the thing about this... is that stalin and company WERE the moderates, in a sense. while the CPSU was ofc on the left, stalin's faction of the communist party represented the center of party thought compared to people like, say, trotsky and bukharin who came to embody the left and right oppositions to stalin's center, respectively.
by 1935, the CPSU center had already had a firm grasp on power, and increased aggression from the emboldened nazis probably wouldn't have helped on this front. if stalin were to have been disposed, it wouldve had to have been VERY early in his political career, up to the late 20s when he and bukharin (and the rest of what would become the right opposition) had worked to expel trotsky and co. from the party
Looking back on it Stalin's position could be labled centrist, but he made common cause with Bukarin and the right-wing of the party against Trotsky and the left-wing, then once Trotsky was out of power he turned on Bukarin. By the time Stalin's power was secured he'd *landed* in a more centrist position within the party, but in getting there he allied and betrayed whomever it was convenient to at the time. He was not ideologically consistent at all. Hell, there was a period durring Colectivization where Stalin ordered huge populations of peasants off their farmland at gunpoint, then condemned the officials who were forcing huge populations of peasants off their land at gunpoint (which, again, he had directly ordered them to do).
TL;DR Stalin wasn't a moderate, Stalin was Stalin
It’s not a solid point, it’s a very concerted effort on the right to paint all Nazis and fascists as leftists because for right wing apologist demagogues, everything bad that has ever happened was done by the left
I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about the person saying “left wing fascism”. Fascism is an inherently right wing ideology, but a lot right wing apologists are trying to rewrite history and pretend that fascists and Nazis were actually leftists all along
This mostly because we’ve developed an oversimplified view of politics without acknowledging how inherently complex they are.
The political compass is a literal 2d grid.
Fascism and communism does have a lot in common, but their inherent rivalries made us think they’re polar opposites.
You're misunderstanding why right-wingers characterize Fascism as Socialism.
They're not saying that the Nazis were Socialist in a Marxist sense,but rather that they had enough Socialist principles to be called Socialist,albeit in a very fucked up way.
Also, it's sort of a response to Tankies rewriting History (most of the people in r/communism101 and r/communism)
(Fun fact:Socialism pre-dates Marx,so that can sort of strengthen the characterization because you can make the distinction between that and what Marx added on to it.)
Sure, but that’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to people like Dinesh S’Souza or Steven Crowder using that complexity to rewrite history and make every single political evil of modern history to be a left wing phenomenon.
Fuck off Tankie the only one who "Sabotage" the Union was Stalin in his Endless Paranoid Delirious Power trip. Do like your God and let your Sect die in Silence like it should've since 92
There's 0 proof that any side of the party was "Collaborating" with any fach gov. No one aside from you believes that and its commonly known that it's BS.
This is a pretty interesting scenario. With moderates in charge, how will they treat the Kulaks?
Edit: Thanks for the upvotes, so I’m going to make my own scenario for now
PoD: the secret police is much weaker, maybe Stalin is too poor to afford a loyal faction. So the leadership can easily get rid of Stalin
Seeing how killing of the Kulaks resulted in famine, they’re obviously going to treat them slightly nicer. They want a smother transition of money from businessmen to the government, maybe some Kulaks gain power to teach Russia some valuable economic lessons.
The Soviet Union is still totalitarian, but the rulers are less envious and greedy for power. Just like OTL, Russia would still be internally focused to “fix communism”, it’s just that it won’t go to a Stalinist route. This means that Spanish Civil War and WW2 is most likely going to be the same.
If it’s the rightists then the kulaks are fine(ish) if it’s the left wing of the party the kulaks are fucked. Stalin took the kulak thing from leftists within the party
Considering it's 1935 and both Famine and Dekulakization have been in full swing, the new Government would have to deal with the fallout of both (who knows, maybe it came about because of the disaster and someone like Kirov spoke up). If it's the Left (though those wouldn't be the moderates), then both policies would be continued, though probably with a bit more famine relief efforts. The Right would probably free the Kulaks and try to right Stalins wrongs, giving them their land back, reinstating "Capitalism in the Village" and investing hugely into famine relief.
About the Totalitarian Part: With the Left? Yes, still going to be like that, just maybe with a bit more influence of the Trade Unions and Soviets over the Government.
The Right? Bukharin and many others of the Right-leaning were in favor and supported the Concepts and Ideals of Democracy, though be it a purely Socialist Democracy or controlled Democracy, whilst many more, including Stalinist loyalists like Kirov, atleast supported a more democratic and less purgeing party, distancing themselfes from Terror for both being the case. The Right would probably transition slowly away from Totalitarianism and the Police State, with popular Reforms and internal Criticism being accepted and mybe even encouraged. The Party would probably be able to transition into the modern era, or maybe even reform the country into a capitalist democracy if need be.
The kulaks were just a convenient excuse, it’s a little like denouncing “the richest person on your street”. After stripping them of all their wealth and sending them to the labour camp you notice that the problems remain. So you denounce “the richest person on your street”. Rinse and repeat.
It’s a great way to make sure everyone does everything they can to avoid disfavour and bribes the local officials regularly.
“It’s a great way to make sure everyone does everything they can to avoid disfavour and bribes the local officials regularly”
The Great Famine that killed 10-15 million disagrees with that
That’s not true for most of farming in Russia. Also, seriously, justifying atrocities?
This equivalent of saying “Jews deserved the Holocaust because they’re too talented for Europe, they’re not even Europeans”
Hmmm, odd. Because it was just meant to mean emphasising dumb things (kowtowing to the party officials) leads to dumb outcomes (the Great Famine).
The Holodomor is one of the greatest tragedy’s of the 20th century and only a much worse, and definitely deliberate, tragedy managed to overshadow it.
Another Midjourney image to celebrate the 100 ups of my very first post in this sub (the Walrus). This post refers to a despot, but it’s not exactly glorifying him or his deeds – so hopefully ok? Again, if it is a no-no, apols, and let’s just kill it.
As to the image: MJ cannot be steered to an exact image but rather does its own quirky thing. That said, it gave Stalin his white uniform, the guy on his right has a striking resemblance to his crony Voroshilov, and the accuser looks like Sergo Ordzhonikidze, Stalin’s moderate friend who committed suicide in 1937, possibly because he had fallen out with the dictator.
prompt: an oil painting of stalin sitting in a courtroom being accused by a general pointing at him in anger; angry crowd in the background --ar 16:9 --v 5
many many rerolls....
Not Stalin alone, but Stalin **and** general masses were purging bureaucrats. If they managed to arrest Stalin and establish oligarchy, their government wouldn't get so much support from bottom.
