Stalin Lives to 1973

What if Dictator (Censored) Glorious Comrade Josef Stalin led a healthier lifestyle and perhaps lived past 1953 and ruled the Soviets for another 20 years. How would he control everything, and how could he lengthen the Soviet Union's lifespan?
 
What if Dictator (Censored) Glorious Comrade Josef Stalin led a healthier lifestyle and perhaps lived past 1953 and ruled the Soviets for another 20 years. How would he control everything, and how could he lengthen the Soviet Union's lifespan?

He was 74 when he died. Another 20 years is really pushing it in terms of life expectancy.
 
He was 74 when he died. Another 20 years is really pushing it in terms of life expectancy.

Agreed, fully... if you check average life expectancies in the USSR for that time you'll see Stalin beat the numbers getting as far as he did.

However, I would like to see how Stalin would have handled the Cuba issue for one, and the Middle East for two.
I don't think he would have gotten in the kind of trouble in Cuba that happened IOTL.
 
Last edited:
One of the anti-Khrushchevites was quite explicit on the CMC, along these lines: "Were Stalin still alive, he'd do everything quietly, but this fool blusters and publicly declares our intentions..." If it happened at all. Stalin was a much better judge of Western leaders than Khrushchev, and infinitely more subtle.
 
No. Stalin would never do that if he doesn't go senile- though probably he would be quietly retired if he tried. He didn't want direct confrontation with the West- he was far more subtle than Khrushchev.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Well, the remnants of Eastern European Jewry are going to have a rather rough go of it when a good many end up in Siberian prison camps.

The Vietnam situation is going to be far more interesting since we'll most likely see a much more delayed Sino-Soviet split (probably around right after Stalin dies or if Mao predeceases him ITTL).


Eastern Europe is going to be even more repressive than it was IOTL. Europe in general is probably going to be way more militarized in general.

It's going to be interesting on how the Soviet economy works out. Stalin would probably pursue a much more moderate/slow-paced and therefore successful Virgin Lands program. But other than that, many have pointed out that the slave economy he had going couldn't have survived a whole lot longer. Perhaps he focuses on the importance of oil earlier?

I expect a lot more Soviet involvement and general mucking about in the Middle East. Perhaps some adventuring in Iranian Azerbaijan during the '50s or '60s. Support for the Kurds could increase a good deal and to be used as a way to pressure Turkey, Syria, and Iran. More communist agitation in Iraq and Syria is likely, though Nasser might not be embraced because he's too upsetting to the status quo. Relations with Israel are going to be even frostier ITTL.

The Left is going to become even more discredited/misled if the Soviet Union remains Stalinist. Perhaps when word of his crimes seep out (as they inevitably will) Trotskyism or Luxemburgism might become more popular and so we see a more independent Left with much less Soviet influence than IOTL.

The Right's rants about the USSR being a totalitarian slave empire remain true for another twenty or so years.

Korea might flare up a few more times and more seriously than IOTL. Stalin had more control and ability to influence and direct Pyongyang than did Mao.

It'd be interesting to see what would happen in Yugoslavia. We could very well see Stalin finally succeed in his attempts to bump off Tito and bring Belgrade back into Moscow's orbit.

Communist parties the world over will probably far more submissive to the USSR's line since the non-discredited Red Messiah is still at the movement's helm.
 
As someone already noted, this is freakishly unlikely due to age.

Something else you have to consider is that by 1953, Stalin was in the backseat. We still got to pull all the strings, but he wasn't the primary force behind things any more. The post WWII era was marked by a competition for power between people Malenkov, Beria, Khrushchev and Zhdanov (although Zhdanov disappeared). This is how policy was being driven. A lot of key decisions were made at long boozey dinner parties hosted by Stalin... in fact a healthier lifestyle might short-circuit that and promote factionalism (since it will just get done behind closed doors). Stalin was controlling things more by screwing with the balance of power in the party state (promote some's rival, or remove someones support from a key position) than by issuing decrees.

