WI: Khrushchev killed in Poland - July 15, 1959
- Thread starter Tal Shiar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- khrushchev poland soviet union
Then a popular Conspiracy Theory would be "Kennedy killed in revenge for Khrushchev assassination"
"Stalinist" in what sense? No-one in Soviet leadership wanted to go back to how things had been under Stalin. I could see Khrushchev's successor being less liberal, however.
Suslov might also be a candidate to replace Khrushchev (Suslov was apparently one of the front-runners to succeed Stalin and remained one of the most powerful people in the Soviet system to his death).
Almost certainly, Soviet history sees Khrushchev in a better light since most of his more controversial decisions happened after 1960.
I wonder if this would lead to an improvement in Sino-Soviet relations? As I understand it a key part of the deterioration in relations was due to Mao considering Khrushchev weak.
fasquardon
Moscow is pissed,they need to send a message to all of Eastern Europe risestance will not be tolerated!
Poland gets stomped on.
Poland gets stomped on.
Nikita gets romanticised- the reformer of the Secret Speech, tragically cut down before he could heal the system et cetera et cetera.
This really depends on who becomes leader after Krushchev dies. It's difficult to predict what would happen if we don't know exactly who that would be.
I guess that anyone standing in the Politburo at the time would have a shot. So, according to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Presidium_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union) ou candidates are:
Maybe the former leader's martyrdom could serve as a weapon for soviet reformists do advance their agendas. We don't necessariloy need to have a neo-stalinist system arise.
I guess that anyone standing in the Politburo at the time would have a shot. So, according to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Presidium_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union) ou candidates are:
- Kliment Voroshilov
- Alexei Kirichenko
- Anastas Mikoyan
- Mikhail Suslov
- Averky Aristov
- Nikolai Belyaev
- Leonid Breznhev
- Nikolai Ignatov
- Frol Kozlov
- Otto Wille Kuusinen
- Yekaterina Furtseva
- Nikolay Shvernik
- Nuritdin Mukhitdinov
Maybe the former leader's martyrdom could serve as a weapon for soviet reformists do advance their agendas. We don't necessariloy need to have a neo-stalinist system arise.
Why would USSR decide going such scale with Poland? They weren't nazis. And notice that Jaros kills Gomulka too.
Classic Russian paranoia,they don't want any Poles getting any ideas.And the new Soviet leader needs to look strong and he would have served under Stalin. Poland is just a convenient highly visible target. Any body who was in contact with Jarous will be thoroughly interrogated.
If a hardliner wins out in the power struggle, then an improvement might be possible.
Possible contenders:
Frol Kozlov: He was considered Khrushchev's number two until the mid-1960s (he died in 1965). In 1959 Time Magazine even put him on the cover an asked if he was Khrushchev's successor. Kozlov was considered to be a leading force in the conservative anti-Khrushchev group. The big problem is that Kozlov was not very intelligent, being described by Alexander Shelepin as "a very limited man." Of course the same was often said about Brezhnev, but on the other hand the stereotype of Brezhnev as an intellectual weakling comes from his latter years (when multiple strokes and other health problems severely incapacitated him).
Leonid Brezhnev: The most boring choice, because it would basically be the same as OTL. Brezhnev wasn't as senior at this stage as he was in 1964, but he was a senior member of the Khrushchev team, and as OTL shows he had the low cunning needed to succeed in power struggles.
Alexei Kirichenko: Another candidate for Khrushchev's number two, being the second-most powerful person in the party. His biggest issue is that he wasn't Russian. and while that didn't stop Stalin the CPSU was much more accommodating of non-Russians being the top leader in Stalin's day than in Khrushchev's.
Alexander Shelepin: At the time Shelepin was head of the KGB, so he would first have to move from that position to something else, meaning that there would be someone in the interim. Shelepin was considered one of the biggest Stalinists in the government, and was known as a Machiavellian schemer. However his colleagues knew this, and they were all very nervous of him after Khrushchev's fall IOTL. ITTL might go similarly to IOTL, with Shelepin having a leading role at first but quickly being sidelined by his rivals.
Mikhail Suslov: one of the chief ideologists of the Soviet Union and an extreme hardliner. The problem is that Suslov never wanted supreme power, preferring to play the role of the grey eminence.
Anastas Mikoyan: By this point Mikoyan was one of the last of Stalin's cadres at the national level. He was a strong supporter of destalinization (he helped with the Secret Speech), and thus was one of the few reformers who could succeed Khrushchev. He also had a lot of experience on the global stage, which strengthens his profile. However he also wasn't Russian, and his support for reforms would make him an enemy of the reformers. He's also one of the oldest of the group, being a good decade older than most of the rest of the leadership. That's both a strength and a weakness. It's also unclear if Mikoyan ever wanted supreme power, since he really didn't make an attempt to seek it IOTL.
