WI: Joseph Stalin assassinated in September 1944?

[Napoleon IV]

Possible contenders:

Andrei Zhdanov: He was one of the key players in the siege of Leningrad, and from 1946 until his death in 1948 he was seen as Stalin's most likely successor. Of course, in 1944 he wasn't Stalin's chosen successor, but just one of the big players. He was also a pretty severe alcoholic, so even if he takes power he would be gone in a few years.

Vyacheslav Molotov: During the war Molotov was Stalin's right-hand man (although his stature declined in the post-war period). Certainly as the second most powerful man in the Soviet Union he would play a huge role in any subsequent government.

Georgy Malenkov: During the war Malenkov was one of the five most powerful men in the USSR as a member of the State Defense Committee. Malenkov had some reformist tendencies during his duumvirate IOTL, such as advocating for a greater focus on consumer goods and being anti-nuclear weapons, so he'd probably follow that path ITTL.

Beria was universally hated by everyone, and would almost certainly be liquidated shortly after Stalin's death (or the end of the war if he's deemed too useful during wartime). Zhukov won't take power because one of the Party's top fears was Bonapartism (a situation where a military officer takes command and undoes the Revolution). The most likely form of government is collective leadership with one person as first among equals.

 

[ATP45]

In September of 1944 a team of Nazis went to assassinate Joseph Stalin, but failed. This specific plot was called Operation Zeppelin. If the plot had succeeded, what would have happened to the Soviet Union? I find it questionable that they would be anywhere near as able to finish off the war because of all of the purges in leadership that Stalin ordered. Who would have replaced Stalin? What would have been the future of the war in Europe? Would the Soviets have gone for a separate peace, thus allowing the Germans to send more forces to fight the Anglo-American forces on the Western front? I'm also a little curious as to the political aftermath of the war, whatever the outcome would be.

Beria after 1953 plan come back to capitalism.So, you could have Soviets as real economic power,no Volta with atomic bomb.

 

[Cregan]

Possible contenders:

Andrei Zhdanov: He was one of the key players in the siege of Leningrad, and from 1946 until his death in 1948 he was seen as Stalin's most likely successor. Of course, in 1944 he wasn't Stalin's chosen successor, but just one of the big players. He was also a pretty severe alcoholic, so even if he takes power he would be gone in a few years.

Vyacheslav Molotov: During the war Molotov was Stalin's right-hand man (although his stature declined in the post-war period). Certainly as the second most powerful man in the Soviet Union he would play a huge role in any subsequent government.

Georgy Malenkov: During the war Malenkov was one of the five most powerful men in the USSR as a member of the State Defense Committee. Malenkov had some reformist tendencies during his duumvirate IOTL, such as advocating for a greater focus on consumer goods and being anti-nuclear weapons, so he'd probably follow that path ITTL.

Beria was universally hated by everyone, and would almost certainly be liquidated shortly after Stalin's death (or the end of the war if he's deemed too useful during wartime). Zhukov won't take power because one of the Party's top fears was Bonapartism (a situation where a military officer takes command and undoes the Revolution). The most likely form of government is collective leadership with one person as first among equals.

Any chance that Kaganovich or Mikoyan could take the top spot? A Jewish or Armenian post-war Soviet leader would be fascinating. Although Voroshilov or Bulganin are probably more likely than either of them, but still behind Molotov, Zhdanov or Malenkov in the leadership stakes.

 

[Dspoh001]

Possible contenders:

Andrei Zhdanov: He was one of the key players in the siege of Leningrad, and from 1946 until his death in 1948 he was seen as Stalin's most likely successor. Of course, in 1944 he wasn't Stalin's chosen successor, but just one of the big players. He was also a pretty severe alcoholic, so even if he takes power he would be gone in a few years.

Vyacheslav Molotov: During the war Molotov was Stalin's right-hand man (although his stature declined in the post-war period). Certainly as the second most powerful man in the Soviet Union he would play a huge role in any subsequent government.

Georgy Malenkov: During the war Malenkov was one of the five most powerful men in the USSR as a member of the State Defense Committee. Malenkov had some reformist tendencies during his duumvirate IOTL, such as advocating for a greater focus on consumer goods and being anti-nuclear weapons, so he'd probably follow that path ITTL.

Beria was universally hated by everyone, and would almost certainly be liquidated shortly after Stalin's death (or the end of the war if he's deemed too useful during wartime). Zhukov won't take power because one of the Party's top fears was Bonapartism (a situation where a military officer takes command and undoes the Revolution). The most likely form of government is collective leadership with one person as first among equals.

That makes sense. How differently would the Cold War have been with one of those three in leadership?

 

[MerryPrankster]

I don't think that he would become a martyr. People obeyed him because they were afraid of him. I find it easier to believe that people would dance through the streets to the tune of his funeral bells.

