Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Who besides Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky could have risen to power in the Soviet Union in the aftermath of Vladimir Lenin's death?
Neither Stalin nor Trotsky
- Thread starter Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
- Start date
I'd say either Kamenev or Zinoviev. For me they are the only two likely enough to rise to power.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
But did either of them ever stand a chance? I know who they are, I'm just wondering about the likelihood of someone besides Stalin and Trotsky rising to the top.
I suspect that with a little more ambition Mikhail Frunze could have made it, assuming he avoids chloroform poisoning, leading a coup of sorts.
It rather depends why Stalin or Trotsky don't succeed ITTL. If they're butterflied to death then there's a multitude who can pull it off, maybe another one from the moderate wing such as Rykov or Bukharin, or Zinoviev and Kamenev.
It rather depends why Stalin or Trotsky don't succeed ITTL. If they're butterflied to death then there's a multitude who can pull it off, maybe another one from the moderate wing such as Rykov or Bukharin, or Zinoviev and Kamenev.
Wolfpaw
Banned
Bukharin was never interested in running the country, Zinoviev's power base began and ended in Leningrad, and Kamenev lacked the ambition and cunning to be top dog. Besides, Zinoviev and Kamenev were Jews, and a Jew isn't going to be running things.
Without somebody as sanguinary as Stalin running the place, we may see the USSR develop a quasi-democratic system at the top of the Party where various factions compete for dominance but without those bloody purges. The Politburo could evolve into a real Cabinet of sorts instead of the tragi-comic chamber theater it turned into under Stalin.
Without somebody as sanguinary as Stalin running the place, we may see the USSR develop a quasi-democratic system at the top of the Party where various factions compete for dominance but without those bloody purges. The Politburo could evolve into a real Cabinet of sorts instead of the tragi-comic chamber theater it turned into under Stalin.
Wolfpaw
Banned
This, combined with Bukharin's dilettantish nature, only lessens his chances of emerging at the top of the Bolshevik dogpile.
Kirov would not have been important in the Party by Lenin's death. How about Rykov, becoming a puppet of the Politburo?
What about Tukhashevsky? I know he was a soldier and all but if no clear leader emerged then there might be room for some sort of military coup-or maybe he makes the transition to civilian politics or semi-civilian politics like Musharraf sort-of did in Pakistan? He was charismatic and undoubtedly talented, and well respected for his victories during the Cold War. Probably would have handled WW2 better...
Tomsky was a trade unionist, and so might have been able to command support from the common worker, but had little influence or power-base in the Party. Rykov had actually been First Minister, and had quite a bit of influence in the Party. Unfortunately he was a raging alcoholic, and would probably becomin either Trotsky or Stalin's creature. Or if you want to be have a story of mentalist political backstabbing, both!
Wolfpaw
Banned
I could see Rykov remaining chairman of the Politburo since he's agreeable to basically every faction. Without a tyrant like Stalin at the helm, Tukhachevsky is going to be content being left in charge of the Red Army.
An interesting question would be what sort of foreign policy the Soviet Union would pursue ITTL.
An interesting question would be what sort of foreign policy the Soviet Union would pursue ITTL.