East bloc without Stalin?

Just finished watching a documentary on the the history of East Germany. After WWII Stalin broke his promise of free elections in the "liberated" areas and instead enforced stalinism on the soviet part of Germany and on the rest of Eastern Europe.

But what if Stalin suddenly dies in the summer of 1945, after the end of war in Europe? How would that effect the development of the East bloc? I suppose it´s forming was unavoidable, but how would it be without Stalin´s leadership?


Happy New Year to you all :)
 
well that would depend on who took power. If Beria gained control, I could see a possible more liberalization of not only the eastern bloc but of The Soviet Union itself. I would still see a sphere of influence encompassing large swaths of eastern europe.

Would this devolve to more free elections in poland, hungry, Romania? maybe but would they be fair multi-party elections? uncertain ..

If Beria held true and actually warmed to the west, attempting to normalize relations, allowing the soviet occupation zone in Germany to be more open and free, no berlin crisis, no berlin wall.. free will to merge with a united germany in the 50's would have gone along ways.

You might also see a more liberalized China and no North Korea.

however few held the sway that comrade stalin held. The old guard was not ready at that point to relinquish control and power with out a fight hence why Beria was executed. Hell even Khrushchev pushed the envelope and was told to retire.
 
You might also see a more liberalized China and no North Korea.

It would depend on when Beria takes over. If he does so after Stalin's death, China follows the same course in OTL and breaks with the Soviet Union. Really, it was inevitable, but if Beria brings about liberalization sooner with Stalin dying sooner, it just gives China more breathing room and they won't openly align with the Soviets.

To be honest, I think Beria would set the Soviet Union on a path to further national identity. Eastern Europe would be left to weak dictatorships, but pro-Soviet ones. Just because Beria lets the West have their elections doesn't mean red elements and fascist remnants won't find power. If anything, Eastern Europe would allow the Soviets some navigation and bases if some aid and and promises were made in terms of development.
 
We need to have Beria to take power successfully it matters on timing on when Stalin died. If Stalin died in 1945, the post for the leadership will be in vacuum considering in OTL that Beria had many rivals such as Molotov or Malenkov. Had Beria takes the power lets say between 1945-1950, he will let the Eastern Europe to hold elections and withdraws some Soviet troops overseas. I think that had elections held in whole Eastern Europe, some will align with the west and some will align with the Soviets. Beria will let East Germany to reunite with West as long as Germany will be finlandize and never joins the NATO. Beria also will liberalize the economy by adopting some free-market principles and accepting the Marshall Aid somewhat while retaining some central planning. Therefore, if Stalin is to Mao then Beria is to Deng. It would be an ironic that a sadist will open the Soviet economy to West and saves from implosion that happened in 1991.
 
We need to have Beria to take power successfully it matters on timing on when Stalin died. If Stalin died in 1945, the post for the leadership will be in vacuum considering in OTL that Beria had many rivals such as Molotov or Malenkov. Had Beria takes the power lets say between 1945-1950, he will let the Eastern Europe to hold elections and withdraws some Soviet troops overseas. I think that had elections held in whole Eastern Europe, some will align with the west and some will align with the Soviets. Beria will let East Germany to reunite with West as long as Germany will be finlandize and never joins the NATO. Beria also will liberalize the economy by adopting some free-market principles and accepting the Marshall Aid somewhat while retaining some central planning. Therefore, if Stalin is to Mao then Beria is to Deng. It would be an ironic that a sadist will open the Soviet economy to West and saves from implosion that happened in 1991.
While the Deng comparison is close, it is a bit misleading. Beria may have been a smart pragmatist, but he was also a true believer, and to the extent which he'd compromise on economic issues, it would be more like Yugoslav style market socialism than Chinese style.

It is a fascinating scenario. If Beria is in power and stays in power, perhaps with Malenkov or Khurschev as an uneasy ally, you can expect a number of things to happen. First, the party will lose importance relative to the state apparatus itself (IOTL, the Malenkov-Beria alliance sidelined the party and based their power primarily within the public state institutions).

The butterflies will be interesting as well. Maybe we do end up seeing UN control of nuclear weapons and no Cold War.
 
While the Deng comparison is close, it is a bit misleading. Beria may have been a smart pragmatist, but he was also a true believer, and to the extent which he'd compromise on economic issues, it would be more like Yugoslav style market socialism than Chinese style.

Yugoslav style market socialism is mainly based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogestionworker-self management and the enterprises and firms were socially-owned rather than publicly-owned by the state and that's closer to socialism than capitalism. Beria wanted capitalist reforms and given the Soviet's vast size, Yugoslav model will not be possible in that such a huge population. His economic proposals was closer to capitalism and then Chinese model.

It is a fascinating scenario. If Beria is in power and stays in power, perhaps with Malenkov or Khrushchev as an uneasy ally, you can expect a number of things to happen. First, the party will lose importance relative to the state apparatus itself (IOTL, the Malenkov-Beria alliance sidelined the party and based their power primarily within the public state institutions).

Well, if Beria never alienates Malenkov and Khurschev, he will survive and rule the Soviet Union for 20 years as a leader of CPSU while Malenkov will be Premier and Khrushchev will be the First Deputy.

The butterflies will be interesting as well. Maybe we do end up seeing UN control of nuclear weapons and no Cold War.

That's exactly, many butterflies will happened. With Beria, Soviet Union will be still around but this time, a democratic state. With Beria, World's economy will boom more because of the availability of Soviet investment and consumption. With Beria, Eastern Europe at most will be a democracy.
 
I don't think Beria would be able to take absolute power like Stalin had. Even under Stalin the Soviet Union was ruled by an oligarchy of magnates. Yes Beria had constructed a large empire of bureaucracy under his control, and he was likely the best administrator and highly ambitious. But then Khaganovich, Zhukov, Khruschev, and Zhdanov would not simply stand aside. Molotov and Malenkov would likely stay neutral or support Beria.

Beria was feared and hated by many and was not even a full member of the politburo. So any of his more pragmatic reforms would be delayed. But the more despotic and foolish policies of the post-war Stalin might be delayed. Another idea that came to mind was even if Beria pulls off some kind of coup and purge, his rule over the Soviet union would likely be a Georgian dynasty.
 
Last edited:
Top