What exactly do you mean by "Stalinist economic policies"Suppose the USSR continued with Stalinist economic policies after his death.
How long could the system last?
This is a disingenuous analogy. I have no idea how you can compare North Korea to the Soviet Union. Just because they shared a Communist system and had strong personality cults? Unlike the USSR, the personality cult people are still alive in North Korea; once Stalin's dead his cult is still alive but there's nobody to take up the mantel, so while it's still omnipresent it will be fairly innocuous. Don't criticize Stalin, but if you do it's unlikely you'll get shot or thrown in the Gulag for it (okay, maybe the Gulag, but probably not).Probably until the present day.
What state they'd be in is another matter.
Using DPRK as a bench mark, I think a Stalinist Soviet Russia would be a putrid diseased bear of a country, and when the fall comes, a monumental drain on the IMF and the world economy.
It all depends on the POD: Who's in charge? How long? What's the external situation? The internal situation?okay, perhaps i should ahve elaborated.
I mean, suppose Stalin's Domestic, foreign and economic policies were continued throughout the existence of the Soviet Union. Without Nuclear war, how long could the system continue?
The Sino-Soviet split is likely to occur as in OTL, but it will likely happen at a later date since the Stalinist line will be kept up. Mao will probably wait until some (probably minor) policy difference arises, accuse the USSR of "deviation" and then break off. The Stalinists probably won't take this well and will probably back a coup as the USSR did IOTL. If Mao becomes a serious threat, then China's going to be glowing green (again, as it almost did IOTL).How does that affect relations with China and the rest of the world.
The troiky will likely be kept on, so terror is still going to play a central role in internal domestic issues.as well as domestic and economic policies?
They probably would have stayed in Central Asia.Continuation of Stalinism will have intresting effects on demografics, Stalin deported large groups to Siberia and Kazakhstan, sometimes entire nations like the Cechens and Kalmyks, Khruschev allowed them to move back, but without him it what would have happened?
They probably would have stayed in Central Asia.
Most likely not. They ceased after World War II and there's no reason to think that they would continue. It's not like Stalin transferred them willy-nilly; he had reasons for doing it. Not necessarily good ones every time, but almost every population transfer he authorized was due to WWII and immediate post-WWII circumstances and considerations. One of the main reasons that the Crimean Tatars were deported, for example, was because that if they hadn't the local Ukrainian/Russian populace would have massacred them. That's not to say, of course, that Stalin transferred them for humanitarian reasons; he did it because the USSR couldn't afford to have unchecked ethnic cleansing running rampant throughout their territory.Yeah, but will other deportations be carried out?
You're quite right in saying that the hardliners weren't all that comfortable with slashing the Army budget in favor of rocket forces. Since Molotov's going to be the one in charge, we'll probably see a continuance of the Army-over-all policy, though Malenkov may be able to push some of his rocketry plans through.Malenkov was also much more enthusiastic than the already technophile Kruschev about nuclear weapons - could we see an even bigger emphasis on rockets with substantial cuts in the Army budget ? Other "hardliners" (real hardliners, Malenkov was just on bad terms with Kruschev) weren't much keen on this ...
You seem to have hit the nail right on the head hereAnd also, as hardliners are being kept in power throughout Europe, are we going to see the productive specialization of Comecon countries come to life, with Red Army eager to crush "deviactionists" ?