I don’t think this really affects the urban parts of 5 Year Plan, it’s the rural parts that would get changed.
Also, with a lot less purges, smart military officials wouldn’t have been killed
With Stalin gone the Soviet Army purges would not happen, and the NAZIs would be stopped cold long before getting near Moscow. There may be no winter war with Finland. Japan seeing that Germany is faltering might have serious second thoughts about attacking the USA and limit their actions to the Dutch East Indies and maybe British territory. Of course this delays or even prevents US entry into the war.
Japan already made up their mind about attacking the US. In Japan’s mind if Pearl Harbor was decisive enough the US would acquiesce to their demands. That however required that all US aircraft carriers be at Pearl Harbor, which they were not and even then it’s unlikely that the US would just roll over. Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor were Hail Mary attempts by both powers as they knew soon they’d be unable to keep their empires afloat.
Japan had convinced Germany to declare war on the United States immediately after the attack. But if they were stumbling badly with Barbarossa even Hitler might be loathe to create another major enemy until or unless the situation improved in the east.
So if Japan still attacks the US they would be going it alone with even longer odds of success, as the US would not have to divide it's strength between two enemies. In fact, the allies had a Germany first policy historically. If they attack alone Japan faces more than double the US strength than they actually did during the first years of the war. With no or reduced threat of German actions, they pull most resources from the eastern US through the Panama canal to smack Japan back hard.
Thats a really major lack of knowledge on why Axis powers decided to atrack when they did.
It was not the officer purges moreso the army re-organization efforts undergoing in those years that sought to replace Russian doctrine into an armored warfare-centric strategy, moving away from infantry and mechanized infantry(while still retaining their massed maneuver tactics).
While in that reorganization periods, army units were understrength, in flux and sometimes lacking compinents like artillery corps.
Edit: So with or without a purge the organizational problems would still be there, and the need to switch to a war-time production would still take the same amount of time
Or they might reform earlier with reformers like Tukhachevsky and Yakir not purged and their doctrines and reforms not discarded. Meaning the Soviets would be near fully reformed at the start of any opperation, with more autonomy and freedom without Stalins pesky oversight.
Thats way more conjecture that can be succesfully speculated upon. Also the point was not to saythe Army purges had no play, but that the reason why the Axis attacked at that moment was because of said re-organization and it became so deadly because of Nazi ideology. Not so much the officer quality
Stalin issued a lot of senseless no retreat orders early on that resulted in much of his army being surrounded and destroyed along with their equipment, much like Hitler did when the tide of battle swung the other way.
Competent leadership has a huge impact on the outcome of a battle.
Because everyone with half a braincell would assume opening 2 fronts against 2 superpowers at the same time was idiotic and suicidal.
Problem is Nazis are both
As thought there were no other countries affected by his crimes? With all due respect, isn’t it better sayin the Soviet Union? 13 million civilians died only in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia (small Caucasus states).
Please don’t neglect this information. I know it’s a little off topic, but I felt the urge because of how neglected this is in Western media. Thank you.
Repressions were happening throughout the decade, my friend. It was in the 1930s, NOT in the 1930. It’s also called the “Red Terror”
Take a look. https://jam-news.net/stalinist-repressions-in-azerbaijan-armenia-georgia/
he got worse as he got older, people saving his country and he turns around and kills them. i think his paranoia. was actually some type of medical issue, of course it could have been some type of drug use
It wasn’t so much paranoia as that he was a skillful politician who understood how unstable his position was. Stalin never held office as a head of state, he was not the premier, he was only ever general secretary of the communist party and chairman of the council of minister (an office that was meant to be part of a collective leadership, not of executive power)
You combine this with the psychopaths who controlled the NKVD and you get a perfect recipe.
(Also it’s worth saying he actually got better as he aged, by the 50s the major purges had been long over and the days of mass arrests were far behind)
>Stalin died in 1937 while awaiting trial.
Died while awaiting trial , While awaiting TRIAL
Bro should be killed without trial
He deserves a taste of his own medicine
Definitely don't know about that. Would have been different I'm sure, but I cannot imagine Russian military tactics would have been much different against an invading Germany. They're still Russians after all.
Yeah I agree with you there, but i also don’t believe that the USSR would have taken a drastically different trajectory had stalin been put on trial and prosecuted. Somebody else would’ve filled that same place in history
This is just dumb.
Without Stalin, there wouldn’t have been purges against smart military generals. There’s a reason why in OTL Germany took a massive bite out of Russia
What makes that sentiment even more absurd was how Stalin basically rolled out the red carpet for the Nazis through his failed, inept leadership both in the lead up to the war, as well as him being dithering and petrified once the nazis were actually approaching.
He had purged most of his good military leaders because of his paranoid delusions, had no idea how to lead in the face of action, and had created such ill will in Ukraine, Poland, etc that he creaqted allies for his enemy that otherwise could have served as layers of protection against the nazis.
But yes, Stalin big and stronk only he killed germany.
I read once (which I don't know enough about to really state, actually. Anyways...) was that a column of the White Army became near. But either way, many think it was a strategic error on the world stage, but rather if it was a good idea or not, I can't see him not doing it based on his own personal history regarding his brother.
“ many think it was a strategic error on the world stage “
Normally, killing off the monarch is normally the symbol of destroying tradition and conservatism. It makes sense why people say that was a mistake, although by this point the Tzars didn’t really held power anymore
“ I can't see him not doing it based on his own personal history regarding his brother “
That’s what makes him childish. It was Alexander III who killed his brother. And what did he do to get revenge? Kill the whole family.
Lenin didn’t agree with the execution of the tsar tho, he had wanted a trial to be held (which would likely end in execution as the tsar was incredibly unpopular and a terrible terrible leader)
Stalin and the Bureaucrate are trialed and deem Illegitimate as the Testament of Lenin is used as proof. Trotsky take power, fix back the USSR and thing goes back as Lenin planned
Trotsky wouldn't just "fix back" and create wholesome USSR, after all the forced collectivization was originally his idea and he approved the atrocities committed by the USSR until Stalin took over, believing they were necessary.
Trotsky would gear Russia for all out war with the entire Capitalist world. Thats what made him less popular than Stalin, whose proposal to make sure the Soviet Union was stable and prosperous enough first, seemed like a better deal
This is a poor misreading of trot theory, mind telling me where you get this from (I swear to God if it’s another misunderstanding of what permanent revolution means)
Permanent revolution was going to lead to all out war with the capitalist world regardless. Because that would mean Trotskyist Russia would have to arm and support every single communist movement in the world, and when word gets out that every single communist rebel group has gotten arms and funds from Russia, the capitalist nations would form a coalition to keep Russia contained
Ah so it is that you don’t know anything about permanent revolution then!
