WI: Georgi Malenkov stays in charge of the USSR?

After lurking around for months I decided to finally sign up. I have penchant for things Soviet and this questions been gnawing at me.

The question is this- what if Khrushchev was unable to outmaneuver Georgi Malenkov and he stayed First Secretary? From my research it seems that that the Politburo would not stand for someone also being Premier, so would get it? Maybe Bulganin or Molotov?

I think this an interesting POD because I am curious about what he would do in regards to
-how would address the housing shortage, with cheap housing like Khrushchev or limited, quality Stalinist structures or something else?
-would he empty the gulags?
-would there be something like, maybe a limited Khrushchev Thaw in terms of press and literature?
-would he attempt the Virgin Lands Campaign or something ambitious like the Siberian River Reversal or more massive canal projects in Central Asia?
-would he shift to consumer goods rather than heavy industry?
-how would he treat the legacy of Stalin?
-How would he conduct foreign policy? Is the Hungarian Uprising and Sino-Soviet split going to prevented or more preventable?
-Who does he keep by his side? Who’s likely to backstab him? Who goes bye-bye? Who stagnates?
-Would he attempt to reorganize or reform the bureaucracy?

I am curious because I read an account of him in Inside Russia Today (1957) by John Gunther Harper.
“Malenkov was all odds the Soviet chieftain best liked by the foreign diplomatic corps in Moscow, during the period of his prime ministership and after. Khrushchev, people said, was a checkers player; Malenkov was a chess player, Khrushchev led with a fist, Malenkov a mind. He had a broad range of thought, did not seem to blinded by ideology, and was sophisticated; I heard observers in a good position to know say that he was the only leading Russian who comprehended the western point of view, and with whom Europeans could talk on European terms.”
“…Malenkov lost his prime ministership, partly at least, by reason of a dispute over consumer goods. He wanted, with certain reservations, to give the people more in the forms of pots and pans and the like, whereas Khrushchev at that time insisted on keeping most emphasis on heavy industry. Malenkov’s chief achievement as prime minister, in which Khrushchev shared, was the evolution my which Russia is no longer ruled overly by terror, although it certainly still exists. He put the old-line cops out of business, even though his own history was inextricably mixed up with them.”

Also curious to know if anyone has this book or what they think or it, I have no idea of its rarity, I picked it up for a dollar at the goodwill store I volunteer at. Would anybody be interested in a Malenkov USSR timeline?
 
I had a soc.history.what-if post on this some years ago:

***


Ler's assume that Malenkov does manage to eliminate Beria, and also that
(with the aid of Mikoyan and others) he manages to prevail over Molotov
and Kaganovich, who want to change as few things as possible. How would a
Malenkov-led USSR differ from a Khrushchev-led one? Certainly some of
Khrushchev's "hare-brained schemes" would never have been adopted,
especially the obsession with corn ("we must raise corn in Yakutia and
perhaps Chukotka") and the sale of the Machine Tractor Stations to the
collective farms. [1] And foreign policy might be less based on bluff
and bluster than in OTL. Some of Stalin's most irrational policies would
be quietly dropped, and the Stalin cult would be toned down, but without
any denunciation like the 1956 not-very-secret speech. Also, it should be
remembered that it was Malenkov who first proposed devoting more resources
to consumer goods instead of concentrating on heavy industry--a position
that Khrushchev denounced as a "right deviation." And when Malenkov said
that a third world war would lead to the "end of world civilization"
Khrushchev objected that this kind of talk was "theoretically mistaken and
politically harmful." (I am not saying this to portray Khrushchev as a
Stalinist fiend. On both the consumer goods issue and the nuclear war
issue Khrushchev very likely agreed with Malenkov, and was simply
denouncing the latter's "heresies" to win the support of unreconstructed
Stalinists like Molotov for his own ascent to power. I am merely saying
that at least for a while Malenkov did seem *less* Stalinist than
Khrushchev.)

