What if Stalin et al had been overthrown in 1945 by the Red Army?

Discussion in 'Postwar' started by Nige GSX1400 UK, Mar 6, 2008.

  1. Nige GSX1400 UK

    Nige GSX1400 UK Junior Member

    Just thinking. What if Stalin had either died or been overthrown by the Red Army in 1945? This would have meant Beria's swift execution along with a few others and then what if Zhukov had taken the reigns (the Soviet people's hero) of power with backing from men like Koniev and Chuikov?
    Now imagine a 1950s with a more western friendly USSR and a West led by Ike (who got on very well with Zhukov to Stalin's horror). Would the Cold War not have been a lot less threatening, after all both Commanders knew what the bomb really meant and had seen war at first hand.

    If not Zhukov then Kruschev from 45 on. Maybe the Cold War could have ended without the wasted money and effort expended on trying to nuke each other but instead on eliminating poverty and really reaching to space.

    Just a thought, feel free to comment.

    Cheers
    Nige
    B.A.(Hons)
     
  2. deadb_tch

    deadb_tch the deadliest b#tch ever

    Another what if ;) needed to be better thought about before any comments ;) maybe not everyone knows who and where were in soviet authority in those years, could you provide link to read about? ;)
     
  3. Nige GSX1400 UK

    Nige GSX1400 UK Junior Member

    Another what if ;) needed to be better thought about before any comments ;) maybe not everyone knows who and where were in soviet authority in those years, could you provide link to read about? ;)

    I could refer you to any number of books on The Cold War, which I read at University.
    But this is just an idea on my part, based on the fact that Stalin was a paranoid maniac who slaughtered innocents. Unlike Zhukov, who while undoubtedly ruthless with his men when he had to be, (but there again, if he hadn't been Stalin would have had his head) was far preferable.
    The loudest roar in Red Square on the day of the Red Army's victory parade was not for Stalin, but for Zhukov on a white horse with the other Red Army leaders behind him. As it should have been for the victor of Leningrad, Moscow and the creator of the master plan which destroyed the nazi 6th army and nazi armour later at Kursk.

    Behind Stalin was his dog Beria and sycophants such as Voroshilov. When Stalin died how long did Beria for instance last? Not long before he was shot.

    If Stalin had died/ been overthrown then I personally feel Zhukov or Khrushchev would have been a better leader, Khrushchev proved his desire for peace in the Cuban Missile Crisis when with President Kennedy he saw the madness of nuclear war.

    Who knows, maybe the Korean War may not have occurred or many other tragedies since 1945 such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.

    Anyone who wants to see what Soviet troops had to deal with and Western troops are dealing with now in Afghanistan. Try to get a copy of 9th Company, its Russian language with English subtitles but a v good film).

    Cheers
    Nige

    Whose family fought in WW2 in Egypt and Libya, Italy, France, through to Germany:D Proud I will always be.
    Death to the S.S. and Fascism. :mad:

    Челюсть челюсти челюсти более лучшая чем война войны войны, всегда.
     
  4. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Trouble with what-ifs is we'll never know, right? So all we can do is speculate, diverging hyperbolically as we go farther from the original premise to the point of pointlessness.

    What if Zhukov turns out to be another monster shooting people left and right as he clings to power? We'll never know!
     
  5. Hey guys,

    Neither Nikita or Zhukov were nice people. Compared to "Joe" the may look almost saintly, but that's like comparing Scorpions and Black Widows.
    You don't want either in your bed. Stalin is another example of Von Poops banality of evil. Hitler liked kids and dogs? Stalin was a indulgent parent
    early on) Nikita supposedly said he was drenched in blood up to his elbows.
    The Russian's actually supposedly had the chance to depose Stalin following the german invasion. Stalin at his dacha even behaved (supposedly again) as though hewas expecting this when Molotov, Beria and Melankov arrived tobeg him to return to Moscow.
    Joe had done his work well. He killed anyone who was a threat, was related to someone who was a threat and anyone who MIGHT become a threat. He killed men, women, children, priests, teachers, bakers and candlestick makers. He killed you for not reading Stalin, he killed you for only reading Stalin. Nikita didn't display much friendliness to the west while in charge. His decision regarding Cuba was just common sense. At the time the soviet union had no land based missiles capable of reaching the US. (An often neglected fact and his reason for wanting them in Cuba.
    Zhukov was ruthless and brutal. He didn't rise to success under Stalin
    (Who admired his ruthlessness) by being othewise. The idea that either Nikita or Zhukov possessed some undelying milk of human kindness just does not fit with the well known facts of their behavior.