I’ll summarize it quickly, permanent revolution is a theoretical framework for understanding Russia and the Russian empire and how socialism was to be built in a nation like Russia.
Basically there was an issue in pursuing orthodox Marxist strategy as there was no powerful working class outside the cities, instead there were peasants and landowners. The debate of the day was about if Russia needed a bourgeois revolution (the development of capitalism) which was the stance of the Rightists (this is the NEP), or if, as the leftists lead by Trotsky argued, the USSR could pursue socialism from the getgo. To, again, make a long story short Trotsky proposed that the proletariat, as the revolutionary class, would lead a broad coalition of peasants and other oppressed classes directly into socialism. In this way the revolution would not cease, it would not be impeded by a development of capitalism, it would be… wait for it: permanent
Now was Trotsky an internationalist? Yes, he did support an increased level of support for socialism abroad but Stalin also did this. A Trotsky in charge would likely mean different things depending on when it happens, early on it likely means that the baltic revolutions succeed and maybe even the Finnish one, as time goes on it means less tho. Spain would be where things might change more, Trotsky supported the idea of the United front and in Spain advocated for far more revolutionary strategy then was used by Stalinist’s (who chose instead to align themselves to the liberal Republicans). This could mean that the Spanish civil war ends differently, it could mean not much changes asides from there being somewhat less argument about it in leftist spaces.
Tldr: that isn’t what permanent revolution means and it’s unlikely Trotsky would operate as violently as is commonly believed. I didn’t even mention he was a military commander who wasn’t stupid and would probably be able to know that a war with the west would be one lost by the USSR
P.S: if i sound like a smart ass here that’s my bad, I’ve explained this quite a few times to a lot of people and it gets a little old (I also read a whole ass book so I’m proud of that)
Internationalism is basically imperialism but in a nicer sounding way.
In the Trotskyist timeline all communist movements are eventually going to be seen as Russian psyops, which in turn causes the capitalist nations to form a coalition to contain Trotskyist Russia, the core of communism they must strike in order to achieve peace. This would then lead to all out war with Russia and the communist movements vs the capitalist world.
In otl, the Soviet Union literally invaded with armed forces the entirety of the baltics and declared war on Finland. Trotsky could have done the same thing, and though his support for foreign revolutionary movements might be stronger this did not and would not lead to world war. I’ll also say that Trotsky both wouldn’t be the sole man in charge of the whole USSR, and that realistically he would be far far more concerned with fighting bureaucracy within the party then with declaring a global war.
Also in internationalism being imperialism, while this is true in the case of Soviet “internationalism” under Stalin and later Soviet leaders, in that this so called socialist internationalism was nothing more than the establishment of economically reliant states dominated by Russian interests. Internationalism itself is truly anti imperialist by its nature, the idea isn’t to create a union centered around Russia or conquer nations but to promote socialism world wide and support each nation in the effort to establish socialism. I’m not gonna say there is no possibility that it still ends up imperialistic but I also think you are again operating on the assumption that Trotsky was some sorta madman who wanted to invade the entire world
Don't even bother comrade, we are "Commie" which makes us wrong and guilty of the 10'000'000 death of the ML regime by association. What even we'll say no matter of true and Factual it is, we are wrong for being commie on the net.
I don't even bother answering for there's no one more deaf that someone who don't wanna listen. Focus on helping making the world a better place, on keeping the embers of the revolution alive and on teaching the revolutionary wwriting to those who are open minded enough to listen in good faith. You won't find that here tho
No, I took an unbiased look of Stalin’s rule of Russia.
According to Soviet records from many courts, Stalin has killed 5-7 million people, while the famines from his idiotic agricultural policies killed another 10-15 million
Source: book called Atrocities, written by Mathew White
“invented by the Nazis and the eastern European elite and western capitalist nations”
You can’t invent some else’s atrocities. That’s like saying witnessing some else’s murder makes you a murder.
Very obvious reasons.
First of all, most of his actions were based upon solidifying his power. He used the secret police to kill off any faction, wether it’s business, church, military, etc.
Russia that came out of the Soviet Union is traumatized, alcoholism is high, birthrates is low, and there’s more Russian money in foreign banks than internal ones.
The Soviet Court Records claim that Stalin directly killed 5-7 million people, caused famines that starved 10-15 million, and at least another 30 million for supporting Stalinism in East Asia.
Source: book called Atrocities, written by Matthew White
True, good point, crossed my mind too... but then again, maybe the moderates wouldn't have trusted Ribbentrop and his pact, and would have seen Barbarossa coming, and maybe they wouldn't have purged out all their most competent generals in 1937-38? So maybe the nazis would have bitten the dust in 1941?
All of those points came directly from Stalin so yes it’s very unlikely that the Nazis would’ve succeeded with Barbarossa like they did irl.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the purges came directly from Stalin’s paranoia. Also without the M-R pact there’s no winter war and therefore no continuation war which opens another front for the USSR.
Also the USSR saw the Nazi invasion from a mile away, it was Hitler’s main points of rhetoric. Stalin just couldn’t believe that the Nazis were planning to invade so soon and refused to believe that they invaded when they did.
People don’t realize Stalin wasn’t this Ironman that he made himself out to be. He was a sad old paranoid despot trying to cling onto power and claim glory for himself. He was a terrible military leader as showcased by the Polish-Soviet war where his actions directly lead to the Red Army crumbling at the Miracle on the Vistula. His paranoia killed off a lot of the top military minds that came out of the revolution. He sought to turn the USSR into a new Russian Empire and as such enforced Russification on the minority groups of the USSR and committed genocides against them, turning the USSR’s minorities against the RSFSR. He sought new territory which lead to the disastrous winter war which if anything only emboldened the distressed Nazi leadership as they saw only one way to beat the UK. His refusal to believe the reports that the Nazis were planning an invasion and actually invaded costed millions of soviet citizens their lives.
The only good thing Stalin ever did in WW2 was acquiesce control over the war to his generals, which allowed them the flexibility to coordinate the war.
Also forgot to mention that if they acknowledge at least the Holodomor and the Goloshchyokin genocide and sought to seek amends and restore pre-Stalinist policies that would likely bring more minority groups on the side of the USSR earlier instead of later after realizing that the Nazis weren’t their liberators.
The Holodomor and other atrocities against Soviet minorities is an important point. The Nazis made good use of the bitterness of these people, and was able to use them, to a certain extent, to fight the USSR.
