DBWI:Stalin Dies A Decade Early?

Lets say that Stalin dies a decade earlier, in 1953 instead of 1963. What Short term and long term effects would this have on the cold war? Who would take his place as leader of the Soviet Union?
 
Does he die before or after starting the Doctor's Plot purges? That might make a big difference for the Russian Jews. Maybe the Soviet-Israeli War could be prevented.
 
People bring up Stalin and all they talk about is the Jews, the west makes it seem like they are all important. In reality 10 years earlier would be stop the great economic strides that Stalin made that improved all of the USSR. Also 1953 would be an interesting year because it could very well lead to a struggle for succession that would split the nation. In 1953 it is a total toss up of who succeeds and the great Malenkov would not necessarily take power. Beria, Kruschev and others who turned out to be traitors might be greedy enough to try to take power.
 
People bring up Stalin and all they talk about is the Jews, the west makes it seem like they are all important. In reality 10 years earlier would be stop the great economic strides that Stalin made that improved all of the USSR. Also 1953 would be an interesting year because it could very well lead to a struggle for succession that would split the nation. In 1953 it is a total toss up of who succeeds and the great Malenkov would not necessarily take power. Beria, Kruschev and others who turned out to be traitors might be greedy enough to try to take power.

I'm pretty sure the others would have turned on Beria before fighting among themselves out of pragmatic reasons. That creep was too dangerous to be given the reins of power.

Btw, Stalin's last decade is overrated. The Stalinist command economy had already reached its growth limits by then and was beginning to show cracks. The great achievements of the 1930s were a thing of the past at the time. One might wonder if less competent leadership than Malenkov's could have led to the fall of the Soviet Union in the way the Maoist regime was overthrown in China, making it Nationalist in all but name. With the USSR's ethnic make up it could get messy. I remember some guy called Brezhnev supported a Stalinist line of thought and kept professing neo-Stalinism/Brezhnevism even after he was demoted to some outpost in Siberia. The continuation of such unsound economic policies could get ugly. Good thing Stalin had already taken care of Molotov who was a known Stalinist, the monster Beria and that Ukrainian peasant Khrushchev.
 
I'm pretty sure the others would have turned on Beria before fighting among themselves out of pragmatic reasons. That creep was too dangerous to be given the reins of power.

Btw, Stalin's last decade is overrated. The Stalinist command economy had already reached its growth limits by then and was beginning to show cracks. The great achievements of the 1930s were a thing of the past at the time. One might wonder if less competent leadership than Malenkov's could have led to the fall of the Soviet Union in the way the Maoist regime was overthrown in China, making it Nationalist in all but name. With the USSR's ethnic make up it could get messy. I remember some guy called Brezhnev supported a Stalinist line of thought and kept professing neo-Stalinism/Brezhnevism even after he was demoted to some outpost in Siberia. The continuation of such unsound economic policies could get ugly. Good thing Stalin had already taken care of Molotov who was a known Stalinist, the monster Beria and that Ukrainian peasant Khrushchev.
So Brezhnev got an all-expenses paid trip to the gulag? Couldn't have happened to a nastier person!
 
The PoD for this is simple:

Beria's poisioning plot against Stalin works. It would leave a different Russia and a different cold war.

Stalin was clearly a madman; what he did to the Poles is beyond sick. I don't think I need to explain how terrible the Polish SSR had been. There was a whole second round of redrawing borders in Europe that would never have happened if Stalin had died during the Korean Conflict.

People suggest that Malenkov or Zhukov could have led the Soviet State. I have little doubt that any of them would not have been so heavy handed and cruel as OTL.

Seriously. A Nuclear weapon used on Memel after the city is overwhelmed in protests? The Destruction of the Hungarian State entirely and the mass deportation of its people to Siberia or (possibly) to the West?

The Soviets might have done better in the cold war. I doubt that Ho Chi Minh would have looked to India for aid if the Soviet Union had been better behaved. Part of the problem is that the Soviet Union was staffed with hardliners at Stalin's death. People like Serov and Kaganovich were not the choices to keep the Soviet Union running.

These sorts of decisions indicate why the Soviet Union today is a decaying state. True, it has managed to hold Central Asia in place and maintain its integrity in the face of Chinese Claims. But in the west the whole nation has come undone.

Before the embarrassing decision was made to withdraw to the Bondarenko line was made, half the nation was trying to secede--the Poles, the Balts, the Ukrainians, the peoples of the Caucasus. Perhaps it even came, as is claimed by Russians today, that the choice was "defeat or a dozen Memels."

Eastern Europe is still a massive mess. Arbitrarily drawn borders, questions over whether a Hungarian State should re-emerge, land disputes between everyone, and deep hatred for decades of abuse from the Soviet Authorities lingers on.

Better Leadership than Stalin might have attempted more stewardship and less dominion. The land itself is poisoned from three nuclear meltdowns as well as the remnants of the Memel disaster.
 