Of course Malenkov had plenty of blood on his hands (he had regained power
largely as a result of the "Leningrad affair" which had involved the
frame-up and killing of Kuznetsov, Voznesensky and other Leningrad party
leaders). But the same can be said of all his colleagues, including
Khrushchev. So I am not sure we can infer from this that Malenkov would
have governed by terror to a greater extent than Khrushchev.
In general, I would say a Malenkov USSR would be more "rational", more
"technocratic", less governed by "enthusiasm" than Khrushchev's. This is
not entirely praise of Malenkov or criticism of Khrushchev, since some of
Khrushchev's "enthusiasms"--e.g., for rehabilitating many of the victims
of Stalin--were good things. Others, however--besides the "corn mania"
and other things I have mentioned, there was the antireligious campaign--
were not.

[1] "He [Khrushchev] gave collective farms more responsibilities, but not
the resources to carry them out...The consequences were devastating.
After paying for their new machinery, even better-off farms couldn't
afford other needed investments. Meanwhile, they made less efficient use
of their new equipment than the MTS staff had. MTS workers had been a
kind of elite. Since those who transferred to the kolkhozy suffered a
drop in status and income, many fled to the cities. The result, according
to Roy Medvedev, was that 'farm production suffered irreparable damage.'"
William Taubman, *Khrushchev*, p. 376.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/qgdNtrB8IGs/iVOEg-16qfkJ

***

I might also add that Malenkov seems to have been more open than Khrushchev to the possibility of a unified neutral "bourgeois democratic" Germany: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/Z-eAjLyqJZg/XRJrrtbDsUwJ However, whether the rest of the Politburo would have gone along--and whether even if they had the West would agree to Germany being neutralized and its military limited--is another question.
 
+David T, thanks for the response. I did not know that. On the merger of a united neutral, it seems a lot of things have to line up in Germany and the United States as well as in the Soviet Union, it sounds possible, but not probable. I imagine it would like a larger Austria in terms of neutrality, and I'd imagine when Malenkov wanted an 'altered Wiemar constitution' he probably required a military neutrality clause like what Japan has. German goods would probably be sold in limited quantities, as were Japanese goods IOTL, to those who could afford them in the Soviet Union.

As for internal politics, it would be smart of Malenkov not to downplay the military power like Khrushchev, given that Zhukov was friends with Eisenhower, and they would both desire cordial relations with the US as opposed to the hardliners. Keeping the 'military card' in his deck would be useful if he faced anything similar to the Anti Party Coup as well.

The lack of the corn obsession would probably make Soviet agriculture more productive, he may still push to out-produce the US in milk. I think his technocratic rule would reduce bureaucratic inefficiency,
but rather he would push for Khrushchev's decentralization measures I have no idea :confused: But I think it's logical to assume he would at least stop the ministries from tripping over each other as they were IOTL.

In terms of this foreign policy, the Sino-Soviet split seems immanent, especially considering Malenkov would not be aggravating the US, but opting to coexist and focus on the home front. Do you agree? Is there anybody else out there with an opinion on this?
***

Ler's assume that Malenkov does manage to eliminate Beria, and also that
(with the aid of Mikoyan and others) he manages to prevail over Molotov
and Kaganovich, who want to change as few things as possible. How would a
Malenkov-led USSR differ from a Khrushchev-led one? Certainly some of
Khrushchev's "hare-brained schemes" would never have been adopted,
especially the obsession with corn ("we must raise corn in Yakutia and
perhaps Chukotka") and the sale of the Machine Tractor Stations to the
collective farms. [1] And foreign policy might be less based on bluff
and bluster than in OTL. Some of Stalin's most irrational policies would
be quietly dropped, and the Stalin cult would be toned down, but without
any denunciation like the 1956 not-very-secret speech. Also, it should be
remembered that it was Malenkov who first proposed devoting more resources
to consumer goods instead of concentrating on heavy industry--a position
that Khrushchev denounced as a "right deviation." And when Malenkov said
that a third world war would lead to the "end of world civilization"
Khrushchev objected that this kind of talk was "theoretically mistaken and
politically harmful." (I am not saying this to portray Khrushchev as a
Stalinist fiend. On both the consumer goods issue and the nuclear war
issue Khrushchev very likely agreed with Malenkov, and was simply
denouncing the latter's "heresies" to win the support of unreconstructed
Stalinists like Molotov for his own ascent to power. I am merely saying
that at least for a while Malenkov did seem *less* Stalinist than
Khrushchev.)

