DBWI: What if Stalin lived on into the early 1950s?

[raharris1973]

What if Stalin had lived on until the early 1950s, say until 1951, 52 or even 53? What consequences would it have had for the Soviet Union internally, and for East-West relations?

His death from a fatal stroke about a week after the Mayday celebrations of 1948 shouldn't have been exactly a surprise given his age (69) and weight (a bit too much for a man his height), but people inside and outside the USSR had gotten so used to him being a fixture for 24 years they could scarcely imagine the country without him. All the same, even being out of shape and keeping the work hours he did, he could have reasonably lived and held onto his duties maybe up to another five years even.

What is the impact? Does his tyrannical drive accelerate the first Soviet atomic bomb test to happen any earlier than October 1949? Would he, in contrast to his successors who let it peter out by the end of 1950, have kept the armed Greek communist insurgency going further into the 1950s?

How would a continued Stalinist Russia have related differently to Germany, Austria, the Western European countries, America, the new People's Republic of China that emerged under Mao Zedong in 1949, Israel, and the Middle East? Would Stalin have had a summit meeting in Geneva with Churchill, the French Premier, and the American President in early 1951 like Secretary Malenkov did in OTL?

 

[PsihoKekec]

His paranoia was getting steadily worse since the early 30's, it's very likely that he would use the death of Zhdanov as an excuse to launch another purge of party. Given his post-war treatment of army commanders like Zhukov, it's quite possible he would purge Red Army leadership again.

It is unlikely that his longevity would significantly affect the nuclear program, it was maximum effort under him and so was under troika and later Malenkov, the pressure was down only after Geneva summit when tensions were somewhat eased somewhat.

Also the Greek situation was more the fault of the Tito, Stalin has been trying to bring him back in line, at the time of his death, with little success, while Malenkov managed to smooth over most of the differences by the 1950, with cessation of aid to Greek communists being one of the Tito's concessions. Stalin's stance on Tito was increasingly belligerent at the time of his death and according to the Yugoslav documents, Tito and his inner circle saw the fracturing relations with Soviet Union (in the view of purges in other Soviet vassal states) as a matter of personal survival. As neither was willing to back down, historians reckon that at the time of Stalin's death, Yugoslavia was well on the way of becoming the pariah of the communist block and it is open question whether Stalin would opt for full military invasion. In any case Yugoslavia would be unable to continue it's aid to Greek communists.

Soviets were extremely hostile to the formation of the West German state, usually shown by the acts of petty interference with traffic in and out of the Western Berlin, even after formation of the GDR, I guess Stalin would be more belligerent than Malenkov was, so more petty interference and with no Geneva summit, West Berlin wouldn't be very good place to live in.

 

[ATP]

Sralin death in 1948 - less victims,but soviet politics would not change,Malenkow would did what Kruszczow did.
More interesting - thanks to Rokossowski secret notes,in 1951 Sralin ordered prepare armies to attack before 1956.So,we would have party and army purging,and attack in 1955.WW3,which soviet would lost.Europe free from about 1957.