Vatutin's USSR

[Alikchi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Fyodorovich_Vatutin

Vatutin: the perfect combination of loyal party member and aggressive, talented commander.

Here's a TL in very broad strokes:

1944/45 - Vatutin survives an attack by Ukrainian nationalists, and retains command of the 1st Ukrainian Front. After a series of victories he takes over the 1st and 2nd Belorussian fronts, eventually securing Berlin in 1945. Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky and Chuikov are the other prestigious generals of the war.

Late 1945 - Stalin, Molotov, Malenkov, Voroshilov, Beria and Kalinin die after a bomb explodes in the Kremlin. The STAVKA (as represented by the generals listed in the previous entry) takes control.

Early 1946 - Vatutin becomes General Secretary and leader of the USSR.

Late 40s/early 50s - Vatutin takes a strongly devolutionary stance regarding Soviet-occupied territory. The 1940 SSRs are re-established as you'd expect, but genuine elections occur in Germany (unified), Romania, Hungary, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Albania and Bulgaria go Communist, while Poland, Hungary and Germany are governed in a more middling Socialist/Social Democrat fashion. The USSR engages in defensive and economic treaties but does not force its policy upon the defeated foe.

The gulags shut down in the 60s.

The Cold War exists, but the term does not. It's too low-key for such a dramatic name. There is no Korean War - Korea is a unified democratic state. The Chinese Civil War ends in a stalemate and two separate states. North China is a pariah state riven with poverty.

A Soviet colony on the Moon is established in the early 80s. By the 90s, the leadership of the USSR is democratically elected and the Presidents of invididual SSRs have much more power.

 

[Green Painting]

General Vatutin was a brilliant strategist, but I don't think there is any evidence showing that he was a liberal. One link (http://www.history.co.uk/shows/soviet-storm-ww2-in-the-east/cast/nikolai-fedorovich-vatutin) says that he was an ardent communist.

By free election, I assume you meant the Soviets militarily control the Eastern European states, but at the same time giving those states autonomy over their own domestic politics. The thing about this arrangement is that soon, these states would have a different opinion on wheat'so best for their own national interests, and even demand the withdrawal of Soviet troops. There is always a bottom line of Soviet tolerance in post-war Eastern Europe.

None of Stalin's successors would willingly relinquish Soviet gains at Yalta conference, not least a soldier who fought for these gains. Although a contraction from central and Eastern Europe to avoid over-extension made strategic sense, I doubt any Soviet leader had such foresight in the late 1940s.

 

[Shaby]

Late 1945 - Stalin, Molotov, Malenkov, Voroshilov, Beria and Kalinin die after a bomb explodes in the Kremlin. The STAVKA (as represented by the generals listed in the previous entry) takes control.

Whose bomb? And how do they all die, why would all of these people even be in the same room together?

Early 1946 - Vatutin becomes General Secretary and leader of the USSR.

And an active military officer ascends to power... In Moscow? Nope.

Late 40s/early 50s - Vatutin takes a strongly devolutionary stance regarding Soviet-occupied territory. The 1940 SSRs are re-established as you'd expect, but genuine elections occur in Germany (unified), Romania, Hungary, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Albania and Bulgaria go Communist, while Poland, Hungary and Germany are governed in a more middling Socialist/Social Democrat fashion. The USSR engages in defensive and economic treaties but does not force its policy upon the defeated foe.

After proposing this, he dies in an unfortunate accident. Or from heart attack. But seriously, why would he propose this? To be mild on Germany? Germany that initiated war that killed 20 million Soviet citizens and obliterated almost everything west of Moscow? Forcing the Soviet policy on this foe would have been considered duty by anyone in Soviet Union, and especially a member of commanding staff of the Red Army.

The gulags shut down in the 60s.

For all intents and purposes they were shut down or at least scaled down greatly IOTL.

The Cold War exists, but the term does not. It's too low-key for such a dramatic name. There is no Korean War - Korea is a unified democratic state. The Chinese Civil War ends in a stalemate and two separate states. North China is a pariah state riven with poverty.

Well, I do not know, but it took more than Stalin alone to start Cold War and removing him does not remove all the underlying causes that lead to it. Some details may vary, but a political-military-economic confrontation of the two systems was almost inevitable.

A Soviet colony on the Moon is established in the early 80s. By the 90s, the leadership of the USSR is democratically elected and the Presidents of invididual SSRs have much more power.

And they all lived happily ever after. Especially the moon people.

 

[ghappy1000]

Whose bomb? And how do they all die, why would all of these people even be in the same room together?



