|
|
Post by shadow007 on Oct 23, 2022 1:44:34 GMT
What if after Lenin dies Nikolai Bukharin wins the power struggle and becomes the ruler of the Soviet Union instead of Stalin?
The most obvious difference is that there is no Great Purge nor the brutal collectivation that Stalin did. A massive decrease in paranoia is another positive change.
The Soviet Union under his leadership would drastically be different and it would certainly affect WW2 and the Cold War
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Oct 23, 2022 1:51:16 GMT
Bukharin was never really a leading player in the post Lenin struggle for the top. Before we deal with the consequences, the 'why' of the matter needs to be teased out more effectively.
Having said that, some of the personality issues of Stalin wouldn't be present, but I wouldn't go so far as to projecting any positive character onto any of the Old Bolsheviks. Better than Stalin does not mean an absence of murder or tyranny, which is pretty much part of the product description of the Bolshies.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadow007 on Oct 24, 2022 13:18:32 GMT
Bukharin was never really a leading player in the post Lenin struggle for the top. Before we deal with the consequences, the 'why' of the matter needs to be teased out more effectively. Having said that, some of the personality issues of Stalin wouldn't be present, but I wouldn't go so far as to projecting any positive character onto any of the Old Bolsheviks. Better than Stalin does not mean an absence of murder or tyranny, which is pretty much part of the product description of the Bolshies. Are you talking about the Great Purge and Holdomor or just the basic dictator's paranoia Corruption would be lower since there will be less covering one's ass in fear of gulag or death |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 25, 2022 3:20:03 GMT
If Bukharin continued the NEP, it'd be an improvement compared to Holodomor.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Nov 9, 2022 20:15:22 GMT
Well, we do not know what would happen.
Stalin was very very brutal, massmurdering, but also lead the UdSSR to the status of the second super power. He developted russia in the late 20ties and 30ties, this helped him to defeat nazi germany. I doubt another leader could have done this in the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 12, 2022 22:50:10 GMT
Say, you aren't, by chance, that Steffen from Sealion World Tour fame?
As for Stalin, I give my usual comment made up for a HM6 character, Alexander Student:
"People tawking about how great Stalin was 'defending his country' just don't get it. He wasn't! The first days after Barbarossa started, he sat around uselessly in his Dacha, crying like a lovesick finicchio 'How could Adolf hurt me like that!' And when he finally got around leading a war as he was supposed to: His fans don't get that they have to wonder what anyone else in his position would have done. Do they believe that any other leader of Russia but Stalin would have dropped over and surrendered the moment the first Wehrmacht soldier crossed the border?"
|
|
|
|
Post by shadow007 on Nov 24, 2022 17:59:04 GMT
Say, you aren't, by chance, that Steffen from Sealion World Tour fame? As for Stalin, I give my usual comment made up for a HM6 character, Alexander Student: "People tawking about how great Stalin was 'defending his country' just don't get it. He wasn't! The first days after Barbarossa started, he sat around uselessly in his Dacha, crying like a lovesick finicchio 'How could Adolf hurt me like that!' And when he finally got around leading a war as he was supposed to: His fans don't get that they have to wonder what anyone else in his position would have done. Do they believe that any other leader of Russia but Stalin would have dropped over and surrendered the moment the first Wehrmacht soldier crossed the border?" The Soviets would be much more reliable and less crazy under Bukharin. His Hearts of Iron 4 scenario is inspiration for this Thread Bukharin would still take bites out of Romania (leader is wasteful and incompetent) and Poland as well as take over the Baltics (easy pickings) The KGB/NKVD won't kill as many Polish prisoners this time around. So with Barbarossa not being one-sided in favor for the Axis I wonder how that and other war changes Bukharin does affects WW2 |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 25, 2022 7:57:52 GMT
Bukharin would certainly have been better for the USSR. Claims that only Stalin could ready the country for something like WW2 are vastly overblown because the fundamentals were still there. In fact, with a more capable and less murderous government, they would probably have been in a much better state right from the start.
That said, Bukharin remains a proper Bolshevik so he certainly isn't above mass murder to achieve his goals. It mostly depends on how much power he manages to gather into his own position. More collective leadership will be less murderous than individual leadership.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 432
Likes: 694
|
Post by michelvan on Nov 25, 2022 11:11:55 GMT
main issue here is to get Bukharin in position to succeed Lenin !
The problem is Stalin
He was already big in communist movement and during Revolution and Civil war,
as Lenin died he was in Position to take total power and paranoid who he was eliminated his enemies real and imaginary.
Or Not ?
There is litte detail in History overlooked: Lenin Testament !
