|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on May 21, 2016 19:45:32 GMT
Everyone knows, that Khrushchev is the leader after Stalin. But what if...
Stalin is killed for a random reason DURING the Patriotic War?
Will the history change? Who will be the new leader of USSR in 1943?
Edit: Khrushchev, Beria, Malenkov and Kalinin are eliminated.
Molotov vs. Zhukov! Who should be the next USSR leader?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on May 21, 2016 20:15:57 GMT
Suvorov bottlesofvodkaYou guys will enjoy this one. I honestly don't know much about the USSR but I'd say Kalinin
|
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on May 21, 2016 20:24:47 GMT
I'd say Molotov as he was one of Stalin's most trustful advisors. Plus, Zhukov was the major general at the time and I believe that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would want someone who had a pretty high position in the communist party to become premier.
|
|
|
|
Post by António Salazar on May 23, 2016 15:25:57 GMT
Zhukov, popular with the people, knows how a SocialisticOligarchyCommonlyReferredToAs'Communism' works
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington on May 23, 2016 20:13:09 GMT
Everyone knows, that Khrushchev is the leader after Stalin. But what if... Stalin is killed for a random reason DURING the Patriotic War? Will the history change? Who will be the new leader of USSR in 1943? What d u mean by "random" reason? Did Erich von Manstein plan some skillful raid and kill the monster once and for all? |
|
|
|
Post by Washington on May 23, 2016 20:15:29 GMT
But more seriously Zhukov as he was the public favorite during wwii so he could have easily done a coup and have better control over the army
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on May 24, 2016 22:49:08 GMT
Alright, Kurushchev, Beria, Malenkov, Kalinin, out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on May 24, 2016 23:09:59 GMT
At that point, Molotov had power within the party. Zhukov was popular and big with the army, but the establishment was pro-Molotov. Molotov would initially take over, but Zhukov could theoretically start a civil war, which he, being a patriotic Russian, wouldn't have done during the war
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on May 25, 2016 4:07:52 GMT
I think Zhukov.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington on May 25, 2016 7:15:30 GMT
Considering Zhukov like saved moscow and Leningrad from germany and that many soldiers admired him (even though he 'sacrificed' some) and so I could easily believe he could have the full support of the Red army, which is vital to any coup
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on May 25, 2016 23:07:18 GMT
Considering Zhukov like saved moscow and Leningrad from germany and that many soldiers admired him (even though he 'sacrificed' some) and so I could easily believe he could have the full support of the Red army, which is vital to any coup Molotov would inherit the leadership if the process played out as it normally does, but Zhukov could easily overthrow his fledgling regime |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on May 26, 2016 11:41:24 GMT
Considering Zhukov like saved moscow and Leningrad from germany and that many soldiers admired him (even though he 'sacrificed' some) and so I could easily believe he could have the full support of the Red army, which is vital to any coup Molotov would inherit the leadership if the process played out as it normally does, but Zhukov could easily overthrow his fledgling regime So it's pretty much a situation with one guy able to start a civil war (and win) but he wouldn't do it since his country is in a war |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on May 26, 2016 14:04:55 GMT
Molotov would inherit the leadership if the process played out as it normally does, but Zhukov could easily overthrow his fledgling regime So it's pretty much a situation with one guy able to start a civil war (and win) but he wouldn't do it since his country is in a war Exactly! And by the time the Nazis are beaten, Molotov would have stabilized his position |
|
|
|
Post by CCCPball on May 28, 2016 19:30:50 GMT
Zhukov because he was admired by the Red Army and Soviet citizens. Also, he probably would've preferred not being leader but it'd be him if this occurred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Jun 4, 2016 18:59:19 GMT
At the University of Amsterdam me and BoV (being Modern Political History and Modern Military History professors at a similar university) had quite a similar discussion with the History department. We concluded eventually: None of the above! Zhukov was, arguably, a very capable military commander, but he was totally not skilled for politics. He would be better off in a military position than in a political one. Sure, he was admired by the people (not by his colleagues btw), but that is not enough to become the leader of the USSR in the Soviet political swamp. CCCPball correctly points out that he would not want to be the leader of the USSR. Also, Zhukov was a very loyal man [Erik van Ree, 'Wereldrevolutie', p. 235] and therefore we can not accuse him of 'Bonapartism'. Ideas of 'civil wars' [not to speak of the chances of succes] in a state as the Soviet-Union are very unlikely (as well as simply counter-factual) given the fact that the NKVD [who were equipped with Katyusha’s, tank regiments and whole armies through out the whole war] would easily manage to suppress anything that can be called 'revolution'. If basically all of Stalins advisors were killed, it would be weird if Molotov somehow survived. Even after Stalin arrested his wife, Molotov was loyal to Stalin. Also, being a SovNarkom does not necessarily mean you are able to lead a state. In conclusion, with the given facts it is impossible to detect someone who could succesfully [!!!] be the new leader of the USSR. Sorry for the lame answer, but it seams to us the mkst logical and historically correct [if it's even possible to speak of this in counter-factal scenarios] answer. If you're still not convinced, come visit the UvA to get roasted by the History department. |
|
