Am i reading this right?
Congress does not appoint a new VP when Russel becomes president after FDR dies.
Congress couldn't appoint new Vice Presidents. The 25th Amendment allowed for that to occur, but until then, ifthe slot was vacant, it remained vacant until January 20th following the next election year. Hence why James Madison didn't have a Vice President after April of 1813 or again after 1814, or Andrew Jackson from 1832-1833, John Tyler never had a Vice President, or Millard Fillmore, or Franklin Pierce after April 1853, or Andrew Johnson, or Ulysses S. Grant after 1875, or Chester Arthur, or Grover Cleveland in his first term, or William McKinley 1899-1901, or Theodore Roosevelt until 1905, or William Howard Taft to the end of his term, or Calvin Coolidge until 1925, or Harry S. Truman until 1949, or LBJ until 1965. This part of the clause has only been used for Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller in the 70s in the aftermath of Watergate. So Russell would have no VP for his tenure ittl.
In 48 instead of running for re-election as President he runs for the Senat (who wins the Presidency?)
no one. If no one receives a majority of the Electoral College, it is deadlocked and goes to Congress on the 6th where Presidential Balloting begins. In the House, the state delegations vote and decide the president, in the Senate, individual Senators vote and decide the Vice President. If a President and Vice President hasn't been decided by January 20th, then the next person in succession becomes Acting President until further notice (either being officially recognized as President by the HoR or someone winning in the HoR, be it one of the original candidates or someone new.
THEN before his term is up Russel quits the Presidency and thus the SoS becomes president?
Yep, this is mainly so Russell can prepare to re-enter the Senate (Congressional Inauguration date has always been January 3rd since the passing of the 20th Amendment). So Russell is President until December 31st, 1948, 12 or 24:59:59 and Conally begins his term on January 1st, 1949 00:00:00.
1) i dont think the SoS was the automatic replacement un 48 was he? That was part if the 25 amendent in the 60s. I believe.
Nope, it wasn't until the 1947 Succession which might pass later than 1947 ittl due to butterflies (Truman had the Speaker and President Pro Tempore come before Cabinet Members because they were elected like the President and Vice President). Before then, the Presidential Succession Act of 1886 stipulates that cabinet members, starting from the Secretary of State down, is to become President of the United States if both the Presidency and Vice Presidency is vacant. Tom Connally, being the United States Secretary of State, becomes the new President as a result.
2) I am not sure what any if this has to do with Stalin living longer.
mainly, butterflies., as
@Lalli said, as well as the interesting and horrifying side effects a longer lived Stalin would have.
It is late at night (for je) as i type this so i may be missing something but You seam to have two major PODs for no understandable reason. And this one seams like ut will have little effect. I take it you want someone other then Truman or the other usualy suspects as president for some reason? If so you can probably get there in simpler ways.Stalin died in 53 so i am not sure what all this complicated almost ASB stuff is with the US presidency in 48 is about or adds to anything.
The main point of this is to have two Presidents who aren't friendly to the Civil Rights movement stifle it and throttle it by doing things like never desegregate the US Army until the 60s or 70s and the ramifications that could have on American politics as a whole. And no, there aren't simpler ways outside of what I said otherwise (FDR picks Russell over Truman at the 44 Convention) you couldn't replace Vice Presidents willy nilly (and since FDR died in April of 1945, there would've been very little time to do so). It will also allow the Soviets to do the classic thing and point to the US and say "
See, Capitalism and Democracy will always lead to instability like that!"