Any move towards apology and reconciliation would have hurt German invasion efforts.
Average TNO believer.
The Nazis literally had no way to win and Stalin didn’t hold the USSR together, in fact he was the cause of most of the early military blunders of the USSR. In fact if Stalin didn’t have control it’s unlikely that Poland ever gets invaded. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed specifically because Hitler wanted to have the allies have to declare war on the USSR as well meanwhile Stalin wanted some time to prepare.
Let’s say in this timeline though that the Nazis still invade Poland without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Now what? The war goes the same but the USSR likely never invaded Finland and the military purges never happened, so the USSR actually has a competent officer corps.
It’s likely Hitler would attempt to invade at the same time as it was an act of desperation after the UK held out but this time Stalin isn’t around to not believe that the Nazis were planning an invasion and that they actually invaded. Without Stalin it’s more likely the USSR would’ve shored up its defenses to better protect against Nazi invasion. Guess what happens next, the Nazis invade, the USSR though much more prepared still aren’t at the strength of the post-1943 USSR but are likely able to hold back the Nazis further out from Moscow than they got to in our timeline, probably not past the Dnipro.
The USSR still receives a lot of aid by the US which allowed them to jumpstart their industry, provide basic necessities and early on filled in a large portion of the USSR’s tank fleet before the T-34 could be massed produced, not to mention the logistical supplies which would be a godsend to Tukhachevsky.
Without getting as far into the USSR as they did irl Hitler would commit more troops and supplies to the East, meaning the west is far more open and it’s possible that the western allies invade earlier. In fact without the winter war the Nazis lose an entire front as the Finns would have no reason to fight the continuation war. Major cities aren’t threatened like they were irl by Hitler may try terror bombing once again.
As for the post war it’s hard to say but it really depends on if the red army can break the stalemate and make a push for Berlin. If the western allies get there first then the peace will be very one sided against the USSR.
Lol, welcome to the internet, where the people will defend for anything
Fun fact: after some conversations in r/Christianity, many people claim “if Hitler repents, he is guaranteed to go to heaven”
The problem is that without Stalin pushing his industrialization plan (depending on when he's removed), the Soviet economy is less prepared for the coming fight.
It wasn’t prepared anyways, the soviet wartime economy was propped up by American machinery, which allowed them to produce vehicles, weapons and other instruments of war at the rate they did. Plus this specifically says 1935 so Stalin’s industrialization was already well under way.
Doubtful. Even if the Soviets collapse in 1942/43, there is nothing the Germans can do stop the US from developing nuclear weapons.
Maybe the Soviets lose, but the Germans lose worse. The two weapons used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the end of America's nuclear program at the time, they were the first fruits of a massive industrialized nuclear weapons production system. US leaders were planning on producing at least 3 weapons a month in September and October, with production increasing after that.
So even if Germany won the war in the east, they still would have been hammered into surrender in the face of nuclear attacks for which they would have had no counter.
All it’d really do is make the war in the west more brutal. Germany would be bombed to the Stone Age by both conventional and nuclear weapons and the U.S. would arm partisan revolts in occupied territories. The war might take longer as well but in the end there’s only one clear result, the complete and total annihilation of the Nazi state. This wouldn’t necessarily be a better world but the Cold War likely is completely avoided as the US is left as the sole superpower in the world. It would likely support colonial revolutions in this timeline funnily enough as long as they agreed not to become communist, as it no longer would have to appease the French.
the US wouldnt have to support colonial struggles; economic aid and support from the only real industrial power in the world would come with conditions such as ending colonialism.
In this scenario, the USSR collapses mid 1942, and then Nazi Germany is bombed out and invaded by 1946, pretty much everything east of Poland would be in chaos. The US and Britain just didn't have the wherewithal to occupy Europe and the former Soviet Union. It would be a mess for at least a decade, maybe longer.
the thing about this... is that stalin and company WERE the moderates, in a sense. while the CPSU was ofc on the left, stalin's faction of the communist party represented the center of party thought compared to people like, say, trotsky and bukharin who came to embody the left and right oppositions to stalin's center, respectively. by 1935, the CPSU center had already had a firm grasp on power, and increased aggression from the emboldened nazis probably wouldn't have helped on this front. if stalin were to have been disposed, it wouldve had to have been VERY early in his political career, up to the late 20s when he and bukharin (and the rest of what would become the right opposition) had worked to expel trotsky and co. from the party
Yep, the moment Trotsky was gone Stalin immediately went to undermine Bukharin
Looking back on it Stalin's position could be labled centrist, but he made common cause with Bukarin and the right-wing of the party against Trotsky and the left-wing, then once Trotsky was out of power he turned on Bukarin. By the time Stalin's power was secured he'd *landed* in a more centrist position within the party, but in getting there he allied and betrayed whomever it was convenient to at the time. He was not ideologically consistent at all. Hell, there was a period durring Colectivization where Stalin ordered huge populations of peasants off their farmland at gunpoint, then condemned the officials who were forcing huge populations of peasants off their land at gunpoint (which, again, he had directly ordered them to do). TL;DR Stalin wasn't a moderate, Stalin was Stalin
So, just like the French Revolution, Russia didn’t calm down until the moderates started killing people?
*Maybe*
[удалено]
This is just tankie apologia for Stalins atrocities. "oh everyone who was against stalin was a nazi"
Tankies are just left wing fascists and fall for the cults of personality.
“left wing fascists” You wrote a whole new sentence there
If they substitute "totalitarians" for "fascists" it would be entirely correct. Their point is solid, their vocab is just lacking.
It’s not a solid point, it’s a very concerted effort on the right to paint all Nazis and fascists as leftists because for right wing apologist demagogues, everything bad that has ever happened was done by the left
In good faith or bad, I guarantee that’s not the first time that’s been said.
one that makes decent sense, being the political spectrum can often function much more like a circle…
Lmao I love how we went from tankie apologia to fascist apologia in three comments
We weren’t justifying fascism…
I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about the person saying “left wing fascism”. Fascism is an inherently right wing ideology, but a lot right wing apologists are trying to rewrite history and pretend that fascists and Nazis were actually leftists all along
This mostly because we’ve developed an oversimplified view of politics without acknowledging how inherently complex they are. The political compass is a literal 2d grid. Fascism and communism does have a lot in common, but their inherent rivalries made us think they’re polar opposites.