Of course Malenkov had plenty of blood on his hands (he had regained power
largely as a result of the "Leningrad affair" which had involved the
frame-up and killing of Kuznetsov, Voznesensky and other Leningrad party
leaders). But the same can be said of all his colleagues, including
Khrushchev. So I am not sure we can infer from this that Malenkov would
have governed by terror to a greater extent than Khrushchev.
In general, I would say a Malenkov USSR would be more "rational", more
"technocratic", less governed by "enthusiasm" than Khrushchev's. This is
not entirely praise of Malenkov or criticism of Khrushchev, since some of
Khrushchev's "enthusiasms"--e.g., for rehabilitating many of the victims
of Stalin--were good things. Others, however--besides the "corn mania"
and other things I have mentioned, there was the antireligious campaign--
were not.

[1] "He [Khrushchev] gave collective farms more responsibilities, but not
the resources to carry them out...The consequences were devastating.
After paying for their new machinery, even better-off farms couldn't
afford other needed investments. Meanwhile, they made less efficient use
of their new equipment than the MTS staff had. MTS workers had been a
kind of elite. Since those who transferred to the kolkhozy suffered a
drop in status and income, many fled to the cities. The result, according
to Roy Medvedev, was that 'farm production suffered irreparable damage.'"
William Taubman, *Khrushchev*, p. 376.
 
+David T, thanks for the response. I did not know that. On the merger of a united neutral, it seems a lot of things have to line up in Germany and the United States as well as in the Soviet Union, it sounds possible, but not probable. I imagine it would like a larger Austria in terms of neutrality, and I'd imagine when Malenkov wanted an 'altered Wiemar constitution' he probably required a military neutrality clause like what Japan has. German goods would probably be sold in limited quantities, as were Japanese goods IOTL, to those who could afford them in the Soviet Union.

As for internal politics, it would be smart of Malenkov not to downplay the military power like Khrushchev, given that Zhukov was friends with Eisenhower, and they would both desire cordial relations with the US as opposed to the hardliners. Keeping the 'military card' in his deck would be useful if he faced anything similar to the Anti Party Coup as well.

The lack of the corn obsession would probably make Soviet agriculture more productive, he may still push to out-produce the US in milk. I think his technocratic rule would reduce bureaucratic inefficiency,
but rather he would push for Khrushchev's decentralization measures I have no idea :confused: But I think it's logical to assume he would at least stop the ministries from tripping over each other as they were IOTL.

In terms of this foreign policy, the Sino-Soviet split seems immanent, especially considering Malenkov would not be aggravating the US, but opting to coexist and focus on the home front. Do you agree? Is there anybody else out there with an opinion on this?
***

Hi there, so about the Sino-Soviet Split, it is not imminent.

Here is my explanation from my own TL, the Tales of the Shining Pearl:

From- Bureaucracy, Economy, and Leadership in China: The Institutional Origins of the Great Leap Forward by David Bachman. I've already paraphrased it for readability. It also involves my own explanation:


Sino-Soviet Relations and Rapproachment

Deng outlined in his speech in Xian in April 1957 that he wanted close Sino-Soviet relations. This was before the split. So it is conceivable that the Sino-Soviet Alliance would have been affirmed with Mao dead. He only paid lip service to Mao in 1976. Before 1960, they wanted to, but from 1976, because they really didn't want to take down Mao's reputation like how Khrushchev did with Stalin's, they just abandoned the hyper-leftist economic model and went for capitalism, but continued to oppose the USSR. Here, with an earlier death of Mao, things would go differently. The 1960s conflict between the USSR and China IOTL had an effect that forced every Chinese to support Mao's campist theory.

Liu Shaoqi himself favored a more moderate stance on the USSR. From: The Commonalities and Differences between Mao and Liu Shaoqi.

So no Sino-Soviet Split.

Zhou and his like-minded allies wanted peaceful coexistence. Only Mao didn't. I for one think that the PRC joining the UN would still be possible even without some disarmament treaties. I think the economic values of a West-East rapprochement is too much for both sides to ignore.