And an active military officer ascends to power... In Moscow? Nope.



After proposing this, he dies in an unfortunate accident. Or from heart attack. But seriously, why would he propose this? To be mild on Germany? Germany that initiated war that killed 20 million Soviet citizens and obliterated almost everything west of Moscow? Forcing the Soviet policy on this foe would have been considered duty by anyone in Soviet Union, and especially a member of commanding staff of the Red Army.
For all intents and purposes they were shut down or at least scaled down greatly IOTL.
Well, I do not know, but it took more than Stalin alone to start Cold War and removing him does not remove all the underlying causes that lead to it. Some details may vary, but a political-military-economic confrontation of the two systems was almost inevitable.
And they all lived happily ever after. Especially the moon people.

I think the author may well be an anti Stalinist and Communist Soviet or Russian wanker judging by this timeline. But, the thread is impossible since the Soviet leadership gets massacred part.

 

[mlp]

I think the author may well be an anti Stalinist and Communist Soviet or Russian wanker judging by this timeline. But, the thread is impossible since the Soviet leadership gets massacred part.

it was interesting though.
the emotional rollercoaster climaxed at the moon base. I was torn between a yay and a facepalm.

 

[Miss Teri]

And they all lived happily ever after. Especially the moon people.

I love that line. Yeah, this is too utopian. Could the initial concept work, though?

 

[Napoleon IV]

Here's a TL in very broad strokes:

1944/45 - Vatutin survives an attack by Ukrainian nationalists, and retains command of the 1st Ukrainian Front. After a series of victories he takes over the 1st and 2nd Belorussian fronts, eventually securing Berlin in 1945. Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky and Chuikov are the other prestigious generals of the war.

This obviously could happen.

Late 1945 - Stalin, Molotov, Malenkov, Voroshilov, Beria and Kalinin die after a bomb explodes in the Kremlin. The STAVKA (as represented by the generals listed in the previous entry) takes control.

Who plants the bomb? Furthermore STAVKA is not going to take control. The Bolsheviks had a big fear of Bonapartism (where a military officer takes command of a revolutionary government and reverses course), so they had systems in place to make certain that this wouldn't happen.

Early 1946 - Vatutin becomes General Secretary and leader of the USSR.

That honor would probably go to Andrei Zhdanov, who was considered by many to be Stalin's heir apparent until his death. His path to power is made far easier by the fact that his main rivals (Beria and Malenkov) are dead.

Late 40s/early 50s - Vatutin takes a strongly devolutionary stance regarding Soviet-occupied territory. The 1940 SSRs are re-established as you'd expect, but genuine elections occur in Germany (unified), Romania, Hungary, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Albania and Bulgaria go Communist, while Poland, Hungary and Germany are governed in a more middling Socialist/Social Democrat fashion. The USSR engages in defensive and economic treaties but does not force its policy upon the defeated foe.

The Soviet leadership would never accept this. They had just fought a massive war and were afraid of Germany ever rising again, and felt the need for a few puppet states as a buffer. One of the reasons that Beria was executed IOTL (besides the fact that everyone hated him) was that he proposed unifying Germany under a neutral regime.

The gulags shut down in the 60s.

It basically was, but a system of oppression would have to remain in place to keep the people in line.

The Cold War exists, but the term does not. It's too low-key for such a dramatic name. There is no Korean War - Korea is a unified democratic state. The Chinese Civil War ends in a stalemate and two separate states. North China is a pariah state riven with poverty.

How is Korea unified exactly? The Soviets still occupied the northern part and weren't just going to give it up. The Chinese Civil War could end up like that though.

A Soviet colony on the Moon is established in the early 80s. By the 90s, the leadership of the USSR is democratically elected and the Presidents of invididual SSRs have much more power.

How are there democratic elections? I'm not even going to get into the idea of a moon colony, particularly one that happens 10-20 years (depending on the date ITTL) of man landing on the moon.

I love that line. Yeah, this is too utopian. Could the initial concept work, though?

Not unless there are some major changes beforehand as to the Bolshevik attitude towards the military.

 

[Shaby]

I love that line. Yeah, this is too utopian. Could the initial concept work, though?

If I manage to organize myself and get some spare time, I'll write a mini TL around this concept. It will be in writer's forum. Check here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=10742479#post10742479

 

[Shaby]

As promised, I have completed a mini timeline. It is a lot less detailed than I initially desired, but I hope it is fun.

 

[aktarian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Fyodorovich_Vatutin

Vatutin: the perfect combination of loyal party member and aggressive, talented commander.

