Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 24th, 2012, 08:04 AM   #11

Koba's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 172

Stalin by the end of his life had grown distrustful of his closest comrades- Beria, Malenkov, Bulganin, Kruschev, even Molotov.

The man who he wanted to be his successor at first was Nikolai Voznesensky, a highly educated Leningrad economist, responsible for restoring conditions of the liberated Soviet territory after the Germans were pushed back. Also wrote a huge book about the Soviet economy in WW2, winning a Stalin prize for his work. This drew the attention of Stalin, who openly called him his successor, but this was a big mistake, as in 1950, The Malenkov-Kruschev-Bulganin gang (Beria may have also been part, but his son denies it) fabricated a case and killed him on trumped up charges in the infamous "Leningrad affair". Stalin wrote on the case, "I do not believe it!", but Malenkov convinced him that it was true. Stalin was very sick at the time and could not offer much resistance.

Click the image to open in full size.

Then, according to Anatoly Lukjanov, a Soviet politician during the time, Stalin wanted to name Ponomarenko as his successor, because of his honesty and organizational ability. He prepared a Presidium on the subject, but died 1 day before it was scheduled. The documents where Ponomarenko was named as Stalin's suggested successor were destroyed by Kruschev. Ponomarenko himself was demoted to increasingly insignificant posts, such as ambassador to Nepal.

Click the image to open in full size.

In October 16, 1952, Stalin said to the Presidium:

We have freed from the obligations minister Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, and others and replaced them with new workers. Why? On what basis? The work of a minister- is the work of a young man! It requires much strength, concrete knowledge and health. This is why we freed some of our excellent comrades from their posts and replaced them with new, more qualified, initiated workers. They are young people, full of strength and energy.

After Stalin's death, they all came back to power, some of the being dropped off later on in the power struggle.

Meanwhile, Brezhnev, Kosygin, Maylshev, Kuznetsov, the "young guard" were demoted to insignificant positions like Ponomarenko.

The fight between the "old guard" and the "new guard", backed by Stalin, is a key to understanding the events of the 1950's.

The "old guard", when it came to power, killed or politically eliminated each other with great fervor, and with Kruschev on top, eventually led to a stagnation of the country which played a part in the collapse. No real new ideas or theories were produced, and the system fossilized. Corruption became more widespread as well.

If the "new guard" came to power, the USSR would have prospered without a doubt. The intelligence, deep economic understanding, and forward-thinking of an intellectual like Voznesensky combined with the organizing abilities of an honest, strong-willed and ideologically pure man like Ponomarenko would have done wonders for the USSR.

Info from: http://www.aif.ru/society/article/31587

Last edited by Koba; November 24th, 2012 at 08:22 AM.
Koba is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2012, 12:04 PM   #12

WeisSaul's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,418

Quick thought: If Kruschev doesn't take power, doesn't the Crimea stay part of the RSFR?
WeisSaul is online now  
Old November 25th, 2012, 01:14 AM   #13

Koba's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 172

Yes- Kruschev arbitrarily gave it to Ukraine for no real reason. If Russia decides to claim Crimea, it has a right to do so.
Koba is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2012, 08:41 AM   #14
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 246

Beria was the best candidate for peace, despite being mad he was wise to know that Stalin ruined his country and that it would be best to negotiate with the west. I wrote a paper on it! He had plans for the future to negotiate with the West - 48th Parrell for Korean peace (thus ending the Korean war), UN monitored elections for French Indo China (aka Vietnam, thus no Vietnam war), German unification as a neutral power, and for Josephe MacCarthy to be commited to a mental asylum.
kazeuma is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2012, 09:01 AM   #15

Koba's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 172

Completely stupid. Ruined his country? Only a completely historical illiterate can **** out such nonsense. The economic progress during the Stalin period is literally unparalelled in human history. A basically medieval country, with 85% of the population being illiterate peasants, became a superpower in the span of one generation.