Here Lenin recommended Stalin's removal from the position of General Secretary of the Party:
During the 13th Party Congress in May 1924, "Lenin's Testament" was read only to the leaders of the provincial delegations.
Embarrassed by its contents, Stalin offered his resignation as General Secretary; this act of humility saved him and he was retained in the position.
But what if, the Testament was read to to Party or became public, or Stalin in bluntness refuse to Step down instead offers his resignation ?
here Stalin could be removed from Power by Communist Party and Bukharin would have a realistic chance
except there is still Leo Trotsky...
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 25, 2022 15:46:42 GMT
main issue here is to get Bukharin in position to succeed Lenin ! The problem is Stalin He was already big in communist movement and during Revolution and Civil war, as Lenin died he was in Position to take total power and paranoid who he was eliminated his enemies real and imaginary. Or Not ? There is litte detail in History overlooked: Lenin Testament ! Here Lenin recommended Stalin's removal from the position of General Secretary of the Party: During the 13th Party Congress in May 1924, "Lenin's Testament" was read only to the leaders of the provincial delegations. Embarrassed by its contents, Stalin offered his resignation as General Secretary; this act of humility saved him and he was retained in the position. But what if, the Testament was read to to Party or became public, or Stalin in bluntness refuse to Step down instead offers his resignation ? here Stalin could be removed from Power by Communist Party and Bukharin would have a realistic chance except there is still Leo Trotsky... In the end, the Testament can easily be dismissed as being a lie. And as you say, there is Trotsky. And no matter how terrible Stalin was, Trotsky would probably have ended up being even worse. Which says a lot about the Bolshevik leadership. The best way to get so many out of the way would either be Lenin actually making a move after his first stroke or perhaps even beforehand. If he then purges the main leadership candidates Bukhanin has much more of a chance. Or, of course, someone could just shoot/bomb Stalin and Trotsky at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by shadow007 on Nov 25, 2022 22:17:10 GMT
Bukharin would certainly have been better for the USSR. Claims that only Stalin could ready the country for something like WW2 are vastly overblown because the fundamentals were still there. In fact, with a more capable and less murderous government, they would probably have been in a much better state right from the start. That said, Bukharin remains a proper Bolshevik so he certainly isn't above mass murder to achieve his goals. It mostly depends on how much power he manages to gather into his own position. More collective leadership will be less murderous than individual leadership. Could Bukharin send more aid to Republicans so they can win the Spanish Civil War? Let's say the Soviets are much better prepared and are not surprised by Barbarossa. How long would it take them to reach Berlin? |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 25, 2022 23:16:37 GMT
main issue here is to get Bukharin in position to succeed Lenin ! The problem is Stalin He was already big in communist movement and during Revolution and Civil war, as Lenin died he was in Position to take total power and paranoid who he was eliminated his enemies real and imaginary. Or Not ? There is litte detail in History overlooked: Lenin Testament ! Here Lenin recommended Stalin's removal from the position of General Secretary of the Party: During the 13th Party Congress in May 1924, "Lenin's Testament" was read only to the leaders of the provincial delegations. Embarrassed by its contents, Stalin offered his resignation as General Secretary; this act of humility saved him and he was retained in the position. But what if, the Testament was read to to Party or became public, or Stalin in bluntness refuse to Step down instead offers his resignation ? here Stalin could be removed from Power by Communist Party and Bukharin would have a realistic chance except there is still Leo Trotsky... In the end, the Testament can easily be dismissed as being a lie. And as you say, there is Trotsky. And no matter how terrible Stalin was, Trotsky would probably have ended up being even worse. Which says a lot about the Bolshevik leadership. Why do you think Trotsky would have been worse? Because he thought spreading Communism throughout the world was the right thing, and he would have started a war of aggression?
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 432
Likes: 694
|
Post by michelvan on Nov 25, 2022 23:36:03 GMT
Why do you think Trotsky would have been worse? He was during Russian Civil war the leader of Red Army and he was absolut ruthless. and as Leader of USSR, special during WW2 he would again totally ruthless ! |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 26, 2022 0:38:37 GMT
No doubt, but still... are you sure he'd top Holodomor AND the losses in WW2?
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 26, 2022 12:58:01 GMT
Trotsky would do things differently. But he was a complete monster and much more warlike than Stalin. Of course, we got some pretty horrific events in that part of the twentieth century so just some butterflies could easily make things a lot better. That said, a more aggressive USSR could have led to a lot of horror as well. That said, Trotsky was even more of an ideologue so I could also imagine the whole thing just falling to pieces.
|
|
