Stalin, would he have done a Hitler?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
davethelight
Member
Posts: 1691
Joined: 21 Dec 2002, 08:52
Location: Australia

Stalin, would he have done a Hitler?

#1

Post by davethelight » 15 Jan 2003, 13:14

Stalin decided to stay in Moscow even at the height of Operation Typhoon in December 1941 when the Germans wre half way to laying seige to the city.

If the Germans had actually succeeded in completely beseiging Moscow, would Stalin have tryed to escape at the last moment, via airoplane or something, or would he have stayed there to the bitter end, and either died in battle, or committed suicide.

Opinions please.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#2

Post by Tim Smith » 15 Jan 2003, 14:04

Stalin strikes me as a Saddam Hussein kind of leader, a survivor who would always look after himself first, so I think he would have saved himself before the Nazi ring round Moscow was closed.

So the 'Comrade Stalin will stay and fight to the last' line was probably just propaganda to stiffen Soviet resistance.

This is unlike Hitler who had no fear of death and had always been prepared to commit suicide, as a last resort. In fact Hitler actually expressed in private a certain disappointment that he wasn't killed in the July 44 Bomb Plot - he said it would have been a welcome release from the burdens and stresses of leadership.


ISU-152
Member
Posts: 711
Joined: 14 Nov 2002, 15:02
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

#3

Post by ISU-152 » 15 Jan 2003, 14:16

Tim Smith wrote: Stalin strikes me as a Saddam Hussein kind of leader, a survivor who would always look after himself first, so I think he would have saved himself before the Nazi ring round Moscow was closed.
Saddam Hussein has to learn a lot of things from uncle Joe. I would correct, a survivor who would always look after the idea first, the rest being done later.
Tim Smith wrote: So the 'Comrade Stalin will stay and fight to the last' line was probably just propaganda to stiffen Soviet resistance.
No, in fact Stalin stayed in Moscow at all times. The government however moved out. When Zhukov confirmed that Moscow will hold on with the introduction of additional armies and tanks, Stalin was very calm even in the hardest of the days of Moscow battles.
Tim Smith wrote: This is unlike Hitler who had no fear of death and had always been prepared to commit suicide, as a last resort.
Hitler's admirer? :wink:

User avatar
peter_suciu
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 29 Nov 2002, 17:49
Location: New York City

#4

Post by peter_suciu » 15 Jan 2003, 21:53

Stalin would have had to stay in Moscow until the Germans began to reach Red Square. He might have Zhukov killed for failing to properly defend the city...but in the end I think Uncle Joe would have been killed by the Red Army.

Keep in mind that the Soviet Communists were different from the Nazis. There wasn't the same kind of eternal loyalty to the leader or the cause. While there was fear of Stalin, once the situation looked hopeless the army might have killed Stalin and then sued for peace. They could blame Stalin's purges in the 1930s and his failure to react quickly enough on June 21 as reasons his "arrest and execution."

If somehow the Communists manage to retain control, and that would itself be a big IF, then I bet they willingly agree to the same peace terms with the Germans in World War I. They already had lost the Ukraine and for the Soviets they could hope that just holding that land would cause the people to rise up against the reactionaries from the West.

If the army seizes control and it isn't Communist, I don't see a quick path to democracy either. Possibly even a fascist element takes power and gives up land, offers to help control buffer states and tries to become more friendly to the Germans. They could offer that they would re-direct their sphere of influence towards the south including Afganistan, Iraq, Iran and Turkey. Those nations would give it a warm weather port and hence be worth the trade off of the Urkraine and the Baltic regions.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#5

Post by Tim Smith » 15 Jan 2003, 23:54

ISU-152 wrote:
Tim Smith wrote: Stalin strikes me as a Saddam Hussein kind of leader, a survivor who would always look after himself first, so I think he would have saved himself before the Nazi ring round Moscow was closed.
Saddam Hussein has to learn a lot of things from uncle Joe. I would correct, a survivor who would always look after the idea first, the rest being done later.

Stalin was no idealist! Lenin was, but Stalin was in it for the power.
Tim Smith wrote: So the 'Comrade Stalin will stay and fight to the last' line was probably just propaganda to stiffen Soviet resistance.
No, in fact Stalin stayed in Moscow at all times. The government however moved out. When Zhukov confirmed that Moscow will hold on with the introduction of additional armies and tanks, Stalin was very calm even in the hardest of the days of Moscow battles.

Moving a government takes a lot longer than moving one man! Don't you think that was a factor? Stalin was confident the Germans would run out of steam in the Russian winter, so stayed to the last minute - and in the end he didn't need to leave Moscow.

Tim Smith wrote: This is unlike Hitler who had no fear of death and had always been prepared to commit suicide, as a last resort.
Hitler's admirer? :wink:
No, just fact. Hitler was going to blow his own brains out with a pistol when the 1923 Munich Putsch failed - but unfortunately for the world some idiot (can't remember his name) talked him out of it!

