WI Stalin was assassinated in 1944?

Don_Giorgio

In 1944 Walter Schellenberg devised a plan in which he would use a Soviet defector as a double agent, plant him near Stalin and then the defector would assassinate him.
The plan was accepted and the defector was trained for his mission and was paradroped to Russia...
However things went really wrong as the would be assassin was captured by a Russian patrol and was executed summarily (at least this is how i remember it since i cant find the book i read this initially right now... I even cant remember the names-apart from Schellenberg's).

WI everything worked out perfectly and Stalin was assassinated by the end of 1944? Would his death be enough to turn the tide in favour of Germans (or at least conclude a hasty peace)?
And who would succeed Stalin in 1944? Beria? Or Beria would remain the power behind the throne and let someone else take Stalin's place (a puppet maybe?).
 

SergeantHeretic

Don_Giorgio said:
In 1944 Walter Schellenberg devised a plan in which he would use a Soviet defector as a double agent, plant him near Stalin and then the defector would assassinate him.
The plan was accepted and the defector was trained for his mission and was paradroped to Russia...
However things went really wrong as the would be assassin was captured by a Russian patrol and was executed summarily (at least this is how i remember it since i cant find the book i read this initially right now... I even cant remember the names-apart from Schellenberg's).

WI everything worked out perfectly and Stalin was assassinated by the end of 1944? Would his death be enough to turn the tide in favour of Germans (or at least conclude a hasty peace)?
And who would succeed Stalin in 1944? Beria? Or Beria would remain the power behind the throne and let someone else take Stalin's place (a puppet maybe?).
Click to expand...
Xhukov was already kicking butt and taking names, the only effect will be an immediate end to Stalin's inane micromanaging of the war.

That means if anything the Red Army and Air FOrce may actually SPEED UP and eat up MORE german ground and grind up more German Troops.

Mucho Fugly.

The big changes and Dinosaur butterflies will come after the war.
 

Don_Giorgio

LordIreland said:
Wasn't there a saying about Beria that went along the lines of 'if Stalin died, Beria had better make sure he had one damn fast car'?

Wouldn't Molotov be a stronger candidate to succeed Stalin?
Click to expand...

Beria was disliked by many Government members so wouldnt he have to do something drastic before someone who cant control is elected?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Everybody in the Bolshevik hierarchy was looking to stick it in the other guy's back; that's how you cozy up to the Vozhd, after all.

And yes, if Stalin goes, Molotov takes over. Beria will thereafter be living on borrowed time.
 

SergeantHeretic

Wolfpaw said:
Everybody in the Bolshevik hierarchy was looking to stick it in the other guy's back; that's how you cozy up to the Vozhd, after all.

And yes, if Stalin goes, Molotov takes over. Beria will thereafter be living on borrowed time.
Click to expand...

That is what I thought.

See, my take on it, is that with Stalin taken out in 44, the Cold war, if there is one will be dramatically different. Maybe shoreter, I don't know.
 
hugh lupus

hugh lupus

SergeantHeretic said:
That is what I thought.

See, my take on it, is that with Stalin taken out in 44, the Cold war, if there is one will be dramatically different. Maybe shoreter, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Why? the Soviet system has not changed, it encouraged ,indeed was only possible in an atmospere of duplicity. Any new leader will be a product of that school. Kruschevs reply to the annoymous heckler in his first speech to the general assembly is proof enough of that.
Shorter is possible ,but remember the USSR was determined to have a ring of compliant buffer states to their west, This will not change I think and is bound to have the same effect in this time line as in ours
 

SergeantHeretic

hugh lupus said:
Why? the Soviet system has not changed, it encouraged ,indeed was only possible in an atmospere of duplicity. Any new leader will be a product of that school. Kruschevs reply to the annoymous heckler in his first speech to the general assembly is proof enough of that.
Shorter is possible ,but remember the USSR was determined to have a ring of compliant buffer states to their west, This will not change I think and is bound to have the same effect in this time line as in ours
Click to expand...
Yes, but while the other Soviet leaders were paranoid and duplicious, Stalin was Friggen NUTZ!
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
SergeantHeretic said:
See, my take on it, is that with Stalin taken out in 44, the Cold war, if there is one will be dramatically different. Maybe shoreter, I don't know.
Click to expand...
It probably won't be all that different.

Soviet Communism, however, is going to be muuuuuuch uglier since you have the (very real) potential of Stalinism lasting into the 1980s.
 

SergeantHeretic

Wolfpaw said:
It probably won't be all that different.

Soviet Communism, however, is going to be muuuuuuch uglier since you have the (very real) potential of Stalinism lasting into the 1980s.
Click to expand...
Why, if someone pops a cap in Ole Dhughashvilli why would his policies endure?
 
hugh lupus

hugh lupus

SergeantHeretic said:
Yes, but while the other Soviet leaders were paranoid and duplicious, Stalin was Friggen NUTZ!
Click to expand...
That though does not make him or them stupid, indeed it makes them in the society they created extreamly sucessful
But the imperitives created by the great patriotic war still apply and the soviets were still expansionist except now they had a more tangeble reason to be fearful of the 'west' this of course was discused and accepted at Yalta which led to Churchills 'naughty document'
 

SergeantHeretic

hugh lupus said:
That though does not make him or them stupid, indeed it makes them in the society they created extreamly sucessful
But the imperitives created by the great patriotic war still apply and the soviets were still expansionist except now they had a more tangeble reason to be fearful of the 'west' this of course was discused and accepted at Yalta which led to Churchills 'naughty document'
Click to expand...
O.K., so it is safe to assume that the crisese and brushfire wars would still happen or would be worse?
 
hugh lupus

hugh lupus

SergeantHeretic said:
O.K., so Korea, Shorter, Longer, not at all, what?
Click to expand...
A flash point certainly as were many others maybe your only hope for avoidence is Kruschev keeps his ambassador in the UN security council debate on Korea and is able to veto the proposal ...they never made that mistake again. I think still the same within a few percentage points.China backs north korea ..Russia backs China ...that way the USSR has some control over events and it isnt allowed to get out of hand .China is a new convert as a country and new converts can be overly enthusiastic shall we say .No major power including the US wanted an escalation remember Trueman sacking a certain enthusiastic general . You are right though brush fire wars are the way of this time line
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top