The adventure led from the illiteracy to literacy, from the NEP to socialism, from archaic agriculture to collective cultivation, from a rural society to a predominately urban community, from general ignorance of the machine to social mastery of modern technology.
Between the poverty stricken year of 1924, when Lenin died, and the relatively abundant year of 1940, the cultivated area of USSR expanded by 74 percent; grain crops increased 11 percent; coal production was multiplied by 10; steel output by 18; engineering and metal industries by 150; total national income by 10; industrial output by 24; annual capital investment by 57. During the First Five-year Plan, 51 billion rubles were invested; during the Second, 114; and during the Third, 192. Factory and office workers grew from 7,300,000 to 30,800,000 and school and college students from 7,900,000 to 36,600,000. Between 1913 and 1940, oil production increased from nine to 35 million tons; coal from 29 to 164; pig iron from 4 to 15; steel from 4 to 18; machine tools from 1000 to 48,000 units, tractors from 0 to over 500,000; harvestor combines from 0 to 153,500; electrical power output from two billion kWh to 50 billion; and the value of industrial output from 11 billion rubles to more than 100 billion by 1938. If the estimated volume of total industrial production in 1913 be taken as 100, the corresponding indices for 1938 are 93.2 for France; 113.3 for England, 120 United States; 131.6 for Germany, and 908.8 for the Soviet Union.


Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 212


The Soviets attained under Stalin's rule the first place in the world in regard to tractors, machines, and motor trucks; the second as to electric power. Russia, 20 years ago the least mechanized country, has become the foremost.... In the same decade between 1929 in 1939, in which the production of all other countries barely mounted, while even dropping in some, Soviet production was multiplied by 4. The national income mounted between 1913 in 1938 from 21 to 105 billion rubles. The income of the individual citizen was increased by 370% in the last eight years--with only irrelevant income taxes and reasonable social security contributions imposed upon them--while it dropped almost everywhere else in the world.


Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 129


When we consider Stalin's facts and figures, it becomes clear that we are witnessing the most concentrated economic advance ever recorded--greater even than those of the Industrial Revolution. Within 10 years a primarily feudal society had been changed into an industrialized one. And for the first time in history such an advance was due not to capitalism but to socialism.


Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 75
Koba is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 12:29 PM   #16
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 246

I was not talking about tractors, electric power, I was talking about the other ruinations - the five year plans were disasters, the whole slaughter of the officer class for perceived treason, the hundreds of thousands of people senselessly sent to Siberia and executed, the collapse of the cotton trade due to the placement of the "cotton district" near the Aral sea (the Aral sea was nearly destroyed in the process), the willful destruction of several historical artifacts, and the willingness to start up "the Cold War."
kazeuma is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 07:48 PM   #17

Koba's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 172

The five year plans were disasters? I wonder how the single largest economic advance in the entirety of human history counts as a failure?

"whole slaughter of the officer class"? This just shows you know nothing about history.

At first it was thought 25-50% of Red Army officers were purged, it is now known to be 3.7-7.7%. Previously, the size of the Red Army officer corp was underestimated and it was overlooked that most of those purged were merely expelled from the Party. 30% of officers purged 1937-9 were allowed back.[32]

Great Purge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many innocent people died- but this was not Stalin's fault. Yezhov was responsible for the creation of Troikas who could judge and execute people on the spot- the NKVD was a state within a state and there was no way for Stalin to know about the abuses that were going on until it was too late. Yezhov was later killed and given the label "mass murderer".

Stalin wrote an article "Against the destruction of churches" in the '20s and stopped anti-religious campaigns in the '30s when he consolidated his power.

The Cold War was started by all parties involved- all of them distrusted each other and thought the other had the worst intentions. Blaming it on Stalin is ludicrous.
Koba is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 02:36 AM   #18

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 2,394
Stalin not knowing about Yezhov !


Quote:
Originally Posted by Koba View Post
The five year plans were disasters? I wonder how the single largest economic advance in the entirety of human history counts as a failure?

"whole slaughter of the officer class"? This just shows you know nothing about history.

At first it was thought 25-50% of Red Army officers were purged, it is now known to be 3.7-7.7%. Previously, the size of the Red Army officer corp was underestimated and it was overlooked that most of those purged were merely expelled from the Party. 30% of officers purged 1937-9 were allowed back.[32]

Great Purge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many innocent people died- but this was not Stalin's fault. Yezhov was responsible for the creation of Troikas who could judge and execute people on the spot- the NKVD was a state within a state and there was no way for Stalin to know about the abuses that were going on until it was too late. Yezhov was later killed and given the label "mass murderer".

Stalin wrote an article "Against the destruction of churches" in the '20s and stopped anti-religious campaigns in the '30s when he consolidated his power.

