Khrushchev dies at Stalingrad: Who Succeeds Stalin

Let's assume that Nikita Khrushchev dies from a random shell or from an accident at Stalingrad, leaving him out of contention for succeeding Stalin by virtue of being dead, so who succeeds Stalin in such a scenario? What would the USSR look like under this alternate successor to Stalin? Do we still see Destalinization or do we see hardline Stalinism continue (along with a unified communist bloc)?
 
Depends on whether Malenkov or Molotov come out on top but otherwise yes a triumvirate until one consolidates power.
 
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."
 

thorr97

Banned
Seconding the perception that neither Molotov nor Zhukov were wanting the top slot in the USSR.

Had Molotov even the faintest of such desires Stalin would've sensed over the many years he had Molotov at his side and put an end to those desires by putting an end to Molotov. At the end of the Great Patriotic War, Zhukov was one of the legendary generals and still was a major hero among the Soviet people by the time Stalin died in OTL. If he'd the interest in holding any sort of political power then the days after Stalin's death would've been the time to act on it. Yet, he very much did not do so. No doubt both he and Molotov maneuvered to ensure that they didn't get taken down with Stalin's death nor become canon fodder in the political infighting among the jackals that arose then. But that's different from wanting such supreme leadership power taken unto themselves.

So my bet would be that they'd pretty much remain neutral in such a situation - after working together to ensure Beria was wiped away as quickly as possible. My sense there is that the only thing keeping Beria in check was Stalin and the only thing keeping Beria alive was Stalin. With Stalin gone, Beria would know he'd have to act quickly lest his many haters realized they no longer had reason to fear Stalin's wrath in moving against Beria.

After he was disposed of, and thus ensuring both Molotov's and Zhukov's survival, I don't think either of them would move on the throne themselves.
 
It's Malenkov's gig to lose. But he may lose it. Zhukov was apolitical to the degree any Soviet military leader could be apolitical and still be allowed to be above ground and he did not have what it takes, and he lacked the political credentials necessary. He could however make things uncomfortable for Malenkov as Malenkov was Stalin's goon sent to discredit him. Molotov did not have what it takes to be the guy, he was to use a Dusty Rhodes term a "walk-behinder." Mikoyan was a survivor, but would have been wary to grasp the brass wing, and then the xenophobia being as such, I do not think an Armenian would have stood a chance at it. And before anyone says, "Stalin was Georgian," different type of phobia. Russians views the Georgians the way the British Empire in the bad ole' days viewed the Sikhs - as a warrior race. Having a bloodthirsty Georgian lead them to victory was fine. Armenians faced a different stereotype. They would not have been allowed to go far. That also kills Kaganovich, because Hell would freeze before the Russians sanction an out and out Jewish leader. There was a glass ceiling. And Kaganovich hit it. But he would have a seat at the table, he was too important. Bulganin was a non-entity. He was lobby fodder. Beria was a Mingrelian Himmler with a penchant for raping teenage girls. The Army would take him out and give loyalty to anyone who let them put a bullet in his bald skull. He also lacked true credentials for Party organization. It's one thing to rule NKVD, it's another to have to keep a lid on Ukraine or even Leningrad.

The only dark horse I can offer is Kosygin. He has the Party credentials. He was in charge of the right ministries. He is in the Politburo. True, Stalin demoted him, and then there was the thing about him being from Leningrad (which has just been purged because Stalin wanted Moscow to be the only true hero city around, because Stalin was a sociopath and a monster). But given how Kosygin rose under Khrushchev, I think he had it what it takes.

As to Malenkov's policies - same old Stalin shit, only different color. He was a blood thirsty satrap who carried out Stalin's will with gusto, but did so because that is how one survived Stalin years. He might have shown willingness to show reform, but... I don't know. I just don't see it.
 
If we do end up with a Malenkov Soviet Union, there's also the question of how long he lives. In OTL, he made it to 1988. While he's unlikely to manage that under these conditions, there's the possibility of a multi-decade rule.
 
Loved 'canon fodder' (post #6)...

...The subject of vituperative sermons by Russian Orthodox priests?