How did people react when Stalin died OTL?

Stalin was feared, yes, but he was also loved. Heck, a lot of old Russians today still venerate the man.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Possible contenders:

Andrei Zhdanov: He was one of the key players in the siege of Leningrad, and from 1946 until his death in 1948 he was seen as Stalin's most likely successor. Of course, in 1944 he wasn't Stalin's chosen successor, but just one of the big players. He was also a pretty severe alcoholic, so even if he takes power he would be gone in a few years.

Vyacheslav Molotov: During the war Molotov was Stalin's right-hand man (although his stature declined in the post-war period). Certainly as the second most powerful man in the Soviet Union he would play a huge role in any subsequent government.

Georgy Malenkov: During the war Malenkov was one of the five most powerful men in the USSR as a member of the State Defense Committee. Malenkov had some reformist tendencies during his duumvirate IOTL, such as advocating for a greater focus on consumer goods and being anti-nuclear weapons, so he'd probably follow that path ITTL.

Beria was universally hated by everyone, and would almost certainly be liquidated shortly after Stalin's death (or the end of the war if he's deemed too useful during wartime). Zhukov won't take power because one of the Party's top fears was Bonapartism (a situation where a military officer takes command and undoes the Revolution). The most likely form of government is collective leadership with one person as first among equals.

Your argument makes sense. How would this collective leadership look, depending on how was "first among equals"?

A dominant Malenkov might not be so brutal, for example.

 

[thorr97]

Among other things... a dead Stalin at that point in the war would most likely mean a whole lot more Russians left alive at war's end. This, if for no other reason than that the drive for Berlin wouldn't have been quite so rushed and bloody minded. Stalin wanted that as his prize no matter how many Russians it cost to win it. No Stalin would mean the generals could set the pace and not be so driven to take the city at all costs.

I wouldn't expect much change in the military aspects. Barring some unfortunate setback in the fighting, I'd expect the generals to keep focused on what they were doing and avoid any political interference or even the appearance of it. The demons in the Kremlin would be busy enough on their own without need for the military's help.

 

[GeographyDude]

I don't think that he would become a martyr. People obeyed him because they were afraid of him. I find it easier to believe that people would dance through the streets to the tune of his funeral bells.

As much as I might wish people to dance in the streets.

I'm sure you and I also know about the Stockholm Syndrome. And even today people idealize Stalin as "strong," somehow forgetting about his breakdown when the Nazis first invaded.

By Sept. 1944, he had been a solid wartime leader for a while. According to the same book, he also stayed in Moscow when many fled.

https://books.google.com/books?id=w...viet military units" "Stalin ordered"&f=false

Plus, if it's the damn Nazis who sneakily assassinate him, yeah, that increases the chances that he'll be viewed as a martyr.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Any chance that Kaganovich or Mikoyan could take the top spot? A Jewish or Armenian post-war Soviet leader would be fascinating. Although Voroshilov or Bulganin are probably more likely than either of them, but still behind Molotov, Zhdanov or Malenkov in the leadership stakes.

Kaganovich lost a lot of influence after Stalin died, and I see no reason why that wouldn't happen ITTL. Mikoyan is a long shot, and it's more likely that he plays second to a more reformist politician (like he did with Khrushchev IOTL).

That makes sense. How differently would the Cold War have been with one of those three in leadership?

Your argument makes sense. How would this collective leadership look, depending on how was "first among equals"?

A dominant Malenkov might not be so brutal, for example.

Molotov as leader is probably the most similar to what IOTL was like. At wartime diplomatic conferences he was noted for being both hard-headed and a staunch defender of Soviet interests. He was also one of the most devoted Stalinists, and was vehemently opposed to the idea of peaceful coexistence. Zhdanov was also very Stalinist (he was the organizer of post-war cultural policy). However Zhdanov wouldn't rule for long, and his poor health gives plenty of opportunities for him to be outmaneuvered. Malenkov would be different. We would see a USSR more focused on consumer goods, and the arms race would be much smaller (although Malenkov personally opposed nuclear development he'd have to do some to satisfy the rest of the leadership). He was also somewhat more interested in peaceful coexistence (although that idea would really come to fruit with Khrushchev). Cold War tensions would thus be lesser, but still in existence. All three men of course would be much more limited in what they could do than Stalin was, and any attempt to take too much power, or move Soviet policy in a direction the others didn't want, would result in serious blowback.

 

[Bakenellan]

I don't think that he would become a martyr. People obeyed him because they were afraid of him. I find it easier to believe that people would dance through the streets to the tune of his funeral bells.

While people in Gulags would doubtless do just that, if they could, for vast majority he was a figure to be awed of, not feared. People genuinely cried when he died OTL. Though the [in]famous battle cry "For the Motherland! For the Stalin!" is propaganda. To be assassinated by Nazi during War would only exacerbate that feeling. And for a while would make fates of German prisoners and civilians worse.

