Would Marshal Zhukov have made a good leader of the USSR?

So I have this idea for a TL that refuses to leave my brain alone - the specific PoD is Stalin dying in 1946. However, one of the knock-on effects is that after a protracted power struggle lasting until 1950, Marshal Zhukov emerges as General Secretary of the CPSU and leader of the USSR.

Now, from the biographies I've read about him, Zhukov strikes me as a far better potential leader of the USSR in the 50s and 60s than Khrushchev actually was. However, this may be because I am reading the wrong biographies or simply me suffering from "grass-is-greener-itis".

So I was hoping to get some other perspectives on the thought - do people think Zhukov would have made a good leader between 1950 and the mid '60s? And what strengths or weaknesses do people see in him?

fasquardon
 

TFSmith121

Banned
A Soviet "Ike" is an interesting possibility... of course, "Bonapartism" was something the Party always guarded against; part of why the Soviets had multiple armed and internal security forces.

Best,
 
A Soviet "Ike" is an interesting possibility... of course, "Bonapartism" was something the Party always guarded against; part of why the Soviets had multiple armed and internal security forces.

Best,

Yeah, the fear of Bonapartism is exactly why I think it would take Zhukov so long to emerge as top leader. Compare to Khrushchev who took 2 years to secure power.

Still, with Stalin dying in '46, the two people closest to the throne were Andrei Zhdanov and Beria. Beria would be even less welcome on the throne than Zhukov and Zhdanov would die in '48. Given that in '46 both Malenkov and Khrushchev were far from power, I don't see either of them becoming boss. I guess Molotov could have a chance, but I've always gotten the impression he was too identified with Stalin for the post-Stalinist Party to be comfortable with him.

And yes, the whole "Soviet Ike" dimension is very interesting, particularly since like Ike, he wanted to bring reduce the militarization of the country and there seems to have been a real warmth between Zhukov and Ike. I don't think it would stop the cold war, but the two being leaders of the US and USSR during the 50s could change the shape of the cold war significantly.

fasquardon
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Be an interesting concept to explore; certainly DDE's positions are pretty well documented.

If Zhukov was in power early enough in 1950, one could see the DPRK plan to invade the ROK being quashed, or at least a lot more back-channel communications. That would be interesting. Hungary in '56, as well; maybe a joint Russo-American communique on Suez, before the Anglo-French get stupid? Lot of potential deltas...

Best,
 
He would most likely not be worse at the very least. He had a reputation of a brutal commander, who does not count the losses, but how it would translate to the time of peace is difficult to say. What I think might turn in his favor is that as far as I know he was not involved in purges directly, like Khrushchev. So he would not have a personal interest in hiding his own participation while trying to blame Stalin on everything. He might do a better and more open destalinisation of USSR.
 
If there isn't any violence in public and he urges calm and communication in the post Stalin USSR when no one is sure who exactly is in charge then he could quickly become a viable alternative to the aforementioned people close to the throne, not sure if this is in with his personality but I don't know much about the guy. However if more chaotic fighting erupts and he tries to take power by force he will be seen as a Russian Napoleon and crash and burn.
 
So I have this idea for a TL that refuses to leave my brain alone - the specific PoD is Stalin dying in 1946. However, one of the knock-on effects is that after a protracted power struggle lasting until 1950, Marshal Zhukov emerges as General Secretary of the CPSU and leader of the USSR.

Now, from the biographies I've read about him, Zhukov strikes me as a far better potential leader of the USSR in the 50s and 60s than Khrushchev actually was. However, this may be because I am reading the wrong biographies or simply me suffering from "grass-is-greener-itis".

So I was hoping to get some other perspectives on the thought - do people think Zhukov would have made a good leader between 1950 and the mid '60s? And what strengths or weaknesses do people see in him?

fasquardon


What you are essentially describing is a military coup against the CPSU.

The 46 POD depends a lot on the date. In early 46 Beria still has his men in charge of key ministries. and Zhukov is potentially arrestable for looting. By mid 46 Zhukov has been replaced as commander in Germany, he is in Odessa as at June and Beria has been gunning for him since 45, OTL its Beria that seems to be the dominant force, running the nuclear programme, securing the satellite states, killing people.

Stalins early death if anything either favours the Leningrad Set ( on the grounds that they are dead OTL and an unknown quantity) or Beria who for all his personal quirks ( sadism, rape, mass murder) seems to have been really hungry for a rapprochmont with the US ( or $ anyway).
 
So he would not have a personal interest in hiding his own participation while trying to blame Stalin on everything. He might do a better and more open destalinisation of USSR.

My bet is that Stalin's cult of personality would be ratcheted down to "he was a great man who made some mistakes and was unable to keep some subordinates from getting out of hand", but we wouldn't see the outright attacks on Stalin we did in OTL. On the flip side, since Zhukov has less need to cover up the sins of Stalin's living subordinates who committed crimes, I suspect we'd see more action taken against the actual agents who implemented Stalin's terrors.