Seems logical.

Revisionism, comrades!
 
Loved 'canon fodder' (post #6)...

...The subject of vituperative sermons by Russian Orthodox priests?

Seems logical.

Revisionism, comrades!

If wikipedia is to be believed, this would include Malenkov -

After his exile from the Party, Malenkov fell into obscurity and suffered from depression due to loss of power and the quality of life in a poor province. However, some researchers say that later Malenkov found this demotion and exile a relief from the pressures of the Kremlin power struggle. Malenkov in his later years converted to Russian Orthodoxy, as did his daughter, who has since spent part of her personal wealth building two churches in rural locations. Orthodox Church publications at the time of Malenkov's death said he had been a reader (the lowest level of Russian Orthodox clergy) and a choir singer in his final years. He died on 14 January 1988 at age 86.
 
I would argue, that with a PoD in 1942-43, then the field of succession to Stalin in 1953 is extremely wide open.

Even with Khrushchev alive, what are the odds in 1943, that he, Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, will succeed koba in 1953? My guess would be that the odds at that point in time are one in a thousand.

Sure, in late 1949, when Stalin recalls Khrushchev to Moscow, it is to increase the amount of people around him who were not under the influence of Malenkov and Beria, but in my view it is a bit up to chance that Stalin picks Khrushchev for this, there are probably 300-400 Soviet apparatchiks who fit the dual criteria of a) having held senior position, b) not being a stooge of Beria or Malenkov.

Following that it's even more up to chance that Krushchev emerges as the "non-Beria" and "non-Malenkov". It could as easily have been someone else entirely unknown to most people today, like e.g. Mikhail Yasnov or Vasily Andrianov simply from slightly different outcomes from the meetings and power games around the time of Stalin's death.

The impact of "no Khrushchev" on the period 1943-1953 is difficult to ascertain, because of the fluid nature of power games under Stalin, but I think it would be fair to say that his absence from history would not have a high probability of impact the positions of Malenkov or Beria, wherefore the logical scenario again is that we find a 3-way power struggle following the death of the butcher of Moscow between Beria, Malenkov and someone whose main virtue is that he is neither of them. (though maybe I am assuming that Malenkov position is too secure here). Even at this time, the chance of a die-hard Stalinist like Lazar Kaganovich (yes, he of the Communist genocide in the Ukraine fame) emerging as the successor is there.

I agree with the sentiments on the low chances of a general, e.g. Zhukov, obtaining power (unless we get into a civil-war succession scenario, which is unlikely, but not impossible).

What policies will a "Non-Khrushchev" follow? Depends a lot on who he is and how he got there. Khrushchev, for instance, did his agriculture-push, but that mainly followed from that he perceived that he had obtained success with previous agriculture initiatives. Similarly, a different successor would simply look at what he perceived as having worked for him
 
As to Malenkov's policies - same old Stalin shit, only different color. He was a blood thirsty satrap who carried out Stalin's will with gusto, but did so because that is how one survived Stalin years. He might have shown willingness to show reform, but... I don't know. I just don't see it.
Malenkov actually did diverge a fair bit from Stalin, placing far more emphasis on consumer goods and light industry. Malenkov also began scaling back the gulags and mending ties with Yugoslavia.

Even in the brief period Malenkov had influence, people noticed change:

"Of all the developments in the internal life of Russia during the early months of the year, from late March until late June of 1953, none came with such an impact on Russian minds as the swift and apparently well-planned sequence of moves from on high to dethrone Stalin in the memory of the Soviet people. . .