 

[MerryPrankster]

While people in Gulags would doubtless do just that, if they could, for vast majority he was a figure to be awed of, not feared. People genuinely cried when he died OTL. Though the [in]famous battle cry "For the Motherland! For the Stalin!" is propaganda. To be assassinated by Nazi during War would only exacerbate that feeling. And for a while would make fates of German prisoners and civilians worse.

Heck, there were people in gulags who thought Stalin would get them out "if only he knew," which is what their grandparents said about the Czar.

 

[MerryPrankster]

To be assassinated by Nazi during War would only exacerbate that feeling. And for a while would make fates of German prisoners and civilians worse.

That's a good point there. I don't know if the Red army will still be in "avenge our fallen god" mode when they get to Germany itself, but I could imagine a lot of freelance retaliation against German POWs and collaborators when word gets out.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Heck, there were people in gulags who thought Stalin would get them out "if only he knew," which is what their grandparents said about the Czar.

So true--and a lot of US Americans say about Trump, being that his foreign policy and health care policy don't align with the paleocons who elected him. The old yarn, "The advisers are deceiving him, only if he knew!"

 

[pattersonautobody]

A Stalin dead in Sep 1944 comes at a very interesting time, indeed.

The Balkans are in the USSR's sway, as are the majority of the Baltic states' land area. Finland has capitulated, half of Hungary is overrun as is Poland. Deals have already been made splitting Europe, so future USSR performance at this point is really not important. They can simply sit pat and fight their civil war, and unless the Wallies backstab them they will get everything they are asking for.

So, the key questions are settling this TL are whether there is a dragged out civil war and, if so, the Wallies backstab the Russians.

If the Wallies do not backstab the Russians, it really does not matter if there is civil war or not. In the case of no civil war, borders are roughly OTL with similar levels of USSR domination.

If a USSR civil war drags out, Poland likely remains free, East Germany eventually reunites with West Germany by the late 40s-early 50s, Hungary and Czeckoslovakia is independent like Yugoslavia, Romania may avoid losing land, Baltic states can get independence. We essentially see 1991 European borders 40 years early. The question then is that whomever holds the reins of power will desire to reconstitute Imperial Russia as early communists did. In all honesty, he won't be able to, because the Wallies will offer material support to a Proto-Nato of central/Eastern Europe and Russia is so devastated they cannot afford a war over these countries.

Russia will turn very insular and fearful of invasion. Then it is a toss-up whether this becomes an impetus for a neo-NEP or not. It depends who takes power. Sadly, though, tough times and fear usually leads to reactionary policies, which means the "good ol' days" of Stalin when Russia was flexing its might. So, we would see a Russia even poorer with more weapons per GDP (but less weapons in general) than today. A sort of quasi-North Korean Russia.

Ironically, Stalin's continued survival is not much different than a quick settling and an avoidance of civil war. things can turn out good for Russia if whomever takes over wants to liberalize economically. But, the chances of this in a Communist country are 1/50, so I see very little difference than OTL in this event.

 

[nik2016]

Wow, I'd never heard of this plan, it reads like a spy novel. Forbidden love, assassination and the way they were caught. That's so epic. MOVIE I DEMAND A MOVIE STARRING RYAN GOSLING.

Too late these is a Russian TV series about this is titled Kill Stalin

See Trailer

all series here: Убить Сталина. Сериал. 1 Серия. StarMedia. Военно-приключенческий Фильм. 2013

 

[fasquardon]

Why the heck would there be a civil war? Would the US have fallen to a civil war between Democrats and Republicans if the Japanese had assassinated FDR?

Just because Stalin's henchmen sometimes hated each-other doesn't mean they'll do the German's work for them. They had good reasons to hate the Nazis more and even Beria was more trusted than Hitler.

What is more interesting is whether the USSR joins the American-led international system after the war - there seems to have been real enthusiasm for doing so among the Soviet leadership until Stalin put his foot down and declined to join some of the institutions they'd been building with the Americans and other allies. In such a situation, the USSR really can't maintain a Stalinist system - the American and British negotiators had carefully designed the interlocking systems built up after WW2 to force the USSR to accept some sort of market system. Nor would neo-imperialism in Eastern Europe be possible. But the systems weren't hostile, as such, to the USSR as a united entity and great power (albeit, it would have forced the USSR to accept that it was junior to the US).

I don't think such a world would be happy, clappy and huggy all down the road, but whatever rivalries grew up would look very different to those of OTL.

Actually I am tempted to write a TL about a cold war in such a world... A hard-left but partially marketized USSR vying for influence with the US in the decolonized regions of the world and the space race while also competing for who has the best military and economic system but without the intensity and high risk of all-out war of OTL... Could be interesting.

fasquardon