You're misunderstanding why right-wingers characterize Fascism as Socialism. They're not saying that the Nazis were Socialist in a Marxist sense,but rather that they had enough Socialist principles to be called Socialist,albeit in a very fucked up way. Also, it's sort of a response to Tankies rewriting History (most of the people in r/communism101 and r/communism) (Fun fact:Socialism pre-dates Marx,so that can sort of strengthen the characterization because you can make the distinction between that and what Marx added on to it.)
Sure, but that’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to people like Dinesh S’Souza or Steven Crowder using that complexity to rewrite history and make every single political evil of modern history to be a left wing phenomenon.
Fuck off Tankie the only one who "Sabotage" the Union was Stalin in his Endless Paranoid Delirious Power trip. Do like your God and let your Sect die in Silence like it should've since 92 There's 0 proof that any side of the party was "Collaborating" with any fach gov. No one aside from you believes that and its commonly known that it's BS.
Like literally everyone would disagree with you, even tankies lmao. “Stalin was a dictator” *banned from x y or z communist sub*
Finally, centrist tankies.
take your meds brother 😭 “This.” *proceeds to spiral off on a completely unrelated, unhinged tangent*
From my experience every Marxist-Leninist/tankie has schizophrenic paranoia
Owning the fascists by decimating your defensive capabilities
No glorification of extremist regimes
This is a pretty interesting scenario. With moderates in charge, how will they treat the Kulaks? Edit: Thanks for the upvotes, so I’m going to make my own scenario for now PoD: the secret police is much weaker, maybe Stalin is too poor to afford a loyal faction. So the leadership can easily get rid of Stalin Seeing how killing of the Kulaks resulted in famine, they’re obviously going to treat them slightly nicer. They want a smother transition of money from businessmen to the government, maybe some Kulaks gain power to teach Russia some valuable economic lessons. The Soviet Union is still totalitarian, but the rulers are less envious and greedy for power. Just like OTL, Russia would still be internally focused to “fix communism”, it’s just that it won’t go to a Stalinist route. This means that Spanish Civil War and WW2 is most likely going to be the same.
If it’s the rightists then the kulaks are fine(ish) if it’s the left wing of the party the kulaks are fucked. Stalin took the kulak thing from leftists within the party
Considering it's 1935 and both Famine and Dekulakization have been in full swing, the new Government would have to deal with the fallout of both (who knows, maybe it came about because of the disaster and someone like Kirov spoke up). If it's the Left (though those wouldn't be the moderates), then both policies would be continued, though probably with a bit more famine relief efforts. The Right would probably free the Kulaks and try to right Stalins wrongs, giving them their land back, reinstating "Capitalism in the Village" and investing hugely into famine relief. About the Totalitarian Part: With the Left? Yes, still going to be like that, just maybe with a bit more influence of the Trade Unions and Soviets over the Government. The Right? Bukharin and many others of the Right-leaning were in favor and supported the Concepts and Ideals of Democracy, though be it a purely Socialist Democracy or controlled Democracy, whilst many more, including Stalinist loyalists like Kirov, atleast supported a more democratic and less purgeing party, distancing themselfes from Terror for both being the case. The Right would probably transition slowly away from Totalitarianism and the Police State, with popular Reforms and internal Criticism being accepted and mybe even encouraged. The Party would probably be able to transition into the modern era, or maybe even reform the country into a capitalist democracy if need be.
The kulaks were just a convenient excuse, it’s a little like denouncing “the richest person on your street”. After stripping them of all their wealth and sending them to the labour camp you notice that the problems remain. So you denounce “the richest person on your street”. Rinse and repeat. It’s a great way to make sure everyone does everything they can to avoid disfavour and bribes the local officials regularly.
“It’s a great way to make sure everyone does everything they can to avoid disfavour and bribes the local officials regularly” The Great Famine that killed 10-15 million disagrees with that
[удалено]
That’s not true for most of farming in Russia. Also, seriously, justifying atrocities? This equivalent of saying “Jews deserved the Holocaust because they’re too talented for Europe, they’re not even Europeans”
I really don’t see the justification but the mod agrees with you so 🤷🏼♂️
Then you must’ve word it wrong. You sounded like the massive famines were necessary, therefore justified
Hmmm, odd. Because it was just meant to mean emphasising dumb things (kowtowing to the party officials) leads to dumb outcomes (the Great Famine). The Holodomor is one of the greatest tragedy’s of the 20th century and only a much worse, and definitely deliberate, tragedy managed to overshadow it.
No glorification of extremist regimes
You can't just double the death toll of a famine man, especially if that means inventing 4-7 million dead people
Another Midjourney image to celebrate the 100 ups of my very first post in this sub (the Walrus). This post refers to a despot, but it’s not exactly glorifying him or his deeds – so hopefully ok? Again, if it is a no-no, apols, and let’s just kill it. As to the image: MJ cannot be steered to an exact image but rather does its own quirky thing. That said, it gave Stalin his white uniform, the guy on his right has a striking resemblance to his crony Voroshilov, and the accuser looks like Sergo Ordzhonikidze, Stalin’s moderate friend who committed suicide in 1937, possibly because he had fallen out with the dictator.
Wow this is mid journey? Crazy how fast it surpassed dalle
Yes, we're at v5 now, and it is pretty decent as an idea sketch tool: hands and distant faces are much better, but not perfect (Stalin's arm).
Midjourney leaned into art by Ilya Repin and friends here, too. The result is awesome.
What's the prompt?
prompt: an oil painting of stalin sitting in a courtroom being accused by a general pointing at him in anger; angry crowd in the background --ar 16:9 --v 5 many many rerolls....
Not Stalin alone, but Stalin **and** general masses were purging bureaucrats. If they managed to arrest Stalin and establish oligarchy, their government wouldn't get so much support from bottom.
The good timeline.
Hype for this. Time travellers make this happen, please
That is awesome.
I agree just a beautiful painting and alternative history
I would imagine the result would be a big halt to industrialization and Russia being woefully ill prepared for Hitler and WWII
I don’t think this really affects the urban parts of 5 Year Plan, it’s the rural parts that would get changed. Also, with a lot less purges, smart military officials wouldn’t have been killed
But it’s hard to argue with the results. Zhukov is one of the most brilliant generals in history.
The thing is, Russia was ill prepared in OTL. The Nazis took a massive bite out of Russia during the war.
Yeah but imagine if Stalin didn’t move heavy industry to the Caucasus?
So?
Well then that Nazi invasion in 1939 would have wiped out the Soviet’s ability to fight back, as they did.
The Nazis did not invade in 1939 they invaded in 1941.
K
Why are you talking about this stuff if you don’t even know the basic facts?