I'm not sure if that would be "better" or not though. Which people end up tried for their crimes would likely end up being a political kludge, the attacks on loyal party men might undermine Zhukov with the Party and if handled badly, the trials could end up badly hurting the legitimacy of the Party as the Soviet population starts to think that the whole organization might have been a giant criminal conspiracy under Stalin...

If there isn't any violence in public and he urges calm and communication in the post Stalin USSR when no one is sure who exactly is in charge then he could quickly become a viable alternative to the aforementioned people close to the throne, not sure if this is in with his personality but I don't know much about the guy. However if more chaotic fighting erupts and he tries to take power by force he will be seen as a Russian Napoleon and crash and burn.

As far as I can make out, Zhukov was too loyal to take power in a coup. And several people have pointed out to me that he didn't seem to have much desire for power.

What I am imagining is Zhukov is brought home after Stalin's death to counter the power of Beria (so he personally arrests Beria much as OTL) since Zhukov's popularity makes him harder to pre-emptively remove for Beria. This allows Zhdanov to consolidate power, but not for long as he's dead in '48. During Zhdanov's ascendancy, I am imagining that Zhukov takes a job in the Politburo (and I am pretty sure that he was already a party member before '46, but haven't found a reference to support that suspicion yet).

The 46 POD depends a lot on the date. In early 46 Beria still has his men in charge of key ministries. and Zhukov is potentially arrestable for looting. By mid 46 Zhukov has been replaced as commander in Germany, he is in Odessa as at June and Beria has been gunning for him since 45, OTL its Beria that seems to be the dominant force, running the nuclear programme, securing the satellite states, killing people.

Stalins early death if anything either favours the Leningrad Set ( on the grounds that they are dead OTL and an unknown quantity) or Beria who for all his personal quirks ( sadism, rape, mass murder) seems to have been really hungry for a rapprochmont with the US ( or $ anyway).

Stalin's death would definitely come after March '46. Beria lost control of the NKVD in January '46. He lost control of the MGB with Abakumov's appointment in October 1946. Both Abakumov and Kruglov, the new head of the NKVD, seem to have been allies and are variously described as allies of Malenkov or of Zhdanov.

I really can't see Beria taking the throne, but you do raise some good points.

For one, as you say, Zhdanov's successor may be more likely to be one of the "Leningrad set". Reading wikipedia's entry on Beria, one explanation for OTL's "Leningrad Affair" is Beria and Melenkov were taking advantage of Zhdanov's death to purge his close associates and smooth their own road to power.

For another, the power struggle may be a fair bit bloodier than I'd considered. If Stalin dies in April 1946, Beria still has the MGB under his power and Kruglov has had less time to remove Beria loyalists within the NKVD.

...

This would make a GREAT setting for an intrigue thriller.

Stalin is unexpectedly dead in early April '46, Zhukov racing from Germany with the military force and personal popularity to be able to counter Beria, dodging enemy agents as he goes, Kruglov is head of an NKVD he can't quite trust, while the remaining Beria-men in the NKVD are trying to figure out if backing their old boss is suicide or not, Beria and Zhdanov plotting against each-other in Moscow while Malenkov, who had been in the process of being disgraced, fighting for his political life and maybe the chance to take power himself...

Probably be depressing to write too.

fasquardon
 
My bet is that Stalin's cult of personality would be ratcheted down to "he was a great man who made some mistakes and was unable to keep some subordinates from getting out of hand", but we wouldn't see the outright attacks on Stalin we did in OTL. On the flip side, since Zhukov has less need to cover up the sins of Stalin's living subordinates who committed crimes, I suspect we'd see more action taken against the actual agents who implemented Stalin's terrors.

I'm not sure if that would be "better" or not though. Which people end up tried for their crimes would likely end up being a political kludge, the attacks on loyal party men might undermine Zhukov with the Party and if handled badly, the trials could end up badly hurting the legitimacy of the Party as the Soviet population starts to think that the whole organization might have been a giant criminal conspiracy under Stalin...

fasquardon

That is indeed unclear. He might go Chinese way (70% good/30% bad). The OTL problem was that Stalin's cult was removed and many people freed, but no clear explanation why had been given. The Khrushchev's report on Stalin was technically "secret". Which eventually led to simply hushing down everything connected with Stalin under Brezhnev and eventual resurgence of Stalin's cult decades later (like now). If cult quietely fades away as time passes with clear indications of at least some crimes commited it would be better. If Soviet population starts to think that the whole organization might have been a giant criminal conspiracy under Stalin thing starts in 1950-s instead of 1980-s, it might turn unpleasant quickly but could turn for better in the long run.

On the other hand Zhukov might put his own cult instead, with or without Stalin as his worthy predecessor. That definitely would not be good.
 
Top