What if Josef Stalin had never been born?

Stalin is a rather puzzling character from an historical point of view. For Americans, quite specifically, he is the worst man in history. Well, he was until quite recently, anyway. Currently, I think Vladimir Putin has displaced Stalin in the minds of Americans as the worst man in history. This may say something about how and why Americans vilify individuals. Americans are great proponents of free competition, until anyone actually competes with them. At that point, Americans tend to classify their competitors as perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Now, I suppose, you could consider this all a part of the competitive process, of course, but, it does means that Americans cease to be honest, indeed are quite incapable of being honest, with regard to any individual or group that actually, consciously opposes their will. And, Stalin certainly did that! Indeed, Russia as a nation tends to do that. And, arguably, America has been trying to destroy Russia for a century or more, now. For other nations, the attitude to Stalin is much more complex. In Russia, there is grudging respect for Stalin, on the whole. Without in any way denying his brutality, they are also aware of his achievements: a stunning, almost doubling of life expectancy, full industrialization of Russia, the defeat of the Nazis, accomplished almost single-handedly by the Russians, the turning of Russia into a world superpower. This is closer to the attitude of most of the rest of the world regarding Stalin: most of Europe, Africa, South America, India, the Middle East. In Ukraine, of course, the view coincides rather perfectly with the U.S., since the Ukrainians and the Russians have been mortal enemies for a thousand years: the Ukrainians see Stalin as the worst man in history. In China, where the communists could not possibly have come to power without Stalin's steady support over a period of decades, the attitude to Stalin is quite positive, more positive than in Russia itself, actually. In China, Stalin is portrayed as wise, just, kindly and supportive. Another interesting comparison is between attitudes to Hitler and Stalin, who are often compared by historians, as the two greatest "dictators" of the twentieth century. The only country in which Hitler remains a hero is Ukraine, because of his hostility to Russia, and because he "liberated" Ukraine, albeit very temporarily, from Stalin. The attitude to Hitler is actually much more positive in Ukraine than it is in Germany. The Germans are well aware that Hitler led them to total destruction, and they don't want this to happen again. That's why Germany is only partially democratic, Hitler was elected democratically: it's very difficult to get full German citizenship, only about half the adult population has the right to vote. And, half the voters in Germany vote for parties who are given no representation in the German government, because, they vote for "fringe" parties -- parties with extreme political views like the communists and fascists -- so less than a quarter of the adult German population actually have any say in the government. Nevertheless, the attitude to Hitler in Germany is still rather more positive than in most of world, where he is considered a monster, with few exceptions. In Germany they have to outlaw the Swastika and the Nazi salute because they are afraid of Nazi supporters becoming powerful in the country again. Many Germans feel that Hitler was "good" at first, and did a lot for Germany. In Ukraine, however, Hitler is considered courageous, just and noble. Indeed, any objective person cannot help but notice, and this point is regularly noted in the Russian media, that President Zelensky of Ukraine is quite intentionally, and consciously imitating Hitler's mannerisms and speech patterns. Personally, whenever I see President Zelensky I think I'm looking at outtakes from Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" -- another Jew imitating Hitler for laughs! But while Chaplin was quite consciously doing satire, President Zelensky appears to be deadly serious. Of course, he is a comedian. He may be laughing his guts out inside. Hard to say, really. In any case, what would have happened if Stalin had never been born? Stalin first becomes really significant historically, I think, in 1918, due to his involvement in the Russo-Polish war then. He is sometimes given personal credit for the Russians failing to capture Warsaw, and then conquer Berlin, and all of Europe, perhaps the world. He is supposed to have sabotaged the entire campaign due to his ambition and incompetence. I rather doubt that. I think that the capacity of Trotsky and the Reds to conquer all of Europe in 1918 could easily be exaggerated, they were having enough trouble controlling Russia. Indeed, it took them years to win the civil war in Russia itself. So, I think this is an example of blaming Stalin for something that simply was in the nature of the situation itself, and not particularly his fault, at all. I think this happens in a number of cases with Stalin. Sure, he was brutal, and sometimes incompetent, but, sometimes things weren't necessarily his fault, and he was doing the best he could, and sometimes did accomplish some good. Estimates for the number of people Stalin "killed" quite literally range from 100,000 to 100,000,000. That's three orders of magnitude, and these are legitimate historians giving the figures. To some extent, it depends on what we call a Stalin killing. Was everyone who died in the prison system -- the Gulag -- a victim of Stalin? What if they died after thirty years there, as many did? Was everyone who died of old age in the Gulag "murdered" by Stalin? How about people who didn't get enough food or proper health care in the Soviet Union, and died? Did Stalin "murder" them? Some historians hold Stalin responsible for the entire second world war, and count all Soviet victims of Hitler as, effectively, victims of Stalin. If Stalin hadn't been running the Soviet Union when Hitler invaded Russia, would the Russians have been able to defeat the Germans? I doubt it, actually. One of the reasons the Nazis underestimated the Russians is because of the poor showing of Russia during the first world war. The Eastern Front was considered "cake", an easy posting, for the Germans. The Kaiser took an enormous amont of territory in Western Russia rather easily, so, Hitler thought he could do the same thing. Instead, his forces faced increasing opposition, and were eventually totally annihilated. Stalin deserves, I think, considerable credit for this. Stalin's talents for bureaucracy and detail made him admirably suited to run a twentieth century war. Without Stalin, would Trotsky have run Russia? I doubt it. Trotsky was an unpopular, arrogant intellectual, it wasn't just Stalin who loathed him. The "toughs" who ran the Bolsheviks could never have worked for Trotsky long term. I suspect some kind of dictatorship was likely in Russia, without Stalin, but possibly a dictatorship of the right, rather than the left. Possibly not a return to Tsarism, which had failed, but some type of Mussoliniesque fascist dictatorship. Any other thoughts?