If we assume that Stalin was gearing up for a second great purge, and he probably was, we can assume all of the old guard and probably a lot of the new elite to go. An ironic side effect of this will be that people like Brezhnev will be promoted into positions of power much sooner, possibly speeding up stagnation. Stalin can speed up or slow down the purge without direct involvement by revving up the propaganda one way or another, it's not too far off how it was done in the 1930s.

I concur with Wolfpaw on the Stalinist economic model not being tenable for much longer after 1953. The keys to success in the late 1920s were gone by then, more of the same would have crashed the system.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I would really like to see what some of the econ and USSR experts on this board think where a continued Stalinist economy would lead.
 
If we assume that Stalin was gearing up for a second great purge, and he probably was, we can assume all of the old guard and probably a lot of the new elite to go. An ironic side effect of this will be that people like Brezhnev will be promoted into positions of power much sooner, possibly speeding up stagnation. Stalin can speed up or slow down the purge without direct involvement by revving up the propaganda one way or another, it's not too far off how it was done in the 1930s.

Molotov and Mikoyan were all but gone and probably Malenkov as well. Molotov in particular had been in disfavor for a while was probably lucky to have made it as far as March 5, 1953. In OTL doing so bought him another 33 1/2 years.

Hard to see Stalin stopping at those three. Likeliest most of the Politburo was going to be offed. Kaganovich, Khrushchev, Bulganin...

The question then is what becomes of Mikhail Suslov. If Suslov is caught up in the purge, then there is likely no Andropov or Gorbachev after the old man dies in the 70s.

Also, would any new purges reach the army? Zhukov wasn't in particularly good standing as of March, 1953.

Lot of focus as to how Stalin would deal with the west, but also remember that the guy was increasingly paranoid... There's a good chance that whomever takes the helm after the death of a 94 year old Stalin would be some minor figure in OTL. All of the people that we know well would have been "butterflied" away over 20 more years of party purges, either being offed themselves, or losing the mentor that helped them to rise.
 
One interesting consequence would be Stalin's approach to more autonomous communist leaders in Korea or China. Stalin tried to assassinate Tito several times IOTL. Probably the same should happen to Mao. Or to other non-Soviet leaders. Maybe we'll see even a new great Purge with an international scale.

All in all, whereas Stalin was more subtle than Chrushtshev, I'd say he was more determined as well. Just an example: If the uprisings in Hungary 1956 and the GDR 1953 happen as IOTL, how would Stalin react?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Molotov and Mikoyan were all but gone and probably Malenkov as well. Molotov in particular had been in disfavor for a while was probably lucky to have made it as far as March 5, 1953. In OTL doing so bought him another 33 1/2 years.

Hard to see Stalin stopping at those three. Likeliest most of the Politburo was going to be offed. Kaganovich, Khrushchev, Bulganin...

The question then is what becomes of Mikhail Suslov. If Suslov is caught up in the purge, then there is likely no Andropov or Gorbachev after the old man dies in the 70s.

Also, would any new purges reach the army? Zhukov wasn't in particularly good standing as of March, 1953.
Molotov, Kaganovich, and Mikoyan are all definitely dead. In fact, Stalin was actually clearing the way for Khrushchev and Malenkov, so they'll survive a bit longer. Beria will probably stick around a bit longer too since he's very good at his job and Stalin knows that he can control him.

Brezhnev, Kosygin, Suslov, and Shelepin will probably rise to prominence under Stalin, though they may end up as victims themselves of what would probably be Stalin's last Purge.

And yeah, Zhukov and the military high command are probably fucked. Again. Not as bad as the first time, but all "Zhukovites" are going to be gotten rid of.
One interesting consequence would be Stalin's approach to more autonomous communist leaders in Korea or China. Stalin tried to assassinate Tito several times IOTL. Probably the same should happen to Mao. Or to other non-Soviet leaders. Maybe we'll see even a new great Purge with an international scale.

All in all, whereas Stalin was more subtle than Chrushtshev, I'd say he was more determined as well. Just an example: If the uprisings in Hungary 1956 and the GDR 1953 happen as IOTL, how would Stalin react?
Stalin probably wouldn't kill off Mao because he knows he can control him. At the most, we would probably see some sort of Sino-Soviet split after Stalin's death, since at that point China's probably itching to take charge of its own destiny and pull it out of the Kremlin.