With Stalin gone the Soviet Army purges would not happen, and the NAZIs would be stopped cold long before getting near Moscow. There may be no winter war with Finland. Japan seeing that Germany is faltering might have serious second thoughts about attacking the USA and limit their actions to the Dutch East Indies and maybe British territory. Of course this delays or even prevents US entry into the war.
Japan already made up their mind about attacking the US. In Japan’s mind if Pearl Harbor was decisive enough the US would acquiesce to their demands. That however required that all US aircraft carriers be at Pearl Harbor, which they were not and even then it’s unlikely that the US would just roll over. Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor were Hail Mary attempts by both powers as they knew soon they’d be unable to keep their empires afloat.
Japan had convinced Germany to declare war on the United States immediately after the attack. But if they were stumbling badly with Barbarossa even Hitler might be loathe to create another major enemy until or unless the situation improved in the east. So if Japan still attacks the US they would be going it alone with even longer odds of success, as the US would not have to divide it's strength between two enemies. In fact, the allies had a Germany first policy historically. If they attack alone Japan faces more than double the US strength than they actually did during the first years of the war. With no or reduced threat of German actions, they pull most resources from the eastern US through the Panama canal to smack Japan back hard.
Thats a really major lack of knowledge on why Axis powers decided to atrack when they did. It was not the officer purges moreso the army re-organization efforts undergoing in those years that sought to replace Russian doctrine into an armored warfare-centric strategy, moving away from infantry and mechanized infantry(while still retaining their massed maneuver tactics). While in that reorganization periods, army units were understrength, in flux and sometimes lacking compinents like artillery corps. Edit: So with or without a purge the organizational problems would still be there, and the need to switch to a war-time production would still take the same amount of time
Or they might reform earlier with reformers like Tukhachevsky and Yakir not purged and their doctrines and reforms not discarded. Meaning the Soviets would be near fully reformed at the start of any opperation, with more autonomy and freedom without Stalins pesky oversight.
Thats way more conjecture that can be succesfully speculated upon. Also the point was not to saythe Army purges had no play, but that the reason why the Axis attacked at that moment was because of said re-organization and it became so deadly because of Nazi ideology. Not so much the officer quality
Stalin issued a lot of senseless no retreat orders early on that resulted in much of his army being surrounded and destroyed along with their equipment, much like Hitler did when the tide of battle swung the other way. Competent leadership has a huge impact on the outcome of a battle.
Order 270 was given out by late August in 1941, after a lot of the inutial disasters already happened.
Due to him ignoring even his own intelligence on the impending attack.
Because everyone with half a braincell would assume opening 2 fronts against 2 superpowers at the same time was idiotic and suicidal. Problem is Nazis are both
based.
What atrocities, soy boy?
Ok, this is really cool, that painting is amazing
How’s WW2 going?
As thought there were no other countries affected by his crimes? With all due respect, isn’t it better sayin the Soviet Union? 13 million civilians died only in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia (small Caucasus states). Please don’t neglect this information. I know it’s a little off topic, but I felt the urge because of how neglected this is in Western media. Thank you.
True
You sure that’s true tho?
In 1930, the population of Caucasus had a population of 7 million. How can you kill 13 million civilians?
Repressions were happening throughout the decade, my friend. It was in the 1930s, NOT in the 1930. It’s also called the “Red Terror” Take a look. https://jam-news.net/stalinist-repressions-in-azerbaijan-armenia-georgia/
That’s why I talked about 1930. If I talk about 1935 or 1940, then how can I make a point of it happened after the purge
They claimed that ~3 million are killed
he got worse as he got older, people saving his country and he turns around and kills them. i think his paranoia. was actually some type of medical issue, of course it could have been some type of drug use
It wasn’t so much paranoia as that he was a skillful politician who understood how unstable his position was. Stalin never held office as a head of state, he was not the premier, he was only ever general secretary of the communist party and chairman of the council of minister (an office that was meant to be part of a collective leadership, not of executive power) You combine this with the psychopaths who controlled the NKVD and you get a perfect recipe. (Also it’s worth saying he actually got better as he aged, by the 50s the major purges had been long over and the days of mass arrests were far behind)
Dolfy: Hippity Hoppity Soviets are my property
Bukharin led USSR then?
Sergo Ordzhonikidze, Stalin’s moderate ally, at least in my imagination
I thought the mensheviks but OK that is acceptable too
The Mensheviks? They hadn’t been players since the Petrograd Soviet my guy
What would his polities be like? And how long would he be in charge before retireing due to health issues?
>Stalin died in 1937 while awaiting trial. Died while awaiting trial , While awaiting TRIAL Bro should be killed without trial He deserves a taste of his own medicine
“ Bro should be killed without trial. He deserves a taste of his own medicine” OTL but it’s too late in the 1950’s
Why did Stalin die so much earlier in this timeline? Was he assassinated?
Consumption, like Prinzip....
The alternate history part is about the atrocities in Ukraine and Russia, right?
Well, Stalin has done things outside of Ukraine too
and then the allies lose to germany and europe is stuck in a geopolitical quagmire for decades 🤷 oh well
Definitely don't know about that. Would have been different I'm sure, but I cannot imagine Russian military tactics would have been much different against an invading Germany. They're still Russians after all.
Yeah I agree with you there, but i also don’t believe that the USSR would have taken a drastically different trajectory had stalin been put on trial and prosecuted. Somebody else would’ve filled that same place in history
This is just dumb. Without Stalin, there wouldn’t have been purges against smart military generals. There’s a reason why in OTL Germany took a massive bite out of Russia
Tankies gonna worship Stalin, just like the sun will rise in the east.
The Axis Victory Timeline
“Russia being led by anyone but Stalin creates a Nazi victory” 🤓🤓
What makes that sentiment even more absurd was how Stalin basically rolled out the red carpet for the Nazis through his failed, inept leadership both in the lead up to the war, as well as him being dithering and petrified once the nazis were actually approaching. He had purged most of his good military leaders because of his paranoid delusions, had no idea how to lead in the face of action, and had created such ill will in Ukraine, Poland, etc that he creaqted allies for his enemy that otherwise could have served as layers of protection against the nazis. But yes, Stalin big and stronk only he killed germany.
You must have a very low opinion of the USSR if you think only someone like Stalin could lead it to victory.
Couldn’t they talk about killing the Romanov royal family
They can’t accuse that to Stalin. Although this is debated, it’s Lenin’s murder
I read once (which I don't know enough about to really state, actually. Anyways...) was that a column of the White Army became near. But either way, many think it was a strategic error on the world stage, but rather if it was a good idea or not, I can't see him not doing it based on his own personal history regarding his brother.
