|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jun 11, 2016 0:37:49 GMT
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 True but he could work as successor |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jun 11, 2016 1:59:38 GMT
A VP would be just another person to conspire against him. Not something the paranoid Stalin would want True but he could work as successor Stalin was paranoid. He eliminated anyone he viewed as even remotely threatening. A person who would directly take the reins if Stalin died would be viewed as a great threat |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jun 11, 2016 5:46:59 GMT
True but he could work as successor Stalin was paranoid. He eliminated anyone he viewed as even remotely threatening. A person who would directly take the reins if Stalin died would be viewed as a great threat I said just to make it uncomplicated and now it's complicated again  |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Jun 11, 2016 14:47:18 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. Dayum... I applaude you for your many efforts. |
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Jul 4, 2016 14:41:00 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. Oh, this one. As Jean Lannes said, Zhukov was also known for a turning point even before WW2 broke out: the battle of Khalkin Gol. For this, Zhukov received the reward of being Hero of the Soviet Union. Also, he is very famous for saving Moscow against an hitherto undefeated Wehrmacht. With merely 70.000 men and a hand full of tanks he won against a whole Army Group. This saved Moscow and prevented the USSR being kicked out of war in 1941, which could have had disastrous consequences for the Allied war effort. Zhukov's status rose spectacularly during WW2 due to the many successes he achieved. He was wildly popular in the USSR and Stalin was afraid that Zhukov might began having bonapartist ideas. Due to this, Zhukov was sentenced, but only because he was so wildly popular [and Stalin didn't believe anything of the accusation]. About Molotov: Yes, he was tribunaled, long after WW2, while we are talking about the political situation in 1943. Personally, he is my favorite, given his familiarity with the Soviet political swamp and the political system. And what do you mean with "the man with the biggest backup"? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2016 21:28:26 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. Oh, this one. As Jean Lannes said, Zhukov was also known for a turning point even before WW2 broke out: the battle of Khalkin Gol. For this, Zhukov received the reward of being Hero of the Soviet Union. Also, he is very famous for saving Moscow against an hitherto undefeated Wehrmacht. With merely 70.000 men and a hand full of tanks he won against a whole Army Group. This saved Moscow and prevented the USSR being kicked out of war in 1941, which could have had disastrous consequences for the Allied war effort. Zhukov's status rose spectacularly during WW2 due to the many successes he achieved. He was wildly popular in the USSR and Stalin was afraid that Zhukov might began having bonapartist ideas. Due to this, Zhukov was sentenced, but only because he was so wildly popular [and Stalin didn't believe anything of the accusation]. About Molotov: Yes, he was tribunaled, long after WW2, while we are talking about the political situation in 1943. Personally, he is my favorite, given his familiarity with the Soviet political swamp and the political system. And what do you mean with "the man with the biggest backup"? No, Zhukov was sentenced because he said his men that after they will have conquered Berlin, kolkhozes will be disrupted(we all know it newer happened) Biggest backup is something like Mafia godfather (ideacly not precisely) |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Jul 4, 2016 21:58:22 GMT
Oh, this one. As Jean Lannes said, Zhukov was also known for a turning point even before WW2 broke out: the battle of Khalkin Gol. For this, Zhukov received the reward of being Hero of the Soviet Union. Also, he is very famous for saving Moscow against an hitherto undefeated Wehrmacht. With merely 70.000 men and a hand full of tanks he won against a whole Army Group. This saved Moscow and prevented the USSR being kicked out of war in 1941, which could have had disastrous consequences for the Allied war effort. Zhukov's status rose spectacularly during WW2 due to the many successes he achieved. He was wildly popular in the USSR and Stalin was afraid that Zhukov might began having bonapartist ideas. Due to this, Zhukov was sentenced, but only because he was so wildly popular [and Stalin didn't believe anything of the accusation]. About Molotov: Yes, he was tribunaled, long after WW2, while we are talking about the political situation in 1943. Personally, he is my favorite, given his familiarity with the Soviet political swamp and the political system. And what do you mean with "the man with the biggest backup"? No, Zhukov was sentenced because he said his men that after they will have conquered Berlin, kolkhozes will be disrupted(we all know it newer happened) Biggest backup is something like Mafia godfather (ideacly not precisely) Not to be rude, but I personally wouldnt argue with a History Professor... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2016 22:33:14 GMT