And while Stalin will have a good deal of control over other communist countries, he probably wouldn't "purge" their leadership. As long as they toe Moscow's line, whatever dictators Uncle Joe's propping up are going to be able to rest easy.

If there are uprisings in Germany or Hungary (highly unlikely without Stalin's death and the Secret Speech/de-Stalinization, respectively), they are going to be crushed. And I don't mean 1950s crushed; I mean scorched earth Soviet-style crushed.
 
Sorry for the delay, haven't been able to log in for the last couple of days.

Brian Roastbeef said:
The question then is what becomes of Mikhail Suslov. If Suslov is caught up in the purge, then there is likely no Andropov or Gorbachev after the old man dies in the 70s.
Suslov, like Brezhnev, was promoted as part of the expanded Politburo Stalin had cooked up in 1952 (? maybe earlier?). Some have suggested that Stalin had been sufficiently put off by the interuption of party/state business during the Great Purge that he might have been trying to have the backup plan already in place when it all started again.

Suslov, again according to the guess work of Red Eminence, was apparently somewhat close to Stalin when the Vozhd was going through one of his later 'intellectual' phases (where he published his own theories on a topic... and wiped out anyone from other schools of thought). So if Suslov can keep that relationship up as Stalin's ideological/academic helper, he might be okay. But then, Stalin wasn't particularly kind to his assistants. I think it was Poskrebyshev who was virtually Stalin's secretary, but was ultimately kicked out of the job because in the end Stalin couldn't trust someone that close.

Also, would any new purges reach the army? Zhukov wasn't in particularly good standing as of March, 1953.
Good question. Stalin had much to fear from the military and certainly had his enemies in the upper ranks, but at the same time he was more dependent on it than ever. Even beyond practical concerns, the army was part of his created image as the leader of WWII. Rokossovsky might be another target, since he had actually been locked up during the Great Purge, then re-habilitated for WWII.

Wolfpaw said:
Beria will probably stick around a bit longer too since he's very good at his job and Stalin knows that he can control him.

Beria was on the outer for much of the 1950s. Stalin had made some preliminary moves to breaking up his policing empire and promoted some of his enemies. This is one reason cited for the conspiracy theories that suggest Beria poisoned Stalin. Who knows, even if he didn't in OTL, in ATL he might just have to do it to survive.:eek:

If there are uprisings in Germany or Hungary (highly unlikely without Stalin's death and the Secret Speech/de-Stalinization, respectively), they are going to be crushed. And I don't mean 1950s crushed; I mean scorched earth Soviet-style crushed.

I think such large revolts would be unusual if Stalin stayed around somehow. There were a lot of protests/small uprisings in East Germany that basically went unremarked because at the first sign of serious trouble the local police organs went to work, and if they couldn't do it there was no question Soviet troops would. In Hungary and Czechoslovakia there was a double problem where the local leadership had a problem of will (lack of support or even a straight out reformist leader in charge), and a Soviet leadership increasingly taking a hands off approach.
Different paths to socialism and all that. Khrushchev and Brezhnev both tried to negotiate a new balance before they sent in the tanks... it was just that nobody would accept their terms.

So instead of mass risings and massive repression, you would probably see a lot more little protests followed by Soviet-style police cracking heads afterwards.

You might see less domestic protests within the USSR, like Khrushchev experienced at Novosibirsk. Then again Khrushchev's reaction to that wasn't too far off a Stalinist response from memory, so I could be wrong.
 
If he lives this long, Stalin is likely to drift into a figurehead position in the sixties. This sets a passive precedent for Soviet leadership. Actual control becomes disseminated.
 
Molotov lived to age 96 and Kaganovich lived to be98
Stalin had a number of health problems throughout his life, which is usually not a good indicator for longevity. Also both of your examples involve people in semi or full retirement. Stalin on the other hand for this ATL is to be in power for the whole thing. It's been noted by many that Stalin aged considerably in the 1940s, to highlight the physical stress of office.
 
Top