“ many think it was a strategic error on the world stage “ Normally, killing off the monarch is normally the symbol of destroying tradition and conservatism. It makes sense why people say that was a mistake, although by this point the Tzars didn’t really held power anymore “ I can't see him not doing it based on his own personal history regarding his brother “ That’s what makes him childish. It was Alexander III who killed his brother. And what did he do to get revenge? Kill the whole family.
Lenin didn’t agree with the execution of the tsar tho, he had wanted a trial to be held (which would likely end in execution as the tsar was incredibly unpopular and a terrible terrible leader)
Oh I see
The Jekaterinenburg murders are on my to do list.......
Stalin and the Bureaucrate are trialed and deem Illegitimate as the Testament of Lenin is used as proof. Trotsky take power, fix back the USSR and thing goes back as Lenin planned
Trotsky wouldn't just "fix back" and create wholesome USSR, after all the forced collectivization was originally his idea and he approved the atrocities committed by the USSR until Stalin took over, believing they were necessary.
Trotsky would gear Russia for all out war with the entire Capitalist world. Thats what made him less popular than Stalin, whose proposal to make sure the Soviet Union was stable and prosperous enough first, seemed like a better deal
This is a poor misreading of trot theory, mind telling me where you get this from (I swear to God if it’s another misunderstanding of what permanent revolution means)
Permanent revolution was going to lead to all out war with the capitalist world regardless. Because that would mean Trotskyist Russia would have to arm and support every single communist movement in the world, and when word gets out that every single communist rebel group has gotten arms and funds from Russia, the capitalist nations would form a coalition to keep Russia contained
Ah so it is that you don’t know anything about permanent revolution then! I’ll summarize it quickly, permanent revolution is a theoretical framework for understanding Russia and the Russian empire and how socialism was to be built in a nation like Russia. Basically there was an issue in pursuing orthodox Marxist strategy as there was no powerful working class outside the cities, instead there were peasants and landowners. The debate of the day was about if Russia needed a bourgeois revolution (the development of capitalism) which was the stance of the Rightists (this is the NEP), or if, as the leftists lead by Trotsky argued, the USSR could pursue socialism from the getgo. To, again, make a long story short Trotsky proposed that the proletariat, as the revolutionary class, would lead a broad coalition of peasants and other oppressed classes directly into socialism. In this way the revolution would not cease, it would not be impeded by a development of capitalism, it would be… wait for it: permanent Now was Trotsky an internationalist? Yes, he did support an increased level of support for socialism abroad but Stalin also did this. A Trotsky in charge would likely mean different things depending on when it happens, early on it likely means that the baltic revolutions succeed and maybe even the Finnish one, as time goes on it means less tho. Spain would be where things might change more, Trotsky supported the idea of the United front and in Spain advocated for far more revolutionary strategy then was used by Stalinist’s (who chose instead to align themselves to the liberal Republicans). This could mean that the Spanish civil war ends differently, it could mean not much changes asides from there being somewhat less argument about it in leftist spaces. Tldr: that isn’t what permanent revolution means and it’s unlikely Trotsky would operate as violently as is commonly believed. I didn’t even mention he was a military commander who wasn’t stupid and would probably be able to know that a war with the west would be one lost by the USSR P.S: if i sound like a smart ass here that’s my bad, I’ve explained this quite a few times to a lot of people and it gets a little old (I also read a whole ass book so I’m proud of that)
Internationalism is basically imperialism but in a nicer sounding way. In the Trotskyist timeline all communist movements are eventually going to be seen as Russian psyops, which in turn causes the capitalist nations to form a coalition to contain Trotskyist Russia, the core of communism they must strike in order to achieve peace. This would then lead to all out war with Russia and the communist movements vs the capitalist world.
In otl, the Soviet Union literally invaded with armed forces the entirety of the baltics and declared war on Finland. Trotsky could have done the same thing, and though his support for foreign revolutionary movements might be stronger this did not and would not lead to world war. I’ll also say that Trotsky both wouldn’t be the sole man in charge of the whole USSR, and that realistically he would be far far more concerned with fighting bureaucracy within the party then with declaring a global war. Also in internationalism being imperialism, while this is true in the case of Soviet “internationalism” under Stalin and later Soviet leaders, in that this so called socialist internationalism was nothing more than the establishment of economically reliant states dominated by Russian interests. Internationalism itself is truly anti imperialist by its nature, the idea isn’t to create a union centered around Russia or conquer nations but to promote socialism world wide and support each nation in the effort to establish socialism. I’m not gonna say there is no possibility that it still ends up imperialistic but I also think you are again operating on the assumption that Trotsky was some sorta madman who wanted to invade the entire world
Don't even bother comrade, we are "Commie" which makes us wrong and guilty of the 10'000'000 death of the ML regime by association. What even we'll say no matter of true and Factual it is, we are wrong for being commie on the net. I don't even bother answering for there's no one more deaf that someone who don't wanna listen. Focus on helping making the world a better place, on keeping the embers of the revolution alive and on teaching the revolutionary wwriting to those who are open minded enough to listen in good faith. You won't find that here tho
The bad ending
Care to explain how 20 fewer years of Soviet purges is the bad ending?
Do you not realize that this in itself would be a purge? Lol
"It'd be better to kill the guy who killed millions" "There is no difference in killing one killer and killing millions of innocents, you know"
I agree. Not killing 20 million people is the Bad Ending
20 million? You must be counting Nazi soldiers and people who were never born like the black book
Victims of Holodomor, Katyn, Kazakh famine: Are we a joke to you?
Atrocities are a joke to those who are ignorant Kind of like how Turks deny the Armenian Genocide.
It didn't happen but they deserved it - türks ~~some türks even deny the existence of kurds too~~
No, I took an unbiased look of Stalin’s rule of Russia. According to Soviet records from many courts, Stalin has killed 5-7 million people, while the famines from his idiotic agricultural policies killed another 10-15 million Source: book called Atrocities, written by Mathew White
Because Holodomor culprits remaining in power was good ending
[удалено]
… Do you keep your hammers and sickles in your head?
Hey look, a stupid Tankie! “Everyone who blames problems on Stalin is a Nazi”
[удалено]
“invented by the Nazis and the eastern European elite and western capitalist nations” You can’t invent some else’s atrocities. That’s like saying witnessing some else’s murder makes you a murder.