    "Be deaf to all testaments to good faith and good will. Only heed what actions reveal. Hardly anyone believes in their own evil." Merlin

    Cordially and most respectful cheerios
    GM:rolleyes:
     
  6. Hey guys,

    Neither Nikita or Zhukov were nice people. Compared to "Joe" the may look almost saintly, but that's like comparing Scorpions and Black Widows.
    You don't want either in your bed. Stalin is another example of Von Poops banality of evil. Hitler liked kids and dogs? Stalin was a indulgent parent
    early on) Nikita supposedly said he was drenched in blood up to his elbows.
    The Russian's actually supposedly had the chance to depose Stalin following the german invasion. Stalin at his dacha even behaved (supposedly again) as though hewas expecting this when Molotov, Beria and Melankov arrived tobeg him to return to Moscow.
    Joe had done his work well. He killed anyone who was a threat, was related to someone who was a threat and anyone who MIGHT become a threat. He killed men, women, children, priests, teachers, bakers and candlestick makers. He killed you for not reading Stalin, he killed you for only reading Stalin. Nikita didn't display much friendliness to the west while in charge. His decision regarding Cuba was just common sense. At the time the soviet union had no land based missiles capable of reaching the US. (An often neglected fact and his reason for wanting them in Cuba.
    Zhukov was ruthless and brutal. He didn't rise to success under Stalin
    (Who admired his ruthlessness) by being othewise. The idea that either Nikita or Zhukov possessed some undelying milk of human kindness just does not fit with the well known facts of their behavior.

    "Be deaf to all testaments to good faith and good will. Only heed what actions reveal. Hardly anyone believes in their own evil." Merlin

    Cordially and most respectful cheerios
    GM:rolleyes:
     
  7. Nige GSX1400 UK

    Nige GSX1400 UK Junior Member

    Hey guys,

    Neither Nikita or Zhukov were nice people. Compared to "Joe" the may look almost saintly, but that's like comparing Scorpions and Black Widows.
    You don't want either in your bed. Stalin is another example of Von Poops banality of evil. Hitler liked kids and dogs? Stalin was a indulgent parent
    early on) Nikita supposedly said he was drenched in blood up to his elbows.

    Yes but how did he mean it was their an underlying regret for what he had done under Stalin? He did release thousands from the camps. And also attempted to improve conditions in the U.S.S.R. but bad harvests and disastrous schemes to increase food and material production ruined him in the eyes of others in power e.g. Brezhnev.

    Zhukov, I feel only survived because he was the People's Hero, and Stalin knew it. He was the one Marshal Stalin could not just 'bump off'. To quote from Berlin by Antony Beevor

    'Zhukov's dacha was bugged. A small dinner which he gave there for close friends to celebrate the victory was recorded. Their crime was not to have made the first toast to Comrade Stalin. This later led to the torture and imprisonment of General Kryukov and his wife being sent to the Gulags.' Pages 427-428.

    'The Russian's actually supposedly had the chance to depose Stalin following the german invasion. Stalin at his dacha even behaved (supposedly again) as though he was expecting this when Molotov, Beria and Melankov arrived tobeg him to return to Moscow.'

    I would agree, Stalin expected arrest and execution at the above point but Molotov, Beria and Melankov WERE Stalin's men, without him they were in trouble (Beria was shot shortly after Stalin's death in 53). Plus Russia has always seemed to want a strong leader even if he was vicious and evil e.g. Ivan The Terrible. Plus surely any coup attempt, when the Germans were at Moscow's gates would not have been supported by the masses or the Red Army. Stalin had brainwashed many and they were more concerned with fighting for survival against the greatest evil the World has ever faced, Fascism.

    'Joe had done his work well. He killed anyone who was a threat, was related to someone who was a threat and anyone who MIGHT become a threat. He killed men, women, children, priests, teachers, bakers and candlestick makers. He killed you for not reading Stalin, he killed you for only reading Stalin. Nikita didn't display much friendliness to the west while in charge.'

    He, Khrushchev, actually proved popular with the public in the West e.g. his visit to the U.S. You seem to forget the U.S.S.R. lost millions in the War and felt insecure without a bulwark to protect its Western Borders. This was the Eastern Block, just as the U.S. used Europe and other countries to help protect its political and economic interests. NO I dont mean the U.S. is like, or was as cruel as the U.S.S.R. but the West misunderstood the Russians at times, e.g. Senator McCarthy's witch hunts in the 50s.