The name of Stalin, previously omnipresent in all Soviet propaganda writings, suddenly became rather sensationally conspicuous by its virtual absence in articles printed in the Moscow press toward the end of March and in April, 1953. The newspaper writers and propagandists seemed to be operating under a directive which forbade the mention of Stalin's name more than once, or at most twice, in any one article, no matter what its size. The 'Stalin Constitution' became the 'Constitution of the U.S.S.R.'; the 'Stalin Five-Year Plan' became the 'Five-Year Plan'; and the 'Stalin Plan for the Transformation of Nature' was no longer heard of. The awarding of 'Stalin Prizes' to Soviet authors, artists, and scientists, an annual spring event in the Soviet Union, did not take place in the spring of 1953, although preparations for it had reportedly been under way as usual in the weeks before Stalin's death. Newsreels of Stalin's well-photographed funeral were never shown in the moving-picture theaters of the Soviet Union, although Soviet audiences were treated to newsreel sequences showing such events as the new American ambassador's presentation of credentials in the Kremlin not long after Stalin died. Stalin's portrait did not appear in the May Day editions of Soviet newspapers in 1953, thus breaking a precedent going back for many years. . . .

In an address of April 16, 1953, to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, President Eisenhower stated that 'an era ended with the death of Joseph Stalin,' and appealed to the new rulers of Russia to dissociate themselves from the postwar foreign policies of the Stalin government. The Soviet authorities caused a complete and painstakingly accurate translation of the President's 'heretical' speech to be published in the main Soviet newspapers. We may be sure that this was not done for the benefit of the Voice of America but for specific reasons connected with the interests of the Soviet leaders as they saw them at that time. It is further noteworthy that in their full-page editorial rejoinder to the President, they did not indignantly deny his statement that an era had ended with Stalin's death. . .

On the ideological front, there was a period of about two months, between late April and late June of 1953, when the status of Stalin's last 'great work of genius' (Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., published on the eve of the Nineteenth Party Congress in October 1952) became highly obscure, to say the least. Although this work had been the focus of all Party indoctrination in Stalin's last months and immediately following his death, in mid-April it was stricken from the list of materials recommended for study in the vast network of 'study circles,' 'political schools,' and 'evening universities of Marxism-Leninism' which is known as the Party educational system. One aspect of the work even came under indirect but unmistakable attack when an article in Pravda castigated 'certain propagandists' for promoting the idea which Stalin had presented in Economic Problems about the pattern of future development of the Soviet countryside (the transition from conventional trade to a system of 'product-exchange' between the state and the collective farms, which was to obliterate the surviving distinction between state-farm and collective-farm property). Few in Russia needed any prompting who was the real object of this criticism of 'certain propagandists.'"
(Tucker, Robert C. "The Metamorphosis of the Stalin Myth." World Politics Vol. 7 No. 1 (October 1954). pp. 39-41.)

Stalin wouldn't have been "dethroned" to the same extent as he was under Khrushchev (Stalin's Works would continue to be published, parades would continue to display portraits of Stalin alongside those of Marx, Engels and Lenin, etc.) but I think there would eventually be a point where the CPSU gives a rather bland and vague "yeah Stalin did some bad things, it is unfortunate, but he is still a great man and outstanding Marxist theorist and we will still uphold him as Lenin's best pupil."

Khrushchev actually attacked Malenkov's followers as "Bukharinites." Khrushchev had a more "left" economic strategy of turning collective farms into state farms, reducing wage differentials, and boasting that the USSR would reach communism by 1980. Malenkov's triumph likely would have resulted in a far more market-oriented USSR by the 80s, though not quite at the level of Yugoslavia or China.
 
Last edited:
We're talking serious butterflies here.
Khrushchev was a source of entertainment for Stalin and helped keep him in a good mood.
Remove that and things could get ugly fast.
None of the top candidates could be alive in 1952.
 
We're talking serious butterflies here.
Khrushchev was a source of entertainment for Stalin and helped keep him in a good mood.
Remove that and things could get ugly fast.
None of the top candidates could be alive in 1952.


Fully, agree with the overall point of serious butterflies, but wouldn't be more likely that Stalin simply finds another source of entertainment, rather than that we go fully into "twilight of red czar"-territory?

I am admittedly not well versed in this part of history, but how is Khrushchev unique in the sense of him providing a decisive input in the 1942-1953 period?
 
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

Suppose Zhukov guns down everyone in that meeting when he and some of his loyal officers burst in to arrest Beria. With no Politburo left, could he have taken power than and there, and pin the blame for the demise of the Politburo on Beria? Or would this inevitably lead to civil war?
 
Top