People suggest that Malenkov or Zhukov could have led the Soviet State. I have little doubt that any of them would not have been so heavy handed and cruel as OTL.

OOC: did you read the OP or any of the previous posts? Malenkov did succeed Stalin ITTL.
 
I wonder if relations with China would have remained as good, without them and the crisi in eastern Europe combined we might have seen the Soviet Union collapsing more peacefully in the 1960's instead of the horrors of the 2nd Russian Civil War.
 
OOC: did you read the OP or any of the previous posts? Malenkov did succeed Stalin ITTL.

OOC: The OP was mute on the topic, so I'm not sure what exactly you're accusing me of. While I'm sorry about the crossposting, It took me twenty minutes or so to write the response post. I don't intend to snub you, but I'd developed the answer but didn't post it until you did. Nor did I recieve a "A post has emerged since" Nonetheless, I'll try to reconcile this...

IC: I see I've confused a few names. It was that Khrushchev guy--the party leader of Ukraine and political offical at Stalingrad--who could well have taken the helm instead of Malenkov/Kaganovich/Zhukov.

Red, we here in the states call it the Soviet Secession Crisis, as that conflict was essentially an Anti-Russian secession attempt by Poles, Ukrainians, Finns, Balts, and a few others. I recognize that it turned into a civil war after the June 18th Coup, but the United States did as much as it could to support these new nations. It was a mess then and it has gotten little better now, but at least these nations are friendly today.
 
Btw, Stalin's last decade is overrated. The Stalinist command economy had already reached its growth limits by then and was beginning to show cracks. The great achievements of the 1930s were a thing of the past at the time. One might wonder if less competent leadership than Malenkov's could have led to the fall of the Soviet Union in the way the Maoist regime was overthrown in China, making it Nationalist in all but name. With the USSR's ethnic make up it could get messy. I remember some guy called Brezhnev supported a Stalinist line of thought and kept professing neo-Stalinism/Brezhnevism even after he was demoted to some outpost in Siberia. The continuation of such unsound economic policies could get ugly. Good thing Stalin had already taken care of Molotov who was a known Stalinist, the monster Beria and that Ukrainian peasant Khrushchev.

That is mostly today´s propaganda and revisionisme to curbe nostalgia for the world before the Vandenberg Protocole Accident, true in the ex-United States as in The Union of Autonomous States. In many countries, you can go to jail for saying that the Vandenberg P Accident wasn´t one. After all, it have all been over 40 years and still, STILL there have been no recovery to pre-war levels, remaining factories built during that time are still fully running today and won´t get out of business anytime soon.
Just like WW1 which was proclaimed "inevitable" after it occured by politicians eager to cover their hiddes, while curiously few saw it coming and even fewer as a long conflict.
There have been a good trend, economy growing faster since 2008 but still, it isn´t like the growth there was back in the 1960s (well, except for China and White Republic of South Africa) and there was still decades of horrible mismanagement and incompetence before.
Had most of the populations been destroyed, there would have been the excuse of a lack onf manpower but that is not the case, most people survived despite the material devastations. Not only that but populations have more doubled since 1970 in North American Federation and trippled in the UAS, soon New Chicago will reach 30 millions inhabitants and may well reach 45 millions by 2025.
Without Stalin, something like the european campaigns would probably have turned to all-out thermonuclear war, if not them something like the Vandenberg Accident would certainly have gone out of control and resulted in 10-15 times the casualties of WW2 instead of just one and and a half.

Seriously, how many would have had bomb shelters and radiations suites and years of stockpiled food without the turbulent 1955-1963 period? Very few, there would also have been no serious governement organisation.
The European Exclusion Zone would stretch from the Franco-Spanish border instead of the Rhineland, most of the UK instead of the most of England, in the east it would engulf most if not all of the Eastern Bloc countries.
The Baltes, West Poles and Galicians ("Ukrainians" as they like to call themself, although the they are but a cheap imitation of the Croatians ustachee movement) would have died outright instead of being turned to funny people. All that resulting in an even larger european diaspora to South Africa, Central Asia and South America.
New Budapest (old Almasty) is enough gehtto-like as it is, have you seen the newly completed white marble statue of Melvin the Saviour there? You can´t miss it from anywhere in the city, it is HUGH, nearly 487 meters talls from head to toes. New Budapest may be poor but like locals say, "Nice, very nice, how much for that shirt?".


Stalin was clearly a madman; what he did to the Poles is beyond sick. I don't think I need to explain how terrible the Polish SSR had been.

It wasn´t that bad until the first US attempt at "liberating" the region, afterward there barely was anything standing. Then less than a decade later, there was the second polish campaign, which was basically ending all efforts at reconstruction with tactical nuclear weapons, leaving only a nation of trailers, bunkers and refugee camps.
 
Last edited:
Top