Here's a TL in very broad strokes:

1944/45 - Vatutin survives an attack by Ukrainian nationalists, and retains command of the 1st Ukrainian Front. After a series of victories he takes over the 1st and 2nd Belorussian fronts, eventually securing Berlin in 1945. Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky and Chuikov are the other prestigious generals of the war.

Late 1945 - Stalin, Molotov, Malenkov, Voroshilov, Beria and Kalinin die after a bomb explodes in the Kremlin. The STAVKA (as represented by the generals listed in the previous entry) takes control.

Early 1946 - Vatutin becomes General Secretary and leader of the USSR.

Late 40s/early 50s - Vatutin takes a strongly devolutionary stance regarding Soviet-occupied territory. The 1940 SSRs are re-established as you'd expect, but genuine elections occur in Germany (unified), Romania, Hungary, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Albania and Bulgaria go Communist, while Poland, Hungary and Germany are governed in a more middling Socialist/Social Democrat fashion. The USSR engages in defensive and economic treaties but does not force its policy upon the defeated foe.

The gulags shut down in the 60s.

The Cold War exists, but the term does not. It's too low-key for such a dramatic name. There is no Korean War - Korea is a unified democratic state. The Chinese Civil War ends in a stalemate and two separate states. North China is a pariah state riven with poverty.

A Soviet colony on the Moon is established in the early 80s. By the 90s, the leadership of the USSR is democratically elected and the Presidents of invididual SSRs have much more power.

Wow, famous-general-takes-control-of-USSR again? We didn't have that for more than a month

Though I applaud your trace of originality by replacing Zhukov with Vatutin.

 

[Green Painting]

Wow, famous-general-takes-control-of-USSR again? We didn't have that for more than a month

Though I applaud your trace of originality by replacing Zhukov with Vatutin.

It's only an AH discussion, there is no need to be sarcastic about other people's ideas.

Stalin himself owed much of his rise to his military career during Russian Civil War, especially the defense of Tsaritsyn, later renamed Stalingrad to stress on the military part of Stalin's exploits.

Both Khrushchev and Brezhnev were high ranking officers during the Great Patriotic War. And in the case of Brezhnev, his records were exaggerated by official propaganda to boost his legitimacy.

Despite not being a South American or Arab military dictatorship, which transfers power from one soldier to another, the Soviet government was somewhat like Israel in the sense that only people who served in the military could have a chance to become rulers. And given the fact that almost ALL power transitions in the USSR were irregular, there were some chance to have a system that places famous generals into power more often.

Perhaps have Stalin shifting his paranoia to the NKVD more than the Soviet Army, and starting to put famous generals like Zhukov, Vasilevsky, and Konev into politburo, giving them the chance to become Party Secretary. And later the practice of putting military men into politburo may become semi-permanent.

In addition, the fact that all three leaders tried to emphasize on their military careers when they were in power showed that the Soviet society "liked" someone with military credentials in charge, at least the Soviet leadership perceived this way, and it might not be that unpopular for a genuine war hero to claim the premiership, especially during a time of crisis.

 

[aktarian]

It's only an AH discussion, there is no need to be sarcastic about other people's ideas.

I wasn't first five times this idea was raised....

Stalin himself owed much of his rise to his military career during Russian Civil War, especially the defense of Tsaritsyn, later renamed Stalingrad to stress on the military part of Stalin's exploits.

Both Khrushchev and Brezhnev were high ranking officers during the Great Patriotic War. And in the case of Brezhnev, his records were exaggerated by official propaganda to boost his legitimacy.

Despite not being a South American or Arab military dictatorship, which transfers power from one soldier to another, the Soviet government was somewhat like Israel in the sense that only people who served in the military could have a chance to become rulers. And given the fact that almost ALL power transitions in the USSR were irregular, there were some chance to have a system that places famous generals into power more often.

Perhaps have Stalin shifting his paranoia to the NKVD more than the Soviet Army, and starting to put famous generals like Zhukov, Vasilevsky, and Konev into politburo, giving them the chance to become Party Secretary. And later the practice of putting military men into politburo may become semi-permanent.

In addition, the fact that all three leaders tried to emphasize on their military careers when they were in power showed that the Soviet society "liked" someone with military credentials in charge, at least the Soviet leadership perceived this way, and it might not be that unpopular for a genuine war hero to claim the premiership, especially during a time of crisis.

Look for older threats about this. All arguments why Zhukov in particular or military in general can't become leader hold true here as well