Affects of No Kruschev on the Middle East

POD: So, Stalin lives a few months later, and is able to impliment his last planned urge of the Soviet Union. Among the dead, including such notables as Molotov, is Kruschev. Now, assuming that a semi-liberal figure comes out on top in the USSR following Stalin's death (so: certainly no Beria!), how would this effect developments in the Middle East?

I know, during the 1950s, the British were struggling to allign the nortern-tier Middle Eastern states into the Baghdad pact, while the US was trying to form the Middle Eastern Treaty Organization (with Egypt meant to be the center of the later organization). However, Nasser was violently anti-British and was trying to play the US and USSR against each other in order to further his desire to make Egypt the preminent Middle Eastern state.

The reason he was able to do this, is that Kruschev proscribed to the, then, novel theory that a country did not have to Socialist in order to be an ally to the Soviets. As a result, he tried to help many anti-colonial, leftist, governments inthe developing world. If there is no Kruschev, is this policy likely to develop and, if it did so, would it be delayed?
 

Cook

Banned
Now, assuming that a semi-liberal figure comes out on top in the USSR following Stalin's death (so: certainly no Beria!)...
Strange as it may seem, prior to his purging Beria urged a relaxation of Stalinism that exceeded what Khrushchev and the others wanted.
 
Strange as it may seem, prior to his purging Beria urged a relaxation of Stalinism that exceeded what Khrushchev and the others wanted.

Yes he did; although most of the other Soviet leaders felt that this was an attept by Beria to win over the population and then to use his power to eliminate his rivals. Kruschev, I believe, even stated something along the lines of "he's sharpening his knives for us, we have to strike first." There is also the story of Stalin's funeral, where Beria gave a verse eulogy and then happily called his limo to return to the Kremlin, leading one Soviet leader to say "He's going to secure power," and lead an exodus from the funeral of others racing to get there before him. I'm left to suspect that Beria's apparent liberalism was ... not very sincere.
 
Let's say we go with Malenkov running things, for sake of argument. I suppose this could lead to more Maoist influence in the Third World, or it could benefit the West or the Non-Aligned Movement (with its largest and most prestigious power being India).

Unless not having Kruschchev around changes the Great Leap Forward, China is going to be too busy with internal problems to have all that much influence in the world, besides possibly as an ideological model (IIRC it only started having influence in the late '60s, and the Cultural Revolution gave that problems again).

I could see the Non-Aligned movement having more influence certainly, especially in Africa after decolonization. How much this would matter in the long run is an open question.

IMO the US would still prevent Britain, France and Israel from holding the Suez, to secure ties with Nasser, though you could posit that things go the other way without Kruschchev's threats. It will still be hard for the US to have both the Arab world and Israel in its sphere, though.

It's possible that there are less Arab-Israeli Wars, without Soviet arms going to Syria, Egypt et al. This could change the conditions of the 1973 oil embargo, but we're getting far ahead of the POD here.

Of course, at some point the Reds are going to start making "alliances of convenience" - Lenin and Stalin did it, why can't they?
 
Last edited:
Let's say we go with Malenkov running things, for sake of argument. I suppose this could lead to more Maoist influence in the Third World, or it could benefit the West or the Non-Aligned Movement (with its largest and most prestigious power being India).

Unless not having Kruschchev around changes the Great Leap Forward, China is going to be too busy with internal problems to have all that much influence in the world, besides possibly as an ideological model (IIRC it only started having influence in the late '60s, and the Cultural Revolution gave that problems again).

I could see the Non-Aligned movement having more influence certainly, especially in Africa after decolonization. How much this would matter in the long run is an open question.

IMO the US would still prevent Britain, France and Israel from holding the Suez, to secure ties with Nasser, though you could posit that things go the other way without Kruschchev's threats. It will still be hard for the US to have both the Arab world and Israel in its sphere, though.

It's possible that there are less Arab-Israeli Wars, without Soviet arms going to Syria, Egypt et al. This could change the conditions of the 1973 oil embargo, but we're getting far ahead of the POD here.

Of course, at some point the Reds are going to start making "alliances of convenience" - Lenin and Stalin did it, why can't they?

Some good thoughts, and I agree with most of them. I don't thinj you are going to be able to stop the USSR from entering into alliance of convenience for long, but this is one of those periods where doing so for even a year or two will have a major difference.

For instance, it was Tito who first met Nasser, and suggested to Kruschev that he might make a strong ally, and it was Nasser's ability to play the East and West off ine another that really allowed him to accomplish much of what he did.

Let's say, for the sake of argument that this alt USSR does not prove itself open to talks with Egypt until, say, 1958 or 59. Nasser is still going to be reliant on arms shipments from the US, France and Britain for the time being. How does Egypt and Nasser react to this? I think Nasser is still going to have to make some move against Britain in that time; Egyptian public sentiment was too in favor of it, and the Baghdad Pact was simply too dangerous to Nasser's ambitions. The Suez is still a likely flashpoint, but does the crisis develop differently, in these circumstances? If so how?
 
Come on guys, anything?

A final cathartic purge of the party and nomenklatura under Stalin's Stalinism is so radical that it will affect far more than the relationships between states. This is a classic example of a PoD whose consequences a greater than intended.

yours,
Sam R.
 
Top