Remember during this time, Mao Zedong Thought was removed from the constitution. This shows that they really didn't want many of his policies.

So no Maoist campist theory if Mao dies in 1957, or better, 1956. Peaceful coexistence would also be used by China, but with every crisis, though, they would be pushed closer to the USSR

But I myself would also agree that some form of rivalry will exist between the two given their sheer sizes, but far less so than in IOTL. Maybe in the economy (but they would still be too connected in this aspect that they won't go to war with each other), space and nothing more. I could also see Malenkov fixing some border issues with a China under Liu Shaoqi and Zhou Enlai.
 
+EcoBOOM, thanks for the feedback, this information I did not know.

I agree with the point you made, I sort of half-misspoke :eek: I was thinking that if Mao was in charge the split would be inevitable, even if Malenkov didn't denounce Stalin, his peaceable foreign policy efforts would lead to trouble with China, more specifically Mao's China.

But if Mao were ousted, then it seems Liu Shaoqi would pursue a more peaceful foreign policy too, so then in this case the split would be prevented.

But since you seem to be the expert on China, which I admit I know very little about, when is the best time for Mao to die or the moderates to make a move against him? I'm trying to work this timeline out in my head a bit.

Hi there, so about the Sino-Soviet Split, it is not imminent.

Here is my explanation from my own TL, the Tales of the Shining Pearl:

From- Bureaucracy, Economy, and Leadership in China: The Institutional Origins of the Great Leap Forward by David Bachman. I've already paraphrased it for readability. It also involves my own explanation:




But I myself would also agree that some form of rivalry will exist between the two given their sheer sizes, but far less so than in IOTL. Maybe in the economy (but they would still be too connected in this aspect that they won't go to war with each other), space and nothing more. I could also see Malenkov fixing some border issues with a China under Liu Shaoqi and Zhou Enlai.

+Hrvatskiwi -glad you like it ;)

---

Now we seem to be getting somewhere. So far in my head I have a united Germany and an averted Sino-Split. But I am undoubtedly a perfectionist and am craving more information.

So here's what I think so far...working it up to 1960

-Mao has to go bye-bye
-Adenauer needs to bye-bye
-Bulganin as Premier would help with foreign policy, so assume he is, or is that ASB?

The issues I still am trying to work out

-Malenkov won't have the Khrushchev 'maize daze' but do we still get a Virgin Lands Campaign? Does Malenkov decentralize agriculture? Does Malenkov try to get rid of the Mobile Tractor Stations?
-Does he treat the press like Liu Shaoqi or OTL Khrushchev wanted to, or does he keep censorship heavy?
-Am I the only one curios about the Central Asian canals and irrigation projects :confused: they have the potential to increase Soviet agricultural potential big-time, and could affect the Aral Sea.
-I'm assuming we see a release of the Stalin-era arbitrary Gulag detainees, am I assuming wrong here?
-Thinking ahead, will we see anything like the OTL Kosygin Reforms? Or some other kind of economic liberalization? Something between Kosygin and Deng perhaps?
-Not sure it will like anything like IOTL, but there's still probably going to be trouble in Indochina.
-Again I assume Malenkov would untangle bureaucracy, but would he decentralize?
 
+EcoBOOM, thanks for the feedback, this information I did not know.

I agree with the point you made, I sort of half-misspoke :eek: I was thinking that if Mao was in charge the split would be inevitable, even if Malenkov didn't denounce Stalin, his peaceable foreign policy efforts would lead to trouble with China, more specifically Mao's China.

But if Mao were ousted, then it seems Liu Shaoqi would pursue a more peaceful foreign policy too, so then in this case the split would be prevented.

But since you seem to be the expert on China, which I admit I know very little about, when is the best time for Mao to die or the moderates to make a move against him? I'm trying to work this timeline out in my head a bit.



+Hrvatskiwi -glad you like it ;)

---

Now we seem to be getting somewhere. So far in my head I have a united Germany and an averted Sino-Split. But I am undoubtedly a perfectionist and am craving more information.

