So let's say that Stalin dies shortly before the US rolls out the Marshall plan (so some time in 1947) and Stalin's successors follow a similar path as they did after Stalin's OTL death, and let the existing policies roll on for a while as they focus their efforts on the power struggle.
Can this result in a longer period of "Bloc politics" in the satellite states of Eastern Europe? And what might that evolve into if the Soviets don't tighten the leash on Eastern Europe until, say, 1950 or so? Is it possible that Eastern Europe might evolve into a community of Finlands (i.e. countries with full democracy at home, defensive alliances and extensive trade with the Soviet Union)? Might Tito make good on the distraction of the Soviet leadership after Stalin's death to make himself more important inside the Soviet sphere of influence (perhaps even to the point where the Communist parties in the other states become more than simple Soviet stooges)? Would the behind-the-scenes power of the Soviet "advisers" and the Communist party in the Satellite states mean that open one-party rule was inevitable at this point? Might the Satellite states stay exactly where they are politically, with almost all the power behind the scenes in the hands of Soviet "advisers" and the Party and outward power passing through the hands of a collection of Communist, Socialist and Peasant parties?
(For those who don't know about Eastern Bloc politics in this period, a good overview of the "Bloc politics" that existed before the Soviets moved to open one-party rule in the Satellite states can be found here).
fasquardon
Can this result in a longer period of "Bloc politics" in the satellite states of Eastern Europe? And what might that evolve into if the Soviets don't tighten the leash on Eastern Europe until, say, 1950 or so? Is it possible that Eastern Europe might evolve into a community of Finlands (i.e. countries with full democracy at home, defensive alliances and extensive trade with the Soviet Union)? Might Tito make good on the distraction of the Soviet leadership after Stalin's death to make himself more important inside the Soviet sphere of influence (perhaps even to the point where the Communist parties in the other states become more than simple Soviet stooges)? Would the behind-the-scenes power of the Soviet "advisers" and the Communist party in the Satellite states mean that open one-party rule was inevitable at this point? Might the Satellite states stay exactly where they are politically, with almost all the power behind the scenes in the hands of Soviet "advisers" and the Party and outward power passing through the hands of a collection of Communist, Socialist and Peasant parties?
(For those who don't know about Eastern Bloc politics in this period, a good overview of the "Bloc politics" that existed before the Soviets moved to open one-party rule in the Satellite states can be found here).
fasquardon