Stalin dies on...

[tallthinkev]

An easy one, well, most likely not!
Stalin dies on one of the following dates and how things may play out. Every thing is the same up to these dates.

15th Sept 1939

22nd June 1941

2nd July 1943

29th Jan 1945

I should things will be not so good for the USSR, who may take over, and how long would they take to place their stamp on the Eastern Front.

Over to you lot and type about this for a bit.

 

[kham_coc]

1 - Doesn't really matter, might be some infighting, but noting substantial or something that wont be over before it matters. Policy is likely to remain the same. probably less purges.
Might butterfly the winter war, and thus leave the red army weaker, but probably not enough to offset the purges.

2 - Nobody is having a civil war at this point. The state apparatus will be weaker without the spider of the net but should be offset by the fact that the Red army will be more autonomous (and thus less screwed by Commissars and such).

3 - Still no one having a civil war.

4 - Maybe, but way more likely (as before too) Molotov takes over.

So that's my thoughts - Hopefully i didn't forget something.

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

Had Stalin died at any point between 1934 and 1946 his successor would have been Molotov, at least in the interim. Molotov was clearly the number 2 man of the regime, and it was only in 1946 that he was eclipsed by the rival Zhdanov and Beria/Malenkov factions, and sidelined.

 

[tallthinkev]

No one else?

 

[Cudymcar]

Nobody can replace Stalin as Pater populorum (his official Soviet title). But maybe it's for the better.

 

[Margrave of Moravia]

If Stalin dies in 1945, I don't know, who would take the wheel, but there would definitely be some political infighting, weakening the firm grip that the USSR had on the Eastern bloc at that time. This would most probably mean much less agressive stance against the west, like no Berlin blockade, no "war" speech by Stalin in '46. Without the unwavering support of the soviet forces in occupied countries, many of them would probably not turn communist, I can see Romania and Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia would probably accept Marshall's plan with the before mentioned and probably would also stay democratic. On the other hand, because there is not significant threat from USSR, USA wouldn't take over Britain's help to Greek anticommunist and Greece would probably turn communist like YUG did. Poland and east Germany would definitelly stay in the sphere of Soviet influence. What happens next is depending on who consolidated power in the USSR.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Might a differnet Soviet leader want better relations with the West. Could a deal to "Finlandize" Poland bed done. If so and if the Soviet forces worked with the resistence might that have shortened the war in Europe

 

[TheBrilliance]

If Stalin dies in 1945, I don't know, who would take the wheel, but there would definitely be some political infighting, weakening the firm grip that the USSR had on the Eastern bloc at that time. This would most probably mean much less aggressive stance against the west, like no Berlin blockade, no "war" speech by Stalin in '46. Without the unwavering support of the soviet forces in occupied countries, many of them would probably not turn communist, I can see Romania and Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia would probably accept Marshall's plan with the before mentioned and probably would also stay democratic. On the other hand, because there is not significant threat from USSR, USA wouldn't take over Britain's help to Greek anticommunist and Greece would probably turn communist like YUG did. Poland and east Germany would definitely stay in the sphere of Soviet influence. What happens next is depending on who consolidated power in the USSR.

Stalin initiated the Berlin Blockade to distract the world's attention and help the Chinese Communist to win in the Civil War.

Greek could not turn Communist. the predominant reason that they failed in the Civil War was not about some foreign interference, but their policy were not Communist enough - not gaining popular support thus relied on the military success. When Communism wins in a country, usually there is a popular support of the local Communist Parties.
The Soviet chose not to intervene because they did not trust KKE; they thought KKE is as revisionist and social-democratic as the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

 

[Margrave of Moravia]

Stalin initiated the Berlin Blockade to distract the world's attention and help the Chinese Communist to win in the Civil War.

Greek could not turn Communist. the predominant reason that they failed in the Civil War was not about some foreign interference, but their policy were not Communist enough - not gaining popular support thus relied on the military success. When Communism wins in a country, usually there is a popular support of the local Communist Parties.
The Soviet chose not to intervene because they did not trust KKE; they thought KKE is as revisionist and social-democratic as the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

I am not sure, where you get your information, but certainly, Berlin blockade was not to distract to help Mao. For Stalin, european politics was always the most important thing, not some Chinese.

Soviets initially helped Tito, most importantly diplomatic help with Trieste, though only before 1947, when Stalin decided, that Tito is too confident. Soviets did not help greek comunists since they had deal with Great Britain from 1945, letting Greece to be in UKs sphere and Romania in Soviets. What I have read, greek comunists had the numbers and popular support, but lacked foreign help, which their opponents had, once US took over the help from UK, more than enough.