So here's what I think so far...working it up to 1960

-Mao has to go bye-bye
-Adenauer needs to bye-bye
-Bulganin as Premier would help with foreign policy, so assume he is, or is that ASB?

The issues I still am trying to work out

-Malenkov won't have the Khrushchev 'maize daze' but do we still get a Virgin Lands Campaign? Does Malenkov decentralize agriculture? Does Malenkov try to get rid of the Mobile Tractor Stations?

-Does he treat the press like Liu Shaoqi or OTL Khrushchev wanted to, or does he keep censorship heavy?

-Am I the only one curios about the Central Asian canals and irrigation projects :confused: they have the potential to increase Soviet agricultural potential big-time, and could affect the Aral Sea.

-I'm assuming we see a release of the Stalin-era arbitrary Gulag detainees, am I assuming wrong here?

-Thinking ahead, will we see anything like the OTL Kosygin Reforms? Or some other kind of economic liberalization? Something between Kosygin and Deng perhaps?

-Not sure it will like anything like IOTL, but there's still probably going to be trouble in Indochina.

-Again I assume Malenkov would untangle bureaucracy, but would he decentralize?

Actually, you could have him die to a heart attack during a hot summer day in 1957 as I've done in my TL. That's the only way, really.

Virgin Lands. Malenkov was against it. But how to make it work:

1. Crop rotation to build topsoil. See page 6 of my TL :)
2. Avoid destroying the Machine-Tractor Stations (given)
3. Fix education, fix infrastructure, fix transportation (massive transportation and infrastructure projects), fix everything in the countryside so that the younger agriculturists would go there.
4. The Aral Sea. What if the rivers that go the Aral are only partially diverted, thereby the Aral Sea does not shrink?

But Malenkov was against it, so Virgin Lands is trashed.

Other points:

1. You could still have corn, but to a lesser extent because of crop rotation.

2. Kosygin Reforms would come in Malenkov's later years as he tries to open up the Soviet Union more to the world. Having him put much emphasis on science and technology (Cybernetic command)

3. Indochina's given. There would still be chaos.

4. De-Stalinization would require releasing people from the gulags, of course. But Malenkov would only criticize Stalin's excesses, but still would hold him in high regard, preventing Albania from splitting and even more so China (but Mao's bye-bye so instead China grows closer with the USSR).

5. Bulganin's an ally, so to speak. Get ready for a more tense 1960s.

6. I suggest having the R16 ICBM work. Contact Michel Van and see his and SpaceGeek's TL 2001: A Space Odyssey. In this way, the Soviet Union won't put missiles in Cuba, only conventional weapons.

7. No, I don't think he would have decentralized. More like put high technology and weed out corruption only.

8. Censorship is given.
 
+EcoBOOM, thank you for the feedback, here I thought I was an expert on the Soviet Union, damn! you must read a lot.

So is it rude to use the same POD to kill Mao, why not a good ol' fashioned plane crash? or a nice car accident:D

1 On the Virgin Lands Campaign, I read up on it, it's execution was morbidly poor. I read your posts of the Soviet Union and agree, crop rotation, tree lines, better training and management are musts, but since Malenkov was against it, I guess it would be no-go. I read an article once that about only 50% of Virgin Land is in use now, so much has been abandoned, I know future precedent is wrong, but maybe they could just settle that 'good' land, rather than overextend themselves.

2 I agree on the MTSs, but as the economy liberalizes farmers would need their own tractors.

3 On education, we seem to conflicting sources, Inside Russia Today (1957) mentions that Soviets read thrice as much Americans, produce twice as many college grads, and that the Soviet high school student receives math and chemistry courses college-level in the United States.
4 On the Aral Sea, I was thinking have the Main Turkmen Canal finished, it would cut through central Turkmenistan rather than along the southern border and empty into the Caspian. I would think a Siberian River Reversal would be cool, but it may be ASB considering it was MASSIVE undertaking. But if it succeeded it would turn arid Central Asia into a breadbasket.

On the other points.

2 I'm assuming Malenkov would implement Kosygin Reforms without Brezhnev restraining them in the 1960s, the 1970s would see special economic zones and after 1980 we'll go full Deng-style, but perhaps keep the welfare state.

