Yes we all know Stalin was a bad guy....but could the SU have stood against the German onslaught without him?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Does Stalin suddenly die on 22nd June 1941, or are we talking earlier? Because earlier is just one massive butterfly sanctuary.
If they had left the Wehrmacht to it without Hitler's interference and also delayed the war on two fronts until after they had conquered the UK, then yes I am very sure they could have done.
Trotsky could have beaten Hitler. In fact I think he would have fared far better, or even prevent WW2 if he would refuse to make a deal with Germany.
The purge of the officer corp is, in my opinion, the main reason why the Red Army was beaten so badly by the Germans in the opening months of the war (and why the Finnish fought so well during the Winter War). In other words, the Soviet Union would have defeated Germany much more easily without Stalin.
On the flip side, the insanely intense drive for industrialisation helped greatly in the defence of the motherland. Of course, if a leader could get the industrialisation done without decimating the officer corps, we had a winner.
You mean 1914 Russia versus 1941 Germany
More seriously the most "fair" comparison is hard- having Tsarist Russia exist requires WW1 not occur or be much shorter (like the Ottomans staying out). And they probably would do better if only because their survival would mean the Franco-Russian alliance continues so Germany faces a two front war.
Again, butterflies. But I'd argue that most communist leaders that could have risen to the top would have had a fanatical belief in industrializing. And if the communists never took over at all Russia would have industrialized slower, but over a much longer period of time. Combining that with a substantially larger population and I believe that that form of Russia would have defeat Hitler much more easily.
Again, massive butterflies. When Hitler dies can prevent a World War as we know it, or simply change the course of the war.
Operation Sealion is a suicide run, unless Germany waits until it has a fleet to challenge the Royal Navy. At which point it's still a suicide run, because by now the British Army and the USSR have got themselves together.
Trotsky's USSR would have been a wreck of a nation, if it existed at all.
And yet the Soviet Union without Stalin would have been less stable internally and lacking Stalin's leadership. An alternate Soviet leader might not have Stalin's ruthlessness, might not make his choices regarding heavy/war industry, and might make poorer choices regarding the conduct of the war.
Butterflies. Beautiful, beautiful butterflies.
Stalin made some extremely poor choices during the war as well. And his ruthlessness probably did not act as a positive- indeed, given that it almost drove the Ukrainians, Belorussians, and his own people into the hands of the Germans it almost single handily destroyed the Soviet Union.
Indeed he did make some poor choices. Overall though, his leadership during the war was rather good. Moreover, it was wholehearted.
Overall I'd say it did. He made some poor choices, but he also made some very good ones.
Drove them into the hands of the Germans so hard that they started a guerilla war rather than be exterminated.
No. Trotsky was the architect of Brest-Litovsk and a firm supporter of Russia's foreign policy in the early 20's: an anti-Entente alliance with Germany (which Russia returned to in 1939...). His fellow 'Left Opposition' ally in the KPD, Karl Radek, developed 'National Bolshevism' to find common cause with German nationalists fighting the French in the Ruhr. At the time the left wing of the KPD was aligned with Stalin...
Trotsky only came to a revolutionary position after he was booted out of power. And likewise, Stalin when in power stole and implemented all of the policies of the Left Opposition that they had been arguing in favour of for years. People casting Stalin as a ruthless bureaucrat should remember Trotsky was the guy who wanted to put all workers under military discipline and was criticised by Lenin for "excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of work"!
There are a lot of myths regarding Trotsky/Stalin because it was in the interest of both camps to play up the differences. IMO they were functionally the same, both constrained by the material circumstances Russia was in after the failure of the revolution.
Last edited:
I hardly see why "Stalin" would appear essential to the USSR war effort, not more than a Lenin or a Trotsky. The Soviets/Russians would have got somebody else... They did not have much of a choice anyway :/ . Human waves to defend the threatened revolution and terror inside, this was not invented by Stalin, and ww2 wasn't either the last time it would be used by a revolutionary power.
Err, Trotsky did negociate Brest-Litovsk because this was the mission the party gave to him, but that doesn't mean he was a proponent of it. He consistently voted against signing a peace, he resigned from People's commissar for foreign affairs as a sign of protest and only in the very last moment when Lenin himself threatened to resign if peace wasn't approved he consented, not even to support it, but only to abstain.
Everybody knows this, but this does not prove how Trotsky would have behaved if he had the power. Remember Stalin's position was very weak, so his only chance to win was by adopting those shade shemes. If Trotsky had won he would have no use for such expediments. This does not prove he was a "bureaucrat" either, at least in the same sense as Stalin(not really a bureaucrat, but a man who created a system of bureaucrats).
This is just random name-calling of people by Lenin. He liked doing this a lot. I challenge you to find a single person of any significance who wasn't at some point "criticized" by Lenin for some reason or another.
In this case my source is Bazhanov, certainly he didn't root for either of both camps.
There is a part of truth in what you say but I don't agree because Trotsky or Stalin means people in power are not the same. Not just one leader at the top, but the whole power structure. Material circumstances were important but I cannot dismiss the influence of the ruling class entirely.