ISU-152
Member
Posts: 711
Joined: 14 Nov 2002, 15:02
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

#6

Post by ISU-152 » 16 Jan 2003, 10:33

peter_suciu wrote: Keep in mind that the Soviet Communists were different from the Nazis. There wasn't the same kind of eternal loyalty to the leader or the cause. While there was fear of Stalin, once the situation looked hopeless the army might have killed Stalin and then sued for peace.
They might have killed Stalin but then their fighting would be even more resilient and shrewd. With Stalin gone the generals would have all the initiative on their hands, no Stalin to interfere with their strategical decisions, no Barvenkovo and Crimea disasters in 1942. :wink:
peter_suciu wrote: They could blame Stalin's purges in the 1930s and his failure to react quickly enough on June 21 as reasons his "arrest and execution."
In fact, the blame lies on those generals who were very reluctant to bring their troops on full alert at the first signs that the Germans are preparing an invasion.
peter_suciu wrote: If somehow the Communists manage to retain control, and that would itself be a big IF, then I bet they willingly agree to the same peace terms with the Germans in World War I. They already had lost the Ukraine and for the Soviets they could hope that just holding that land would cause the people to rise up against the reactionaries from the West.
:D :D :D Entering Russia is a dollar, leaving is two :D :D :D
Peace with Germans? Only Beria and Stalin had such plans in mind. Once they are gone, the Red Army would keep on fighting with double efforts. You can't use force against Russia, you can only deceive Russia. The history clearly shows.

User avatar
peter_suciu
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 29 Nov 2002, 17:49
Location: New York City

#7

Post by peter_suciu » 16 Jan 2003, 17:49

They might have killed Stalin but then their fighting would be even more resilient and shrewd. With Stalin gone the generals would have all the initiative on their hands, no Stalin to interfere with their strategical decisions, no Barvenkovo and Crimea disasters in 1942.
That is an excellent point. But losing Moscow would be a quite a blow. If Moscow fell the Germans might be able to end the seige at Leningrad and thus the two largest Russian cities have fallen.

In fact, the blame lies on those generals who were very reluctant to bring their troops on full alert at the first signs that the Germans are preparing an invasion.
I don't agree. Stalin should have seen the tea leaves but he did nothing and during the opening invasion he issued orders not to attempt to over react, as he felt it might be a mistake and didn't want to upset Hitler. It was well into the first day when the Soviet armies finally got their act together and Stalin believed the invasion was real.


But I do agree that the Red Army would fight on. You make good points. I still think that they would be in a very bad shape, especially if the Japanese decide to attack. Without ports Lend Lease is useless and the armies would starve.

ISU-152
Member
Posts: 711
Joined: 14 Nov 2002, 15:02
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

#8

Post by ISU-152 » 16 Jan 2003, 18:20

peter_suciu wrote: That is an excellent point. But losing Moscow would be a quite a blow. If Moscow fell the Germans might be able to end the seige at Leningrad and thus the two largest Russian cities have fallen.
That is true. But in order to capture Moscow the germans needed a little bit more than they had and the soviets kept increasing the number of their troops near Moscow. If Stalin is killed for treason of the Soviet state whoever controls Soviet Union after him (Zhukov perhaps?) will rally the forces and fight with double effort.
peter_suciu wrote:
In fact, the blame lies on those generals who were very reluctant to bring their troops on full alert at the first signs that the Germans are preparing an invasion.
I don't agree. Stalin should have seen the tea leaves but he did nothing and during the opening invasion he issued orders not to attempt to over react, as he felt it might be a mistake and didn't want to upset Hitler. It was well into the first day when the Soviet armies finally got their act together and Stalin believed the invasion was real.
I know all the generals feared Stalin so much that they couldn't say a word against him. That's just shows how "good" they actually were. If you are a true citizen, a military commander, whatever, you would scream out loud to your countrymen "Watch out! You are about to be invaded, be alert at all times. Prepare yourself, you know what they've done to Poland and France!" None of them did that, that just shows how ignorant they really were. Commander of Western Military District was going at a concert with his staff on June 21. When an officer arrived to report that the germans are moving towards the border he just sent him off to watch the rest of the concert. And SUCH people were given command of the hundreds of thousands troops. I can only feel sorry for a Red Army soldier. He was doomed from the very beginning.
peter_suciu wrote: But I do agree that the Red Army would fight on. You make good points. I still think that they would be in a very bad shape, especially if the Japanese decide to attack. Without ports Lend Lease is useless and the armies would starve.
Japanese still remember what hit them at Khalhin Gol so they are not a threat. And as history showed even in the worst days of the Soviet Union the japanese were not eager to grab a piece of Siberia.
Even if the soviets lose Murmansk that's where Lend-Lease help is shipped there are plenty of other ports such as Archangelsk and Vladivostok. Plus the Iranian road through soviet Middle Asia regions(not the best solution, it would require thousands of trucks) but still workable.

best regards,
Sergei

User avatar
peter_suciu
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 29 Nov 2002, 17:49
Location: New York City

#9

Post by peter_suciu » 17 Jan 2003, 00:44

I would argue that Japan didn't get involved because they feared the Soviets, but if Moscow falls than the Germans might press the Japanese to attack. Russia could not hold on a two-front war.

They might sue for peace with the Japanese, but still have to garrison men there just in case.

As far as lend lease I think Archangel is still a possiblity but with Moscow in German hands it would be hard to get supplies to the south. Germany could also push hard and perhaps even get Iran or Iraq to join up with them if the Soviets are on the verge of collapse.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”