    'His decision regarding Cuba was just common sense. At the time the soviet union had no land based missiles capable of reaching the US. (An often neglected fact and his reason for wanting them in Cuba.'

    But the U.S. had nuclear missiles and aircraft in Europe aimed at the U.S.S.R. the Soviets felt insecure and Nikita had to act in some way to relieve pressure on himself from Hawks in the Politbureau.

    'Zhukov was ruthless and brutal. He didn't rise to success under Stalin
    (Who admired his ruthlessness) by being othewise.'


    Koniev, I understood was Stalin's favourite?

    Zhukov did suffer under Stalin, and probably only survived because he was in the East commanding troops on the opposite side of the border to the Japs, when the purges destroyed the Red Army's Officer Corps.

    'The idea that either Nikita or Zhukov possessed some undelying milk of human kindness just does not fit with the well known facts of their behavior.'

    I am not saying either were Angels. But surely the West would have preferred to deal with either, than Stalin post 1945?

    Anyway I just wondered what others opinions were on the idea which occurred to me. Thanks for all the views expressed, they have been thoroughly enjoyable.

    Cheers
    Nige

    Disgusted with the Teachers Union not wanting the Armed Forces in our Schools recruiting.
    For many when the education system failed them the Armed Forces didnt but learned them how to read and write and be responsible adaptable men and women. After all NO U.K. ARMED FORCES = NO FREEDOM for anyone in the U.K.

    "Be deaf to all testaments to good faith and good will. Only heed what actions reveal. Hardly anyone believes in their own evil." Merlin

    Cordially and most respectful cheerios
    GM:rolleyes:

    GM all the best, cheers for some good points.
     
  8. chipmunk wallah

    chipmunk wallah Senior Member

    "For many when the education system failed them the Armed Forces didnt but learned them how to read and write"
    Sorry,thats got to be one of the funniest things Ive read today......it is irony yeah?

    Who exactly would have overthrown JaJa Stalina at this time? IMHO nobody,and at the time certainly not with the backing of the RKKA,hate to say it,but even today,with all that is known regarding Stalin his memory is still highly regarded amongst veterens.Like it or not,he was the man who pulled the nations together. I was going to compare him to Churchill in 1945 Britain but,er,Clem Atlee's PM ship threw a spanner in that chain,but you get my drift.
    Also be very wary of Beevors acounts,he is a product of the cold war and as such er's on the side of well....lets just say,he's not exactly unbiased.
     
  9. Nige GSX1400 UK

    Nige GSX1400 UK Junior Member

    "For many when the education system failed them the Armed Forces didnt but learned them how to read and write"
    Sorry,thats got to be one of the funniest things Ive read today......it is irony yeah?


    Err, no.
    One personal example. My Uncle left school in the mid 70s, no qualifications, only prospects labouring in a factory or similar.
    Instead he joined the Army. By the time he did his full term he left with a good lump sum, a pension, numerous qualifications and now lives in the Med with his wife and kids while someone in the U.K. runs his business for him.

    A second example, me, at school I left with no qualifications and was graded the bottom third of my year.

    Since then the Army were the only people to tell me I could achieve more and wasnt stupid. So, even though I did not serve in the end, I did get a B.A. (Hons) Degree, despite the education system failing me.

    The Army encouraged me and my Dad always maintained he learned more in his time in the Army than he ever did at school.

    Cheers
    Nige
    B.A. (Hons)
    Working Class and proud of it. Second to none.
     
  10. Nige GSX1400 UK

    Nige GSX1400 UK Junior Member

    Also be very wary of Beevors acounts,he is a product of the cold war and as such er's on the side of well....lets just say,he's not exactly unbiased.[/quote]

    So would you class him as Pre-Revisionist, e.g. the good old U.S.A. saved us all, Revisionist, e.g the Soviets were not that bad really, or Post-Revisionist, e.g. both had faults and misunderstood each other?

    Personally, I find his writing style interesting but am not brainwashed by it. I have also enjoyed numerous other authors going back to A.J.P. Taylor. I would rather read an interestingly written account, with errors which I can read and dissect, than a purely academic tome which sends one's brain to sleep. :D

    All the best
    Nige
    B.A. (Hons)
     

Share This Page