WI: Churchill dies early, Stalin lives longer

Churchill and Stalin were, respectively, born in 1874 and 1878. Both had a rather stressful time of it 1939-1945, to put things mildly, which affected their respective health somewhat poorly.

Churchill suffered from a series of strokes leading to resigning his premiership in 1955, aged a rather remarkable 81, left politics in 1964, and died in 1965 aged ninety. Stalin also had a stroke shortly after the war, before dying of a major stroke aged 74 in 1953. It's eerie how well the strokes line up - both men had them aged 74, Churchill's was relatively minor, whilst Stalin's was fatal.

Given the similarities between the two men's WW2 (and even pre-war to some extent) experience, it wouldn't be unrealistic to exchange their postwar health - we assume here, of course, that Stalin's cerebral haemorrage wasn't lead-induced, as some claim. In this scenario, Churchill dies of his 1949 stroke in the south of France, aged 74, whilst Leader of the Opposition. Stalin's 1953 stroke proves to be a bump in the road; he suffers another stroke in 1957, and his health continues to deteriorate until his death in 1968.

What consequences do we see from a longer-living Stalin and a Churchill cut down just after the Second World War?
 
Churchill and Stalin were, respectively, born in 1874 and 1878. Both had a rather stressful time of it 1939-1945, to put things mildly, which affected their respective health somewhat poorly.

Churchill suffered from a series of strokes leading to resigning his premiership in 1955, aged a rather remarkable 81, left politics in 1964, and died in 1965 aged ninety. Stalin also had a stroke shortly after the war, before dying of a major stroke aged 74 in 1953. It's eerie how well the strokes line up - both men had them aged 74, Churchill's was relatively minor, whilst Stalin's was fatal.

Given the similarities between the two men's WW2 (and even pre-war to some extent) experience, it wouldn't be unrealistic to exchange their postwar health - we assume here, of course, that Stalin's cerebral haemorrage wasn't lead-induced, as some claim. In this scenario, Churchill dies of his 1949 stroke in the south of France, aged 74, whilst Leader of the Opposition. Stalin's 1953 stroke proves to be a bump in the road; he suffers another stroke in 1957, and his health continues to deteriorate until his death in 1968.

What consequences do we see from a longer-living Stalin and a Churchill cut down just after the Second World War?

- Eden succeeds Churchill as Conservative leader six years earlier and may well win the 1950 election. That may not of itself be particularly significant: even after only five years, Attlee's second term had a fag-end feel and achieved little. Britain is still committed to Korea either way.

- Stalin engages in another purge in the mid-fifties, which the alleged Doctor's Plot may have already been the start of. Jews were a likely target but given Stalin's previous purges, potential political rivals would also have faced the axe (and the blade and the bullet). Beria goes - he knows too much - as do Molotov and other men from the '40s, enabling the members of the next generation greater space. WWII war heroes also find themselves disappeared one way or another.

- The USSR's grip on Eastern Europe is tighter than OTL but the Soviets are less interested in Africa, South America or the Carribean. One result of that being the Suez crisis may not have happened, though Eden could still have resigned in 1957 from ill health but his reputation far higher than it ended up for us.

- Stalin continues to press the West, as he did over Berlin in the late '40s. Increasingly frail, ill, cut off and paranoid, the risk of a full-scale WWIII is in fact higher than under the adventurist Khrushchev. Cuba wouldn't be the flashpoint (Stalin respects the US's sphere of influence); Berlin might be. In both cases, the risk is misunderstanding and rushing to pre-empt an attack.

- China remains within the USSR's orbit for longer due to Stalin's unique position, though Moscow's relationship is one of influence and mentor-ship rather than direct control.
 
Top