The Cold War was started by all parties involved- all of them distrusted each other and thought the other had the worst intentions. Blaming it on Stalin is ludicrous.
I understand that you are not prepared to hear a word against Stalin. But don't you think Stalin did not know what was going on in the country, by way of the midnight arrests, confessions obtained by torture from the prisoners and the summary shootings that followed ? Was Stalin knowing nothing when he signed lists after lists ( 383 lists in 1937-38 alone ) submitted to him by Yezhov ( before that from Yagoda and after Yezhov from Beria ) for approval to the " First Degree " punishment ? Did he ever bother to find out who were these people, what was the crime of these people ? He thought approving executions by lists the Communist way of Justice, did he ? He wrote an article " Dizzy with Success " in Pravda in 1930 presumably to condemn the excesses of the Collectivisation Programme. Let us say, he was moved by considerations of humanity-- did he say a word in apology to the relatives of the victims --let alone to the unfortunate people at large ? My dear Koba, let us face the fact that Stalin was responsible for executing millions of his own nationals, for the most part, totally innocent of any crime.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 04:41 AM   #19

Koba's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 172

J Arch Getty's book on the Great Purge puts to rest this question- the simple fact is, Stalin was not an omnipotent being and could not be aware of everything that was going on in the country. The NKVD was a completely closed organization, and the fact that it operated using less than rigorous techniques of justice was not known immediately.

Stalin was not responsible for executing millions of his own nationals. Where is the evidence for this? The amount executed for "anti-state" crimes during the Stalin period was slightly under 690,000, as I've posted in other threads on the subject.
Koba is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 04:57 AM   #20

mansamusa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,538

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koba View Post
Completely stupid. Ruined his country? Only a completely historical illiterate can **** out such nonsense. The economic progress during the Stalin period is literally unparalelled in human history. A basically medieval country, with 85% of the population being illiterate peasants, became a superpower in the span of one generation.

The adventure led from the illiteracy to literacy, from the NEP to socialism, from archaic agriculture to collective cultivation, from a rural society to a predominately urban community, from general ignorance of the machine to social mastery of modern technology.
Between the poverty stricken year of 1924, when Lenin died, and the relatively abundant year of 1940, the cultivated area of USSR expanded by 74 percent; grain crops increased 11 percent; coal production was multiplied by 10; steel output by 18; engineering and metal industries by 150; total national income by 10; industrial output by 24; annual capital investment by 57. During the First Five-year Plan, 51 billion rubles were invested; during the Second, 114; and during the Third, 192. Factory and office workers grew from 7,300,000 to 30,800,000 and school and college students from 7,900,000 to 36,600,000. Between 1913 and 1940, oil production increased from nine to 35 million tons; coal from 29 to 164; pig iron from 4 to 15; steel from 4 to 18; machine tools from 1000 to 48,000 units, tractors from 0 to over 500,000; harvestor combines from 0 to 153,500; electrical power output from two billion kWh to 50 billion; and the value of industrial output from 11 billion rubles to more than 100 billion by 1938. If the estimated volume of total industrial production in 1913 be taken as 100, the corresponding indices for 1938 are 93.2 for France; 113.3 for England, 120 United States; 131.6 for Germany, and 908.8 for the Soviet Union.


Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 212


The Soviets attained under Stalin's rule the first place in the world in regard to tractors, machines, and motor trucks; the second as to electric power. Russia, 20 years ago the least mechanized country, has become the foremost.... In the same decade between 1929 in 1939, in which the production of all other countries barely mounted, while even dropping in some, Soviet production was multiplied by 4. The national income mounted between 1913 in 1938 from 21 to 105 billion rubles. The income of the individual citizen was increased by 370% in the last eight years--with only irrelevant income taxes and reasonable social security contributions imposed upon them--while it dropped almost everywhere else in the world.


Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 129


When we consider Stalin's facts and figures, it becomes clear that we are witnessing the most concentrated economic advance ever recorded--greater even than those of the Industrial Revolution. Within 10 years a primarily feudal society had been changed into an industrialized one. And for the first time in history such an advance was due not to capitalism but to socialism.


Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 75
Koba you seem learned enough on the subject.I would really like to know how and where the money came from to bring about such an impressive mobilization of resources in the Soviet Union. Are you able to provide us with a detailed account of its monetary system.
mansamusa is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
candidate, stalin, succession


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for a traitor to defend: any candidate? sylla1 General History 28 April 22nd, 2011 05:59 PM
Best Presidential candidate for 2012 laketahoejwb Speculative History 19 December 11th, 2010 06:52 AM
The Manchurian Candidate ('62) emknight History in Films and on Television 3 September 23rd, 2010 05:21 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.