", otherwise we may as well close ourselfs in a monastery praying for till the end of the world for fate to had been clement during the initial bing-bang... hehe!!!
Hence, when we do a "what if" it is always interesting. On the one had we have historic hindsight of what happened at least in the one (actually realised) case. On the other hand we might not have so complete picture of the concurrent pressures influencing decisions or downplaying some and overinflating other ones. In anyway it is a nice excersise and quite usefull for anyone that wants to delve into history a bit deeper. -
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
The "what if someone else instead of Stalin" is not one of the most difficult to answer:
We imagine that instead of Stalin a leader like Lenin, a bit less violent, took in charge and ruled up to the 2nd world war. What would this change? Possibly not so much:
There was no reason to believe that Lenin would be less autocratic. And most certainly he would not be "flowers and candies". Communism back then was predominantly a violent ideology whenever the slightest possibility permitted it and in all cases it had been a highy divisive ideology not seeking "societal consensus" but rather impoose by force. Hence Lenin and any other communist leader of those times would had chased down political opponents, would had cnstructed Gulagks - most possibly in Siberia, like Stalin - and would had completely got rid off of all the ancient hierarchy in the army and administration. That would have the same result in the Soviets' industrial as well fighting capacity and thus a campaign under Lenin in Finland would be no more successful and the preparations for a WWII against Nazi Germany no better than what Stalin had done. Note that on the one hand a less violent Lenin (or other leader) would had done a bit less massacres, and a bit less chasing thus have slightly better organisation to face the enemy but would also lack Stalins' (and Stalins' mates') inhuman stubborness to feed the front with human meet, thus making it slightly easier for Russians. Also a less arrivist figure than Stalin, a more violent but more dogmatic communist leader (and I am not sure here if Lenin had been so) would mean that he could be more slow in adopting back the "orthodox religion", "the priests" and the "age-old Russian struggle against Teutonic barbarism" to convince Russians from all the regions to go and fight. Not many Russians would rush to fight for Lenin's (or Trotsky's) communist ideals! Note also that all communist leades would feel that centerwing-Nazis were a bit moore close to communism than rightwing-capitalists, thus prior to war instrinsically would not rush to arm the frontiers like a non-communist Tcharist or Republican Russia would had done at the first place (+having some million Russians and others more there to fight, and all their best military commanders). -
Message 19
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
Nik Hence Lenin and any other communist leader of those times would had chased down political opponents, would had cnstructed GulagksÌý It's GULAG, Nik, which stands for something like the Main Correction Labor Camp Agency, and Lenin's decree establishing SLON - the notorious labor camp on the premises of the former Solovetsky Monastery - was at the GULAG's origin.
-
Message 20
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
HI Paul. Thanks for the kind words.
I noticed Andrew's request for a Korean war list but the truth is I haven't read a great deal about that conflict. I was there, so I had a pretty good handle on what it was like, and I read very carefully all the news reports available at the time and afterward - news items - not books. Also I had some minor contact with MacArthur's sycophantic home guard and had developed my own opinion of them.
Simply put, I didn't need to have someone tell me what MacArthur's was like or what the war was like, and I don't particularly enjoy thinking about it.
Result: I don't have a decent reading list to offer, which is why I didn't enter into the discussion.
But thanks for asking.
Cheers
Erik -
Message 21
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
If it had been someone like Leon Trotsky then it's possible that the situation could have been chaotic. Trotsky is probably less likely to have given up on the ideological dream of 'world revolution' and thus may well have been bumped off in a coup.
Ìý
Trotsky proved himself more than capable of leading the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. Had he taken over instead of Stalin the Red Army may well of been in much better shape and the Molotov/Ribentoff Pact probably would not have been signed. This may have deterred a Nazi invasion of Poland or restricted to the siezure of the polish corridor and western areas of Poland and the Second World War may have been delayed or not occurred at all. Alternatively the Soviet Union mat have come into the war in 1939 in better state than it was in 1941. -
Message 22
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
tucuxii
Had he taken over instead of Stalin the Red Army may well of been in much better shape and the Molotov/Ribentoff Pact probably would not have been signedÌý What shape do you think Red Army was in under Stalin? And why do you think Stalin arranged for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? And - most importantly - what do you think Trotsky created Red Army for in the first place? -
Message 23
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
What shape do you think Red Army was in under Stalin?,Ìý
In the late 1930s it was demoralized, poorly organized and poorly equipped - largely due to Stalins purges - hence it's poor proformance in the Winter War
And why do you think Stalin arranged for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?Ìý
To buy time -
Message 24
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
tucuxii
In the late 1930s it was demoralized, poorly organized and poorly equipped - largely due to Stalins purges - hence it's poor proformance in the Winter WarÌý This is an incrediblre collection of red-herrings and vaguity in one sentense. The second world war began in 1939, the Winter war was fought in 1940, and Wehrmacht attached Red Army in 1941. By that time Red Army fielded 25000 tanks against less than 4000 German tanks. Of 25000 Soviet tanks 1400 were T-34 and KV, the tanks by far superior to anything that Wehrmacht had in the field. Poor performance in the Winter war is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is that Red Army succesfully completed an offensive executed at the worst possible time and in the worst possible conditions for conducting offensive operations.
To buy timeÌý How do you buy time by destroying the buffer between you and your potential adversary? Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact effectively destroyed the buffer between Hitler and Stalin. -
Message 25
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
RE: Message 20.
Erik,
I thank you for your explanation.
Warm regards,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.