Switch FDR and Stalin's Deaths

What if the timings of the deaths of FDR and Stalin were reversed? So now Roosevelt survives until March of 1953, while Stalin dies in April 1945. Say Roosevelt stopped smoking at some point and took the occasional bit of time to relax, giving him an extra few years, while Stalin fell to the same mysterious mix of natural causes and possible poisoning as in OTL (not too unrealistic: he suffered a major heart attack just a few months later, in October 1945).

This means that Roosevelt manages to see out the entirety of his final Presidential term, and thus the rest of WWII. Particularly with Stalin out of the picture, Roosevelt would exert a huge degree of influence on the post-war order: probably much more than the relatively inexperienced Truman who was thrust in to replace him. I would assume he does not run again in 1948, having finished out the war and still not exactly being a healthy guy. What's less clear is who replaces him on the Democratic ticket in 1948, or how politics will proceed from there.

The situation in Russia is even less clear. Who can succeed Stalin at this point? Certainly not Kruschev, who is the Ukraine. The most likely candidates are probably Beria, Molotov, or Malenkov, although in the chaos there are plenty move possibilities. Depending on which of them gets to power the start of the cold war could go drastically differently, or be avoided entirely.

What would the biggest effects be of Roosevelt's continued presence on the world stage and Stalin's absence? What policies were championed personally by those two rather than being fairly inevitable regardless of who was in charge?
 
The Soviet Union would certainly be much weaker then otl. Likely internal crisis would necessitate stronger ties with the west, so no cold war as we understand it.
 
What if the timings of the deaths of FDR and Stalin were reversed? So now Roosevelt survives until March of 1953, while Stalin dies in April 1945. Say Roosevelt stopped smoking at some point and took the occasional bit of time to relax, giving him an extra few years, while Stalin fell to the same mysterious mix of natural causes and possible poisoning as in OTL (not too unrealistic: he suffered a major heart attack just a few months later, in October 1945).

This means that Roosevelt manages to see out the entirety of his final Presidential term, and thus the rest of WWII. Particularly with Stalin out of the picture, Roosevelt would exert a huge degree of influence on the post-war order: probably much more than the relatively inexperienced Truman who was thrust in to replace him. I would assume he does not run again in 1948, having finished out the war and still not exactly being a healthy guy. What's less clear is who replaces him on the Democratic ticket in 1948, or how politics will proceed from there.

The situation in Russia is even less clear. Who can succeed Stalin at this point? Certainly not Kruschev, who is the Ukraine. The most likely candidates are probably Beria, Molotov, or Malenkov, although in the chaos there are plenty move possibilities. Depending on which of them gets to power the start of the cold war could go drastically differently, or be avoided entirely.

What would the biggest effects be of Roosevelt's continued presence on the world stage and Stalin's absence? What policies were championed personally by those two rather than being fairly inevitable regardless of who was in charge?




Well FDR would be the first Secretary General of the UN, presumably.
 
If Beria had cimbed in he might still have pursued a normalisation with US/UK. However, would he also have steam-rolled Eastrn Europe as OTL?

Would Rossevelt and Churchill really have liked to sit down with someone who Stalin had called "our Himmler"?

I can see Beria getting very aggresive in Korea very fast.

Relations to China?

Despite everything, maybe Stalin's sell-by date was up, like Churchill's, after the war and someone new was needed. Enter Beria.

How much did he want to expand communism? It seems he was much more relaxed in that department.

Ivan
 
I don't think much changes in the US. rRoosevelt would have the same policies that Truman did. I don't know who would be the Democratic. Nominee in. 1948. I see he ( I don't see Eleanor running nor do I see any other women getting the nomination ) loses to Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. I don't know what Stalin's successors would change.
 
Stalin then dies 4 days before the Battle of Berlin begins. Might create confusion in the upper crust of the Red army. Sjukov and Koniev might start the offensive as OTL anyway, but they might also become nervous and wait for a new Supreme Ruler to step up
 
Agreed that there could be minor differences in the final fall of Germany - not really meaningful here.

Big difference could be Japan - maybe no USSR DOW - but maybe not.

A healthier Roosevelt is interesting. With 'Uncle Joe' dead, he might be persuaded to take a harder line against a certifiable nutcase like Beria. Unlike Truman, Roosevelt has the international prestige and stature to accomplish great things - and if the USSR is in enough turmoil, then maybe Poland or Czech gets saved.

Mike Turcotte
 
Well FDR would be the first Secretary General of the UN, presumably.

Not really, just as seen with the proposal of Winston Churchill as United Nations Secretary-General, such a measure would only serve to build resentment to the organization and establish the organization as an organization of "imperialists or colonialists". Consider that the Soviet Union had serious doubts of joining the organization.....
 
Beria's out of the question, he lacked support from any of the party organs other than state security; even within that not everyone would support him. I'd see something like what happened IOTL, a group of major party leaders and the military seize control from Beria and execute him. In the aftermath the military would have much more influence in politics (Though not too much; Bonapartism was looked down upon). Post-war the vast majority of people in Russia expected greater liberalization from Stalin which didn't happen; with more moderate leaders there certainly will be many economic reforms and some loosening of political restrictions.
 
What would be the impact on the 25th Amendment to the Constitution?

They might do it after FDR leaves, to be polite. But if they do it when someone else is in office that man will be excluded from it, so probably before FDR leaves office.

I'm more curious what FDR will do now that he's done being President, he probably ain't gonna be Secretary-General, and he ain't running for a 5th term, no matter how much he wants to;).

I'm also wondering how the 4-termer will be seen by the public and his own party, kinda like THE most elder of statesman.

Also, an early end to Tecumseh's Curse :p. That's always good.
 
What would be the impact on the 25th Amendment to the Constitution?

I am assuming you mean the 22nd, that linited the president to two terms which was proposed in 1947 and ratified in 1951, not the 25th amendment, which allowed for a replacement for a Vice President and a disabled president and was proposed in 1965 and ratified in 1967. I don't see why the Republicans would not take control of Congress in 1946. I assume that the Republican controlled Congress and enough state legislatures would be willing to insult FDR.
 
I am assuming you mean the 22nd, that linited the president to two terms which was proposed in 1947 and ratified in 1951, not the 25th amendment, which allowed for a replacement for a Vice President and a disabled president and was proposed in 1965 and ratified in 1967. I don't see why the Republicans would not take control of Congress in 1946. I assume that the Republican controlled Congress and enough state legislatures would be willing to insult FDR.

I'm pretty certain that nothing along the lines of the XXII Amendment would be adopted by Congress, let alone adopted by the legislatures of 36 states if FDR were still living and certainly not if here was yet POTUS.
 
Top