Molotov never seems to me to have been someone who fought for supreme power. As for Beria, I think the other oligarchs are going to conspire to bring him down, even if there is no Khrushchev. That leaves Malenkov, whom I discuss at
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nion-after-stalin-death.408845/#post-14109828 [1]
BTW I think Zhukov's prospects for supreme power have been greatly exaggerated in this forum. There is no evidence that he ever plotted a coup, and the Bolshevik suspicion of giving too much power to a military man ("Bonapartism") would weigh against him. As of 1953, he had never held any Party position higher than
alternate member of the Central Committee, and Stalin excluded him even from that. For most of 1948-53 he was commander of the not-very-important Urals Military District. Khrushchev used him first against Beria and years later against the so-called Anti-Party Group--and discarded him as soon as he was no longer needed. I am not sure that the other members of the Presidium would go even as far as Khrushchev did in enhancing Zhukov's power.
For some of my "no, Zhukov will not rule the USSR" past posts:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/soviet-military-coup-1945.405159/#post-13780009
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...l-secretary-of-the-ussr.359211/#post-10987931
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...l-secretary-of-the-ussr.359211/#post-10989705
[1] "Let's assume that Malenkov does manage to eliminate Beria, and also that
(with the aid of Mikoyan and others) he manages to prevail over Molotov
and Kaganovich, who want to change as few things as possible. How would a
Malenkov-led USSR differ from a Khrushchev-led one? Certainly some of
Khrushchev's "hare-brained schemes" would never have been adopted,
especially the obsession with corn ("we must raise corn in Yakutia and
perhaps Chukotka") and the sale of the Machine Tractor Stations to the
collective farms. [1] And foreign policy might be less based on bluff
and bluster than in OTL. Some of Stalin's most irrational policies would
be quietly dropped, and the Stalin cult would be toned down, but without
any denunciation like the 1956 not-very-secret speech. Also, it should be
remembered that it was Malenkov who first proposed devoting more resources
to consumer goods instead of concentrating on heavy industry--a position
that Khrushchev denounced as a "right deviation." And when Malenkov said
that a third world war would lead to the "end of world civilization"
Khrushchev objected that this kind of talk was "theoretically mistaken and
politically harmful." (I am not saying this to portray Khrushchev as a
Stalinist fiend. On both the consumer goods issue and the nuclear war
issue Khrushchev very likely agreed with Malenkov, and was simply
denouncing the latter's "heresies" to win the support of unreconstructed
Stalinists like Molotov for his own ascent to power. I am merely saying
that at least for a while Malenkov did seem *less* Stalinist than
Khrushchev.)
"Of course Malenkov had plenty of blood on his hands (he had regained power
largely as a result of the "Leningrad affair" which had involved the
frame-up and killing of Kuznetsov, Voznesensky and other Leningrad party
leaders). But the same can be said of all his colleagues, including
Khrushchev. So I am not sure we can infer from this that Malenkov would
have governed by terror to a greater extent than Khrushchev.
"In general, I would say a Malenkov USSR would be more "rational", more
"technocratic", less governed by "enthusiasm" than Khrushchev's. This is
not entirely praise of Malenkov or criticism of Khrushchev, since some of
Khrushchev's "enthusiasms"--e.g., for rehabilitating many of the victims
of Stalin--were good things. Others, however--besides the "corn mania"
and other things I have mentioned, there was the antireligious campaign--
were not."