WI: Stalin and FDR switch death dates?

There is a risk that if a Cold war were avoided (Poland being somewhat 'Finlandized' ) that there might not be Marshall aid. My understanding is that although it was in the US'S economic interests as things turned out the motivation was pure cold war.
 
I came across this randomly and think it's quite interesting and a good TL could be made out of it.

The above post mentions the possibility of no Cold War meaning no Marshall aid. That means that Communism might be much stronger in Western Europe. Italy would be a prime candidate to go Communist.

Molotov would probably succeed Stalin if he died in April 45. He would be the easiest to unite around quickly with the war still on. Once the war is over Beria would be gotten rid of: He was simply too dangerous for any Soviet leader to leave alive.

in 1948 the Democrats are probably toast, Dewey runs and wins. I wonder how Nixon's budding political career would be affected ITTL; could he be butterflied away? JFK would still pop up I bet.
 

Typo

Banned
There might have been a Marshall plan anyway, it was in America's interest to restore Europe's markets as soon as possible.
 
Roosevelt isn't going to win in 1948 if he runs. That said, I think he'd probably retire in ill health.

Stalin's death, however, is very interesting. I think the funnest possibility as a successor would be Beria, who was perfectly wiling to withdraw from Eastern Europe in exchange for Marshall Plan aid.

Wrong. You're probably comparing Roosevelt to Churchill in this regard, but -

A) Unlike Roosevelt, Churchill wasn't all that popular, really, especially amongst the armed forces.

B) Britain had a much tougher time in the war than did the United States, so Churchill was associated with 'hard times'.


That said, he wouldn't run, although he would win. IIRC, he had planned to resign when the war was over, anyway.
 
If FDR serves out his fourth term(not a guarantee as posted above) would Truman necessarily be the nominee in 48? Who would be his main competition for the nomination?

Dewey lost in OTL because he ran a poor campaign, would butterflies cause him to do things differently ITTL? If so, the Presidency is his.

Would the Korean War still happen ITTL? Berlin airlift? How would the Cold War develop differently with Molotov and FDR as the leaders of the super-powers?

Molotov lived until 86, so could we see a near-Stalinist USSR for that whole time, with barely any reforms?:eek:
 
I think that Zhdanov, and not Molotov, would have been the most likely successor of Stalin in 1945. He enjoyed a better power position within the Party, had a better position to make a deal with the Army (he made Leningrad resist the worst siege in modern history, after all, and he was a strong proponent of expansion towards West), and would have gained the hardliners support as well as Molotov, not to mention that he had his proteges from the Leningrad group, including Kuznestov who was a possible replacement for Beria. Molotov could only count on Voroshilov and probably Kaganovich, Malenkov and Khruchshev being lesser players in 1945. Beria is a goer anyways : hated by the Army, far too dangerous for the others.

Actually, Zhdanov wouldn't have been funnier than Viatcheslav, and I strongly suspect that, among other things, Finland would have become a Soviet satellite very soon. After 1947, assuming that Zhdanov dies even if not encouraged in his alcoholism by Stalin, Molotov could make a comeback, although the young members of the Leningrad group might as well seize power and purge the old guard.
 
Another point about Molotov living until the 80's would mean no De-Stalinization and not even the modest reforms of the Khrushchev Thaw, assuming things remained peaceful (I.E no WW3) the U.S.S.R could be rather like North Korea.

That unreformed, Stalinist U.S.S.R could fall apart or stumble on depending on who succeed Molotov after his forty year rule.:eek:
 
Interesting about Zhdanov. I agree that if it's not Molotov it would be him.

If Zhdanov succeeds Stalin would he pack Molotov off to Mongolia or something like Kruschev did after the Anti-Party Group's coup failed? That would severly reduce his chances of a comeback if Zhdanov dies around when he did OTL.
 
What were FDR's views on the bomb? That could have a BIG impact on post-war world, if Downfall goes ahead and the world sees the bloodiest battle since...ever. I'm sure everyone here knows the Purple Heart statistic...
 
Zhdanov has a very serious drink problem at this point and is in poor health. He’d drop dead of a heart attack within months of taking power. The other leaders know this, so Zhdanov's short reign would lead to the other factions jockeying for position until he's dies or is incapacitated by illness.

Of course this would give Beria and Malenkov a real chance of taking over assuming Molotov dosnt get the nod this time again.
 
Or it could lead to him not even being selected in the first place, since I presume the rest of the Soviet elite knew about his health problems, and wouldn't want to select someone who might be dead soon.

Back to the question on US politics, I'm curious as to what alternatives the Democrats would have to VP Truman in 1948, assuming FDR serves out his term?
 
I'm not a specialist in American politics and I can't answer the Truman question, but I think that Zhdanov's poor health would have been, as a matter of fact, an asset for him in 1945. His short life expectancy was useful to delay the showdown between the young Malenkov, Mikoyan, Kruchshev, Voznesenky and to protect this rise of a younger generation against Molotov and Beria. Think of John XXIII : he has been elected because everyone in Rome thought he would die and leave the Holy See for a more endurant pope.
 
I do not think that Truman is likely to be a Presidential candidate if FDR lived healthily though his term.

Since 1960 it has been more or less assumed that VPs are likely to run for the top job.

However in the century before 1948 I do not think any VP ran for the top job (except for some of those who succeeded to the office)
 
I can see FDRopping the bomb on Japan, since he was the one who lead to its creation in the first place. I'm not sure how he would have handled the reconstruction of Germany, but it would have been interesting, to say the least. He was a supporter of the Morgenthau Plan, or at least he didn't trust the Germans.
 
Can't really speculate that much on Soviet politics, but I think that if FDR had survived to 1953 as per the OP, there's a chance that he might have become the first president to resign - in his case, it would have been due to poor health, as several other posters have already pointed out.

I don't think FDR would have been able to run again in 1948, even in the unlikely case his health would have permitted. Remember, the Republicans had made gains in the 1942 (off-year) elections and Dewey presented a credible challenge in 1944; I think the American electorate would just have been ready for a change in 1948 (I believe one reason Truman won, apart from his undoubted political skills, was lingering public affection for Roosevelt). If FDR had lasted his entire fourth term, I have to wonder if the voters would just have been ready to switch the same way they switched from Conservative to Labour in 1945. In that case, though, I shouldn't be surprised if the same pattern was followed in the US as the UK and a Democrat (Eisenhower running as a Democrat?) won in 1952 or 1956.
 
I would look at who were the leaders of the Soviet Union during the war. The state defense commitee between themselves controlled the Economy and war effort during WWII. Probably one of them would take power. Lavrenty Beria, Klim Voroshilov, Georgy Malenkov, Vyacheslav Molotov, Nikolai Voznesensky, Lazar Kaganovich Anastas Mikoyan and Nikolai Bulganin.
 
Top