From what I've read, he was marginalized at the end of the 60s, then was given more power in the early 70s to weaken Kosygin, then was under attack again from 1975 or 1976 (I forget which). But in '74, Podgorny is close to his peak in personal power (of course, that doesn't help much when others unite against him, so I place his odds of winning as low, but his odds of making a succession interesting as being high).
And thanks for the references. Ligachev's book was on my list already (not looking forward to it, the reviews I've read weren't too flattering).
fasquardon
Interesting points about Podgorny. I would just go back to the role of the 2nd secretary as a means of influencing the apparatus so I would agree that he would be a long-shot to ever reach the top post 1965ish.
I liked Ligachev's book for some of his anectdotes. And I only really read the first half for my own research purposes. He isnt shy with offering his own, strong opinions on everything and he is obviously going to be biased. But within the narrow context that I was using it (see my signature line), I thought it was quite good.
I also highly recommend Arbatov with the same qualifiers about objectivity. He has A LOT to say on Andropov too - both good and bad. And he was an Andropov protege so its not like he was trying to undermine him.
I have found that, when reviewing a biased account of something, I look for the anecdotes and opinions that confirm or contradict other accounts. From there, I can extract what I perceived to be reasonably accurate and of value without having to worry about the author's broader objectivity. Of course, the risk is that one buys into a biased narrative shared by several authors, either explicitly or implicitly. But, you have to start somewhere.
It's also hard with the Soviets because there is a lot of propaganda going around. For a long time Grigori Romanov's wiki page painted him as a competent, reformer. LOL. He was a corrupt alcoholic. I think the wiki page was written by someone in Putin's PR office. And I am not kidding in even the slightest. Point being, a lot of revisionist history going on in Moscow right now and I am sure it extends to reviews of books...