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?
Soviet/Israeli War? WTF?![]()
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.
So Brezhnev got an all-expenses paid trip to the gulag? Couldn't have happened to a nastier person!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.
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.
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.
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.