|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Jun 4, 2016 20:29:18 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. In this scene I created, the only person killed is Stalin, so Molotov is alive. Then how about Malenkov, Kalinin, or Beria? Everyone I asked in Chinese forum says Beria. |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Jun 4, 2016 21:20:49 GMT
Erich von Manstein, I've just looked into Beria and, while he definitely is a worthy candidate, does not seem like he would be as likely to be next premier as Stalin because Beria was more liberal than other communist officials. Plus, he wasn't trusted as much by other soviet officials, and was actually executed after Krushchev took power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jun 4, 2016 23:16:20 GMT
Erich von Manstein , I've just looked into Beria and, while he definitely is a worthy candidate, does not seem like he would be as likely to be next premier as Stalin because Beria was more liberal than other communist officials. Plus, he wasn't trusted as much by other soviet officials, and was actually executed after Krushchev took power. I actually read that he was more of a hard-liner than his colleagues in the party |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Jun 5, 2016 0:06:23 GMT
Erich von Manstein , I've just looked into Beria and, while he definitely is a worthy candidate, does not seem like he would be as likely to be next premier as Stalin because Beria was more liberal than other communist officials. Plus, he wasn't trusted as much by other soviet officials, and was actually executed after Krushchev took power. I actually read that he was more of a hard-liner than his colleagues in the party Well I just looked him up online really quick, so idk if it was an incredibly reliable source, but you may be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Jun 5, 2016 11:21:28 GMT
Erich von Manstein , I've just looked into Beria and, while he definitely is a worthy candidate, does not seem like he would be as likely to be next premier as Stalin because Beria was more liberal than other communist officials. Plus, he wasn't trusted as much by other soviet officials, and was actually executed after Krushchev took power. He indeed was more of a liberal, given the fact that he wanted to sacrifice the DDR for better relations with the West. You're also right in saying that he wasn't trusted, but I guess that's kind of a no-brainer since he was the head of the NKVD, the enormous Soviet secret service. |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Jun 5, 2016 21:34:16 GMT
I just realized that this would be such a boring poll if it was about the US instead of the USSR.
What if FDR died during the Second World War for a random reason in 1942? Who would run the country?
Poll Choice #1: Henry Wallace
Poll Choice #2: Henry Wallace
Poll Choice #3: Henry Wallace
Poll Choice #4: Henry Wallace
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jun 5, 2016 21:38:23 GMT
I just realized that this would be such a boring poll if it was about the US instead of the USSR. What if FDR died during the Second World War for a random reason in 1942? Who would run the country? Poll Choice #1: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #2: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #3: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #4: Henry Wallace Hurray for organized transfer of power! Also, FDR actually did die for a random (not war-related) reason during the war. |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Jun 5, 2016 22:39:33 GMT
I just realized that this would be such a boring poll if it was about the US instead of the USSR. What if FDR died during the Second World War for a random reason in 1942? Who would run the country? Poll Choice #1: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #2: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #3: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #4: Henry Wallace Hurray for organized transfer of power! Also, FDR actually did die for a random (not war-related) reason during the war. Yes, but it said 1942 |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jun 5, 2016 22:47:37 GMT
Hurray for organized transfer of power! Also, FDR actually did die for a random (not war-related) reason during the war. Yes, but it said 1942 Also true, but still damn close |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jun 6, 2016 15:34:59 GMT
I just realized that this would be such a boring poll if it was about the US instead of the USSR. What if FDR died during the Second World War for a random reason in 1942? Who would run the country? Poll Choice #1: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #2: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #3: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #4: Henry Wallace That's why Stalin needed a vice president. If he had one this debate wouldn't be a question |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 17:44:52 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? None of them as Molotov was tribunaled and Zhukov wasn't anything great until Stalingrad even if he was he would be leading army(BTW he was tribunaled after Berlin's fall) and knowing that Russia is Russia next leader would be the a man with biggest backup. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 17:49:25 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? None of them as Molotov was tribunaled and Zhukov wasn't anything great until Stalingrad even if he was he would be leading army(BTW he was tribunaled after Berlin's fall) and knowing that Russia is Russia next leader would be the a man with biggest backup. And by given facts I would say Germany takes Moscow and then all of the rest Russia is split by Germany and Japan Germany gets resources and Europe falls, Japan gets resources and Asia falls, after Fall of Eurasia Africa is matter of time Germany wins ww2 |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jun 10, 2016 20:50:11 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? None of them as Molotov was tribunaled and Zhukov wasn't anything great until Stalingrad even if he was he would be leading army(BTW he was tribunaled after Berlin's fall) and knowing that Russia is Russia next leader would be the a man with biggest backup. Zhukov was great for Khalkhing Gol in 1939 though |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 20:58:52 GMT
None of them as Molotov was tribunaled and Zhukov wasn't anything great until Stalingrad even if he was he would be leading army(BTW he was tribunaled after Berlin's fall) and knowing that Russia is Russia next leader would be the a man with biggest backup. Zhukov was great for Khalkhing Gol in 1939 though Not that great to be a national leader. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jun 10, 2016 23:58:21 GMT
I just realized that this would be such a boring poll if it was about the US instead of the USSR. What if FDR died during the Second World War for a random reason in 1942? Who would run the country? Poll Choice #1: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #2: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #3: Henry Wallace Poll Choice #4: Henry Wallace That's why Stalin needed a vice president. If he had one this debate wouldn't be a question A VP would be just another person to conspire against him. Not something the paranoid Stalin would want |
|