3 The Indochina chaos seems inevitable, but I don't think everybody in North Vietnam wanted the war, and would Malenkov and Shaoqi have any interest in backing the expedition?

If it goes ahead, for the sake of the timeline I'm assuming Nixon 1960, so things get tricky between desire for detente and North Vietnamese aggression. I reality the ball is in Russia and China court on this and I'll wait for an opinion.

4 That's what I thought.

5 Previous points point to a tense 1960s, but Bulganin will be a boon for the nonaligned nations' friendships.

6 This won't be necessary, I was assuming Cuba's communist takeover was preventable. I doubt the US would put nukes in Turkey ITTL, or Turkey may not want them.

7 I agree with the comments on computers, and I think Malenkov, being a technocrat, would love them. They would serve to eliminate inefficiency and corruption, which could do much. I agree that this could develop into a pseudo-internet, i'll call it SoviLink.

8 In terms of press, I didn't mean glasnost, I meant a Khrushchev Thaw, allowing other art, literature, and film experimentation. I always thought Soviet emphasis on science-fiction and futurism was an interesting idea.

In terms of the rest of the World going into the 1960s, decolonization could be less chaotic in Africa, I image China and Russia would supply assistance with less strings attached to the neutrals. Lumumba, Nkrumah, and Nyerere will have socialist agendas but won't be forced to take radical geopolitical positions. Angola and South Africa are still gonna be a problem looking ahead for awhile.

It seems reasonable to have India remain Soviet-leaning neutral, I know nothing of Pakistan. The Middle East is still going to have issues, even if those countries go unaligned, Israel and Iran are flash-points.

If I do the the timeline, I think i'd call it 'Chess not Checkers-A Malenkov Soviet Union', is there anyone who may be interested in such a project? I lack the confidence to go it alone. :eek:

Actually, you could have him die to a heart attack during a hot summer day in 1957 as I've done in my TL. That's the only way, really.

Virgin Lands. Malenkov was against it. But how to make it work:

1. Crop rotation to build topsoil. See page 6 of my TL :)
2. Avoid destroying the Machine-Tractor Stations (given)
3. Fix education, fix infrastructure, fix transportation (massive transportation and infrastructure projects), fix everything in the countryside so that the younger agriculturists would go there.
4. The Aral Sea. What if the rivers that go the Aral are only partially diverted, thereby the Aral Sea does not shrink?

But Malenkov was against it, so Virgin Lands is trashed.

Other points:

1. You could still have corn, but to a lesser extent because of crop rotation.

2. Kosygin Reforms would come in Malenkov's later years as he tries to open up the Soviet Union more to the world. Having him put much emphasis on science and technology (Cybernetic command)

3. Indochina's given. There would still be chaos.

4. De-Stalinization would require releasing people from the gulags, of course. But Malenkov would only criticize Stalin's excesses, but still would hold him in high regard, preventing Albania from splitting and even more so China (but Mao's bye-bye so instead China grows closer with the USSR).

5. Bulganin's an ally, so to speak. Get ready for a more tense 1960s.

6. I suggest having the R16 ICBM work. Contact Michel Van and see his and SpaceGeek's TL 2001: A Space Odyssey. In this way, the Soviet Union won't put missiles in Cuba, only conventional weapons.

7. No, I don't think he would have decentralized. More like put high technology and weed out corruption only.

8. Censorship is given.
 
If I do the the timeline, I think i'd call it 'Chess not Checkers-A Malenkov Soviet Union', is there anyone who may be interested in such a project? I lack the confidence to go it alone. :eek:

Although I have my own Cold War timeline, it doesn't involve Malenkov so I'd be happy to help! That being said, I have exams next week and I'm going to China mid-November to mid-December...

But I'd be happy to respond to any ideas you have, or to help you out with the wider world. My research for Stars & Sickles has informed me immensely on the period worldwide, so I can probably help. Feel free to PM me if you want :) I'd love to help out a fellow Yubroslav :p
 
Pakistan is given: Pro-American. Since it is ASB to pull off a TL where East Pakistan aka Bangladesh stays within Pakistan, I suggest having Zulfikar Ali Bhutto visit the West and be overawed by the economic status of the West, and liberalize his economy and reach out to dissenters.