How it might play out: With the exception of Kozlov these people can rule into the 1970s or beyond. Kozlov was an alcoholic, something power wouldn't help, and had several health problems in the early 1960s IOTL. One interesting possibility is Kozlov winning out, then dying in 1964-1965 and being replaced by Shelepin.
Frol Kozlov: He was considered Khrushchev's number two until the mid-1960s (he died in 1965). In 1959 Time Magazine even put him on the cover an asked if he was Khrushchev's successor. Kozlov was considered to be a leading force in the conservative anti-Khrushchev group. The big problem is that Kozlov was not very intelligent, being described by Alexander Shelepin as "a very limited man." Of course the same was often said about Brezhnev, but on the other hand the stereotype of Brezhnev as an intellectual weakling comes from his latter years (when multiple strokes and other health problems severely incapacitated him).
Leonid Brezhnev: The most boring choice, because it would basically be the same as OTL. Brezhnev wasn't as senior at this stage as he was in 1964, but he was a senior member of the Khrushchev team, and as OTL shows he had the low cunning needed to succeed in power struggles.
Alexei Kirichenko: Another candidate for Khrushchev's number two, being the second-most powerful person in the party. His biggest issue is that he wasn't Russian. and while that didn't stop Stalin the CPSU was much more accommodating of non-Russians being the top leader in Stalin's day than in Khrushchev's.
Alexander Shelepin: At the time Shelepin was head of the KGB, so he would first have to move from that position to something else, meaning that there would be someone in the interim. Shelepin was considered one of the biggest Stalinists in the government, and was known as a Machiavellian schemer. However his colleagues knew this, and they were all very nervous of him after Khrushchev's fall IOTL. ITTL might go similarly to IOTL, with Shelepin having a leading role at first but quickly being sidelined by his rivals.
Mikhail Suslov: one of the chief ideologists of the Soviet Union and an extreme hardliner. The problem is that Suslov never wanted supreme power, preferring to play the role of the grey eminence.
Anastas Mikoyan: By this point Mikoyan was one of the last of Stalin's cadres at the national level. He was a strong supporter of destalinization (he helped with the Secret Speech), and thus was one of the few reformers who could succeed Khrushchev. He also had a lot of experience on the global stage, which strengthens his profile. However he also wasn't Russian, and his support for reforms would make him an enemy of the reformers. He's also one of the oldest of the group, being a good decade older than most of the rest of the leadership. That's both a strength and a weakness. It's also unclear if Mikoyan ever wanted supreme power, since he really didn't make an attempt to seek it IOTL.
How it might play out: With the exception of Kozlov these people can rule into the 1970s or beyond. Kozlov was an alcoholic, something power wouldn't help, and had several health problems in the early 1960s IOTL. One interesting possibility is Kozlov winning out, then dying in 1964-1965 and being replaced by Shelepin.
Molotov and the rest of the Anti-Party Group aren't making a comeback. There were plenty of people who could have succeeded Khrushchev, and who actually had power and influence. By 1959 Molotov was nothing more than a figure from the past.
They would certainly weaken Poland perhaps by giving back some land to East Germany and large scale population transfers to Siberia.
The Soviet's responded rather hard in the 40s and 50s when dealing with opposition.
Last edited:
That would be interesting, and plausible. Hardline militancy in foreign affairs and liberalization at home.
samcster94
Banned
Given the 1962 stuff and the stuff that got him removed never happened, I imagine he'd be seen in the USSR/Russia closer to how Americans see JFK.(For the record, I believe he'd be seen quite poorly if he served two terms and lived until the 80's(he was going to die relatively young no matter what))
I had read that he was interested in power after Stalin died. I've even read that he may have wanted power after Khrushchev was outed in OTL, but Brezhnev was in such a strong position, trying to compete would have only weakened his position in the regime.
I don't think an earlier Brezhnev would be so boring. For a start, Brezhnev is younger and fitter in 1959, and in OTL would continue to be in decent health until 1973. Given the nature of Soviet politics, he may mess something up bad enough to be pushed out of power in TTL before he loses his sharpness. Alternatively, if he remains in power 'til his death, he's set quite the record and had a personal impact on the system as great as Stalin's.
Also, Brezhnev became the Brezhnev we know today because he was reacting against the perceived excesses of Khrushchev. If he gained power before Khrushchev had outstayed his welcome, I would bet on him being more liberal.
Mikoyan being top man sure would be interesting though.
That could be very interesting indeed.
I wonder what Kozlov's policies would be?
I have a hard time seeing the Soviets punishing Poland collectively for the act of one "counter revolutionary". Likely they do get the Polish authorities to clamp down on the political undesirables though.
fasquardon