Khrushchev's secret speech and the purge of the party in service to de-Stalinization was a fairly major turning point in the evolution of Communism and the Soviet Union.

To some extent, I think some degree of "de-Stalinization" was inevitable. Not even the most amoral and blood-soaked of Stalin's subordinates seem to have wanted to continue his policies. I am not sure if a denunciation of Stalin was inevitable though. Especially if someone like Molotov, who was more connected with Stalin's policies, came to power.

So for the sake of argument, let's assume that whoever succeeds Stalin, implements largely the same practical policy changes to those undertaken under Khrushchev in OTL, but there is no public denunciation of Stalin. Instead, at the worst, there is perhaps a quiet party line that "Stalin's glorious successes were achieved at painful cost and it's a jolly good thing that we don't have to sacrifice like that again" or simply the party stops talking about Stalin so much, tapering off the adulation aimed at him without condemning him.

So what impact does that have?

I suspect that it would overall be better for the Soviets. The Soviet Union was Stalin's system. To condemn Stalin was ultimately to condemn the system he created. All of the people in power there were Stalin's people, the helping hands in his crimes, which meant that condemning Stalin was also criticizing themselves. Further, Stalin was actually fairly popular, and while condemning Stalin scored points with the intelligentsia and the West, it alienated many ordinary citizens who had either seen their lives improve under Stalin or who had sacrificed so much in Stalin's name. Also, it weakened relations with Mao (who, though he hardly had an easy relationship with Stalin, respected the senior tyrant and almost seems to have been offended on Stalin's behalf, accelerating his split with the Soviets) and disrupted the Satellite regimes and undermined those who had built their careers on obedience to Stalin.

What do other folks reckon?

fasquardon
 
I'd say that something like this scenario would have been likely if either of the other members of the Second Troika (Georgy Malenkov, Lavrentiy Beria, and Nikita Khrushchev) had becomes the Soviet Premier.

Malenkov was a hardline Stalinist and the closest Stalin had to an official successor. Malenkov probably would've pulled a "Fatherland" where he completely wiped out all evidence of the Gulags and maintained state repression, but restructure the economy and foreign policy. Under Malenkov there would have been absolutely no denouncement of Stalin, and the Cult of Personality would be maintained (including keeping Papa Joe's embalmed body on display along with Lenin). You also probably would've seen a more domestically stable USSR, but one that was significantly less powerful on the world stage due to Malenkov's distrust of the military and dislike of the idea of a nuclear arsenal. Malenkov's collective leadership would have included himself, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, and possibly Dmitri Shepilov.

Lavrentiy Beria was a lot more of a realist. You probably would've seen a heavy denouncement of Stalin under him in private, but continued public praise (as well as most of the Gulags getting shut down). Beria evidently wanted to distance himself from Stalinism by abandoning most of the major projects in development. The lack of heavy investment in the doomed agricultural programs that Khrushchev ended up investing so much may have staved off economic collapse. There also would've also been more diplomatic outreach in Europe, considering Beria was an advocate of a unified neutral Germany to act as a buffer state between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Beria's collective leadership would have included himself, Pavel Sudoplatov, Andrey Vyshinsky, and possibly Anastas Mikoyan.
 
Can you rehabilitate everyone up to, and almost including, Bukharin without denouncing Stalin? That's the problem because a large hostile and inactive (ie: economically necessary) part of the nomenklatura would really like civil rights and party membership. As an example consider Julia Rajk in the destalinisation of Hungary.

In the gap between Stalins death and the secret speech continued "hard" lines were trialled in Poland and the "new course" in Hungary. The problem being that in both cases the workers remained intractable and the nomenklatura wanted socialism and their rights as party members back.

Yours,
Sam R.
 
Malenkov was a hardline Stalinist

What does "Stalinist" mean in this case? Arguably every single Politburo in the post Stalin era was a "Stalinist" up until about half way through Gorbachev's tenure.

Lavrentiy Beria was a lot more of a realist.

I suspect Beria would have been an absolute disaster as a leader. Maybe to the point of presiding over a Gorbachev-level collapse in Soviet power only 30 years early.

Or maybe Beria shakes things up, then he's swept out of power by less pragmatic forces who then seek to reinvigorate the revolutionary zeal of the country - like a Soviet Cultural Revolution.

Can you rehabilitate everyone up to, and almost including, Bukharin without denouncing Stalin? That's the problem because a large hostile and inactive (ie: economically necessary) part of the nomenklatura would really like civil rights and party membership. As an example consider Julia Rajk in the destalinisation of Hungary.

Right, the disenfranchised members of the intelligentsia and nomenklatura remaining disenfranchised would hurt. One of the things I am wondering is how bad things would be if those groups were not catered to as much. And were there other ways of addressing the needs and grievances of the necessary people in these groups?

I wonder if the regime could simply declare a "jubilee" and forgive all political crimes?

Alternatively, I suppose they could also blame those who fed Stalin information.

In the gap between Stalins death and the secret speech continued "hard" lines were trialled in Poland and the "new course" in Hungary. The problem being that in both cases the workers remained intractable and the nomenklatura wanted socialism and their rights as party members back.

Interesting. I hadn't realized those were trials.

fasquardon
 
What does "Stalinist" mean in this case? Arguably every single Politburo in the post Stalin era was a "Stalinist" up until about half way through Gorbachev's tenure.
Stalinist in the sense that he believed that all of Stalin's actions had been justified, including the Great Purge, and that the others should stop complaining about Stalin threatening to have them all killed at any moment. Even the other Old Bolsheviks agreed with Khrushchev that the Cult of Personality should be quietly dismantled, but Melenkov was in favour of sustaining it.

I suspect Beria would have been an absolute disaster as a leader. Maybe to the point of presiding over a Gorbachev-level collapse in Soviet power only 30 years early. Or maybe Beria shakes things up, then he's swept out of power by less pragmatic forces who then seek to reinvigorate the revolutionary zeal of the country - like a Soviet Cultural Revolution.
Personally, I think that Beria would have been a political disaster considering how much he was hated by much of the Politburo, and how much he had egged on Stalin, but I think he would have gotten a grace period for taking credit for killing Stalin if he becomes the next leader. I doubt he would've been executed, but he would've probably been forced into retirement in the '50s for being too conciliatory with NATO. He may have tried to pull an early Deng Xiaoping Theory and then get accused of "Capitalist tendencies" much like how the Politburo got rid of Zhukov.
 
Top