1953 East German uprisings successful?

I would say the best way to do that would be to have the council communists upprisings in Hungary around the same time be a success, which leads to a snowballing of multiple nations ont he fringes of the soviet union abandoning the eastern bloc.
 
Thats tricky, in the Soviet Union mind these puppet states where badly needed as protection against a western attack.
So, how can we achieve that the SU did not do a little bit of "parading" around East Berlin?
Perhaps the best thing is to change the paranoia about a western aggresion in the Politburo. That can be achieved by making the last two devastating attacks on the Rodina less succesful: WW1 and the Treaty of Brest Litosvk and Operation Barbarossa is less successful or doesnt happen at all.
On the other hand: Its has had to let your hard won prey let go.:rolleyes:
 
What if the 1953 East German uprisings had been successful in overthrowing the Government?

The Soviet repression will be worse than the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Here soviets soldiers will be shooting at what propaganda will call fascists and nazis.

Thousands will be killed, severals more thousands will be condemned to death or sent to labor camps, probably even to the Soviet Union.

Germans will flee to West Berlin, probably hundreds of thousands if possible.

If Soviet troops will be unsufficient to break the uprising, the Polish and Czechoslovak forces will renforced the Red Army.

International reactions will be probably less sympathic.

Probably Germans POW's who were still alive in SU will not come back in the next years as in OTL, those who survived where released between 1953 and 1956.
 
1953 is an immensely important year for the Soviet Union, notably because Stalin died just that year.

If it becomes clear that the East German government can't contain the protests, the likelihood of a very large Soviet intervention to crush the uprising becomes all that much higher. Khrushchev was indecisive about the Hungarian Revolution for a long time, but allowing a major uprising to occur so soon after a major leadership change would not be in the Kremlin's interest since the new leaders will not want to look weak.
 
If you want a successful East German uprising you would probably need to do so during the Hungarian uprising 3 years later and have it spread to Poand and the rest of Eastern Europe. That might make it impossible for the Soviets to put down.
 
Germans will flee to West Berlin, probably hundreds of thousands if possible.

Hundreds of thousands already were fleeing, several million escaped to the West before the Berlin Wall went up.

In fact, I'd suggest a collapse of the East German government would mean a catastrophic (for the DDR) mass movement of refugees to the West, as the inner German border would (at least temporarily) not be effectively guarded. A Soviet crackdown would just mean a sustained flow to the West for years after the uprising, and I wouldn't be too surprised if the Soviets found it harder to obtain the same enthusiastic efforts from East Germany they did IOTL.

East Germany lost 20% of its population as a result of refugees fleeing to the West IOTL, especially concentrated among the young, well-educated, or highly skilled. How many more does the DDR lose ITTL? At some point, the demographic viability of East Germany comes into question.
 
The problem for the uprisers is that the Red Army has the guns, and they don't. The only way they can succeed is if the Red Army does not decide to intervene, and it is very hard to see why they would not.

All Soviet leaders in 1953 lived through WWII. They know the price they paid to assemble their empire in Central Europe. They are not going to give that up for reasons of prestige and security. The events of 1989 had a variety of reasons why the protesters were not crushed; none of which apply in 1953.

Even if the top Soviet leadership is divided and fighting amongst each other, and thus incapable of ordering a smackdown, it's still highly likely that as the uprising looks like it might succeed, that a commanding officer in the military decides to take action to crush it on his own.

You would need an especially severe political crisis to create circumstances where the entire Soviet leadership - party and military - took their eye off the ball in East Germany.
 
The problem for the uprisers is that the Red Army has the guns, and they don't. The only way they can succeed is if the Red Army does not decide to intervene, and it is very hard to see why they would not.

All Soviet leaders in 1953 lived through WWII. They know the price they paid to assemble their empire in Central Europe. They are not going to give that up for reasons of prestige and security. The events of 1989 had a variety of reasons why the protesters were not crushed; none of which apply in 1953.

Even if the top Soviet leadership is divided and fighting amongst each other, and thus incapable of ordering a smackdown, it's still highly likely that as the uprising looks like it might succeed, that a commanding officer in the military decides to take action to crush it on his own.

You would need an especially severe political crisis to create circumstances where the entire Soviet leadership - party and military - took their eye off the ball in East Germany.

The only way I see it is a civil war breaks out soon after Stalin's death. Have a half a dozen Communist Party officials claiming to be the General Secretary with Red Army being confused who is in charge so you have various factions of it backing various candidates. With all the infighting in the USSR East Germany breaks free with the rest of Eastern Europe probably following soon afterwards.
 
Top