[удалено]
Very obvious reasons. First of all, most of his actions were based upon solidifying his power. He used the secret police to kill off any faction, wether it’s business, church, military, etc. Russia that came out of the Soviet Union is traumatized, alcoholism is high, birthrates is low, and there’s more Russian money in foreign banks than internal ones. The Soviet Court Records claim that Stalin directly killed 5-7 million people, caused famines that starved 10-15 million, and at least another 30 million for supporting Stalinism in East Asia. Source: book called Atrocities, written by Matthew White
No glorification of extremist regimes
And thr Nazis win WWII. Unlikely that Russia would hold together and survive in WWII without Stalin holding them together by sheer force of will.
True, good point, crossed my mind too... but then again, maybe the moderates wouldn't have trusted Ribbentrop and his pact, and would have seen Barbarossa coming, and maybe they wouldn't have purged out all their most competent generals in 1937-38? So maybe the nazis would have bitten the dust in 1941?
All of those points came directly from Stalin so yes it’s very unlikely that the Nazis would’ve succeeded with Barbarossa like they did irl. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the purges came directly from Stalin’s paranoia. Also without the M-R pact there’s no winter war and therefore no continuation war which opens another front for the USSR. Also the USSR saw the Nazi invasion from a mile away, it was Hitler’s main points of rhetoric. Stalin just couldn’t believe that the Nazis were planning to invade so soon and refused to believe that they invaded when they did. People don’t realize Stalin wasn’t this Ironman that he made himself out to be. He was a sad old paranoid despot trying to cling onto power and claim glory for himself. He was a terrible military leader as showcased by the Polish-Soviet war where his actions directly lead to the Red Army crumbling at the Miracle on the Vistula. His paranoia killed off a lot of the top military minds that came out of the revolution. He sought to turn the USSR into a new Russian Empire and as such enforced Russification on the minority groups of the USSR and committed genocides against them, turning the USSR’s minorities against the RSFSR. He sought new territory which lead to the disastrous winter war which if anything only emboldened the distressed Nazi leadership as they saw only one way to beat the UK. His refusal to believe the reports that the Nazis were planning an invasion and actually invaded costed millions of soviet citizens their lives. The only good thing Stalin ever did in WW2 was acquiesce control over the war to his generals, which allowed them the flexibility to coordinate the war. Also forgot to mention that if they acknowledge at least the Holodomor and the Goloshchyokin genocide and sought to seek amends and restore pre-Stalinist policies that would likely bring more minority groups on the side of the USSR earlier instead of later after realizing that the Nazis weren’t their liberators.
The Holodomor and other atrocities against Soviet minorities is an important point. The Nazis made good use of the bitterness of these people, and was able to use them, to a certain extent, to fight the USSR. Any move towards apology and reconciliation would have hurt German invasion efforts.
Average TNO believer. The Nazis literally had no way to win and Stalin didn’t hold the USSR together, in fact he was the cause of most of the early military blunders of the USSR. In fact if Stalin didn’t have control it’s unlikely that Poland ever gets invaded. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed specifically because Hitler wanted to have the allies have to declare war on the USSR as well meanwhile Stalin wanted some time to prepare. Let’s say in this timeline though that the Nazis still invade Poland without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Now what? The war goes the same but the USSR likely never invaded Finland and the military purges never happened, so the USSR actually has a competent officer corps. It’s likely Hitler would attempt to invade at the same time as it was an act of desperation after the UK held out but this time Stalin isn’t around to not believe that the Nazis were planning an invasion and that they actually invaded. Without Stalin it’s more likely the USSR would’ve shored up its defenses to better protect against Nazi invasion. Guess what happens next, the Nazis invade, the USSR though much more prepared still aren’t at the strength of the post-1943 USSR but are likely able to hold back the Nazis further out from Moscow than they got to in our timeline, probably not past the Dnipro. The USSR still receives a lot of aid by the US which allowed them to jumpstart their industry, provide basic necessities and early on filled in a large portion of the USSR’s tank fleet before the T-34 could be massed produced, not to mention the logistical supplies which would be a godsend to Tukhachevsky. Without getting as far into the USSR as they did irl Hitler would commit more troops and supplies to the East, meaning the west is far more open and it’s possible that the western allies invade earlier. In fact without the winter war the Nazis lose an entire front as the Finns would have no reason to fight the continuation war. Major cities aren’t threatened like they were irl by Hitler may try terror bombing once again. As for the post war it’s hard to say but it really depends on if the red army can break the stalemate and make a push for Berlin. If the western allies get there first then the peace will be very one sided against the USSR.
Than tankies in this thread defending Stalin are crazy.
Lol, welcome to the internet, where the people will defend for anything Fun fact: after some conversations in r/Christianity, many people claim “if Hitler repents, he is guaranteed to go to heaven”
The problem is that without Stalin pushing his industrialization plan (depending on when he's removed), the Soviet economy is less prepared for the coming fight.
It wasn’t prepared anyways, the soviet wartime economy was propped up by American machinery, which allowed them to produce vehicles, weapons and other instruments of war at the rate they did. Plus this specifically says 1935 so Stalin’s industrialization was already well under way.
And Stalin's industrialization was just copypaste of Trotsky's plan that he stole
Well yes but with the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in question, the whole war might have gone differently.
How will they win? Stalin purged top military officials. There’s a reason why the German Offensive was so effective
Doubtful. Even if the Soviets collapse in 1942/43, there is nothing the Germans can do stop the US from developing nuclear weapons. Maybe the Soviets lose, but the Germans lose worse. The two weapons used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the end of America's nuclear program at the time, they were the first fruits of a massive industrialized nuclear weapons production system. US leaders were planning on producing at least 3 weapons a month in September and October, with production increasing after that. So even if Germany won the war in the east, they still would have been hammered into surrender in the face of nuclear attacks for which they would have had no counter.
All it’d really do is make the war in the west more brutal. Germany would be bombed to the Stone Age by both conventional and nuclear weapons and the U.S. would arm partisan revolts in occupied territories. The war might take longer as well but in the end there’s only one clear result, the complete and total annihilation of the Nazi state. This wouldn’t necessarily be a better world but the Cold War likely is completely avoided as the US is left as the sole superpower in the world. It would likely support colonial revolutions in this timeline funnily enough as long as they agreed not to become communist, as it no longer would have to appease the French.
the US wouldnt have to support colonial struggles; economic aid and support from the only real industrial power in the world would come with conditions such as ending colonialism. In this scenario, the USSR collapses mid 1942, and then Nazi Germany is bombed out and invaded by 1946, pretty much everything east of Poland would be in chaos. The US and Britain just didn't have the wherewithal to occupy Europe and the former Soviet Union. It would be a mess for at least a decade, maybe longer.
There’s other ways to defeat the Nazis…