About Mao: Yeah, a car crash, heart attacl or plane crash would do instead of being directly ousted by the Party. Remember this quote from Elder Chen Yun:

Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been hailed as a great leader, but flawed. Alas, he died in 1976, what could one say?

Because directly ousting him would lead to massive backlash from the people if it happens in 1956-57. Maybe 1965-66, but the 1950s? Directly ousting him during this time would lead to an earlier Cultural Revolution (paranoia), and a worse China in the long run.

Malenkov reforms like what good 'ol Hrvatskiwi did in his TL with China: Soe Dengist reforms, but half of the reforms wouls be focused on a cybernetic command economy, which is interesting. But you are going on the right track :)

India might follow the USSR's path of reforms in your TL.

It would be nice to see your TL, it has a lot of potential. And yup, I would to help a better Yubroslav :)

China: Based from the cycle of leaders IOTL, the same set of leaders IOTL 1978-89 might still be ghe same (It is safe to assume that Liu Shaoqi and Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, etc. Would die in 1978-89). Deng is the shadow paramount leader, Hu Yaobang as General Secretary and Zhao Ziyang is Premier. Since China won't have a cultural revolution ITTL, it is safe to assume that Hu and Zhao would not see the need for political reform here unlike ITTL (since most of the two's views on politics stemmed from the Cultural Revolution and backlash from hardliners who felt that their work during the Mao era would be destroyed, the most prominent being the two Lis: Li Peng and Li Xiannian). So no pro-democracy movement here :) In my TL though I have plans that I'll still make the two liberal and spark the 1989 Revolution, that plan is my baby/pet project so, I apologize for not allowing that idea to be used :)

I'll give you the link to Zhao Ziyang's memoirs tomorrow (I'm on mobile now :) ). I think It'll help you a lot.

Please make a TL about all ideas posted in this thread. There is a shortage of Malenkov TLs here :)

Last note for this post: Cuba's turn to communism is preventable.

Also, for the Philippines, I suggest having Ferdinand Marcos be overawed by a visit to liberalized Japan, Taiwan, Western Europe, etc. and focus on economic growth during his tenure, hence a wealthy Philippines.
 
Last edited:
I'm just gonna bump this and see if anyone else wants to give their advice or opinion before I get to work.

Anyway thanks for all the help guys, you've given me valuable encouragement and ideas.
 
This all looks very interesting. I'm currently doing research for my first timeline, which explores the effects of a more ideologically diverse and multipolar Communist bloc. I was going to have Khrushchev in charge as IOTL, albeit for a bit longer, but Malenkov is starting to look like an interesting alternative, either as an alternative to Khrushchev, or as a replacement mid-way through his rule. Between the two, who would you say would be more open to extending a hand of comradeship to dissident Communists?
 
This all looks very interesting. I'm currently doing research for my first timeline, which explores the effects of a more ideologically diverse and multipolar Communist bloc. I was going to have Khrushchev in charge as IOTL, albeit for a bit longer, but Malenkov is starting to look like an interesting alternative, either as an alternative to Khrushchev, or as a replacement mid-way through his rule. Between the two, who would you say would be more open to extending a hand of comradeship to dissident Communists?

Well, the communist bloc already had several poles between Yugoslavia, China, the Soviet Union, North Korea and Albania. But if you want more you could probably get Indonesia, and this would be an interesting dynamic.

To have Malenkov replace Khrushchev is very difficult, since in 1957 his role in the Anti Party Coup got him sent to Kazakhstan. It's much easier to have him take the reigns in 1953.

Malenkov would probably do outreach to the neutrals just as Khrushchev and Bulganin did (ITTL Bulganin is still Premier), he would probably not split with China and try to reconcile with Yugoslavia, as OTL. Malenkov isn't going to denounce Stalin openly though, so this effects on the world Left is open to speculation. So Malenkov with extend the hand, so to speak, but what factions of the left take it is hard to approximate. Admittedly, I don't know the dynamics of larger communist parties in the West like the Italian or French.

But if your interested in me helping you or you helping me I'm all for it.
 
Top