Butterflies? Yes, that POD wouldn't affect directly to Stalin but since it is almost nine years earlier there might some independent changes. But not idea why FDR would pick Russell instead Truman.
mainly because the other two big choices (Wallace and Byrnes) would be rejected for several reasons (Wallace was HATED by the Party bosses and the South and had been viewed by the public as a Soviet Sympathizer and Byrnes, being a former Catholic who left, would've not only hurt the ticket with the key Catholic vote but also would've hurt them with AAs due to being from South Carolina and having an iffy record on Civil Rights) and someone like Douglass would also be rejected (the South would want a southerner to be on the ticket and not a Northern Liberal/Northern Liberal Ticket). FDR wasn't as in control of his party as many think he was. Russell solves a lot of the problems FDR had. He's young (47 on Inauguration day), from a deep southern state (Georgia), has a pro-labor record (pre Taft-Hartley), has a pro-New Deal record, has some political experience (State Representative 1921-1931, Governor 1931-1933, and Class II United States Senator since 1933), has a relatively blank record re:Civil Rights at this time (it wasn't until the 50s and 60s that he let his true colors show), etc, etc. Truman only came forth as a compromise pick between Byrnes and Wallace suggested by the Missouri bosses. Before then, Truman was actually planning on giving a nomination speech for Byrnes. If Truman rejects the offer (which he could do), Dems are back to square one, allowing for Russell.
And IMO that POD complicate situation such way that 1950's would go pretty differently. And if you want focus to Stalin you have not change anything regarding US politics prior March 1953. Just let Stalin be found earlier or at least getting immediately proper treatment or even him not getting stroke at all (altough this is bit unlikely taking that Stalin had already bad health and it was miracle that he was still alive on that time).
The thing is while American politics change (no Desegregation of the Army and Taft-Hartley is signed into law for example), the outside situation largely doesn't. The Soviets still have Eastern Europe and Berlin, the Nukes are still dropped,Stalin would likely still test NATO with Berlin, Korea would be divided and the Kims and the South would want to reunify it ASAP, the Middle Eastern wars against Israel would occur, China would still fall to the CCP, the Wars of Decolonization would still take place, etc, etc. Maybe some things change, like the Soviets influence a Civil War to occur in Italy in 1946 and the KKP wins in Greece while Operation Lea succeeds but the first two are doubtful while the last one is doable, which affects Vietnam and the rest of Indochina but not the rest of the world). Butterflies have him not have the stroke when he did. The UN likely still intervenes in Korea leading to the PRC intervening there and so the real question is does Connally allow MacArthur to nuke Manchuria or does MacArthur get booted like OTL? That is honestly 50/50 as Connally might support MacArthur or might think he was insane. Truman did it because he had enough of MacArthur's BS and that gave him the excuse to oust him.
And like I said, Stalin lives only around 4 years more and not a decade more, which is doable if only barely. Everything is bad because of that but its not as bad as it could be.
The Doctors' Plot actually happened before OTL Stalin's death. As for whether it was the prelude for a planned deportation of Soviet Jews, see David T's post here:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...really-planning-to-deport-soviet-jews.425829/
Personally, after reading it, I lean towards the deportation not happening.
Yeah, I sorta agree with DavidT (even though me and him don't agree on most things). A lot of the Doctor's Plot was stuff used by the anti-Stalinists to purge Stalin's loyalists after his death. If there was actual deportation plans and plans for a Holocaust 2, Khrushchev would've revealed immediately. Would what Stalin do be bad? Most definitely, but not on the levels of a new Holocaust.
But anyway not really sure if post-Stalin Soviet Union would fall immediately to civil war. You would need even further factionalism and it hardly could occur during Stalin's era. There would be surely ugly power struggle but hardly civil war unless Stalin shot even Malenkov, Khruschev and Suslov who were pretty effective on power struggle and probably at least Malenkov and Suslov were too useful for Stalin to are purged.
I did have plans for basically the entirety of Soviet upper leadership to be purged (either arrested, exiled, or killed) leaving really only Malenkov and Suslov as the primary figures, who die in freak accidents before Stalin dies (Malenkov dies in a snowstorm car accident and Suslov dies in an airplane crash). With them gone, when Stalin dies,how does the USSR look going forward (I believe I should've mentioned that in my OP, so my bad for not mentioning it until now).
