Stalin dies Feb 1945

[Brilliantlight]

Stalin dies in the shower by slipping on soap and cracking his head open. Of course the war doesn't change much, maybe the Germans lose 2 weeks later or so then OTL but not much else. How does it effect the post-war though? Who would replace Stalin? Molotov? Beria?

 

[Mike Stearns]

Kruschev takes power a couple of years earlier then he did in OTL. The Americans enter Berlin first and the Russians are confined to Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

 

[Dave Bender]

Molotov? Beria?

Those would be my 2 guesses. But I have no idea as to the state of Soviet politics at the time. If the Soviet Union has an orderly transfer of power to the new leader then little would change. On the other hand, a Soviet civil war would allow the western allies to occupy more of central Europe, if they have the guts to go for it.

 

[wkwillis]

Stalin dies in the shower by slipping on soap and cracking his head open. Of course the war doesn't change much, maybe the Germans lose 2 weeks later or so then OTL but not much else. How does it effect the post-war though? Who would replace Stalin? Molotov? Beria?

Zhukov and Koniev?

 

[Brilliantlight]

Zhukov and Koniev?

I guess that is possible but military coups are fairly rare in Russian history.

 

[Earling]

Out and Out military coups certainly.. but its difficult to see any leadership taking power with a splintering of the party vote and the opposition of the army.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Out and Out military coups certainly.. but its difficult to see any leadership taking power with a splintering of the party vote and the opposition of the army.

I think Molotov would get the nod as Beria would be the one most blamed by the army for the purges of the military since Stalin is gone. I don't think the army would trust Beria enough and their support is needed.

 

[Matthew Craw]

The problem with Beria is that everyone hated him, he could only emerge as leader as a result of a fairly immediate NKVD coup, including the assassination of several prominent generals before they could react. Needless to say, this would be very hard to arrange at short notice.

There's probably be a period of collective leadership rather than the immediate seizure of power by one individiual. The Five Man Committee formed to coordinate the war would probably be the basis of this - IIRC membership was Malenkov, Zhukov, Koniev, Molotov and possible someone else, other than Stalin himself.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Would it have been possible for Poland to be "Finalindized" at that stage or had events from 1940 to 1944 made it impossible for any even somewhat independent Poland to be other than deeply anti Soviet?

 

[Molobo]

Would it have been possible for Poland to be "Finalindized" at that stage or had events from 1940 to 1944 made it impossible for any even somewhat independent Poland to be other than deeply anti Soviet?

The Yalta Treaty called for free and fair elections in Poland.At first it seemed they would be performed as such, and independent non-communist party was made under leadership of Stanislaw Mikolajczyk (The Polish Peasant Party). Under the guidence of Stalin the subsequent votes in 1946 and 1947 were manipulated and opposition murdered or imprisoned(including Home Army members).With Stalin's death and politicall uncertanity in USSR its probable that they wouldn't have time or resources to concentrate so much on Poland. Communist party had almost no support in Poland, and without Soviet help it would barely be able to hold power.
It's also possible that many Home Army soldiers wouldn't lose their lives, as Stalin held a deep grudge against Polish indpendence movement after his defeat in Poland by the hands of Pilsudski in pre-war era/he was a general at the battle of Warsaw/
Also Marshall Plan perhaps would be extanded to Poland, as it was Stalin influence that forced Polish govt. to reject it.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The problem with Beria is that everyone hated him, he could only emerge as leader as a result of a fairly immediate NKVD coup, including the assassination of several prominent generals before they could react. Needless to say, this would be very hard to arrange at short notice.

There's probably be a period of collective leadership rather than the immediate seizure of power by one individiual. The Five Man Committee formed to coordinate the war would probably be the basis of this - IIRC membership was Malenkov, Zhukov, Koniev, Molotov and possible someone else, other than Stalin himself.

Sounds likely, who do you think would finally take over once the dust settles?

 

[Matthew Craw]

Zhdanov. Malenkov and Molotov were pretty much omnly important as Stalin's creatures and neither had much leadership ability, Beria will be executed as soon as the war's over and I can't see a military coup

Zhdanov, OTOH, had a fim power - base in the Leningrad Party, with prestieg riding high from the 1000 day defense of the city and he was certainly the most charismatic Party leader at the time. Assuming he dies on schedule (1946 or 49) either Kuznetsov o Voznesensky would almost certainly be his successor.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Zhdanov. Malenkov and Molotov were pretty much omnly important as Stalin's creatures and neither had much leadership ability, Beria will be executed as soon as the war's over and I can't see a military coup

Zhdanov, OTOH, had a fim power - base in the Leningrad Party, with prestieg riding high from the 1000 day defense of the city and he was certainly the most charismatic Party leader at the time. Assuming he dies on schedule (1946 or 49) either Kuznetsov o Voznesensky would almost certainly be his successor.

Do you think there could be a long period of uncertainty where the party has no idea of what to do?

 

[Matthew Craw]

It depends on how much uncertainty you mean - there'd cerainly be a universal consensus behind finishing the war with Germany and establishing some sort of control over Eastern Europe. The introduction of an internal power struggle would offer a distraction, but this would probably only be manifested by less attempts to push out of the Soviet sphere established by 1945 - since these efforts were pretty half-hearted and failed anyway I don't see much difference here. The Communist staes of eastern Europe might be less brutally Stalinist in their early years but they'll still be commmunist dictatorships.

The wild card is probably how Stalin's death would affect the West - they could conceivably decide to exploit the USSR's perceived instability to push harder over Poland. Equally, however, they might decide to adopt a more "wait and see" approach until a clear successor to Stalin emerged. IN an extreme case, a slower ascent by the Communist parties to total power in Eastern Europe and a less aggressive USSR could allow the isolationist trend in US politics to reassert itself,

 

[Brilliantlight]

It depends on how much uncertainty you mean - there'd cerainly be a universal consensus behind finishing the war with Germany and establishing some sort of control over Eastern Europe. The introduction of an internal power struggle would offer a distraction, but this would probably only be manifested by less attempts to push out of the Soviet sphere established by 1945 - since these efforts were pretty half-hearted and failed anyway I don't see much difference here. The Communist staes of eastern Europe might be less brutally Stalinist in their early years but they'll still be commmunist dictatorships.

The wild card is probably how Stalin's death would affect the West - they could conceivably decide to exploit the USSR's perceived instability to push harder over Poland. Equally, however, they might decide to adopt a more "wait and see" approach until a clear successor to Stalin emerged. IN an extreme case, a slower ascent by the Communist parties to total power in Eastern Europe and a less aggressive USSR could allow the isolationist trend in US politics to reassert itself,

Let's say things get so uncertain that the West winds up with all of Germany, a third of Poland and all of Czechloslavakia.