No, Zhukov was sentenced because he said his men that after they will have conquered Berlin, kolkhozes will be disrupted(we all know it newer happened) Biggest backup is something like Mafia godfather (ideacly not precisely) Not to be rude, but I personally wouldnt argue with a History Professor... Not to be rude, but you have to had lived in USSR to know a lot of stuff... (For example do you know what is Vlasovs army?) |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jul 5, 2016 6:19:33 GMT
Not to be rude, but I personally wouldnt argue with a History Professor... Not to be rude, but you have to had lived in USSR to know a lot of stuff... (For example do you know what is Vlasovs army?) By that logic any Napoleonic historian should be unemployed. You don't need to have lived in Dijon in 1806 to know how the V. Corps of the Grande Armée was set up |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jul 5, 2016 6:20:41 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. Oh, this one. As Jean Lannes said, Zhukov was also known for a turning point even before WW2 broke out: the battle of Khalkin Gol. For this, Zhukov received the reward of being Hero of the Soviet Union. Also, he is very famous for saving Moscow against an hitherto undefeated Wehrmacht. With merely 70.000 men and a hand full of tanks he won against a whole Army Group. This saved Moscow and prevented the USSR being kicked out of war in 1941, which could have had disastrous consequences for the Allied war effort. Zhukov's status rose spectacularly during WW2 due to the many successes he achieved. He was wildly popular in the USSR and Stalin was afraid that Zhukov might began having bonapartist ideas. Due to this, Zhukov was sentenced, but only because he was so wildly popular [and Stalin didn't believe anything of the accusation]. About Molotov: Yes, he was tribunaled, long after WW2, while we are talking about the political situation in 1943. Personally, he is my favorite, given his familiarity with the Soviet political swamp and the political system. And what do you mean with "the man with the biggest backup"? Excuse if I'm incorrect but wasn't Zhukov almost executed for letting Japanese troops enter Soviet territory during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 9:09:00 GMT
Not to be rude, but you have to had lived in USSR to know a lot of stuff... (For example do you know what is Vlasovs army?) By that logic any Napoleonic historian should be unemployed. You don't need to have lived in Dijon in 1806 to know how the V. Corps of the Grande Armée was set up I can see, that you have no idea about what you are talking... There was huge amount of stuff that didn't go out of USSR, it is just inlogical to compare these two things |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Jul 5, 2016 11:37:18 GMT
By that logic any Napoleonic historian should be unemployed. You don't need to have lived in Dijon in 1806 to know how the V. Corps of the Grande Armée was set up I can see, that you have no idea about what you are talking... There was huge amount of stuff that didn't go out of USSR, it is just inlogical to compare these two things Okay...I still wouldnt argue with the historian who specializes in this kind of stuff. Also, you weren't born during the Second World War, at least i Wouldnt think, so either way, theres no point in arguing with him. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 12:01:11 GMT
I can see, that you have no idea about what you are talking... There was huge amount of stuff that didn't go out of USSR, it is just inlogical to compare these two things Okay...I still wouldnt argue with the historian who specializes in this kind of stuff. Also, you weren't born during the Second World War, at least i Wouldnt think, so either way, theres no point in arguing with him. There is no point as this is not the place, but I bet I could tell him a lot of things he doesn't know... |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jul 5, 2016 15:01:21 GMT
Okay...I still wouldnt argue with the historian who specializes in this kind of stuff. Also, you weren't born during the Second World War, at least i Wouldnt think, so either way, theres no point in arguing with him. There is no point as this is not the place, but I bet I could tell him a lot of things he doesn't know... I bet the reverse is true as well |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jul 5, 2016 15:09:54 GMT
There is no point as this is not the place, but I bet I could tell him a lot of things he doesn't know... I bet the reverse is true as well same thing bro! |
|
